New equality rights in workplace come into force

This was brought to my attention as I was driving into work this morning. As per normal, I was listening to Radio 4 when John Humphries announced this news. So, as soon as I got home this evening, I decided to do some digging, and came across this news article on the BBC website.

I’ve posted it in full, and as normal, I’ll put my thoughts at the end.


Karen

*************************************************************************

New rules aimed at banning discrimination by employers, covering areas such as age, disability and pay, have come into force.

Everyone is protected by the Law

The Equality Act covers many workplace areas and draws nine separate pieces of legislation into a single Act. 
Equalities Minister Theresa May says it will now be easier for firms to comply with anti-discrimination rules.

However, some business groups argued the new legislation will impose a heavy burden on employers.

'Challenging times'

The new law restricts the circumstances in which employers can ask job applicants questions about disability or health prior to offering them a position, making it more difficult for disabled people to be unfairly screened out.

"In these challenging economic times it's more important than ever for employers to make the most of all the talent available," said Ms May.

There are also new powers for employment tribunals.

The Act will also stop employers using pay secrecy clauses to prevent employees discussing their own pay, which means men and women can compare pay.

But the Act will not make employers reveal how much they pay men compared with women, as had been planned by the Labour government.

Some campaigners argued that this revision undermined the new legislation.

"Rowing back on the requirement for big business to publish and take action on any differences in pay between men and women employees is tantamount to endorsing the shocking gender pay gap," said Ceri Goddard, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, which campaigns for gender equality.

Employees will also now be able to file discrimination claims on two grounds, rather than one. For example, under the previous rules, a woman from an ethnic minority could not file a claim on counts of both gender and race discrimination - an employment tribunal would have to consider the claims separately.

Under the new rules, an employee can file claims on two counts, but no more.

Business cost

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said: "Everyone is protected by the new law.

"It [the Act] covers age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex (meaning gender) and sexual orientation.

"Under the act people are not allowed to discriminate, harass or victimise another person because they belong to a group that the Act protects, they are thought to belong to one of those groups or are associated with someone who does."

But some business groups argued that the new rules place an extra burden on companies at a time when they are still trying to recover from the recession.

"Businesses are really concerned," Abigail Morris from the British Chambers of Commerce told the BBC.

"The government's own impact assessment shows that this is going to cost £190m just for businesses to understand the legislation, and this at a time when we really need them to be concentrating on creating private sector jobs and driving economic recovery."

During the summer there were some concerns about the new rules expressed by shipping companies.

Some claimed the laws could force them to quit the UK because they would have to pay UK rates to foreign-based seafarers who do not have the burden of British living costs.

**************************************************************************

Now I don’t have anything against the idea of equality – in fact, I’m all for it, as I personally find it revolting that someone can be persecuted for their race and sexual preference.

But this strikes me as being an act that has been taken too far. Why do I say this? Simple. If someone overhears a joke in the office, that they don’t approve of / find personally offensive, then they have the option of making a complaint to an industrial tribunal – even though the comment or joke might not have been aimed specifically at them.

So, that means that it will be almost impossible to have a laugh and a joke with friends in the office, for fear that someone will find an innocent remark offensive, even though it wasn’t aimed at them.

In the end, I feel that the only people who will profit from this are the solicitors and barristers who will represent the litigants, and the rest of us will lose out. I can see this resulting in a loss of the most prized part of our culture – the freedom of speech and expression. And all because of this foolish act.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Another death row controversy.

This comes from the BBC website, and as per normal, I’ll put my thoughts on this article at the end.

Karen

************************************************************************************

Is Teresa Lewis an unusual death row case?

By Finlo Rohrer BBC News, Washington

Virginia is due to execute a woman, the first in the US state since 1912 and the first anywhere in the country for five years. But why is the execution of a woman such a significant event?

Teresa Lewis's planned execution has been publicised everywhere from the UK to Iran.

Her case is unusual for three reasons.

Lewis plotted with two men to kill her husband and stepson, leaving the door of the house open and buying guns and ammunition for the killers.

She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death. The gunmen Matthew Shallenberger and Rodney Fuller only received life sentences.

With an IQ of just 72, both her current legal team and death penalty opponents have suggested it is wrong to execute her and wrong to think she is likely to have been the driving force behind a plot.

Her legal team accuses Shallenberger, who killed himself in prison, of being the mastermind and of manipulating Lewis, with whom he had an affair.

But there is no doubt that what interests many people most about the case is the mere fact of Lewis being a woman

We are more likely to believe a woman is mentally disturbed or under the control of a man”

Prof Victor Streib

'Extremely rare'

Women are not often executed in the US.

The statistics are striking, notes Victor Streib, professor of law at Ohio Northern University and a student of female death penalty cases for 30 years.

Teresa Lewis has an IQ of 72

From 1 January 1973 to 30 June 2009, 8,118 people were sentenced to death in the US. Only 165 of those were women, 2% of the total.

In the same period, of the 1,168 executions that have taken place, only 11 have been of women.

"The death penalty for women is extremely rare," says Prof Streib. "They tend to be
screened out."

But they commit 10-12% of capital murders, says Prof Streib.

Historically, he notes, judges would openly say that the death penalty was not an option because the defendant was a woman. Now such a statement would be unthinkable, but there may be a hangover from earlier attitudes.

"We are more likely to believe a woman is mentally disturbed or under the control of a man, than a man," says Prof Strieb.

He wonders whether the apparent bias in sentencing could be because of cultural attitudes in law enforcement or even in the wider public.

Lenient treatment

"I think it's fair to say that when the public thinks of the death penalty they almost always get this image of an evil man."

David Muhlhausen, senior policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, suggests there is a bias in favour of women in the system.

"There is ample research women are treated more leniently for equivalent crimes.

"People's bias is that women are more sympathetic. If you look at death row cases, the overwhelming majority are men. Every time there is an upcoming execution of… a woman, it makes more news."

But as this piece suggests, citing this academic work , there could still be a form of anti-female bias, with women receiving death sentences for categories of murders that men would not.

To these critics, women are sentenced to death for domestic murders as their crime is seen as egregious because of the contradiction of the stereotypes of female nurturing.

Women killers

1 Jan 1973 to 30 Jun 2009, 8,118 people in US sentenced to death
Of those, 165 were women
Of 1,168 executions, 11 were women
Women commit up to 12% of capital murders
Source: Victor Streib

Lewis had sex with at least one of the killers, also allegedly offering the prospect of sex with her 16-year-old daughter as bait, and betrayed her husband, all motivated by financial gain.

Protective role

"Women tend to kill a member of the family. Men are much more likely [than women] to be involved in a stranger killing," says Prof Strieb.

This might help explain how someone like Lewis could be sentenced to death.

"There is a kind of a play on the notion that you expect women to protect the family and she is paying to get rid of the family," argues Prof Streib.

Controversial cases

In 1955, the hanging of Ruth Ellis in the UK for shooting her lover helped spur opposition to the death penalty, leading to its abolition in the 1960s

In the same year in the US, the execution of Barbara Graham was also very high profile, with the movie I Want to Live throwing a spotlight on the death penalty

But for some opponents of the death penalty, the mere fact of Lewis being a woman is not the main issue.

Her low intelligence is a key issue, says Diann Rust-Tierney, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

"That is a very big part of her claim. That she is a person of diminished capacity and shouldn't be subject to the death penalty.

"The people who actually committed the killing were serving a life sentence. Far from being the person who was most culpable, she was a puppet in a scheme. The injustice is striking."

But, with fewer than 50 people executed every year in the US out of the thousands of murderers caught and sentenced, and with different attitudes from state to state, there can be cases that seem inconsistent, says Prof Franklin Zimring, of the Berkeley School of Law.

"When you start with that kind of mathematics you come up with arbitrary outcomes.

"If you are looking for the most culpable 50 you wouldn't pick a lady with an IQ of 72."

Some of those who have taken an interest in Lewis's case have questioned why the issue of her low IQ was not forcefully raised at her trial.

But for supporters of the death penalty, such arguments do not hold water.

"Whether or not she was somebody who had a high intelligence or a low intelligence, she still committed a serious crime," says Mr Muhlhausen.

*********************************************************************************

Now I am not condoning murder, far from it. But this case has raised some interesting points, especially when it comes to the perceived ability of a woman to commit such a crime, and whether the defendant really knew what she was getting involved with. However, this will never be proven or disproven as the main protagonist killed himself in jail.

Instead of making an example of a woman with a low IQ, why not treat her the same way as her co-defendants, and sentence her to life in prison? All this does is make a mockery of the American justice system, and makes me think that the so called leader of the free world needs to start looking at it’s own systems, before it tries to interfere overseas.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Papal aide Cardinal Kasper under pressure to apologise

This comes from the BBC website – as per normal, I’ll put my comments / thoughts at the end.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

*****************************************************************

Papal aide Cardinal Kasper under pressure to apologise

A senior papal aide has come under pressure to apologise after saying arriving at Heathrow airport was like landing in a "Third World" country.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Catholic Church leader in Scotland, said he expected Cardinal Walter Kasper to say sorry.

Cardinal Kasper pulled out of the Pope's four-day UK visit, with the Vatican citing illness.

The trip is expected to contain a number of protests and statements by groups opposed to it.

Cardinal Walter Kasper gave an interview to a German magazine

Cardinal Kasper had made his remarks during an interview with the German magazine Focus.

"I'm sure Cardinal Kasper will apologise for any intemperate remarks”

Cardinal Keith O'Brien

On Wednesday, Vatican sources said Cardinal Kasper was suffering from gout and had been advised by his doctors not to travel to the UK.

