The Man from MI5 Gives a Speech

In the Telegraph on the 17the Sept is the text of a speech given to the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals by Jonathan Evans head of MI5 in which he covers what the service sees as the current threats to British Homeland Security.

• The revival of Terrorist Activity in the Province of Northern Island.
  Extract: A persistent rise in terrorist activity and ambition in Northern Ireland over the last three years.
  Perhaps we were giving insufficient weight to the pattern of history over the last hundred years which shows that whenever the main body of Irish republicanism has reached a political accommodation and rejoined constitutional politics, a hardliner rejectionist group would fragment off and continue with the so called "armed struggle".
  
• The Al Qaida and its affiliates and those inspired by its ideology.
  Extract: To sum up the Al Qaida related threat. The country continues to face a real threat from Al Qaida-related terrorism. That threat is diverse in both geography and levels of skill involved but it is persistent and dangerous and trying to control it involves a continual invisible struggle. Counter-terrorist capabilities have improved in recent years but there remains a serious risk of a lethal attack taking place. I see no reason to believe that the position will significantly improve in the immediate future.
  
  
• The espionage threat - Both Traditional and Cyber.
  Extract: Espionage did not start with the Cold War and it did not end with it either. Both traditional and cyber espionage continue to pose a threat to British interests, with the commercial sector very much in the front line along with more traditional diplomatic and defence interests. Using cyberspace, especially the Internet, as a vector for espionage has lowered the barriers to entry and has also made attribution of attacks more difficult, reducing the political risks of spying.
  

I felt one of the most important messages delivered in the speech was contained within the part dealing with the Al Qaida threat:

It is interesting to note in this context that in the last ten years what might be called a "zero tolerance” attitude to terrorist risk in Great Britain has become more widespread. While it has always been the case that the authorities have made every effort to prevent terrorist attacks, it used to be accepted as part of everyday life that sometimes the terrorists would get lucky and there would be an attack. In recent years we appear increasingly to have imported from the American media the assumption that terrorism is 100% preventable and any incident that is not prevented is seen as a culpable government failure. This is a nonsensical way to consider terrorist risk and only plays into the hands of the terrorists themselves. Risk can be managed and reduced but it cannot realistically be abolished and if we delude ourselves that it can we are setting ourselves up for a nasty disappointment.

These extracts and the final quote, I hope will encourage you to read the transcript of the entire speech: Jonathan Evans' terrorism speech

Britain's New Aircraft Carriers

Having read Defence review: 'Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends' an Article by Duncan Redford in the Telegraph, I am going to add my 'totally unqualified to comment' 10 pennyworth!

• A modern well equipped Warship forms a defensive bubble around itself and if the armament includes Cruise Missiles can provide considerable offensive capability, but that offensive capability lacks flexibility.
  A Carrier Group projects Power and provides the ability to give a flexible response to situations. Its very presence in theatre of operations gives pause to potential opponents as it is not just a threat, but an entire range of threat levels and this may give diplomacy the time needed to come to a peaceful resolution.
  Conversely the well equipped Warship will be seen as a single type of threat and possibly harden resolve not to back down.
• A Carrier Group provides a floating sovereign base and is therefore not subject to regional politics and as it is not located within a 'Host Nation' Air Base it is therefore not subject to local insurgency attacks.
• In the MoD Report one of the Threats Identified is to British Overseas Territories. The Falklands War may have happened a long time ago, but without the Carriers it would almost certainly not have been won.
• In the constantly evolving geopolitics, there is an ever increasing need for the ability to project power without necessarily having to use it. A Carrier Group provides a non-nuclear deterrent and an operational flexibility that in many circumstances would not otherwise be available.

Recent Related Posts:
Britain's Future Threats 14th September 2010
Defence of Britain 14th September 2010

External Links:
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - Royal Navy Site

Delegation to make its case for aircraft carrier contract Scotsman 15 Sep 2010

Britain's Future Threats

Following my previous post: Defence of Britain, I read Thomas Harding's article: Strategic Defence and Security Review: four future scenarios and how they might play out in the Telegraph, which mentioned and in turn led me to read the Ministry of Defence Document: The Future Character of Conflict. Neither the Article, nor the Document make comfortable reading.

In the Article Harding look at 4 Possible Scenarios all an increasing number of years away: Iran 2016, 2018 Pakistan, Uganda 2023 and Baltic States 2023. To each of these he gives an opinion as to probability and Britain's readiness to deal with the situation. I do not doubt he has given considerable thought before selecting these possibilities as the ones to be published and he obviously has access to sources unavailable to me, but for the first two Iran and Pakistan, I feel the timeline may be shorter than he proposes.

