Hamas decree Alan Johnston to be released

I do not usually comment on the Levant because I grew up there and have some strong but in my view well informed views, but I notice that comenting in the area tends to attract some loonies.

I did predict in the very early stages that Hezboulah would "win" in the Lebanon in the sense of achieving their primary objectives (In warfare you do have to understand that victories come in all sorts of shapes and forms) but with no enthusiasm. That said if I thought Israel was going to win, I would have predicted it with the same level of enthusiasm.

It appears that Hamas have "won" a military victory in Gaza. That surprised me, and I have to say I wonder where their new equipment came from. I don't think they will fair quite so well in the west bank, and very much hope I am right.

However we move on to the kidnapping of Alan Johnston.

I grew up in Beirut. (I was 2 months old when my family moved there). I was 5 or 6 when the civil war started and 8 when we left. I can tell you now that I never felt in an personal danger. Neither did my family, in the sense of "being a target". Rather obviously any of us could have been caught in crossfire or by a stray shell or Israeli bomb. The risks were there, but NO ONE wanted to harm US as European and indeed British citizens (the same applied to Americans) deliberately.

Broadly speaking the same ethic applies in the West Bank and Gaza strip though it also extends to Israeli citizens on human rights missions. The Palestinians want people there reporting what is going on, and what is more the day is brighter with a foreigner. I know this myself from personal experience as my family were invited to Southern Lebanon before the civil war kicked off to visit the Shia farmers of the south and the Palestinian refugee camps.

They want their story out there and they want the human rights activists there to protect them when they go about their daily business by just being there.

This all begs the question of who kidnapped Alan Johnston and why?

Well it seems to be a marginalised clan, but one with enough guns to make a mess, and a very real one, should someone try to face them down. They are not as far as I can work out all that politically affiliated in the way most of the clans are. nevertheless they still hold Alan, and it has been obvious since before say one to any party (including both Hamas and Fatah) that kidnapping Alan was a very bad move.

Fatah and Hamas know which clan have Alan, as do the Israelis. They don't know where with sufficient certainty otherwise he would have been freed by now.

Well Hamas has effectively decreed he should be released. What they are saying if that in Gaza, they have whipped all of Fatah's clans, and unless you free Alan, and we know who you are, you are next.

Hamas, like Hezboulah can play politics to their audience very well. This will go down well on the street.

I hope Alan is freed, and last month would not be quick enough for me, but I do fear for the future of the region where I grew up.

The BBC has this.

Immigration, has government finally notices that there may be a problem?

It seems the government has set up a "commission" called the "Commission on Integration and Cohesion" to look into, well community cohesion and seems to have noticed that the number of migrants coming to a particular area may cause problems.

How nice of them to notice the exceedingly predictable.

If you have 10 people turn up somewhere in a town of 10,000 no one is really going to notice, or care. If you have 100, the same, but if you have new arrivals in the thousands it does cause problems, like housing shortages, strain on public service and a feeling that a community is being taken over. All of these lead to tensions.

The issue with immigration is not that it happens, it is how many and how quickly. This government has presided over record net immigration, and it is causing, or contributing to problems.

The BBC has this.

Peak Oil in 4 years? Time to panic!

That well known political pamphlet that on the surface bears some resemblance to a real newspaper, and arguably the only newspaper published in this country, the Libdemograph (Formerly known as the Independent when it reported news and was independent, and indeed I used to buy it) reports that we are a short way of the doom and gloom of peak oil which will lead to much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Well, here is my take. Peak oil theory is rubbish, for one plain and simple reason. As demand surges, or supply seems restricted, the price rises and so more oil is available as it is more economic to extract.

There will be no recession like the 1970's after the Yom Kippur war that led the OPEC price rise of stunning proportions in such a short time.

Prices will rise, as they do other production methods will become viable and the price will stabilise. What will not happen is a jump from $9 a barrel to $40 a barrel in the space of a few days leading to recession.

What is more interesting is that at some point soon, it will be cheaper to grow oil than the drill for it. At that point the question will be where can I get land to grow oil for next to nothing. Then will follow the question how do I get fresh water to this hot and arid destination, when someone will work out that the solution is in the problem.

Guardian reports DOJ to pursue Al Yamamah corruption scandal

According to this article in the Guardian their sources in Washington agree with Newsnight sources I reported on the 13th of March that the United States Department of Justice will conduct a criminal investigation into the Al Yamamah arms deal.

Interesting stuff, here is my original article. As I said then, this could be fun!

Tax Credits, The Telegraph catches up with this blog!