They also said his "Third World" comment referred to the UK's multicultural society.
Ahead of the Pope's arrival in Edinburgh, Cardinal O'Brien told BBC Radio Scotland:

"[The comment] was unfortunate and each and every person's aides sometimes do make awkward, difficult remarks. Sometimes we make awkward, difficult remarks ourselves. And simply, if we do that sort of thing we apologise for it, and I'm sure Cardinal Kasper will apologise for any intemperate remarks which he made some time ago."

The Catholic Church in England and Wales said Cardinal Kasper's comments were "the personal views of one individual".

Open debate

Pope Benedict XVI is making the first state visit by a pontiff to the UK.

The invitation has been criticised by a number of groups, including gay and women's rights organisations.

Protest the Pope, an umbrella group bringing together a dozen humanist, atheist, secular and gay rights groups, has said it opposes the idea of the Pope being welcomed to the UK as a head of state, with the UK taxpayer paying for much of the visit.

Pope Benedict has also faced calls to address public concern over the sexual and physical abuse of children by priests.

And reformist Catholics are using the Pope's visit as an opportunity to call on Benedict XVI to open up the debate on priestly celibacy and the ordination of women.

*****************************************************************

With regards to the comment by the cardinal, all I can say is “this man is supposed to be a diplomat?” That’s not what I would expect from someone who is supposed to be assisting with a rather sensitive tour.

Yes, it does appear that the UK as a whole is secular, but I am afraid that this is not the time to state such a thing, especially with the tensions that are in the air because of the abuses that the church seems unwilling (or more to the point unable) to deal with., and it is this apparent failure that is turning people away from the church.

Ok – I’m not a churchgoer by any stretch of the imagination – I go when it’s hatch, match and despatch and the very rare occasions that I get dragged. But that doesn’t mean that I am an atheist. Far from it – I prefer to refer to myself as a humanist, as I do believe that there is a higher power, but I am unwilling to submit to any one idea of how and where I should give thanks.

Aside from that, I have to admit, I am not a fan of the current Pope. His predecessor, John Paul II was, in my opinion far more approachable, and seemed almost more human. Ok – maybe Pope Benedict does show his emotions in private, but he always strikes me as being rather dour and remote.

As for greeting him as a head of state, sorry, I don’t agree with that at all. The man is either a religious leader, or a church leader – you cannot have it both ways. Yes, in theory, Queen Elisabeth II is the titular head of the Church of England, but I doubt very much that she gets involved in the day to day running of the church – she leaves that to the archbishop of Canterbury.

Justice has been served? I wonder.

A man convicted of murder from the American state of Utah has been executed by firing squad.

Ok – this in itself is unusual, because most states that have the death penalty opt for lethal injection.

But what makes this case unique (in my opinion) is the attitude of the Attorney General. He used the micro-blogging site twitter to announce the developments in this case.

Don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against twitter (ok – it’s just not my choice to put my view on the world into cyberspace) but I find the method of self promotion to be distasteful to say the least.

Aside from the issue of the twitter posts, things like this do make you reassess your own ideas about capitol punishment. I was always of the opinion that killing someone who was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt was right, just even.

Now I'm beginning to wonder. What purpose does this penalty serve? It certainly doesn’t serve as a deterrent, and the people who are in favour of what amounts to state sanctioned murder in America are the same people who are quick enough to cry foul when other countries enforce the death penalty.

Ok – I know that the death penalty in the USA is only imposed after years of appeals and counter appeals, but what happens when the appeal process runs out – the condemned man (or woman, but it’s more usually a man) dies.

But surely there has to be an alternative? It’s been stated that the death penalty is the most expensive option, but state prosecutors still go for it. Why? Because of the publicity that a successful case can bring them.

But does the death penalty bring closure to the victim’s family? I don’t honestly know, but I do know that in the Utah case (which started me thinking about this matter) the relatives of one of the victims pleaded for clemency, whereas the relatives of the other victim were against this.

Is this the right way to go? I don’t know. I get the impression that the idea was to use this as the ultimate deterrent, as in “you kill someone, and we (the state) will kill you”.

But times and attitudes have changed, so may be it’s time to do away with this barbaric option in what is supposed to be a civilised society.

Time to call this quits – it’s nearly time to escape, and I’ve got some travelling to do.

Back when I get the chance…

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

The phrase “Whoops” comes to mind…

This is from the BBC website – as per normal, I’ll put my thoughts / opinions at the end of the piece.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most
*************************************

Gordon Brown 'bigoted woman' comment caught on tape

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been caught on microphone describing a voter he had just spoken to in Rochdale as a "bigoted woman".

Sixty-five-year-old Gillian Duffy had challenged Mr Brown on a number of issues including immigration and crime.

As he got into his car, he was still wearing a broadcast microphone and was heard to say "that was a disaster".

Mr Brown later phoned Mrs Duffy to apologise after the tape was played to him during a BBC Radio 2 interview.

After listening to the recording, with his forehead resting on his hand, he said: "I do apologise if I've said anything that has been hurtful."

The comments were made after the conversation with Mrs Duffy ended with him complimenting her and her family.

As he went to get into his car, Mr Brown told her: "Very nice to meet you, very nice to meet you."

But off camera, but not realising he still had a Sky News microphone pinned to his shirt, he was heard to tell an aide: "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous..."

Asked what she had said, he is heard to reply: "Ugh everything! She's just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous. I don't know why Sue brought her up towards me."

Mrs Duffy, a widow, said after hearing of Mr Brown's comments: "I'm very upset. He's an educated person. Why has he come out with words like that?

"He's supposed to be leading the country and he's calling an ordinary woman who's come up and asked questions that most people would ask him... It's going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this national debt, and he's calling me a bigot."

She had earlier told reporters she was a lifelong Labour voter and described Mr Brown as being "very nice".

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said it was a disaster for the prime minister because it showed the gap between his public face and private face.

"For those of us who have known Gordon Brown for many years, what we have seen is no huge surprise. He has got better and better at handling himself in public, but quite often he flares up in private, expresses frustration," he said.

Nick Robinson added that the irony was that if his comments had not been picked up, it would have been a lively election exchange which would have been seen to do him credit.

Speaking on Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show, Mr Brown said: "Of course I apologise if I've said anything that's been offensive and I would never put myself in a position where I would want to say anything like that about a woman I'd met.

"I blame myself for what is done, but you've got to remember that this was me being helpful to the broadcasters, with my microphone on, rushing into the car because I had to get to another appointment and they have chosen to play my private conversation. These things can happen, I apologise profusely to the lady concerned."

Gordon Brown has since telephoned Mrs Duffy to personally apologise for the comments, telling her he was very sorry and said she "is a good woman".

When asked did this in any way make up for the comments she said "no - absolutely not".

'Resilience'

A spokesman for the prime minister said: "Mr Brown has apologised to Mrs Duffy personally by phone. He does not think that she is bigoted. He was letting off steam in the car after a difficult conversation.

"But this is exactly the sort of conversation that is important in an election campaign and which he will continue to have with voters."

The Conservatives said Mr Brown's comments spoke for themselves.

Shadow chancellor George Osborne said: "That's the thing about general elections, they do reveal the truth about people."

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said: "You should always try to answer the questions as best you can. He has been recorded saying what he has said and will have to answer for that."

Chancellor Alistair Darling said Mr Brown's apology was profuse and he was well aware he should not have made the comments.

"The election campaign will be decided not just on individuals but what the party stands for. There are big issues at stake. Gordon is a man of considerable strength, considerable resilience and considerable substance," he said.

"I hope people will judge him in the round. The fact we are coming out of this recession is down to him in no small part."

*************************************

I’m sorry, but I think this may well have sunk the Labour campaign. Ok – maybe sunk is a bit harsh, but it has certainly been hit below the waterline. I mean, talk about an own goal of monumental proportions.

The worst part is, that this voter is (or should that be was) a lifelong labour supporter, and if Gordon Brown reacts like that to someone like her, then I dread to think what he says about non-labour supporters.

Needless to say, I think this has just handed the election to the opposition, as most reasonable people will be disgusted with his comments – I know I am, especially as this buffoon wishes to represent the UK at international level. If he gets voted back in, then the reputation (and credibility) of the UK will take a real hit.

K.

Something that really wound me up.

It’s not often that I comment on a newspaper article, but this one really got to me in a major way. I’ll post the story, and then put my thoughts at the end of it…

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

*********************************

In which I discover poverty...in the foyer of a Premier Inn
By Liz Jones

It's not great being poor in Britain.

The rich have their path through life smoothed and buffed. For the less well-off, everything – even the tiniest of things – is difficult.

Take my experience on Thursday. I drove down from the Lake District to London for work, not thinking I would be unable to book a hotel room because of the cancelled flights.

I rang all the usual places I stay in: fully booked, apart from a junior suite at the Haymarket Hotel that was going for £550, plus VAT, plus internet, plus breakfast. Even I baulked at that.

I finally got a room in a Premier Inn in Kensington. I couldn’t find it, never having had the need to notice it before. I called them. It turned out I was about 100ft from the hotel, but not one member of staff could read a map or even make themselves understood.

‘I am outside Earl’s Court Tube!’ I shouted.

‘Earl’s what? What iz that?’

In the end, the manager fetched an English-speaking guest who tried to talk me down. I got there.

No one would park my car, or knew how I could get to a car park. ‘Can you put my bag in my room while I find somewhere to park?’ I asked the manager. ‘No, we don’t put cases in rooms. This is a budget hotel.’

In the end, Kristina from Latvia took pity on me and watched my case until she ended her shift.

‘I have to be in my room in front of the TV by 8.30pm,’ I told the young Indian female member of staff when I finally returned, looking as though I’d been deployed in a war zone, from parking my car. ‘The debate! The Election!’ I yelled, just like Eddy in Absolutely Fabulous.