The MoD Report is actually a much more sober and in many ways sombre text, less about scenarios but types of threat and why they might occur. This is understandable as this is an official document. In summary the report details:
Global trends that indicate increasing instability and growing opportunity for confrontation and conflict.
State failure, extremists, increased competition for resources and the changing global balance of power will dictate why, where and how conflict occurs.
The study concludes that the character of conflict will continue to evolve. Though it is impossible to accurately predict the exact character of the future conflict, in many future operations the armed forces are likely to face a range of simultaneous threats and adversaries in an anarchic and extended operating area.

I am not qualified to comment on the analysis and conclusions of the MOD Report, but as a result of reading it, I do feel that the chances of Britain's Armed Services being involved (whether HMG, or the Public wish it) in further conflicts within the next few years is inevitable. In addition attacks, whether by hacking penetration or direct action against the infrastructure of Computer Network Operations (CNO), or as I think of it Cyber War, will be an increasing factor in conflicts. Now that is a sobering and sombre thought.

Defence of Britain

In recent times I have not specifically covered Defence as regards policy, or politics, in the hope that Richard North would cover these areas in his Defence of the Realm Blog but as Richard is strangely quiet in that Blog (although he does touch on defence in the EU Referendum blog), I thought I would at least bring the following two articles in the Telegraph to your attention:
Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain faces impossible choices in an uncertain world 13th Sep 2010
The Strategic Defence and Security Review is being conducted against a backdrop of bitter arguments between the Services and the threat of cuts of up to 20 per cent, yet it is meant to define Britain’s place in the world and our foreign policy and defence priorities for decades to come, says Professor Michael Clarke.

What is effectively a follow up article: General Sir Richard Dannatt on the Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain is at stake 14th Sep 2010
The Strategic Defence and Security Review puts the Services under the
spotlight. Planners now have the job of predicting what future enemies we
might face; yet 10 years ago, no one foresaw the demands of Afghanistan, says General Sir Richard Dannatt.

Both articles are thought provoking and I recommend they are read in date order. Some will not agree with the conclusions, or perhaps even the tone of these articles, but both are written by those who's knowledge and experience means they are qualified to cover the subject, unlike so many of today's commentators: Professor Michael Clarke is Director of the Royal United Services Institute and General Sir Richard Dannatt was Chief of the General Staff from 2006 to
2009.

The United Kingdom Extradition Review

I welcome the Independent Extradition Review which in particular will put the current US-UK Extradition Treaty of 2003, the European Arrest Warrant and the more general EU Extradition arrangements under the Microscope, but will also cover Extradition Treaties with other Jurisdictions.

Starting off with the US-UK Extradition Treaty, which despite US Assertions that it fair, is probably one the most unbalanced negotiated by Britain in recent times, even the then Home Secretary David Blunkett (merely one of a long line of pretty useless Home Office Ministers) now admits he may have 'given too much to the Americans', NOT just an understatement, but 7 years late and an indication that David Blunkett should never have been Home Secretary (or indeed a Minister of the Crown in any capacity).

The trigger for putting the US-UK Treaty as a major element of the review appears to be the case of Gary McKinnon, who as far as I am concerned is one case where the Treaty has a value
(See: Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty Posted 1st August 2009). But this Blog has been highlighting what I see as the failings of this treaty since 2006. See:

• UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists 13th August 2006.
• The Natwest Three 29th 29th November 2007
• The Murder of Captain Nairac - Two Suspects still Safe in the USA 23rd May 2008
  
• Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty 01st August 2008
• The Extradite Gary McKinnon Saga Continues 28th November 2009

Moving on to the European Arrest Warrant; when this became law, I saw this in general as a good thing and conceptually I still do. But the reality has shown that it is open to being abuse and that it needs urgent reform. Part of the problem is this is an EU Law and therefore allows the Home Secretary, or their equivalent in other EU Countries, no 'wriggle room' to deal with Warrants that fall outside what is compatible with UK Law.

Whilst it is right that European Arrest Warrant is put under the Microscope, it is actually only part of a wider problem and this is the all encompassing EU Human Rights Legislation. Once again a pan-European Bill of Human rights is conceptually a good idea, but it terms and conditions are so aimed at the rights of the individual, they ignore the rights of society and indeed the rights of states to try Defendants according to their laws. See: Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him! This treaty does not need to be reviewed, Britain should withdraw from it immediately and replace it with a properly constructed UK Bill of Human Rights where the rights of the Individual and the rights of Society are balanced (Unfortunately my distrust of British Politicians has reached the point that I doubt they could actually construct such a bill).

The two threads of this post so far came together in the case of the extradition to the US on terror charges of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and three other men, which I covered in this post: How Dare the EU Block Abu Hamza US extradition on the 10th July 2010.

Even just reviewing the US-UK Extradition Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant would require considerable time, regardless of how qualified the Review Team might be. Adding in (quite rightly) other Extradition treaties and Arrangements means that the current Home Secretary's statement that this review will not report for a year is reasonable. But this statement is in itself unsatisfactory, as it doesn't address what needs to be done in the interim. My view is that the United Kingdom should suspend both the US-UK Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant and go further and withdraw Britain's acceptance of the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights until further notice.