Alas, no one else seems that bothered.

On the 27th of May I wrote this article after watching Frank Field MP for Birkenhead on Straight talk with Andrew Neil.

I said:

A single parent with two children working 16 hours per week will get about £480 per week, after tax credits. A married couple with two children (he didn't say it but I presume both are on the minimum wage) would have to work 116 hours to get the same money. He is not surprised at how many single parents there are, but how many married ones there are.

Today the Telegraph says:

The figures are stark and astonishing: because of the huge bias in favour of single parenthood that prevails in the tax credit system, a single mother with two children under the age of 11 who works 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, receives, largely thanks to tax credits, an income of £487.

A two-parent family, on the other hand, also with two children under 11, in which either one or both partners works for the minimum wage, would have to put in a total of 116 hours a week to take home the same income.

So there you have it. This government has built a system either by accident or design that hates families yet the same cretinous bunch of halfwits shout us down if we try and redress the balance.

The big question is though, why are other news outlets not covering this?

At this time the full report by Frank Field is not yet available online, but I will post a link when I locate it.

Update 11:24

Frank Field's website now carries this press release with this link to a report on the Reform website.

Falkland Islands Liberated 25 years ago today!

25 years ago today, at the turn of the midnight hour, Major General Jeremy Moore accepted the surrender of the Argentine forces occupying the Falkland Islands.

Hostilities continued for a further 6 days until the South Sandwich Islands were recaptured as well.

255 British servicemen died, as well as 3 civilians. Also, 649 Argentine servicemen died. (Incidentally more servicemen from both sides have committed suicide since)

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

Baroness Margaret Thatcher made a speech today to be broadcast to our troops on active service in which she said that fortune favours the brave. It does. You can read the full text on Iain Dale's diary here.

What was good about the Falklands war was that it liberated Argentina as well!

The Weasel's FOI bill looks like it is going to die a slow death!

Well, it seems David MacLean's Freedom of information exemption bill is withering and dying because it is about as popular as a rattlesnake in a lucky dip as far as the House of Lords is concerned!

Who said the House of Lords needed reform!

Iain Dale did point out that this would happen yesterday here. It is definitely good news.

Tony Blair whinges about Alistair Campbell's Frankenstein

I have to say I chuckled when I heard Tony Blair witter on about how the media is destroying our politics and institutions and so on and so forth.

The fact is the man and his machine span against John Major and his government with no regard for the truth, against Dr David Kelly (may he rest in peace) again with no regard for either the truth or common decency.

So whilst I agree with what he said, and heaven truly rejoices when a sinner repenteth, the problem is he has not repented, or at least not enough. He has not said sorry to either John Major or Dr David Kelly's family.

The man is hoist by his own petard and a jolly good job too. Cheats should never prosper, nor liers and charlatans.

The one bit I did think was fair was his criticism of the Libdemograph.

Once upon a time there was a newspaper that had news, and it was broad, good and accurate. Then it had a little comment. It has been perverted beyond all wildest recognition is is now nothing but a daily political pamphlet. It used to be The Independent and is now the Libdemograph.

The Independent has this, and this, and then this and this, however it does have the speech in full, (do you think it riled them?) the Times has this and the BBC has this.

Alistair Campbell's full edited take is available at all bad booksellers.

And as if by magic, the Physics teacher appeared!

Earlier I wrote about the Civitas report into the dumbing down of education including the sciences. Well thanks to Dizzy Thinks, here is an open letter from a physics teacher to the "AQA" Board which sets the curriculum. The teacher, Wellington Grey has his blog here.

The letter starts:

I am a physics teacher. Or, at least I used to be. My subject is still called physics. My pupils will sit an exam and earn a GCSE in physics, but that exam doesn’t cover anything I recognize as physics.

Depressingly the letter continues with some examples of which this is one:

On topics that are covered by the specification, the exam board has answers that indicate a lack of knowledge on the writer’s part. One question asks `why would radio stations broadcast digital signals rather than analogue signals?’ An acceptable answer is:

* Can be processed by computer / ipod [sic]

Aside from the stupidity of the answer, (iPods, at the time of this writing, don’t have radio tuners and computers can process analogue signals) writing the mark scheme in this way is thoughtless, as teachers can only give marks that exactly match its language. So does the pupil get the mark if they mention any other mp3 player? Technically, no. Wikipedia currently lists 63 different players. Is it safe to assume that the examiner will be familiar with all of them? Doubtful.

And here is another:

Lastly, I present the final question on the January physics exam in its entirety:

Electricity can also be generated using renewable energy sources. Look at this information from a newspaper report.

• The energy from burning bio-fuels, such as woodchip and straw, can be used to generate electricity.
• Plants for bio-fuels use up carbon dioxide as they grow.
• Farmers get grants to grow plants for bio-fuels.
• Electricity generated from bio-fuels can be sold at a higher price than electricity generated from burning fossil fuels.
• Growing plants for bio-fuels offers new opportunities for rural communities.

Suggest why, apart from the declining reserves of fossil fuels, power companies should use more bio-fuels and less fossil fuels to generate electricity.

The only marks that a pupil can get are for saying:

• Overall add no carbon dioxide to the environment
• Power companies make more profit
• Opportunity to grew new type of crop (growing plants in swamps)
• More Jobs

None of this material is in the specification, nor can a pupil reliably deduce the answers from the given information. Physics isn’t a pedestrian subject about power companies and increasing their profits, or jobs in a rural community, it’s is about far grander and broader ideas.

This simply is not physics, nor is it science. What is more the people "responsible" (though irresponsible would be a better description) The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (or rather the lack of any real assessment and no qualifications alliance) seem to think this load of drivel will "provide work related learning" for pupils.

Are they serious? Do they really think that employers want people who know nothing about a subject like renewable energy to sit around all day discussing what a journalist who also knows nothing about renewable energy has to say about it? You just couldn't make this up.

Daniel Finkelstein has this.

Update, Wellington also has another blog here, and you can read the comments on his article here.

Is Education being Politicised?

Yesterday the Telegraph ran a story on a think tank document by Civitas, (the Institute for the Study of Civil Society) entitled "Corruption of the Curriculum" or "School curriculum corrupted by politics". You can read Civitas's full press release here, though the full report will cost you £12. (These think tanks need to get with the Internet age, and publish it online for free!)

It has to be said the press release makes interesting reading, but then so did the BBC's rebuttal piece (surely that should be the Labour parties, or governments?) on Radio 4's Today program.

They wheeled on someone who used to be a number 10 advisor but now teaches history who went on about how he still taught dates, and history in chronological order. To some extent this rings true, because I went to my sons new secondary school last year (he will be there from September) and one of the subject areas I noted was history and how different years covered different date ranges in history so that all seems chronological. Obviously it is no good just teaching events, dear boy with out some background on why they may be significant.

It has to be clear that it is not clear when the curriculum of which Civitas complain is being brought in. (Some research needed, as I ain't paying £12, normally think tanks invite me for drinks and nibbles to discuss their ideas, he hinted!)

The press release makes even grimmer reading when it comes to science which is to be amalgamated into one subject. Again according to the press release they want to get pupils to discuss things like GM crops, and abortion, it seems from an ethical point of view. The ethics of science is an interesting an indeed important subject, but it is a philosophical subject rather than a purely scientific one, and tends to be something taught at universities as part of degrees in science rather than as a replacement to it.

As a physicist, and possibly a chemist I strongly object. Firstly science is about many things but it has to be about scientific method, that is looking at observations, coming up with a hypothesis and then testing them by experiment. It's fun as well! Then there is learning how theories fit together. One of the most fascinating facts I learnt at A level (from a Dr of Chemistry who could not write! Well, with a pen, I always made a point of asking what his illegible notes in the margin said which usually was about being tidy and clear in writing!) was how the man who came up with the periodic table, or at least a version of it, John Newlands noticed a musical octave spaced quality to it. In fact there is a reason for this, and it boils down to quantum mechanics, but I won't bore you with the details, but the next time you listen to a really good piece of music it's the maths in it that makes it sound good.

It has to be said that maths, physics and chemistry became more understandable together, and set in some useful context such as the things and machines we see about us when I was at school.

If we want to build a knowledge based economy, it is not peoples ability to debate the ethics of abortion or global warming that will count. It is the ability to produce technology to produce clean energy and the like that will, and you don't get the knowledge to do that from discussing the ethics.

The Telegraph also has this attack on what is being put in our curriculum by politicians. It does not make good reading.

Children must have more accidents, Official!

We have heard much of how we are wrapping our children up in cotton wool far too much, in fact I wrote about the subject here. However I bring you news that ROSPA, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents thinks that children should have more accidents!

Their press release reads:

"RoSPA believes that children can learn valuable life-long lessons, particularly about risks and how to deal with them, from playing in the natural environment, and that parents have to accept that their children may get injured. Bumps, bruises and grazes are not serious injuries and are part of growing up."

So there you have it.