I was met with an uncomprehending stare. ‘Get me a glass of prosecco!’ I shouted, and people – normal people, the sort who are used to carrying their own cases and parking their own cars – began to point and stare.

‘Still or sparkling?’ the Indian woman said to me.

‘Sparkling!’ I snapped. ‘It only comes in sparkling!’

My room was hideous, with a sign over the taps saying, ‘Beware, hot water.’ Maybe the people who stay here need these sorts of instructions.

I’d missed the first half hour of the Prime Ministerial debate. All three were white, middle-aged, middle-class.

David Cameron made sure he remembered the names of the questioners and the name of a man in his constituency who came to him with cancer, just to prove he is in touch with the ‘little people’.

I also found it grating he kept mentioning his son, repeating how indebted he was to the nurses who looked after him. All three wanted to make sure they called members of our armed forces ‘heroes’ and ‘heroines’. I mean, come on, let’s just take it as read that polite policemen, good teachers, safe soldiers and lots of kind nurses are a good idea.

Gordon Brown couldn’t remember the names of people, but he sure as hell remembered the names of helicopters. He kept muttering how important it is for old people to be cared for in their own homes. Really? Is it? How revolutionary of him to come up with that.

Only Nick Clegg seemed genuine.

I’m one of the great undecided (I was nearly one of the great unwashed when I discovered my Premier Inn bathroom only had soap that came from a dispenser). I want my life to be easier (tax breaks for married couples!) but I have glimpsed what it’s like to be poor and it’s hideous and tiring and boring.

I’ve been driving a Ka because it’s cheaper than my BMW and I can’t tell you how motorists in London beep me and push me out the way. It’s as though suddenly I’ve become invisible.

My column the other week wondering why on earth people who earn more than £100,000 are always the ones being punished, tutted over by badly dressed BBC news reporters standing outside Westminster, was based on the assumption that only high earners work hard and have stress.

The next morning, after my cold night on a hard purple bed, I rushed through reception, trailing my own suitcase, at 7.30am. There at the purple console was the Indian woman from the night before. ‘Ye Gods,’ I said to her. ‘Don’t you ever go to bed?’

She laughed. She told me what she earns, ‘I am thinking just above the minimum’, and the hours she works; everything’s Premier, it seems, but the wages.

‘Are lots of people rude to you?’ I asked her. ‘Oh yes, it’s quite stressful.’

I asked if she knew who she was going to vote for. ‘When you went to park last night, we put the TV on in reception so you could watch it here. And so I saw some of it, and I thought Nick Clegg was a very nice man.’

Although it pains me to say this, I’m beginning to think so, too.

***********************************************

Now I read Liz Jones’ thoughts on life on Exmoor every week (she publishes her version of a blog in the YOU magazine), and the more I read of her columns, the more I begin to think that this woman doesn’t live in the real world. Don’t get me wrong – moving to the countryside from the town can be a big move – you get so used to the facilities in the town that you expect the countryside to be the same.

Yes, I know that it can be difficult as a single person, but she doesn’t really help herself by insulting people in the local area in a national newspaper. Ok – she employs local people, but the comments are far more hurtful than the employment that she says that she brings to the area.

Then reading this entry this morning was the final straw, and I just saw red. She seems to be of the opinion that because there was no-one to park her car (I would rather park my own car than let someone else drive it thank you very much), and no-one to ferry her case to her room, that the accomodation offered (as well as the staff) were not worthy of being treated with respect. The comments about the other guests was unnecessary (and I am sorry to say becoming rather typical of someone who has lived her life in a sort of isolated vacuum of high fashion and stupid prices.)

If she was that bothered about the room, then why didn’t she ask for the Good Night Guarantee to be used? And as for the comment about the bathroom – I'm sorry, but I much prefer to take my own toiletries with me – even when I stay at a 4* hotel. That way, I know that the stuff that I am using is my choice.

As regular readers of my blog will know, I am not averse to staying at Premier Inn, and am more than happy to stay at one, because all I ask for when I am travelling in the UK is a decent bed, a good shower and somewhere safe for my car.

Needless to say, any sympathy that I had for Ms Jones has evaporated. Yes, I’ll continue to read her thoughts (and complaints) on life, but I am sorry to say that I’ll be taking her woes with a pinch of salt, as I consider them to be minor troubles that she has managed to bring on her own head.

Time to call this quits – I want to watch the re-run of the Chinese Grand Prix (I fell asleep trying to watch it live!)

Back tomorrow.

K.

Vatican reacts to cardinal's gay-link paedophile claim

This is the follow up to the previous story, again from the BBC website. I’ll put my thoughts at the end, as per normal.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

****************************************************

The Vatican has distanced itself from remarks made by a senior cardinal, who linked homosexuality with paedophilia in the abuse scandal facing the Church.

It was not the responsibility of the Church authorities to make "assertions of a specifically psychological or medical nature", a statement said.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said it was homosexuality - not clerical celibacy - which lay behind the abuse of children.

Earlier, France condemned the cardinal for making "an unacceptable linkage".

Earlier this month, Pope Benedict's personal preacher apologised for having compared criticism of the Roman Catholic Church over abuse allegations to "the collective violence suffered by the Jews".

In a sermon, Father Raniero Cantalamessa likened allegations that the Vatican had systematically hushed up cases of sexual abuse of children by priests to the "most shameful aspects of anti-Semitism", with the use of stereotypes and the spreading of collective guilt.

The Vatican said his remarks did not represent its official view.

'Confession of weakness'

Cardinal Bertone, the Vatican's secretary of state, was attempting to defuse the scandals currently afflicting the Church during a visit to Chile on Monday, when he denied that celibacy was to blame.

"Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia," he said.

“That is true. I have the documents of the psychologists. That is the problem."

On Tuesday, the Vatican issued a statement questioning the cardinal's decision to discuss the matter, but also detailing its "statistical data" on the abuse of minors by priests.

The truth is that Bertone is clumsily trying to shift attention to homosexuality and away from the focus on new crimes against children that emerge every day

Aurelio Mancuso, former head of Italian gay rights association Arcigay

Ten percent of the cases referred to Church authorities concerned paedophilia in the "strict sense" and the other 90% concerned sex between priests and adolescents, it said.

Of those, 60% had to do with homosexual acts and 30% with heterosexual acts, it added.

Earlier, France - where an estimated 60% of the population are Catholic - criticised Cardinal Bertone's remarks.

"This is an unacceptable linkage and we condemn this," foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero told reporters in Paris.

"France is firmly engaged in the struggle against discrimination and prejudice linked to sexual orientation and gender identity."

In Italy, gay rights activist Aurelio Mancuso accused the cardinal of "clumsily trying to shift attention to homosexuality and away from the focus on new crimes against children that emerge every day".

Commentators in the Italian press also criticised the remarks.

In Corriere della Sera, Piero Ostellino said the Pope should be "protected" from the "imprudent remarks of some high prelates", while La Repubblica's Francesco Merlo said the "Church is hurting itself, not homosexuals".

The attempt to link homosexuality with paedophilia was a "dramatic confession of weakness [betraying] the confused state in which the Catholic Church now finds itself," Mr Merlo added.

****************************************************

For once, the Catholic Church has spoken out to distance itself from comments made by a senior church member. But this doesn’t help the fact that this seems to be coming from the very heart of the Church, and all it does is alienate people from the Church, and give more ammunition to the critics.


K.

Vatican comment on paedophiles draws gay groups' anger

Again, another story from the BBC website, and as per normal, I’ll put my thoughts and comments at the end of the post.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

********************************************************

Gay rights activists have criticised a Vatican official who sought to link homosexuality to paedophilia when commenting on child sex abuse scandals.  

The UK's Stonewall group said it was astonishing gay people should still be dealing with "such an offensive myth".

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone had said homosexuality, not celibacy, lay behind the child sex abuse scandals.

The cardinal, the Vatican's foreign minister, was speaking in Chile, where his comments were also condemned.

Cardinal Bertone was attempting to defuse the scandals currently afflicting the Catholic Church, which are largely cases of priests molesting children, mainly boys, the BBC's David Willey reports from Rome.

He added that some "surprising" initiatives regarding the sex abuse scandal would soon be revealed but did not elaborate.

'I have the documents'

Visiting the Chilean capital Santiago on Monday, Cardinal Bertone told a news conference: "Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia.

"That is true. I have the documents of the psychologists. That is the problem."

Patricio Walker, a Chilean senator who helped draft anti-paedophile laws, said he would like to see what scientific studies the cardinal was referring to because he thought he was wrong.

A Chilean communist MP, Hugo Gutierrez, told AFP news agency: "Celibacy does more damage to a human being than homosexuality, which is a freely made choice.

"I'm shocked by these words from a senior dignitary of the Church."

In Rome, the head of Italian gay rights group Gaylib, Enrico Oliari, said it was "worrying that the foreign minister of a state that occupies the heart of the Italian capital would use arguments that are considered passé even in the Third World".

Aurelio Mancuso, former president of a Italian gay rights association Arcigay, said: "The truth is that Bertone is clumsily trying to shift attention to homosexuality and away from the focus on new crimes against children that emerge every day."

The Pope's spokesman has indicated that Benedict may have a discreet private meeting with victims of clerical sexual abuse in Malta during his visit there this coming weekend.

The Pope should not feel he is under the pressure of the glare of the media if such a meeting takes place, Fr Federico Lombardi said, so that he can listen and communicate with them.

In Malta, 10 men have taken three Catholic priests to court for alleged child abuse in their youth and have asked to meet the Pope. There has been a high incidence of reported cases on the small Mediterranean island, whose inhabitants are mainly Catholic, our Rome correspondent notes.