With any decent Home Secretary this would actually resolve some issues with the USA as both Gary Mckinnon and Abu Hamza (and his associates) would be extradited anyway. But instead we have the permanently disappointed Theresa May (If only Dr John Reid had felt able to stay as Home Secretary, we would have at least a Home Office fit for purpose even if the current Home Secretary wasn't). Of course with the 'beloved Theresa' in charge nothing will happen!

Mexicana - Two Steps back and Teetering

In my last post on Mexicana: Bringing Mexicana Back from the Brink - Step 1
ended with: but the future looks brighter than it did when I posted Will Mexicana Survive? on the 5th August.

Unfortunately the brightness I saw was a false dawn. The Darkness began to descend again on Mexicana when Tenedora K, the new owners of the holding company Nuevo Grupo Aeronautico attempted to lay off 1,366 Cabin Staff at below normal severance pay and then rehire some on new contracts. This was, perhaps unsurprisingly blocked by the Government.

Whilst this was a blow to the restructuring plan, it appears the fundamental problem was when the fast tracked 'Due Diligence' revealed exactly how bad the financial situation really was. This resulted in Tenedora K backing away from any new investment.

Result was inevitable, Mexicana began an orderly shutdown of operations starting on Friday the 27th August and completely ceased operations by midday Saturday the 28th August. This shutdown also included the two budget Carriers owned by Nuevo Grupo Aeronautico, Click and Link, but these are expected to return to operation. But where does this leave Mexicana?

Well in normal circumstances this would be the end of the line for the Company. But this isn't just another Airline; it is Mexico's National Carrier and a major employer and so frantic efforts will continue to resuscitate it.

Whilst objectively it is time to perhaps build a new National Carrier without the baggage of Mexicana's past, part of me hopes they do find a way of reviving Mexicana and returning it to when it was staffed by people determined to make it work as a company, not as a company to be milked by its workers.

Previous Posts on Mexicana:
Bringing Mexicana Back from the Brink - Step 1 25th August 2010
Will Mexicana Survive? - 05th August 2010

Bringing Mexicana Back from the Brink - Step 1

A Mexican Consortium has stepped to take a controlling interest in Mexicana. The consortium named Tenedora K has been formed specifically to buy a 95% Shareholding in Nuevo Grupo Aeronautico which is the holding company for Mexicana and its domestic operations offshoots Mexicana Click and Mexicana Link. The remaining 5% of the shares remains with the Pilots Union, who through their leader Fernando Perfecto, have been involved in attempts to find a buyer.

However before the deal can be finalised it still has to go through the due diligence processes and the urgently required Capital Injection is subject to investment conditions being favourable. However there has already been one casualty as Manuel Borja Mexicana's now former CEO left his post on the 20th August. Meanwhile the legal proceedings on the Mexicana Insolvency continue through the Mexican Courts.

The formation of the Tenedora K consortium has been carried out with impressive speed, with the assistance of Advent International, and assuming that the result of fast tracking 'Due diligence' falls within what is acceptable to the Consortium, then the completing the first step in saving Mexicana will depend on the Consortium making a massive Capital injection.

But completing this first step just provides a 'life support system' and the very real challenge for the new owners is the total restructuring of the Airline. This restructuring is going to have to be at all levels of the Business and I am sorry to say will have a major impact not just on staffing levels, but pay, benefits and conditions for those still employed. This will bring the new team into the same conflicts with the Unions (including the 5% Shareholding Pilots Union) as the previous Management. But whilst the Labour situation will headline, all other elements of the Business including Fleet and Route Structure, plus Ground Handling services and Back office functions including IT will need to be reviewed and where necessary pruned.

Mexicana's survival will require hard decisions, with a heavy human cost and it will be a painful journey, but the future looks brighter than it did when I posted Will Mexicana Survive? on the 5th August.

See Update: Mexicana - Two Steps back and Teetering 31st August 2010

Will Mexicana Survive?

The Airline Industry is a really tough competitive environment with no room for sentiment. But I have been watching with considerable sadness the rapid and accelerating decline of Mexicana. The 89 year old Airline has been in serious financial straits for a long while and to turn this into a potentially fatal crisis needed a trigger to be pulled and on the 29th July it was: Canada cancels 2 flights on creditor request. This was followed by a further seizing of an Aircraft in Chicago by the leasing company AerCap.