So why do we wrap our children up in cotton wool? There are two reasons, one is an unreasonable fear of risk, and the second perhaps is fear of the baby snatchers.

Where is the honour in killing?

We hear of "honour killings" but where is their honour?

The BBC has this.

Law Commission to recommend Cohabiting Couples get the same rights as Married ones

The Law Commission has been sticking its nose where it does not belong in this area for some time.

The issue is that people think that if you live together for 3 months, 6, 12, 2 years or so many full moons you have the rights of a married couple.

You don't.

In fact you have no rights at all. The only place where complications arise is where property is in the names of more than one person, as either tenants in common or joint tenants.

In the former case the proportion owned by each party is a complex balance of who put in what whilst in the latter an equal split is assumed, regardless of the number of joint tenants.

In principle the fact that an intimate makes no legal difference to a case. So it does not matter if you share a bed or not, but rather obviously it does make a bit of an evidential difference.

According to this report in the Times, the Law commission proposes giving unmarried couples the same rights, dropping requirements for a time limit, but adding ones for financial disadvantage.

However the article at almost its last gasp says this:

"Research shows that few people are aware of their lack of rights and many wrongly believe that cohabitation makes them “common law” spouses with rights similar to those of married couples."

That is certainly true, but that only applies to some unmarried couples not all, so the ignorance of the many is being used as an excuse to change the relationship of the rest without dealing with the real problem which is that most people have got it wrong.

It only takes an afternoon to get married in a registry office and it need not cost a lot of money. The issue is that people don't know, and even if they did they would not always want to get married. Getting married carries obligations as well as rights. These proposals seem to confer rights where they did not exist before without adding the rights.

The rules the Law Commission want to bring in appear to be applied to same sex couples as well. What I found interesting is the hostility to these new rules from the gay community who fought for and got the right to have same sex relationships recognised in law who object to the changes because they can see that if you want those rights, you can go and sign up for them today with no change in the law.

All this happens against the backdrop of London becoming the divorce capital of the world. Ellee Seymour has this excellent article highlighting why.

Bush gets warm reception in Albania

Yes, they set light to him..

No, they didn't! George W Bush is genuinely popular in Albania, formerly a reclusive communist state and almost entirely Muslim.

Just don't tell the radical Muslims, they will be upset. In their world view the west is always bad to Muslims, which is of course far from the case as our (as in NATO, America and Europe) interventions in the Balkans shows.

The BBC has this.

Tony Blair apologises to David Cameron over Gordon Brown's behaviour!

It seems that most of the ideas (apart from the change to detention without charge) that Gordon Brown came up with when he made his great pronouncement to the Sundays last week were in fact ideas given to this government on Privy council terms and those sort of discussions are secret.

Brown should no have leaked them, or claimed them as his own! That said Gordon Brown does seem to be claiming he came up with these ideas all on his own.

Oh dear.

The Observer has this. The funniest line in the article is the last one though:

"There will also be questions about whether Cameron's cordial relations with No 10 will be maintained once Brown takes over."

Do you really think so?

Hat tip to Alex on politicalbetting.com for the article link which also has this.

So what job will Jack Straw get?

Speculation has been rife about what ministerial job Jack Straw would get since he became Gordon Brown's "campaign manager" and essentially saw Gordon returned unopposed for the post of PM.

Over on politicalbetting.com the job of Home Secretary had been excluded because of it's poisoned chalice qualities whilst the Foreign office has also been excluded on the grounds that Jack may have annoyed the Americans over Iran. That would seem to leave the Treasury and in particular making Jack Straw Chancellor.

However today's News of the World reports an alleged exclusive that Jack will be in the Home Office whilst Alistair Darling will be Chancellor.

Hmm.. I wonder if that is just speculation?

The article does not appear to be online and the News of the World website is not very good.

Al-Yamamah arms deal blowing up in Tony Blair's face!

I have been watching the latest developments with some interest.

The Al-Yamamah arms deal was signed when Margaret Thatcher was still in power, and things were different then.

It appears that part of the deal was that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia would get "commission" for "negotiating" the contract.

He insists he has done "nothing wrong" and that is of course true as far as it goes. I suspect he has broken no Saudi law, and indeed at the time of the negotiations, no British one either.

The problems are of course twofold. Firstly it is now illegal to make these sorts of payments in the UK (though they have been made in the USA, hence the Department of Justice investigation) and secondly no matter what the state of the law is, these sorts of payments are politically unacceptable both here, in the USA and in Saudi Arabia.

It therefore comes as no surprise to me to hear that the Sunday Times now reports that Prince Bandar personally lobbied Tony Blair to get the Serious Fraud Office investigation dropped.

The case goes from bad to worse. Firstly we passed a law, which we did need at some point to pass, but without due consideration to historic considerations, then we instigated an investigation, which Whitehall must have known was going to expose the way these sorts of deals have been done in the past, and after all that we have had the most botched attempt to get out of the always very obvious implications of all this.

Deals used to be done this way. It is wrong now, and ought to have been wrong then, though it serves no useful purpose to view yesterdays world through today's eyes. Ultimately the French would have done a similar deal if we had not, and the USSR would of course have given them arms for free for influence.

We are where we are, and we are there because this government has no sense of history and no sense of how to move forward with care. When it started to blunder into the Al-Yamamah deal however the die was cast, and it now looks sordid to try and get out of it this way. If they had done this 5 years ago the story would have died. Not so now, Tony Blair has no political capital left to spend and he would have been better off letting the situation run it's course.

Meanwhile the Guardian has this one what Lord Goldsmith may or may not have known.

For more on the Al-Yamamah deal, see here.

The real legacy of two World Wars

A few weeks ago I was watching a drama documentary about the sinking of the Lusitania, and in particular noted that Charles Voegele, Quarter master of the German U Boat U20 would not issue the order to sink her, and also other incidents where he had been unhappy about sinking non fighting vessels. In fact on her mission the U20 only sank merchant vessels. One of his comrades scolded him in an earlier incident pointing out that his family in Hamburg could not get enough to eat because of the naval blockade of the Royal Navy.

In both World wars we tried to strangle each other in terms of both food and supplies. The Germans with U Boats and us with a surface fleet. This has led to what is the real devastating legacy of the wars. The devastation to both African and South American agricultural business that the European Common Agricultural Policy is immense.

Argentina used to be a wealthy country, exporting lots of agricultural produce, but post war, Europe started to feed it self with food produced on subsidised farms. Africa can't progress because it can't compete with American and European dumping.

This is of course all nuts. I am paying tax to keep black people poor. People I have never met, are not my enemies, and to whom I have no ill will. I would rather not pay the tax. We then get taxed even more to provide aid to people who for no particularly well explained reason we keep poor with MY money but make such a bad fist of that, that most of us then have to give yet more money to charity to try and make up for it.

Frankly I would rather not pay the tax to keep Africans poor. I can then spend the money on better things, and not only that, but a rich African is a little more likely to buy goods our country makes than one who can't even feed his own family.

I think it is an affront to tax me to keep someone else poor. It is disgusting, there is no other word for it. I do hope all those farmers across Europe who riot when they think they may lose the CAP can sleep at night. Disgusting small minded b*rstards the lot of them.

So why bring this up now, well there is a person called Erik who keeps raising subjects he thinks I should be discussing, (well Erik, it is my blog, and I will blog about what I feel like) but I was going to write something along these lines. Then Erik drew my attention to this article in the Telegraph about how much more this is going to cost us in the next few years.

In short our payments to the EU are going to double, and the money we get back is going to go down, and whilst a bit of it will go to getting Eastern Europe on its feet which is a good thing (provided the money is well spent) we are still paying to keep Africa poor. Well done Tony, giving away our rebate whilst still screwing Africa and getting us to pay for it!

It is nuts it really is!

Institutional racism in mental health.

Just under three weeks ago (the 22nd of May) I wrote this article about racism in mental health entitled: "Are race campaigners institutionally racist?" and you can guess where I was coming from on that one.

Then I noticed Pickled Politics had picked up on the theme with this, but I have also just noticed this brilliant piece by Courtney Hamilton on his Neo Jacobin's blog. You should read them both.

It is a bit of a shame Courtney does not blog more often, he writes some interesting things.

Felicity Jane Lowde, Rachel North's cyberstalker Nicked!

According to the Oxford Mail police arrested her in an Internet cafe in Brick Lane, whilst someone kept her online and talking.

The Oxford Mail has this reporting it, whilst it has this prior to her arrest. Just read the comments in the second article and note the lack of posts defending her position since last night.

One does have to wonder? Or perhaps not.

She faces up to six months in prison, a £5,000 fine or possibly both. I suspect she could also do with psychiatric evaluation and possibly treatment.

Hat tip to Iain Dale and good news for Rachel North and all Felicity's other victims.

Update, 8th of June, 09:51

I have noticed that the Oxford Mal story has been edited and that the comments have gone missing from the second article. There were 115 of them.


Update 28th of June 2007 17:36

For the latest news on this story and news on the sentence please see here.