********************************************************

What planet is this guy on? I thought that thoughts (and comments) like this belonged back in the dark ages. Ok, I know that the Catholic Church doesn’t approve of homosexuality, but this guy is seen as second only to the Pope in importance.

It’s comments like this that really damage the image of the Church, and give more ammunition to people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Time to call this quits – I’ve been given some work to do, much to my disgust.

Back later.

K.

Bored with the election

According to the BBC Election website, there are 22 days to go before the election. I'm getting fed up already, but I am going to vote – that way, I have the right to complain later this year if things aren’t going as I’d hoped for.

And it’s not just me getting fed up with this damned election coverage. Practically everyone that you speak to is fed up with the election at the moment. I appreciate that it is important to understand what the various parties are promising, and how they are going to deal with the issues that are important to people. However, there is such a thing as saturation point.

You turn on the news, and the first ten or more minutes are taken up with the squabbles that the manifesto launches have spawned, followed by the “talking heads” trying to make it sound interesting (and justify the fact that they have a job with the various news organisations!)

Needless to say, it’s getting to the point where I won’t watch the news on the TV, as I am getting really fed up. It boils down to a choice (as far as I can see) of Tory, Tory Lite and Others. The only difference that I can see between Labour & Conservative on some points, is the colour of the rosette that the slimy creature (sorry prospective MP) wears when they come sliming around, asking for you to vote for them.

Again, that’s another sore point for me. You only get to see your MP when there is an election in the offing, and they need to get you to vote for them, so that they can get back on the gravy train.

Now I'm not saying that all politicians are like that – just the majority of them. I know that they hold “surgeries” where they appear to take your concerns seriously (at least while you’re in their office) but how much do they actually do when they get back to Westminster from the rest of the county?

Someone needs to remind these people that there is more to life than the playpen that is Westminster, and that the rest of the UK wants this election over and done with, so that we can get back on with our lives!

Ah well, guess I should get on with some w*rk, instead of blogging…

Back later if I get the chance.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Atheist Richard Dawkins backs campaign to arrest Pope

As per normal, I’ll post this story (it comes straight from the BBC website) and then put my comments / thoughts at the end.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

*************************************************************************

Leading atheist Richard Dawkins has backed a campaign to have the Pope arrested for "crimes against humanity" when he visits the UK later this year.

Professor Dawkins said he "whole-heartedly" backed the initiative led by atheist Christopher Hitchens.

UK human rights lawyers are preparing a case to charge Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Dr William Oddie, former editor of The Catholic Herald, labelled it "lunatic".

Campaigners hope to cast a shadow over the Pope's planned visit to the UK in September - the first visit by a Pope since 1982.

Prof Dawkins wrote on his blog: "I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit."

And writing in the Guardian on Tuesday, columnist George Monbiot wrote: "Picture the pope awaiting trial in British prison, and you begin to grasp the implications of the radical idea that has never been applied: equality before the law."

The BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said the anti-Pope campaign could be seen as a mischievous attempt to create an "air of criminality" around the Pope.

"The controversy over alleged Papal involvement in the cover-up of child sex abuse is providing atheists with a stick with which to beat religion," he said.

The Pope's visit was announced shortly before allegations surfaced that he had signed a letter which delayed the punishment of a paedophile priest in the US.

Legal state?

This followed a series of child abuse scandals involving the Catholic Church in the US, the Irish Republic, Germany and Norway.

The Vatican has defended the Pope, saying the Pope is willing to meet more victims of clerical abuse, while the Church has published an internet guide as to how bishops deal with accusations of sexual abuse.

Barrister Geoffrey Robertson and solicitor Mark Stephens are considering whether they could either ask the Crown Prosecution Service to initiate criminal proceedings against the Pope; launch their own civil action or refer his case to the International Criminal Court.

Author Christopher Hitchens said he does not believe the Vatican to be a legal state which raises questions as to whether the Pope, as head of state, could claim diplomatic immunity.

He said: "The UN at its inception refused membership to the Vatican but has allowed it a unique "observer status", permitting it to become signatory to treaties such as the Law of the Sea and (ironically) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to speak and vote at UN conferences where it promotes its controversial dogmas on abortion, contraception and homosexuality."

The group have cited as precedent the recent case of Israel's former foreign minister Tzipi Livni, who cancelled a visit to London after a British judge issued an arrest warrant over her alleged involvement with the conflict in Gaza.

But Dr Oddie, former editor of The Catholic Herald, said the campaign demonstrated how "wonderfully lunatic" both Christopher Hitchens and Professor Dawkins were.

"What's lawful is what is lawfully agreed by lawful authorities, in this case Italian law - the government of Italy - and secondly, international law, determined by the United Nations. Both legal authorities accept the Vatican is a legal state.

"Christopher Hitchens is entitled to say it shouldn't be one, but he can't say it isn't one - it's like people in a lunatic society saying they are Napoleon," he said.

The Vatican has ruled out any possibility of a papal resignation over the scandal.


*************************************************************************

Now I’ve read most of Richard Dawkins’ books, and I admire the man as a scientist, and the fact that he is not afraid to court controversy like this. However, I personally don’t think that this is the right way to deal with the issues that are being raised.

I don’t agree with the Church’s stance on issues like homosexuality (two of my best friends are gay) and I don’t feel that women should be forced into bearing children when they cannot feed them, or there is a medical reason for not bearing more children and the issues of health that contraception can assist with are well known. And I’m not just talking about HIV prevention, but the prevention of diseases such as Hepatitis B & C.

The best way to deal with this (in my option) is to push to one side all the dogma that comes from both sides, and allows for a rational debate of the pros and cons of the stances that both sides have adopted. But somehow, I doubt such an event will ever occur.

Ah well, guess I should call this quits – I’m supposed to be working, not blogging…

Back when I get the chance.


K.

What have we learned in 2,065 years?

I make no apologies for this post - I think it sums up the UK's situation perfectly.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

*************************************

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

Cicero - 55 BC


Nothing, apparently.

Cider drinking: What's the a-peel?

This comes straight from the BBC website – I’ll put my comments at the end.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

************************
The government has whacked a big increase on cider duty, but what is it about the apple-based beverage that excites such strong passions from drinkers?

Cider is going to cost more. Duty rates will increase by 10% above inflation and it's going to have fans spluttering into their scrumpy.

Recent years have been good to cider drinkers and the industry that goes with it. The marketing drive carried out by Irish brand Magners in the mid-2000s changed everything.

Marketing people called it the "cider-over-ice" effect, and the adverts conjured up images of hazy summer days spent with photogenic friends in Grade I-listed country pubs. Sales rocketed, doubling across the UK between 2004 and 2008, according to the Welsh Perry and Cider Society.

But cider has a dark side, craft producer Roy Bailey of Lambourn Valley notes.  "There are a lot of 'industrial' high strength ciders not greatly connected to apples," he says. "These are the ones people get from supermarkets and get drunk in parks."

Such brews are a fixture on park benches in many areas of the country as well as providing a rite of passage for underage drinkers.

Gateway drink

So it's perhaps not surprising that a disproportionate tax on cider might seem like a good idea to those in power. Indeed cider with a strength over 7.5% will have its duty increased by even more than the 10% above inflation on ordinary strength cider.

CIDER FACTS
Romans said to have brewed alcohol from apples

Came to England after the Norman conquest

Made from apples that are crushed to press out the juice, which ferments spontaneously

Cider that is made by traditional methods - allowed to ferment naturally - is called scrumpy, from a word meaning small and shrivelled

"From 1 September 2010, the technical definition of cider will be changed to ensure products that more closely resemble made-wines [the strongest varieties] are taxed appropriately," the Budget Report says. "The industry has a very clear choice - it can either see this extra duty imposed or it can choose to reduce the alcoholic strength of its ciders," a Treasury Official told Reuters.

As a producer of fewer than 70 hectolitres of cider a year, Roy Bailey is in any case small enough to be exempt from duty under special rules. But he is still worried on the impact on other bigger craft producers.

"Most producers of craft cider are very civilised. People don't drink craft cider to get smashed," says Mr Bailey.  "Cider has greatly improved - it isn't just a rough farm drink. These people make quality products. Cider like this is really as good as wine. It's not a pub drink. More a drink to savour with a meal."

Yet for some cider struggles to shake off its stigma as a gateway drink to the grown-up world of alcohol. Sweet and fizzy, some varieties at least are as close in taste to a can of pop as they are to a delicately-brewed ale.

But that's a generalisation that takes no account of the wide range of ciders on the market, says Jan Gale, of cider pub the Coronation Tap in Bristol.

In-cider dealing

"It's quite sophisticated. It's not all rough, scrumpy cider for country folk," she says, batting away suggestions it's merely a drink for childish palates.

"It's sweet, dry, cloudy, carbonated, all sorts. It's a personal choice."

Fellow enthusiast, Richard Knibbs, rhapsodises about the simple pleasures of a pint.

"A really dry cider sets your tongue on fire. It's a different experience than beer," says Mr Knibbs, owner of Ye Olde Cider Bar in Newton Abbot, Devon, since 1973. "With bottled single-variety apple ciders, you get lovely, lovely flavour. Beers don't have the same lingering taste of a really nice cider".

Despite its explicit dedication to preserving traditional beer, the Campaign for Real Ale (Camra) also has a watching brief over the fortunes of cider.

It is understandably irked by the Treasury's sudden interest in the brew and is demanding government action to support and protect "small real cider producers".

"Hitting small real cider producers with this hike will cause irreparable damage to one of the nation's most historic craft industries," says Camra's chief executive Mike Benner. "The government must introduce a relief package to support the UK's small cider producers."

The British Beer and Pub Association has also indicated its annoyance at all of the rises on duty.

But perhaps the most alarming opposition came in the form of a statement released to news agencies by West Country folk group The Wurzels, known for their hit, I Am A Cider Drinker.

It read: "We are all very upset that scrumpy cider, being one of the few pleasures that we cherish down here on the farm in the West Country, is being hit by such a tax rise."

And while the groups music may struggle for mainstream appeal these days - they haven't troubled the top 40 in more than 30 years - their cider sentiments will doubtless have more popular appeal.

************************************************
Great. Another one of life's pleasures is to be taxed out of existance. I’m not one of these “binge drinkers” – in fact, it can take me about three days to drink a bottle of cider.

So, because the tax is due to hit on Sunday, I’m going to stock up tomorrow and make to most of my cider – regardless of what this “Big Brother” set up thinks.

Back later, if I get the chance.

K.

A non-event budget…

Well, our “beloved” chancellor has given the budget – and given that the election is a matter of weeks away (the date has yet to be confirmed, but most commentators are fairly sure that it will be May 6th) the budget was full of non- surprises – barring one.

I’ve taken the main points (i.e. the bits that affect me and my family) from the BBC website, and put my own comments below.

Fuel, Cigarettes & Alcohol Duties

3p fuel duty rise to be phased in, in three stages between April and January 2011 rather than in one go next month.

This kicks in on April 1st (rather appropriate), with further rises planned for October 1st and January 2011. I get the impression that the government panicked at the thought of 32 million fuming drivers voting in the election…

Cider duty to rise by 10% above inflation from midnight on Sunday.
Wine, beer and spirit duties to rise by 2% from midnight on Sunday and further 2% rise planned for two years from 2013.

Tobacco duty up 1% from midnight on Sunday and by 2% in real terms each year until 2014

As if this government hasn’t done enough to kill the pubs already. This will be almost the final nail in the coffin of the local pub. I guess that they (the government) are trying to hit the drinkers as the smokers are giving up.


Help for Business

£385m to maintain road network

Start repairing some bloody pot-holes! I thought that was what my road theft (sorry – road fund) licence was for!

Other Taxes & Allowances:

Limits on Individual Savings Accounts to rise in line with inflation
No changes to VAT or income tax planned
Inheritance tax threshold frozen for four years

Hmmm – talk about stealing the oppostion’s thunder. The Tories have been talking about inheritance tax for the past three years or so… The VAT has been left alone, because it caused more trouble than it was really worth and didn’t bring in as much money as was anticipated. Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs) at the moment are almost worthless, as the bank rate sucks if you’re a saver (it’s 0.5%) – good if you have a mortgage though…

Ah well, guess I should call this quits – I’m supposed to be w*rking, not blogging.

Back later, if I get the chance.


Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Now is the spring of our discontent

It seems like there have been nothing but strikes reported in the news this past week, with the BA cabin crew having a three day strike (another four day strike is due to start on Saturday), British Gas voting for a strike (the dates for this are still to be confirmed) the Rail Signalmen voting for a strike over Easter, and now the civil servants are on strike today.

It does make you wonder if people are getting fed up with the “powers that be” – the only people I have no sympathy with are the BA cabin crew, because their colleagues at Gatwick have been operating the reduced crew levels for the past 12 months, and passengers have noticed no difference in levels of service, not to mention the pay is way over the market rate.

But the strikers aren’t the only ones who are unhappy. My beloved is still unhappy with his current employment – even more so since he had to move office. Previously, his workplace was about a 20min drive from home – now it’s more like 1¼ hrs to and from the office, meaning that he has to leave home at some stupid hour in the morning (think it’s about 06:30) to get to his playpen.

So, until things change for the better in the economy, my beloved is stuck in a job that he hates, in an office that he loathes. I guess I should be thanking my lucky stars that I’ve got a job that I enjoy, with people (most people I should say) that I like.

Back later if I get the chance…


Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Petrol prices set for record high, says AA

This comes straight from the BBC website – just what I don’t need – more damned scaremongering about fuel prices…

And it doesn’t help with things like this being promoted on BBC Breakfast this morning. Me being me thought “oh, I’ll go to the fuel station before I head into the playpen. Not a chance. The queues were stupid, and people were getting quite bad tempered.

I wouldn’t object, but most of the price that I pay for my petrol at the moment (£1.13 a litre) is tax of one form or another – the theory being that this would go towards maintenance of the roads – the way my road theft (sorry road fund) licence money is supposed to.

It was revealed last week, that to repair a pot hole properly, it costs £50. Well, in that case, can someone please repair the 4.2 pot holes that are owed to my family because we fork out enough in dratted taxes for this to be done.

Ah well, on to the post….

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

************************************

Petrol prices could hit a record high of £1.20 a litre in the next few weeks, according to the AA.

Increases in the wholesale price of petrol since January are to blame for the rise in forecourt prices, the motoring organisation said.

It urged the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, to postpone the introduction of a planned 3 pence rise in petrol duty due to come in on 1 April.

The AA said families now pay £52 a month more on petrol than a year ago.

The average petrol price is currently just over £1.15 a litre.

"The UK is barely out of recession, yet petrol prices threaten to rise to record prices seen during the boom of 2008 - shortly before the collapse into recession," said AA president Edmund King.

"If families, drivers on fixed incomes and those on low pay were unable to cope with record prices then, they are even less likely now."

'Complete disgrace'

The price of oil is a major determinant of the price of petrol, and yet the current oil price of about $80 a barrel is far below the $147 a barrel-high seen in the summer of 2008, the last time petrol prices neared £1.20 a litre.

This has led many to question why petrol costs so much right now.

Lindsay Hoyle, Labour MP on the Commons business committee, told the Daily Telegraph: "Crude oil has gone up this year, but nothing like the rise in petrol prices.

Motorists are being legally mugged at the forecourt by petrol companies."

He called the current high price of petrol a "complete disgrace".

Analysts said increased refining costs and the weakening of sterling against the dollar - the currency in which oil is priced - helped to explain some of the increase in petrol prices.

37 years of solitary confinement: the Angola three

This comes from the Guardian newspaper - not one that I normally read, but I stumbled across this beacuse it was mentioned on a forum that I subscribe to.


Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

******************************

In 1972, three men in a Louisiana prison were placed in solitary confinement after a prison guard was murdered. Two of them are still there – even though many believe they are innocent.

Angola prison, the state penitentiary of Louisiana, is the biggest prison in America. Built on the site of a former slave plantation, the 1,800-acre penal complex is home to more than 5,000 prisoners, the majority of whom will never walk the streets again as free men. Also known as the Farm, Angola took its name from the homeland of the slaves who used to work its fields, and in many ways still resembles a slave plantation today. Eighty per cent of the prisoners are African-Americans and, under the watchful eye of armed guards on horseback, they still work fields of sugar cane, cotton and corn, for up to 16 hours a day. "You've got to keep the inmates working all day so they're tired at night," says Warden Burl Cain, a committed evangelist who believes that the rehabilitation of convicts is only possible through Christian redemption.

Undoubtedly there is less violence and abuse among the prisoners under his wardenship than there was under his predecessors. But Angola is still a long way from being a "positive environment that promotes responsibility, goodness, and humanity", as he proclaims in the prison's mission statement. In fact at the heart of Cain's prison regime is an inhumanity that would make Jesus weep.

For more than 37 years, two prisoners, Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox, have been locked down in Angola's maximum security Closed Cell Restricted (CCR) block – the longest period of solitary confinement in American prison history.

Having experienced the isolation of "23-hour bang-up" during my own 20 years of imprisonment, for offences of which I was guilty, I can attest to the mental impact that such conditions inflict. My first year was spent on a high-security landing where the cell doors were opened only briefly for meals and emptying of toilet buckets. If decent-minded prison officers were on duty we were allowed to walk the yard for 30 minutes a day. The rest of the time we were alone. The cells were 10ft x 5ft, with a chair, a table and a bed. You could walk up and down, run on the spot, stand still, or do push-ups and sit-ups – but sooner or later you had to just stop, and think.

As the days, weeks and months blur into one, without realising it you start to live completely inside your head. You dream about the past, in vivid detail – and fantasise about the future, for fantasies are all you have. You panic but it's no good "getting on the bell" – unless you're dying – and, even then, don't hope for a speedy response. I had a lot to think about. When the man in the cell above mine hanged himself I thought about that, a lot. I still do. You look at the bars on the high window and think how easy it would be to be free of all the thinking.

Such thoughts must have crossed the minds of Wallace and Woodfox more than once during their isolation. They are fed through the barred gates of their 9ft x 6ft cells and allowed only one hour of exercise every other day alone in a small caged yard. Their capacity for psychological endurance alone is noteworthy.

Wallace and Woodfox were confined to solitary after being convicted of murdering Angola prison guard Brent Miller in 1972. But the circumstances of their trial was so suspect that there are no doubts among their supporters that these men are innocent. Even Brent Miller's widow, Teenie Verret, has her reservations. "If they did not do this," she says, "and I believe that they didn't, they have been living a nightmare."

One man who understands the nightmare that Wallace and Woodfox are living more than anyone else is Robert King. King was also convicted of a murder in Angola in 1973, and was held in solitary alongside Wallace and Woodfox for 29 years, until his conviction was overturned in 2001 and he was freed. Together, King, Wallace and Woodfox have become known as the "Angola three".

The case of the Angola three first came to international attention following the campaigning efforts of the Body Shop founder and humanitarian Anita Roddick. Roddick heard about their plight from a young lawyer named Scott Fleming. Fleming was working as a prisoner advocate in the 1990s when he received a letter from Wallace asking for help. The human tragedy Fleming uncovered had the most profound effect on him. When he qualified as a lawyer, their case became his first. "I was born in 1973," he says. "I often think that for my entire life they have been in solitary."

