Learco Chindamo Paroled Killer arrested for Alleged Robbery

When he was 15 Learco Chindamo was in a gang and was personally responsible for murdering Philip Lawrence in west London, when as Headmaster of his school, Mr Lawrence went to the assistance of a Pupil being attacked by the Gang.

When convicted Learco Chindamo was given an indefinite sentence, which at minimum was to be 12 Years. After 15 Years in Prison he was released on Parole, despite being refused previously for not making 'sufficient progress'.

Just four Months after he convinced the Parole Board he had reformed and that he would spend the rest of his life atoning for his crime and was placed in a Parole Hostel he is arrested for carrying out an alleged violent mugging. Obviously his Parole licence will be revoked and he will be returned to Prison.

Now whilst I seriously doubt he should have been given parole in the first place, as an Italian Citizen he should have been immediately deported on his release from Prison and banned from ever entering the UK again.
But NO, a Judge ruled three years ago (when he was still in prison) that such a move would breach his Human rights, despite a warning from the Home Office that Chindamo "represents a genuine and present and sufficiently serious threat to the public in principle as to justify his deportation". . So instead he is free to breach the Human Rights of others.

Speaking to the Telegraph Philip Lawrence's widow, Frances Lawrence said:
"My first thought was 'My God'. I feel shocked. I find it odd that he is arrested so soon after the 'atonement'. What does it say about the justice system and the notion of what is justice? True justice surely cannot pick and choose who it supports. In this case it appears Mr Chindamo is being given every help, while my family is being hung out to dry."

She also said she had not been informed about where Chindamo was living after he was freed and added: "The last few months have been the worst time for me since Philip died."

The full Telegraph Article can be found here: Philip Lawrence's killer Learco Chindamo arrested

This once again raises the same questions that keep being asked and never receive a satisfactory answer:

• If only three years ago the Home Office was stating that he represents a genuine and present and sufficiently serious threat to the public in principle as to justify his deportation, Why was he even considered for Parole?
  
• If given Parole he should have been deported, and this raises the question of what David Cameron is doing to honour a pledge he made in opposition to scrap the Human Rights Act?
• If Paroled and not deported why was he not Monitored closely?
• Assuming he is returned to Prison, then he should be given at least 20 Years, but I suspect he will be given 3 to 5. This man should not be allowed out whilst still a danger to the Public ,but when will Judges and Ministers take this onboard?

In addition I wonder:

• How much support the Lawrence Family received in the last 15 years compared to the support Learco Chindamo has had in attempts to rehabilitate him?
• What percentage of the cost of keeping Learco Chindamo in Prison for 15 years was paid to the Lawrence Family for the murder of a Husband, father and brave Man?

I doubt if in either case it was more than a tiny fraction of that spent on a Murderer.
I am sure Theresa May will as usual be 'extremely disappointed', but I am sorry Home Secretary that is not good enough. Let us have a Human Rights Act, where it is the Victims Human Rights that are protected, not the perpetrators. Deport people who are a danger to our society and ensure they never come back, regardless of the consequences to them in the country to which they are deported.

Vote Unite sorry I meant Labour - NO WAY.

Unite, the Union that owns the Labour Party, sorry I mean contributes, the most to the Labour Party has voted as Leader one Comrade, I mean Mr Len McCluskey, who still quotes Communist guerrilla leader Che Guevara (which would be quaint if he wasn't so powerful) and believes there is no such thing as an irresponsible strike! It is also apparent he still espouses the agenda of the Militant Tendency which in the 1980's set out infiltrate Labour Constituency Parties with the objective to moving the Party much further to the Left. Overall he reminds me of the most Militant and Destructive Union Leaders of the 1970's and that is an extremely bad thing for the average Unite Member, future of Industrial relations, the Labour Party and most importantly the Country.

I had hoped that Bob Crow of the RMT was the last throwback to that era to make it to the leadership of a Union. Sadly I was wrong.

As Unite is the Labour Parties biggest backer and regardless of how the party spin it, a major unelected influence on their future direction, something that I have always felt was a concern. Now with Len McCluskey leading Unite, I think they will be unfit for election to Government for the foreseeable future.

The only bright spot is I shall no longer even have to bother reading their Election Literature, whether for Council Election, Bye Election, or their Manifesto for a General Election, because with his brooding influence, however worthy their Candidate they won't be getting my Vote.

A Brief Update on Mexicana

After I effectively 'buried Alitalia' in a series of Posts, only to be proved wrong, I have been loath to write an obituary on Mexicana. It appears this was a sensible move (I hate apologising) because there is light at the end of the tunnel for Mexico's premier Airline. Like Alitalia the plan involves a massive reduction in Routes, Fleet and Staff. Therefore a successful re-launch will depend on the Unions as much as refinancing. More on this from:
USA Today Travel 11th Nov 2010: Rescue bid: Mexicana may fly again,
Bloomberg Businessweek 10 Nov 2010: Mexicana Unions Get $155 Million Bid to Save Company
Airwise/Reuters 10 Nov 2010: Mexicana Picks Recovery Business Plan

As with Alitalia, I have a sentimental attachment to Mexicana, so I hope the Unions accept the reality of the situation and Mexicana does indeed fly again.