The Company has been struggling with the Unions to persuade them to accept further Job and Benefit cuts. This is a major issue for the Airline as if labour costs are removed, and then Mexicana has a 30% advantage over similar US Operators. But put the labour costs back in and suddenly that advantage not only disappears, but immediately puts Mexicana at a disadvantage. For example: Mexicana Pilots earn 49% more that their US Equivalents, but more telling is their 185% salary advantage over Pilots for other Mexican Airlines such as Volaris or Interjet. For Cabin Staff the situation is similar with salaries 32% above US Equivalents and a 165% above the Mexican Airlines mentioned earlier. Despite this the Unions having already seen a major cut in Benefits back in 2006 are resisting any further changes.

On 3rd August the Airline announced its latest Restructuring Plan a major part of which would be the cutting of Aircrew Salaries: For Pilots 41% cut in Combined Salary and Benefits, or Cabin Staff 39%, but in addition major redundancies of the order of 40% in both categories. As an alternative the Company offered to sell the Airline and its massive Debt to the Unions for 1 Peso!

The Unions reacted swiftly by rejecting both options (A Shorter article here: Mexicana Workers, Management at Impasse).

The Airline began cancelling services on a relatively wide scale with a statement on its website reporting that Mexicana "financially non-viable" and this was reported by ABTN amongst others.

On the 2nd August the Airline filed for Bankruptcy Protection in both Mexico and the USA and on the 4th further announced it had suspended Ticket Sales and to add insult to injury the FAA announced it was downgrading Mexico's Air Safety rating from 1 to 2, nothing to do with Mexicana Woes, but not something to inspire confidence.

The Pilot's Union responded to the Bankruptcy Filing by a demand that the Airline open its books for inspection. Already the impact of the situation is being felt as Mexico's Airports begin to calculate the implications.

Mexicana is part of the OneWorld Airline Alliance and the 5th August, the OneWorld Cockpit Crew Coalition (made up of Flightdeck Crew from all the member airlines) issued a Press Release Voicing Support for Mexicana Pilots.

Meanwgile three Leasing Companies are attempting to recover their Aircraft via a US Court: Creditors Seek to Get Their Planes Back from Mexicana. In the view of AerCap (who aren't involved in the Court Case) there is a ready demand for Mexicana Aircraft

So can Mexicana find a way out this, well I was wrong about Alitalia whose situation back in 2008 had many similarities and although still making losses showing signs of recovery , however going further back in the past, Sabena was in destroyed by Union intransigence and very high costs and in part by the failure of the Swissair Investment. My head tells me that Mexicana it on the point of becoming History, but in my heart I hope it not only makes its 90th year, is still in business for its centenary!

In this Blog see:
A (belated) Happy Birthday Alitalia which has links back to my 'doom and gloom' posts.

External:
What Goes Up Must come down - Economist 5th August

The EU is Sinking - Republished from Doug Carswell's Blog

The Following from the MP for Clacton -Doug Carswell's Blog

The EU is sinking

Allister Heath, one of our top economic commentators, reminds us in
today’s City AM of the speed with which industrial production has moved from the West;

“In 2008 ... China produced more steel than the USA, the EU and Japan put together. ... China is now also by far the world’s leading car producer, turning out 13.8m units in 2009 .... [Her] share of world car production rose from 3.6 per cent in 2000 to 8.6 per cent in 2005 and 22.6 per cent in 2009. From 2000 to 2009, India’s production of motor vehicles rose more than threefold while Brazil’s doubled.”

And they manage all that without being part of the EU.

I used to assume de-industrialisation was an inevitable, organic process – a consequence of free trade and the free market. We’d shift from being an industrial economy to a tertiary economy, I thought, much as we once changed from being an agrarian economy.

I’ve changed my mind. Deindustrialisation is not the consequence of advanced development, but of the growth of big government.

Western wealth creators generally, and EU one's in particular, in almost every economic sector need official permission and quangocrat approval to produce. It is sobering to reflect on the fact that communist China’s provinces and special economic zones have greater autonomy from Beijing over regulatory and economic matters than EU member states have from Brussels.

EU wealth creators must pay high rates of tax to carry the burden of quangocrat salaries and pensions.

At the same time, successive Western governments have pursued monetary policies since 1971 that in their various ways put the interests of debtors and consumers ahead of savers and producers.

The result is that fewer and fewer people in the West produce things.

Posted on 5 August 2010 by Douglas Carswell

I tend to agree with a lot of the above, but what do you think?

Zeroes and Heroes

Two aircraft landed in Southern Britain the other day at two different Airports :

The first carried a group of over paid, under achievers who complained they were tired and missed their families after two weeks in five star accommodation.

The other carried the coffins of 7 fallen soldiers who had spent months away from loved ones living in tents in a war zone, giving their lives for their country. Who are the Hero's ??, I know where my priorities lie. R.I.P lads.

Remember these soldiers earn 15k to 30k a year not a day. If you believe that the England team should donate their wages to Help the Hero's then please cut and paste and forward it on

Just in case they need help in donating here is a link to:

British Troops In Afghanistan winning Hearts & Minds

I received the following as a Chain Email with the subject line Keep this going; only takes 30 seconds which if it had not been from a trusted address would have been deleted. Instead I am republishing it here in the hope it will find a wider audience:

It is always good to see pictures like these. It proves they are BIG softies really:

Proof of 'abuse' by our Troops:

Armed Troops Force Afghans to Seesaw Until They Talk


Afghan Child Bites Soldier In Self Defence After Obvious Torture!


Soldier overheard to say 'Talk or I'll tickle you till you pee!' - More Evidence Of Failed Intelligence Policy.


Soldier Attempts to Eat Afghan Child!


Clear Evidence of Forced Labour by Troops!


Soldier Caught At 'Tickle-Torture' To Extract Intelligence!


Soldier forces child to hang by fingertips!


No Comment Required!

May the good Lord bless every one of our troops wherever they are!
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING - EVEN IF YOU HAVE PASSED IT ON BEFORE!! Prayer wheel for our Armed Forces,
Please don't break it

Railways, Roads and Runways - Politics overriding National Interest

Over the Weekend I spent some time reading the Institution of Civil Engineers Report: Rethinking Aviation. This once again reminded me how pathetic British Transport Planning has been for the last 45 Years due to Party Political Interests being considered overwhelming important and the National Interest usually not only being an incredibly poor second, but often a even poorer third if a Cabinet Minister's constituency, or an important marginal is under threat. Couple this with Treasury and most other elements of the Senior Civil Service's distaste for spending money on infra-structure (bearing in mind where most of the Senior Civil Servants live, it is amazing any Infra-structure Projects, Major, or minor are ever progressed in the NIMBY dwelling Home Counties) and perhaps the current situation was inevitable.

My views on this subject have (at least in part) been covered in earlier posts notably: Politics of (Rail) Transport (October 2008) and High Speed Trains and Heathrows Third Runway (February 2010) and even in my Aviation History PDF Article on The Airlinks between Gatwick and Heathrow (Published back in August 2006 in the section: Current Situation and the Future - page 9).

My Post of October 2008 ended with the following:

Transport is too important nationally to be a political football. We have wasted at least 40 years, please, don't waste the next 40!

Well we are now over halfway through 2010 and I see no evidence that anything has changed for the better, just another change of Government pandering to populist politics! In my post of February 2010 I used the above Quote as my Highlight opening and then continued with:

In France where there appears a separation between National Interest and Party Politics so lacking in Britain, there has been a consistent integrated National Transport Policy, especially in regard to High Speed Rail for 40 Years. So the recent British political consensus on the need for High Speed Rail links and this cross-political support for some major projects has been a welcome 'chink of light'.

Unfortunately that Chink of Light was just the Head Lamp of onrushing Party Politics. So one of the first acts of the Coalition Government was to stop the third runway at Heathrow, Oh Good the National Interest loses again to doing what is popular rather than right! But then they are only continuing a tradition that stretches back to the mid-1950s and has continued regardless of the Party in Power.

In simple terms France (and Germany) make Strategic Plans that are then rolled out over decades, being updated as technology and national requirements change, but the basic plan survives all the changes in Government and proceeds on the basis of National, than Political Interests. In Britain, all plans however well structured and designed to meet long term national needs are not implemented as a structured package of complementary projects, at best they are cherry picked for short term political advantage and then argued over for years. Even if a small part of one plan finally makes it to being implemented, it sits in splendid isolation, locally of benefit but usually totally irrelevant to the overall National Requirement.

Railways, Roads and Runways are vital elements of National Infra-structure and the National Economy (to which you can add Ports, Shipping and thinking 'Green' the Inland Waterways) and should cover all regions of the UK in a unified long term plan. Almost every European Country thinks in these terms and those like France and Germany who have kept to their strategic plans have benefited whilst in Britain even the phrase 'Transport Policy' is an oxymoron as it is just one element in the Political Playground which has more in common with a primary school playground than mature considered policy making for the United Kingdom.

My Sympathy is reserved for the Victims of Raoul Moat.

I have to admit to being in total agreement with Prime Minister David Cameron's Comments in Parliament:
'It is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer, full stop, end of story. I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man. There should be sympathy for his victims and the havoc he wreaked in that community. There should be no sympathy for him.'

My sympathies are reserved for:

1. The little girl he assaulted (who didn't get much Justice).
2. For the family of the Man he Killed,
3. His ex Girlfriend
4. Policeman he shot and Blinded
5. For the Children he fathered, because they will have grow up with stigma of his actions.

But for Raoul Moat, I will only say it is probably for the best he took his own life.

As for Facebook and the tributes to this evil Man, I think the following lifted from the BBC Comments and posted by the Elizabethan neatly sums it up:

The sympathy of those misguided few,
Who hero-worship troubled souls anew,
That quite forgot his former sentence served,
That he attacked a child is quite absurd!

Yet what be more important to this crowd,
The price of freedom that it be allowed,
That he did shoot a policeman in the head,
Be of more worth than innocent men dead.

The question I have are these sad and probably sick people who had adopted Raoul Moat as a Hero also going to express sympathy to those whose lives he destroyed? I doubt it...

Crime & Punishment UK - Getting Emotive

That 'jolly nice chap' Andrew Bridges, the Chief Inspector of Probation has issued what his probably his last report (CIoP Report 2009-2010) before he steps down next year and in the process has raised a storm of controversy.
In the foreword, entitled What Price Public Protection? - No Trite Solutions he has taken the opportunity to raise some serious, but in his own words 'emotive issues'. The media has rightly picked up on these 'emotive' issues and I suggest both The Telegraph and Mail Online articles are worth reading if only to compare the coverage.

So what are these 'emotive issues'?

• Is the public prepared to accept the 'cost' of having more prisoners managed in the community, in terms of a proportionately small amount of reoffending, in order to achieve the 'benefit' of substantial financial savings, and knowing that people are not being expensively locked up for longer than they need to be?
• Describing prison as a "rather drastic form of crime prevention", he said it was time to consider dealing with more offenders in the community. He raised the "emotionally charged topic" despite accepting that risks to the public cannot be eliminated and that prison does reduce crime.
• He even said any "individual incidents" that result should not be viewed as a failing system.

The responses from various organisations were hostile:

• David Green, director of Civitas, a think tank, said it was "not his job" for Mr Bridges, who earns £96,000 a year, to comment on policy."I would have thought the probation service is sufficiently dysfunctional for him to find enough to do without adding to its problems by calling for the release of 2,500 dangerous criminals," he said. "In the end it does not come down to costs, it comes down to justice and public protection. He has taken a narrow view of this, a shallow view."
• Lyn Costello, of the charity Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, said she was "disgusted" by the comments. "You can never bring finance in to dealing with justice," she said. "If we are going to become a country that puts money before human life or a safe and peaceful life then I do not want to live here."
• Simon Reed, vice chairman of the Police Federation, said: "What price can we put on justice? I thought part of the criminal justice system was to punish and rehabilitate. It appears to be doing neither."
• Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is insulting to victims of crime and law abiding taxpayers who pay for the prison system to suggest that the public should accept an increase in crime if they want savings to be made."

Taking all of this 'on board I decided to look back at my major post on the subject of
Crime, Punishment and Politics - UK (November 2006) Whilst some of the points like Border Controls and seizure of Assets have been improved, much remains relevant.

However I have decided in this post I am going to raise some 'emotive suggestions' on the cost of Prisons and Reoffending:

• Always Deport Foreign Prisoners at the end of their sentence and inform the country of origin of their arrival - whatever danger they are in being returned to their homeland, is more than balanced by the lessening of danger to citizens in this country. This to be enforced even if their home country has and routinely uses the death penalty.
• While on the subject of the Death Penalty, hold a referendum to reintroduce it into the UK for second offences such as Murder and offered as an alternative sentence to those convicted to life without parole even if their first offense
• Those granted Asylum, regardless of their offense should be stripped of their British Citizenship and departed to their country of origin as per 1) above.
• Every privilege granted to a Prisoner must be earned by Good Behaviour and all TV, Radio should be delivered via Cable with what is made available determined by the Prison Authorities
• If a prisoner causes disruption, or is found to have contraband material, then all privileges are removed and have to be re-earned
• Bring the Scottish Prison System into the English/Welsh System and distribute certain types of prisoner across the System.
• Provide mandatory Education Classes for British Prisoners with Literacy Problems and mandatory treatment for Drug and Alcohol addition
• Provide large scale and almost open prison standard half way houses in all major cities for parolees who would otherwise be homeless. Paid work to be provided for those unable to find, or be placed in a job. Further Education being offered as part of the paid work providing attendance and effort can be proven.
• Prisoners who perform Paid Work, should receive the current Minimum Wage from which is deducted 50% to defray Prison Costs,
• Reverse the Care in the Community approach to those with Mental Health Problems and as this will take a long time beginning by building (or converting existing buildings) to secure institutions and moving these people out of prison and then over a decade moving down the scale of danger to sheltered accommodation for the non-dangerous. Yes this will cost money, but these people should not be in prison, but at the same time cannot function in normal society, leading them into crime.
• No one wants a prison on their doorstep so my suggestion of the Commissioning the design of offshore prisons for non-terrorist convicts should be considered. These to be built in British Yards to a Standard Design, which provides reasonable single occupancy cell accommodation for each convict (e.g. toilet, washing facilities, piped radio and small picture TV centrally controlled - no personal radio or, TV allowed), Intensive CCTV Coverage of all communal areas used by convicts, monitored from a secure control room and able to link pictures and information to a central incident room at the Home Office. Again this will cost a lot of Money but as a long term plan should be seriously considered, especially as eventually this could release land currently used for on-shore prisons.
• Overhaul the Parole Service, so that it provides proactive monitoring and has a zero-tolerance approach to non-attendance. Also overhaul the remit of Parole Boards, on the basis that the Danger to the public is the primary and overriding consideration.

Hopefully the above will result in a storm of controversy and I look forward to comments!

ASA Continues to investigate Cardell Media Ltd

Back at end of the first Quarter of 2010 a Mail shot began appearing in the letter boxes of smaller Businesses across Britain, in this case from Cardell Media. Small Business receive Mailshots all the time, so nothing unusual in that.
But this one not only resulted in a complaint to the ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) but also a number of Business Owners decided to air their views via their Blogs.

The reaction to the Blog posts was rapid, with Cease and Desist notices arriving by Courier with at least some originating from the San Diego, California firm of lawyers: Preovolos & Associates. Interesting as the Mail shot originated in the UK, was posted in the UK - 2nd Class Stamp it appears being used and Cardell Media is UK based and whilst some of the Blogs may have been Hosted on US based Servers, most would have been either UK, or European Server Sites, so exactly what, if any legal, weight these Notices have, is a question I would appreciate being answered.

These Notices frightened off many bloggers who removed their posts, others either held out (whilst blogging the receipt of the Cease and Desist Notice), or removed the post and then blogged why they had removed the Post!

The ASA also moved rapidly and they concluded that the marketing techniques were in multiple breaches of CAP (Committee of Advertising Practises) and have advised Cardell Media to stop all marketing of this nature, as of April 2010. Complaints were upheld in respect to the advertisements both making unsubstantiated claims and not making clear it was marketing material.

The full ASA Ruling can be found here: ASA Adjudication on Cardell Media Ltd

But fast forward to July 2010 and The Register reports that a remarkably similar Mail shot to the one which the ASA has already Adjudicated on, is once more appearing in the Letter Boxes of Small Businesses across the UK.

Extract from 'The Register' News Item:
A spokesman for the ASA told us that it was well aware that Cardell Media was ignoring its earlier ruling. He said:
'We've not had complaints but our investigators do follow up to check companies are following our rulings.  We're working with various partners to try and get this stopped. We can also look at other sanctions - like getting their mass mailing discounts removed and work with other regulators and trade bodies.'

We've (The Register Staff) emailed and left messages at Cardell Media with no success.
END Extract from 'The Register'

I shall be most interested in following what further action the ASA takes, if any, against Cardell Media Ltd.

How Dare the EU Block Abu Hamza US extradition

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered a halt to the extradition to the US on terror charges of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and three other men.

Excuse Me...Whilst I loathe the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the USA and UK because of its imbalance, this Treaty was entered into by the Elected Government of the Sovereign United Kingdom. I don't remember voting, for, or against this law being subordinate to bunch of European Judges.

Abu Hamza, jailed in the UK for soliciting to murder and racial hatred, and three other British men complained about the length of sentence they may face if convicted in the US. Their cases will be delayed for further submissions to the Strasbourg court. Meanwhile the men will remain in Custody in the UK.

Once again the 2003 Extradition Treaty is actually being used for the purpose the British thought it was supposed to serve.

The US is seeking to extradite Abu Hamza, the former head of Finsbury Park mosque in north London, since 2004, saying that he had attempted to set up a terrorism training camp in Oregon. The three other men facing extradition are Babar Ahmad, Syed Ahsan and Haroon Rashid Aswat. Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan were allegedly involved in raising funds for extremists. Mr Aswat is accused in relation to the alleged terror camp.

In all these cases the request is reasonable as these men will have their 'Day in a US Court'. But despite the fact they have not even faced trial in the USA, the EU Judges feel that these men have a reasonable argument in that:
They face a very long sentence in a "supermax" prison in Colorado and these very long sentences and the conditions of the prison, ADX Florence, would breach their human rights.

So everthing is being delayed whilst these Legal Eagles see more detailed arguments on
the prison conditions and the effect of the length of sentences. The UK government must submit further arguments to the court by 2 September about why it should be allowed to extradite the four. Sorry No - Two British courts have already approved the extraditions and that is that - The EU Court should keep out of this.

Now I might have a smidgen of sympathy if they were going to serve their sentence in Ikeja Jail, Nigeria, or were going to enjoy the pleasure of serving time in an Algerian Prison (but then again probably not).

But my real ire is that the British Government is being told what to do by a group of Judges who obviously live in a world completely Separate from the real one and more concerned with the rights of those, who given the chance would impose laws that would trample over everyone's Human Rights!

Our 'beloved' Home Secretary Theresa May said: ""We note that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that all the applications are partly admissible. We await the court's
judgement on the case. In the meantime these individuals will remain in custody."
Gosh Theresa you are a real wimp aren't you. Tell them we will extradite and that is that!

Treaties can be torn up, and it is time the EU Human Rights Treaty was!
However the 2003 Extradition Treaty also needs to be urgently renegotiated, but that has been covered several times in the blog!

Abid Naseer - Extradite Him - Part 1

Back in May Abid Naseer won his appeal against deportation from the UK back to Pakistan despite the Judge noting that he: "posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom". But despite this, he was NOT deported because of Human Rights Issues (See: Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!).

However it appears that this Terrorist is not just a threat to the United Kingdom, but has also been involved in Plots against the United States and therefore the US Justice Department issued a Warrant for his arrest in relation to the failed plot to bomb the New York subway and requested his extradition under the 2003 Treaty US-UK Treaty (Nice to see it being used properly).

So Abid Naseer was arrested and taken to London for a late night court appearance on the 7th July and remanded in Custody until 14 July to allow Mr Naseer to consult lawyers over a possible bail application. The actual Extradition hearing will not take place until 8 September, when a judge will decide if Mr Naseer, 24, can be extradited. After this Home Secretary Theresa May will have the final say.

My views are naively simple:

1. He should have been deported back in May, his Human Rights are much less  important than the Human Rights of United Kingdom Citizens
2. Whilst I loathe the 2003 US-UK Treaty on Extradition for is imbalance, on this occasion it is being used for the correct purpose and he should be extradited by this Weekend, not dragging the process out to September.

I have a feeling this might 'run and run' hence Part 1 in the title:

External Links:
BBC: Terror suspect Abid Naseer held on US warrant
Independent: Terror suspect Abid Naseer arrested over US warrant
Telegraph: Terror Suspect Who Couldnt be Deported is Arrested.

Internal Links:
Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!
May 2010

UK-US Extradition Treaty & Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists
August 2006

Summary of England's Performance against Germany

I have been looking for some way of summarising my view of England's Performance against Germany in the World Cup. But every time I attempted to do so it descended into an unprintable rant.

Fortunately Grahame LJones of the LA Times in his article:
There's no disputing that England deserved its loss to Germany
has come to my rescue with the following:
The sad truth of the matter is that England's players, with few exceptions, are an arrogant, ignorant and unpleasant lot. They are paid far too much by their Premier League clubs, where their true allegiance lies, and their ability individually and collectively in an England shirt does not match their swagger.
Excellent Grahame Thank You Sir!

His comments on British Tabloids are also worth reading,

A final note, as those you can be bothered to read my ramblings know, I consider myself British not English and believe in all sports the National Team should be made up of Players from all parts of the UK and not individual teams from the 'Home Countries'.

The David Law Resignation

David Law's resignation was a surprise as I having read up on him, I
began to suspect he might be a useful Minister of the Crown.

But ripping off the taxpayers to the tune of £40,000 to pay your
secret partner in a gay relationship rent, once again means I my
hopes are sadly dashed.

Despite doing the honourable thing and resigning (and thence leaving
public life to do good work outside the media spotlight - Sorry being naive again), the
indications are the Coalition will follow Labour's lead and he will
become a 'Revolving Door Minister'.

Whilst from my research into Mr Law, he certainly has the intellectual
ability to be a Minister of the Crown, and I don't care if he is Gay,
but keeping that fact a Secret and in the process paying a lot of money
to his male Partner, shows a lack of both Courage and Integrity, both of which
are necessary in Ministerial Posts.

Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!

At a Special Immigration court Mr Justice Mitting's judgement on  the first of two Pakistani Citizens: Abid Naseer appealing against Deportation concluded:
"We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," and added "Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."

Abid Naseer

So there we are this man is deemed a Danger to the Citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore should be deported immediately. But NO, the Judge then determined that it was impossible to return the men ( the second man being: Ahmad Faraz Khan)  to Pakistan - Actually it's very easy, police officers escort them to the Airport and travel with them on a Plane and then hand them over to the Authorities. But of course the safety of Abid Nasser and Ahmad Faraz Khan is much more important than the safety of United Kingdom Citizens as the Judge decided that "There is a long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained, usually to produce information, a confession or compliance" - by the Pakistani Authorities. Which is interesting as three other Pakistani Citizens Arrested with Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan have returned to Pakistan of their own free will!

Ahmad Faraz Khan

Of course the new Home Secretary will be appealing against this decision? NO she is NOT; instead she said she was 'disappointed'.
Well Theresa May I am disappointed in you as already you have failed in your duty to protect Public Safety by not even trying to get this ruling  reversed, NOT a good start!

For more details see:
BBC: - 'Al-Qaeda ringleader' wins appeal against deportation
Guardian:  - Pakistani students arrested in anti-terror raids can stay in UK
Telegraph: - Pakistani students arrested in terror raids win deportation battle