Through Fleming, Roddick met King and then Woodfox in Angola. Their story, she said later, "made my blood run cold in my veins". Until her death in 2007 Roddick was a committed and passionate supporter of their cause. At her memorial service King played two taped messages from Wallace and Woodfox. In the congregation was film-maker Vadim Jean who had become good friends with Roddick and her husband Gordon during an earlier film project. "Anita's big thing was, 'Just do something,'" says Jean. "No matter how small an act of kindness. Listening to Herman and Albert's voices at her memorial was like having Anita's finger pointing at me and saying, 'Just do something'." And so he decided to make In the Land of the Free, a searing documentary, released later this month.

The story Jean's film tells is one that has resonance on many levels. All three men were from poor black neighbourhoods In New Orleans. They grew up fearing the police, who would regularly "clear the books" of crimes in the area, according to King, by pinning then on disaffected young black men. "If I saw the police, I used to run," King says. He admits to being involved in petty crime in his early years, but "nothing vicious". Eventually King was arrested for an armed robbery he says he did not commit and was sentenced to 35 years, which he began in New Orleans parish prison – and there he met Albert Woodfox.

Woodfox had also been sentenced for armed robbery – and given 50 years. On the day he was sentenced he escaped from the courthouse. He made his way to Harlem in New York, where he encountered the Black Panthers, the revolutionary African-American political movement. He witnessed the Panthers engaging with the community in a positive, constructive way, educating and informing people of their rights. He says it was the first time in his life that he had seen African-Americans exhibiting real pride, pride that emanated from the young activists, he says, "like a shimmering heatwave".

Two days later Woodfox was caught and taken to New York's Tombs prison where he saw first-hand the militant tactics of imprisoned Panthers who resisted their guards with organised protests. In Tombs, Woodfox was labelled "militant" and sent back to New Orleans where he joined King on the parish prison block, known – due to the high concentration of Panther activists – as "the Panther tier". There Woodfox became a member of the Black Panther party.

Outside, confrontations between the Panthers – described by FBI director J Edgar Hoover as "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country" – and the police were escalating. In an attempt to undermine the influence of the Panthers in New Orleans parish prison, officials tried to shoehorn men they termed "Black Gangsters" on to the tier – men like Wallace, also serving decades for armed robbery. One day Wallace was suffering from the pain of ill-fitting shoes. One of the Panthers, on his way to a court appearance, took his shoes off and handed them to Wallace. "Right then I knew that that was what I needed to be a part of," he says. In the summer of 1971 Wallace and Woodfox were shipped to Angola.

The civil rights bill had been signed in 1964, but seven years later Angola was still operating a segregated regime. Prisoner guards carried guns and were also responsible, according to well-documented sources, for organising systematic sexual abuse of vulnerable prisoners, which flourished in the prison's mostly dormitory accommodation. And violence between prisoners had reached such levels that Angola was known as "the bloodiest prison in America".

Woodfox and Wallace quickly extended the New Orleans chapter of the Black Panthers into Angola, establishing classes in political ideology and exposing injustices. They organised work stoppages, demonstrating to fellow prisoners the liberating power of acting with a "unity of purpose" and worked to eradicate the prevalent sexual abuses. But their political activities made them targets for the administrators. By the spring of 1972, tensions in the prison were dangerously high.

These were the conditions in which Brent Miller met his untimely death. That April, a prisoner work strike drew the attention of the guards who were called from normal duties to deal with the disturbance. Miller, a strong, athletic young man of 23, stayed behind alone. He entered a dormitory holding 90 prisoners and sat on an elderly prisoner's bed, drinking coffee and chatting. Moments later he was attacked and stabbed 32 times.

Two days later, four men identified as "black militants", including Wallace and Woodfox, were accused of the murder. It was quickly ascertained that one of the four had been inserted into the case by the prison administration. Charges against him were dropped. Another, Chester Jackson, admitted to holding Miller while the guard was stabbed to death. Jackson turned state's evidence in return for a plea to manslaughter. The case was tried in a town called St Francisville, the closest courthouse to Angola. The jury had been picked from the local populace, many of whom earned their living from the prison or had families and friends that worked there; all were white. Wallace and Woodfox were found guilty of Miller's murder, sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and taken from the court straight to Angola's CCR block to begin their life in isolation.

Robert King was brought to Angola from the parish prison two weeks after Miller's killing, as part of a roundup of black radicals. King had never met Miller and was in a prison 150 miles away when the murder took place. Yet he was investigated for the crime and identified as a "conspirator" before being transferred to lockdown on CCR alongside Wallace and Woodcock.

The following year a prisoner named August Kelly was murdered on King's CCR tier. A man named Grady Brewer admitted that he alone was responsible for the killing, which he said he carried out in self-defence. But King was also charged. The two men faced trial together in the same St Francisville courthouse where Wallace and Woodfox had been convicted the year before. The sole evidence against King came from flawed prisoner testimony. He and Brewer had not been allowed to speak to their attorneys for any length of time before their trial. When they protested, the judge ordered their hands to be shackled behind their backs and their mouths gagged with duct tape for the duration of their trial. The men were convicted and sentenced to life without parole. King later won an appeal; the federal court ruled that he had not been sufficiently unruly in the dock to warrant the shackling and gagging. He went back to trial in 1975, was re-convicted and immediately sent back to CCR.

When, after Scott Fleming's intervention in the case of Wallace and Woodfox in the 1990s, new lawyers reviewed the original trial of both men, discovering "obfuscation after obfuscation". The state had used a number of jailhouse informants against them, many of whom gave contradictory accounts of what they saw. One was registered blind. The key witness in the case was a man called Hezikiah Brown who testified he witnessed the murder. In his initial statement to investigators however, Brown said he had not seen anything. Three days later, when he was taken from his bunk at midnight by prison officials and promised his freedom if he testified, he agreed to say that he saw Wallace and Woodfox kill Miller. At the time Brown was serving life without parole for multiple rapes. Immediately after he agreed to testify he was given his own minimum security private house in the prison grounds and a weekly cigarette ration.

Wallace and Woodfox did not give up. They fought their convictions from their cells and in 1993 Woodfox was granted an appeal, forcing a new trial. The case was sent back to the same courthouse to be tried in front of a new grand jury. A local author, Anne Butler, who had published a book in which she detailed the case and was convinced that the right people had been convicted, acted as jury chairperson. No witnesses were called. Instead Butler was called upon to explain the case. Once again, the jury was composed of people who worked in Angola or were related to people who worked there. Butler's husband and co-author was Murray Henderson, who had been the warden of Angola when Brent Miller was murdered. It is worth noting that Henderson was a key member of the original investigation team and that, during that investigation, a bloody fingerprint was found close to Brent Miller's body. It was determined that it did not belong to Woodfox nor to Wallace, but despite the prison holding all the fingerprints of all the prisoners, no attempt was made to find out whose it was. The bloody print was also ignored at Woodfox's retrial. He was reconvicted and sent back to isolation in Angola's CCR.

It was 26 years before King won the right to another appeal. In 2001 the Federal court found that the jury in King's original trial had systematically excluded African-Americans and women and agreed that the case should be reheard. This time around the prisoner witnesses recanted and the federal court sent the case back to the district court for review. The state negotiated a deal with King. Reluctantly, and with his left hand raised instead of his right, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy; an hour and a half later he was freed.

In September 2008, Woodfox's conviction was overturned; the federal court ruled that his core constitutional rights had been violated at his original trial. Louisiana attorney general Buddy Caldwell could have set Woodfox free immediately. Instead he decided to contest the federal decision and Woodfox, now 64, was returned to Angola's CCR, where he remains. Herman Wallace, now 68, was moved to another Louisiana prison last year, where he too continues to be held in solitary confinement.

Today King, now 67, is still campaigning for justice for his friends. Albert Woodfox: "Our primary objective is that front gate. That is what we are struggling for and we are actually fighting for our freedom. We are fighting for people to understand that we were framed for a murder that we are totally, completely and actually innocent of." Robert King says he is free of Angola, but until his friends are free, "Angola will never be free of me."

Jean hopes his film will make a difference. "These men need help," he says. "Louisiana needs to be shamed into doing the right thing."

Further information: . If you wish to help highlight the plight of the Angola 3, you can write to the Governor of Louisiana at the Office of the Governor, PO Box 94004, Baton Rouge, LA 70804, US.

In The Land Of The Free is released on 26 March

Blair on trial. I wish. (Part 2 )

This continues from the previous post, where Tony Blair is giving evidence to the Iraq War enquiry.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

***********************************

1409 Mr Blair says he tried one "last-ditch chance" to get a UN solution, by defining more clearly the definition of a breach of the UN's will in terms of WMDs.

Right. But only because he would be able to plead that in his defence.

1412 As the war approached President Bush told Mr Blair that, if going into Iraq was too difficult, he would understand if the UK did not get involved, the inquiry hears. It was a "tough situation", Mr Blair adds.

So tough that he still went ahead and supported his little buddy.

1413 Mr Blair says he "genuinely hoped" the UN path would work.

If that was the case, why didn’t he try harder to get the agreement?

1416 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair confirms that George Bush was willing to go it alone in Iraq if it was "too difficult" for Britain but the former PM says his judgement - a word he's used often - was that the alliance with America was important and he had been down a UN path that he had hoped would work and had done everything he could to avoid this "tough choice" - and that the military agreed "if we were going to be part of this we should be whole hearted".

Yeah, but he didn’t, and the war went ahead regardless of what anyone said.

1416 The aftermath of the invasion was "the most difficult part", Mr Blair says, adding that to have kept out of this would have been wrong.

No, wrong was going into Iraq in the first place without the UN mandate.

1420 Sir Roderic Lyne moves on to the issue of the legality of the war, which has been such a focus of previous hearings this week. He is summarising what was said previously, allowing Mr Blair to interject if he disagrees at any point.

1425 Mr Blair says he is happy with the summary of legal issues so far. So Sir Roderic continues with his narrative of the way the debate over legality of the war went in the run-up to war.

1423 Sir Roderic Lyne says there was "consistent and united advice" from Foreign Office lawyers that fresh UN authorisation would have been needed to make the use of force against Iraq lawful. However, resolution 1441, which was passed by the UN, was not "crystal clear". Up until February 2003 the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, said that a further decision by the Security Council was required, he adds.

1428 Sir Roderic Lyne says that Lord Goldsmith said later that Resolution 1441 was compatible "in principle" with authorising force, but, if the matter came before a court, he was not confident this would work. He had, "to a degree", parted opinion with the Foreign Office lawyers, he adds. Lord Goldsmith was asked for a "yes or no" decision. By 13 March, he had decided that "on balance" there was a lawful basis for use of force without having to go beyond Resolution 1441. But this required a determination that Iraq was "in further material breach" of its obligations. Lord Goldsmith said he had asked Mr Blair to say this and Mr Blair had done so. This gave the "green light" for action, Sir Roderic says

1434 Mr Blair says Sir Roderic's was a "fair summary of the legal background". He adds that Resolution 1441 declared Saddam was in breach of the UN's demands.

In other words, he can’t argue with the facts. Makes a nice change…

1436 Mr Blair says he was given a Foreign Office paper on 8 March 2002 setting out legal terms for action against Iraq. Military action had been taken against Saddam in 1993 and 1998, he adds. The legal advice made it important to go down the UN route, Mr Blair tells the inquiry. The government was a "long way" from a decision, so the attorney general was not brought in at that point.

Doesn’t alter the fact that he didn’t ask for advice on the legality of the war…

1436 Sir Roderic Lyne says it seems the attorney general rarely discussed the issue of Iraq with Mr Blair, particularly in 2002. Mr Blair says Lord Goldsmith had been "closely involved" but did not attend cabinet until the decision was to be taken. That was the usual practice, he said. However, he added that Lord Goldsmith was giving his advice to the prime minister and ministers, Mr Blair says.

Even if advice was given, it was ignored, or more to the point, bent to make it fit with the desired purpose.

1438 Once discussions about action in Iraq began with the Americans, Mr Blair says he was sure by March 2002 that it was important to go via the UN route.

If that was the case, why wasn’t everything done to gain this resolution?

1441 Resolution 1441 was adopted by the UN in November 2002. By early 2003 the armed forces had been instructed to prepare for action, Sir Roderic Lyne says. He asks whether it would have been useful to have the attorney general's advice. Mr Blair says if Lord Goldsmith had said action against Iraq was unlawful, it would not have happened. Mr Blair says the government knew its options. It had not received formal advice, but Lord Goldsmith had made clear his opinion.

And that opinion was ignored, along with the advice, as it didn’t give the answer that was wanted.

1444 Mr Blair says he was "well aware" that Lord Goldsmith was saying that a second UN resolution was needed. Saddam made a "material breach" of the existing Resolution 1441, he added. There was "at least as powerful an argument" in favour of just one, rather than two, resolutions, he adds.

But that didn’t stop the planning for the invasion, even though it would have been illegal under international law.

1447 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair confirms military preparations were under way even before the 'first' UN resolution -1441- was passed but makes it clear ultimately no action would have taken without legal cover for it

Typical of Blair – he just wanted to go along with what Shrub wanted.

1449 The "spirit" of Resolution 1441 was that Saddam would get one final chance, Mr Blair says. Otherwise "that's it", he adds. A further resolution would have been politically preferable, Mr Blair says.

Never mind politically preferable – it would have been better for everyone if this second resolution had been obtained. That way, a cohesive plan for the aftermath would have been in place.

1450 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair sidesteps the question of what he said if anything to the Attorney General between 7th and 13th March 2003 when the Attorney General's advice "'evolved"' - in other words when Lord Goldsmith ditched caveats and gave the green light for military action.

Bit close to the truth? Maybe he realised just what he was getting into at long last – but I doubt it.

1452 Sir Roderic Lyne suggests it was a "considerable relief" when Lord Goldsmith offered different advice, on 13 March 2003. Mr Blair says he did so because of the Hans Blix evidence suggesting Saddam had not complied with Resolution 1441. But Sir Roderic says this was contrary to many international lawyers' opinions. Mr Blair says all countries which took military action believed they had a legal reason for doing so.

Crap. It just meant that the Attorney General caved in to political pressure, and started toeing the line that Blair and Shrub wanted him to.

1456 Sir Roderic Lyne asks Mr Blair how convinced he was that the UK had a strong legal case after Lord Goldsmith's advice. Mr Blair says Lord Goldsmith would not have reached his opinion "unless he believed it". The attorney general had not said he would not have won a court case with such a point, merely that it was arguable either way, Mr Blair says. On this advice, the former PM says he decided "to go forward".

No – it means that Lord Goldsmith lost his backbone, and gave the answers that Blair and co wanted to hear – not what was needed.

1500 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Asked if he felt there was a strong legal case for war, Tony Blair said the Attorney General had to come to a decision which in the end, he did. Throughout this session Tony Blair been keen to stress Lord Goldsmith’s "top rank" experience as a lawyer, his integrity and his desire to give advice whether required or not - in other words, he has sought distance himself from suggestions that he or his officials could have leant on the attorney general to water down legal objections to war. But the question of what Tony Blair said to Lord Goldsmith in the crucial week of 7-13 March wasn't hotly pursued.

Rubbish. Lord Goldsmith was leaned on by his “political masters” and just bleated out whatever they wanted to hear – in this case, that there was no requirement for the UN resolution.

1504 The defence spending review of 1997 stated that the military should be given sufficient time for planning actions, panel member Baroness Prashar says. Mr Blair says that on Iraq, for a time, the government was worried about making planning too visible and "triggering an assumption" of invasion. He repeats that, in October 2002, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said: "We really need to get on with this." Army chief General Sir Mike Jackson had been clear that the forces would be ready, Mr Blair says.

The military would have been ready, regardless of what Geoff Hoon said – that’s their job.

1508 There was visible preparation later, but in mid-2002 there was a concern that people did not start to think an invasion was inevitable, Mr Blair says. And "it really wasn't", he adds

Funny – he’s pretty much admitted to being committed to the invasion, so how can he say that the invasion wasn’t inevitable?

1510 After a very brief set of questions on military preparation, Mr Blair is asked about planning for the war's aftermath. There was an "immense amount" of this, he tells the panel. The "real problem" was that some wrong eventualities were prepared for. The focus was on humanitarian outcomes, which averted a disaster. But the oil fields were not burned and chemical and biological weapons not used.

The Iraqis burnt the Kuwaiti oil fields during their retreat in 1990, but Saddam wasn’t daft enough to damage something that he could use to get money into the country… Humanitarian concerns? What about the ordinary people who suffered after the invasion, as the insurgency took hold, and they were being killed along with our service personnel?

1511 One of the planning assumptions, Mr Blair says, was that there would be a functioning Iraqi civil service below the top level. But dealing with a "semi-fascist state" like Iraq makes that assumption wrong, he adds. It was necessary to rebuild the civil infrastructure from nothing, as it was a "completely broken system".

True – if you weren’t a member of the Baath party, then you weren’t allowed to be part of the government. But the trouble was, not everyone was a committed party member…

1513 The risks and resources required were weighed up and the UK "could not walk away from the people of Iraq" after the war, Mr Blair says. Bu the UK would have done some things differently in hindsight, he adds.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but until someone invents a time machine, you’re screwed.

1516 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: There's been a lot of debate about whether troops were properly equipped for action and whether enough planning had been done - and whether Gordon Brown as chancellor was properly resourcing the troops. Tony Blair attempts to take the political sting out of this early on by saying that it was up to the military to judge if they were prepared and that he as PM "never refused a request for money and equipment".

That may be the case, but what about the required investment in decent kit, and making sure that there was enough for everyone?

1522 Mr Blair again says the UK did not plan for the absence of a functioning Iraqi civil service. He adds that "people did not think al-Qaeda and Iran would play the role that they did". The latter influences nearly caused the mission to fail, Mr Blair says. These are the same forces confronted as in Afghanistan, he adds.

What a surprise – there was no plan for the absence of a functioning civil service, That was apparent from the outset – all these plans for fighting, but nothing to help with the aftermath.

1524 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair is very reluctant to admit to mistakes in planning for the aftermath. The key mistake for him was to assume there would still be a functioning Iraqi civil service after the invasion but said that another potential problem - sectarian violence - was tackled swiftly when Shia, Sunnis and Kurds were quickly brought together. The subsequent problems are blamed on the influence of Iran – a pretty constant bête noire for Tony Blair today - and al-Qaeda.

What a surprise – Blair doesn’t like admitting he was wrong. Guess that comes with the territory of being a politician...

1527 Mr Blair says states like Iraq under Saddam are repressive and secretive. The question for other countries is whether it is necessary and possible to engage in such places, he adds. Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcott calls another break, with questioning expected to recommence at about 1550 GMT.

Ok – Iraq wasn’t the most open place, but I still don’t see the reason why we needed to invade Iraq.

1546 Mr Blair says the plan was that the aftermath would not require as many troops as the conflict itself. The issue in southern Iraq was not the number of troops, but how reconstruction could get going while, fairly early on, there were groups opposed to this.