The only ones to come out of the Student Protests with Honour!

The only people to come out of the Student Protest in London Yesterday with Honour were the Policemen and Women who stood their ground and despite being attacked with 'missiles' as well as abuse acted with restraint and paid a price for it with a total of 41 officers received injuries, and a "small number" were taken to hospital for treatment before being released.

A policeman who was injured in the clashes Photo: EDDIE MULHOLLAND
From Telegraph Article: Student tuition fees protests: police got it wrong, says Nick Herbert

At least their boss, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson recognised their fortitude, nay bravery in an internal message to staff:

Sir Paul paid tribute:
He said: "Many faced thuggish and disgraceful behaviour which has been well publicised in the media. Their bravery and professionalism in the face of adversity was hugely commendable and, once again, demonstrates the commitment and dedication of our officers in the Met."

"We know that the vast majority of protesters were entirely peaceful and well behaved, but it is clear that some chose to engage in senseless criminality. Sadly, some of our colleagues, my officers, were injured in the line of duty and some came perilously close to being seriously injured."

"This, once again, demonstrates the willingness of officers to put themselves in harm's way for the people of London."

Sir Paul said those responsible for the violence must be found and brought to justice "swiftly".
He added: "That is our number one priority and an investigation to achieve this is already well under way."

Student protest against tuition fees turns violent at Millbank Photo: Dominic Lipinski/PA
From Telegraph Article: Student tuition fee protest: Infantile behaviour

I certainly hope that all those who engaged in Criminal Damage (Smashing windows in private cars was NOT a Political Act, or Protest, but Criminal Damage for which those responsible should pay, both financially and with a Criminal Record).
Whilst some would argue attacking Conservative Party HQ, could be construed as Political, as itwas both Violent and in some cases, as e.g. the dropping of a Fire Extinguisher from the Roof of the building was life threatening. In this case custodial sentences are appropriate.

The Senior levels of the Metropolitan Police are going through a period of navel gazing and soul searching over what they could/should have done and those who weren't there (including the Politicians - See: Student tuition fees protests: police got it wrong, says Nick Herbert ) will voice what they would have done better, but to some extent they are in a no win situation; A much larger presence, especially of Riot Police and they would have been accused of being 'too heavy handed', or as in this case too few and they are blamed anyway.

My views on the Protest in general have been summoned up, so much better than I could myself in this article in the Telegraph Online (and the Headlines says it all): Student tuition fee protest: Infantile behaviour

As Remembrance Day Approaches: Forever Young - A Song for Wootten Bassett

'Forever Young', is a song that was inspired by the people of Wootton Bassett for the silent and moving way they repatriate our fallen troops through the town. All involved in the production of this song gave of their time and talent for free, and all profits will be donated to the Charity 'Afghan Heroes' who's goal it is; to help and support the families of those affected by the war. We have been overwhelmed by the support and do hope you enjoy the song.

Although you can watch the especially commissioned video below (via YouTube) please visit the Forever Young a song for Wootton Bassett Website and don't forget to scroll down to buy the CD, and/or make a donation.

Now go to the Forever Young. A song for Wootton Bassett and Buy the CD and/or Donate.
Thank you

Should UK cyber defences include offensive operations to protect UK interests?

This question was posed in a tweet by @Warwick_Ashford, which was retweeted to me. He raised the question because of this article US Cyber Command calls for offensive powers in Computer Weekly.

The debate in the US over this request is not over National Interest, or National Security, but over the Legality of offensive operations and some Senior Advisors and Lawyers want to limit such operations to existing War Zones, such as Afghanistan.

I see this as somewhat 'out-dated thinking' Cyber-war can be waged without forces deployed in the field and a state, or indeed individuals can mount an attempted Cyber Attack without escalation to a Military Deployment. Perhaps the 'rules of cyber engagement' should be no 'First Strike' and that any offensive response against the perpetrators  of an attack should 'be measured' and except in exceptional cases Politically Approved by the Prime Minister, or in the case of the USA the president/ This would seem to me to be a reasonable base line posture to adopt for UK, USA, NATO Countries and indeed other Western Nations.

I would be interested in comments

Dealing with Mentally Ill & Drug Addicted Criminals

In the Telegraph online for 08th November 2010 there is an Article, Headlined: Drug-addicted criminals will be spared jail which indicates Kenneth Clarke and his officials at the Ministry of Justice are working out plans to get the Police and the Courts to the Mentally ill and Drug Addicts from Prison sentencing to “treatment-based accommodation”.

As in previous posts on Law & Order, my views are that far too many people with Mental illness end up in Prison because of a total failure of the Care in the Community approach to their needs. Back in July in my Post: Crime & Punishment UK - Getting Emotive I covered this:

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.