Whoops – someone didn’t do their homework… The Shia sect of Islam is predominant in Iraq – and it was only Saddam's iron fist that kept a lid on things…

1549 Saddam was toppled very quickly but the allies found the situation was different to that which had been expected, Mr Blair says. Another assumption, that Iran would not be provocative, also started to change, with its backing for the Mehdi Army of Moqtada al Sadr, he adds.

Like Iran wouldn’t miss the chance to stir things up. Technically, the Iran-Iraq war was only ever on a cease-fire – no peace treaty / agreement was ever signed.

1553 On funding for aid and redevelopment, Mr Blair says extra money was agreed with the Treasury in March 2003. Iraq was the "key country" for the Department for International Development in 2003-04, he adds. The problem, which became clearer, "was not a lack of resources, but a lack of security".

Which anyone with an ounce of common sense could have seen happening, as Iraq is such a mix of cultures. It was only Saddam’s ruthless control that kept a lid on things.

1556 There was "much discussion" of the Shia-Sunni issue, Mr Blair says. But people did not believe al-Qaeda and Iran would have a destabilising influence. The Iraqi people were not in favour of violence or sectarianism, he says.

No, because it wasn’t in their interest. But a tiny (but well armed) minority had other ideas, and decided to stir things up, to cause trouble for the US and the UK.

1558 The UK tried to "reach out" to Iran, but one of the "most disappointing" aspects of the mission was that the country became a major destabilising influence in Iraq, Mr Blair adds.

Iran wouldn’t spit on either Shrub or Blair if they were on fire – they’d be more likely to pour crude oil on them to help the fire, so appealing to them wasn’t really a smart move…

1600 The government asked for an assessment on Iran's likely attitude for an invasion of Iraq, Mr Blair says. The evidence was it would have a "watching brief" and "be pleased" to get rid of Saddam.

Wouldn’t you be pleased to get rid of someone who did so much damage to your military in an eight year war?

1602 Returning to his "twenty ten" point, Tony Blair says that if Saddam had been left in power he has "little doubt" that Iraq would now be "competing" with Iran on nuclear weapons and in support of terrorist groups.

Open to debate again – Saddam would have only supported the terrorist groups if it had suited his agenda.

1604 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair launches another verbal attack on Iran - this time, for deliberately trying to destabilise post-war Iraq but Sir Roderic Lyne, the most dogged of Mr Blair's inquisitors, wonders why this wasn't anticipated. Tony Blair says the advice - presumably the intelligence - suggested that Iran would be glad to see the back of Saddam and would be "amenable" to the new Iraq

Anyone could have foreseen this happening – Iran for years has wanted to challenge the Sunni rule in the Middle East, and Saddam was an impediment to this happening. It’s highly unlikely that Iran wouldn’t have taken the opportunity to make sure that it was a Shia led government that came into power in post-Saddam Iraq.

1609 On the disbanding of the Iraqi army by the US, Mr Blair says he is "not sure" about the policy. It would have been "sensible" for the Americans to have a discussion about it.

It looks like the US have a lot to answer for in some respects – as their forward planning seems non-existent.

1612 Panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman says WMDs were not found and this was the "headline for most people". He asks when Mr Blair thought this was likely to be the case. During 2004 it became "difficult to sustain" the possibility WMDs might turn up, he answers.

There was never any chance of turning up the WMDs, as there was no political will, from either the US or the UK to assist with the inspections, and put pressure on Saddam to facilitate the inspections.

1614 The force required to remove a regime is "one function", but there will have to be nation-building afterwards, Mr Blair says. This may require more or different types of forces, he adds.

Regime change. That was the ultimate end, but no-one seemed to give any thought to the reconstruction side of things…

1616 Mr Blair says the "very purpose" of the people the UK ended up fighting in Iraq was to stop reconstruction. In such circumstances "you don't move to peace-keeping" straightaway, because "your enemy is trying to kill you".

True – but it was because the people who were part of the insurgency thought that the US and UK had invaded their country. Technically, we had done so.

1622 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair says the problem wasn't the pace of reconstruction in post-war Iraq but security - although he also implicitly admits that more attention would have to be paid to "nation building" if a similar situation were to exist in future.

Hindsight again.

1625 It was bound to take a "certain amount of time" to win the battle of creating stability in Iraq, Mr Blair says.

Yeah – talking to the people first might have helped – they might not have felt so angry about the invasion once the euphoria of getting rid of Saddam and his murderous regime faded.

1631 On the deaths of Iraqi civilians since the war, Mr Blair says the coalition forces were not the ones doing the killing. It was terrorists and sectarians, "deliberately" trying to end the stabilisation process. These were "precisely the same people we were trying to fight everywhere". People in southern Iraq are now better off than under Saddam and have hope of a better future, Mr Blair says. Panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman says that claim is up for debate.

Agreed – the coalition personnel were not doing the killing – but if they hadn’t been there, then the bombs wouldn’t have been going off near their bases.

1632 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: The inquiry takes a more emotive turn with Sir Lawrence pointing to the growing civilian death toll after the invasion. Tony Blair passionately argues that this is the fault of the terrorists. But the inquiry are interested in whether coalition troops could do more to protect people and opponents of the war would blame the invasion for unleashing the violence.

Whatever the pros and cons of this argument, there is only so much that the military can do to protect the civilian population, as they were limited by both numvers and equipment. It’s a case of chicken and egg – without the troops, there would have been little violence and Saddam still in power, but with them, Saddam was removed but the violence kicked off.

1635 Mr Blair says there was not a "cavalier" attitude to planning for the aftermath of the war. But, however much you plan and whatever forces you have, al-Qaeda and Iran would have made the task difficult. This was no reason to "back away", Mr Blair says. Nobody would want to go back to the days of no hope, opportunity or freedom, he adds.

That’s a bit of a joke, the whole aftermath planning smacks of a cavalier attitude – as in “things will sort themselves out”

1641 Mr Blair says the "key players" in the UK government were in close contact as planning for the war developed.

In close contact? What with? A brick wall?

1643 The cabinet had 25 pre-invasion discussions, Mr Blair says. There was a "constant interaction", he adds. Members of the cabinet did not feel they were not involved, even Robin Cook, who eventually resigned over the war, Mr Blair says.

Robin Cook was the only member of the government who had the courage of his convictions, and resigned as a matter of principal, as he opposed the invasion.

1651 The cabinet was focused on political issues at the time of making decisions on whether to go to war, Mr Blair says. Even Robin Cook, who quit over the war, said it was necessary to get a second UN resolution for such reasons, he adds

So why didn’t he listen? Or was he too taken with the idea of regime change, as proposed by his buddy, Shrub?

1653 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair is keen to rebut the allegation that he led entirely from the front on invading Iraq and that though his colleagues may have been behind him, they were a long way behind. He says there were 25 discussions on Iraq at cabinet meetings - and that most of the cabinet agreed with him, but could challenge if they wish (and as the late Robin Cook did) - and there was an "immense amount" going on in Clare Short's International Development Department; implicitly he's saying she shares responsibility for decisions though she resigned after the conflict. It had been suggested that Tony Blair had kept some senior colleagues out of the loop on key decisions. He suggests Clare Short was involved in post war planning discussions well before the war itself began.

Talk about trying to wriggle out of the blame. By blaming Clare Short, it takes the heat off of him, and makes him look slightly less culpable.

1655 There could have been a major legal debate about military action in Kosovo in the late 1990s but there was not, because it was not such a politically divisive issue as Iraq, Mr Blair says.


Kosovo, unlike Iraq, had UN sanctioning, so there is no comparison between the two.

1656 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair ends the questioning on post-war planning with his customary defiant and robust tone - he seems more assured here than on the dense questioning on the legality of the conflict earlier. He says there was no "cavalier" attitude taken to planning the aftermath of war and that - as with Afghanistan - you have to be prepared for the long haul

Strange – that doesn’t seem apparent at the moment – the lack of planning is criminal.

1703 Inquiry chairman Sir John Chico says the "liberators" of Iraq soon came to be resented. He asks whether the people of Iraq thought the invasion and subsequent efforts worthwhile. Mr Blair says it is "too early" to say whether Iraqi democracy will function effectively and take root, although there are "hopeful signs". Income per head has risen, money is being spent on infrastructure, he adds. It was a "very, very difficult fight" and that the UK will be better prepared and educated if it takes part in future nation-building exercises

We shouldn’t have been in this position in the first place! The coalition was resented the minute the euphoria of Saddam’s overthrow wore off, and the bombs started exploding in the market places, killing not only the troops, but civilians as well.

1705 Mr Blair says child mortality has fallen in Iraq because of the change of regime - 50,000 fewer young children dying each year he says. The majority of Iraqis would overwhelmingly say the situation is preferable to that under Saddam, he adds.

True – there is no more state sanctioned murder to remove rivals to power. But equally, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the coalition out of their country.

1708 Mr Blair is asked about the anger felt towards him over the Iraq war, and whether he has regrets. He replies that he had to take the decision for war and there is "not a single day" when he does not think about it. He adds that, had he left Saddam in power, the circumstances for dealing with him would be worse. Mr Blair says he is "sorry" the war was divisive, but the UK's security is better without Saddam and his sons in power. He feels responsibility but not regret for removing Saddam Hussein. As the session comes to an end he says he believes "the world is safer as a result" of the Iraq war.

The UK’s security has improved without Saddam? What planet is he on? It’s worse since he helped Shrub remove Saddam, and things won’t improve until we get out of Iraq.

*****************************

All this enquiry has done so far, is proven that Blair is a liar, who was more intent of posing and trying to impress his little friend Shrub. At the end of this, I can’t see any answers worth their paper being produced. If I’m wrong, then I will cheerfully post a retraction of this particular comment on my blog, but I doubt I’ll have to do that.

Guess I should log off and head for home – it is a Friday night after all…

Back when I get the chance.

Karen