The Telegraph Article pre-empts the Planned Whitepaper, but the indication is that the plan is to reverse Care in the Community on the cheap. There is no indication that 'Treatment Centres' for the mentally ill will provide them with long term care and residence, nor that the Centres will be designed to handle the needs of the varied levels of illness.

Moving on to Drug Addicts: I did not go into detail in my July Post, other than note that there should be mandatory treatment for Drug and Alcohol Addiction.
I would go further, for those Addicted to Class A Drugs the treatment should be intensive and they should be detained in the 'Treatment Centre'  for a minimum of three months after they are deemed 'clean' and for the next two years they are to visit a Parole Office Weekly for testing. Failure to attend a test or the test shows a return to Drug Abuse would result in an immediate return to the treatment centre.

Where Prison for an Addict is deemed necessary (Crimes of Violence, Murder, Armed Robbery etc), the Mandatory Treatment is to be carried out there. But Prisons must start to crackdown on the smuggling to Drugs into Prisons, with all visitors to convicts treated as potential 'drug mules' and checks to be carried out on Prison Staff to ensure they are not bringing Drugs in for Prisoners.

My other concern is that Mandatory Treatment of Addicts and Intensive Searching of Prison Visitors and Staff, will fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights. So that situation has to be dealt with 'head on' by removing this Country from its jurisdiction.

Douglas Carswell MP: Governed by judges?

Republication: See Original Blog Post by: Douglas Carswell MP: Governed by judges?

Abu Hamza must have a passport. Prisoners must have votes.
Ever get the feeling public policy is increasingly made by judges, rather than anyone you elected?

And then we wonder why voters are starting to get hacked off with politicians for talking the talk, but not taking action?

Posted on 5 November 2010 by Douglas Carswell

Whilst Mr Carswell an I do on some subjects have very differening views, on this one we see eye to eye!

OH and our Prime Minister has joined the Theresa May "disappointed" Fan Club
Mr Cameron Disappointed doesn't Cut it, this man should be stripped of his citizenship by Royal decree!

EU Law overrides UK Law and (some) Convicts will get the Vote

First a statement of my view on this: Convicts should NOT get the Vote!

Sadly as a British Citizen I do NOT have the right to Vote on this issue, my Elected Representative does NOT have the right to try and get this ruling over turned, 'the extremely disappointed' Theresa May as Home Secretary can do nothing (which is actually no surprise, but on this occasion not her fault), the Prime Minister has tried, but doesn't have the power to change this European Court of Human Rights Ruling.

So we in Britain have no say on this! This is the unacceptable face of EU Power via the European Court of Human Rights to force Member Countries to accept Laws they don't want. Although I disagree with the ruling (even if passed by UK Parliament), my real irritation, nay anger is that this has been imposed over our Sovereign Rights as a Nation.

For a more objective view on this (rather than my rant) see:
BBC: Convicted prisoners to get vote after European ruling

The Parcel Bomb Attacks - Failure, or Win?

Despite the apparent sophistication of the Devices, the attack using Parcel Bombs Carried on Aircraft has, at least so far failed, or has it?

Even though detected, due the Media frenzy Worldwide a classic climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD) has been generated, this in it's self could be considered a win by those who planned/authorised the attacks. There is nothing new about Parcel Bombs and other than these were designed to explode in Flight, were a reversion to 'old school terrorism'. What has changed is the way the Media now 'spin' such stories.

When Intelligence and Security services foil a planned attack without publicity, the Terror Planners, may, or may not learn a useful lesson from the failure, but there is no getting away from the fact it was a failure.

But when as in this case, the plan fails, but does so under the spotlight of intense Media Interest (almost obsessive analysis of every aspect) then the failure can be turned in to a PR win. Actually killing people can rebound by hardening the resolve of the targeted Nation, or Culture, but not killing anyone whilst reinforcing the possibility of at anytime doing so, generates the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Also the Media demands action, leading to Politicians having to react publicly and immediately, which can in turn result in unfortunate statements being made and possibly counterproductive reactive action being ordered.

I find causalities from IEDs tragic, but the IRA were using remotely detonated roadside devices 30+ years ago, parcel/letter bombs have been used by many groups , again including the IRA, even bombs on Aircraft predate Lockerbie by decades. What has changed is the way the Media Report these events (actually report is often an incorrect term, express opinions that they may not be qualified to give, is too often the case). It is fair to say groups such as Al-Qaeda has learned that in many ways the Western Media, due to the way they react to events, useful in assisting in raising the climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt.

It probably why, although individual Journalists and film units have been targeted, no attacks have been launched against News Media Studios and Headquarters.

A cynical update of the view: 'A capitalist is someone who sells you the rope with which you then hang him', could be rewritten as 'The Western News Media's way of reporting, assists in the destruction of their way of life'.

Link to an Article in Aircargo News 02nd November 2010: Bomb plot fails but terror still rules

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: