I am not being too facetious, honestly, but isn't it somewhat ironic that RBS is still trying to extract the USD6.1 million owed to them under terms of sentence by the "NatWest 3"?
Guardian article, 26th July 2009
This being the bank that through its managers' own deliberate actions was almost ruined, and had to be bailed out by taxpayers?
An example of "do as I say, not do as I do" if ever I have seen one.
But this case also reminds us of that ugly period of Blairite sycophancy to the Bush administration, and its amoral actions couched in a form of self-righteousness. A time when we joked with fear in our eyes about becoming the next State in the USA. And one of the events that seemed to confirm this was the bizarre Extradition Act of 2003, which seemed to hand the keys of our police cells to US courts. Claiming to be an important piece of anti-terrorist legislation, it was already faulty from the start in that the US had not intention of extraditing suspects to the UK. Notwithstanding this, the UK government has bent over backwards to honour its one-sided obligation to this treaty. And in at least two well known cases, it has done so willingly when terrorism was never the charge behind calls for extradition.
The Natwest 3 were one of those cases, and they changed their pleas to guilty while in the US, but then have been allowed to serve a reduced sentence in Ford open prison in the UK. A deal was clearly done; perhaps in order that Enron dirty linen wasn't aired again in public and the three could return quickly to a prison in the UK rather than languish in a US jail awaiting the end of a trial to prove their innocence.
But what about Mr McKinnon, the hacker who broke into a number of secure US websites?
BBC article 30/7/09
Surely as he is alleged to have committed the crime on UK soil, he should be tried here under UK law? Moreover, as there is no evidence that he belongs to any form of terrorist organisation, but was working alone, the Extradition Act should in no way be enforceable. It is not enough to call for Extradition because your government departments have been embarrassed by their poor online security.
The Conservatives will probably kick this legislation into the long grass when they come to power. Sadly, an opposition motion calling for a review of the Act was defeated by 54 votes earlier in the month -- maybe Labour MPs, embattled on so many fronts, cannot face opening up any more festering old wounds and so voted for stasis.
Change to the Act may come too late to save Mr McKinnon from being sent to the US. Yet maybe this is the time for our Law Lords, and not our politicians, to show some backbone. Time to take a stand for the fairness of British justice, and the right of British citizens to be tried in their own country
Friday, 31 July 2009
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
The Marine and Coastal Access Bill: protecting a resource that is of strategic national importance
After an excellent campaign against the mandatory introduction of biofuels (without due heed paid to the way in which biofuel crops are farmed), the RSPB is now tackling the marine environment. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill is due to be read and discussed in Parliament after the Summer Recess.
As it stands, it is already full of holes -- one would potentially allow conservation areas to be ravaged without the perpetrators facing prosecution.
The RSPB has a pre-formatted letter to send to your local MP which can be accessed at this page:
RSPB letter
You are able to add your own comments, so for what it is worth this is what I appended to mine:
As an adjunct to this RSPB letter, I would like to believe that a strong Bill would also re-impose our sovereignty over an area of our territory we seem to have turned a blind eye to as a nation. We have to put an end to wasteful and unfair fisheries policies, and while it is always going to be a hard battle at the EU level, we can win the fight in our own waters with a strong Bill.
We must see this as being of strategic national importance. Just as we prohibit the building of houses on prime agricultural land, because we know that it is a scarce resource on our island -- let alone globally -- we should see the marine environment as part of this equation. Just because it is out of sight beneath the waves, does not mean it should be out of mind.
Of course all this means nothing if the Bill is not enforceable, and so it is vital that adequate resources are made available to protect our coastline more adequately. But then if that joins up with a desire to bolster our Customs & Excise patrols against smuggling, then there could be a shared budget with an expanded remit to monitor fishing vessel movements and activities. And if all vessels carry transponders then there is no reason at all that this could not be easily monitored with a satellite and GPS.
No, it is down to having the will in the House to take a tough decision for long, rather than short term benefit. That may be too much to hope for in the current climate. But as primary resources become increasingly scarce on this planet, we will face more and more challenges. And adequately managing our marine environment will probably be one of the easiest for us to rise to, as the resource lies within our control.
As it stands, it is already full of holes -- one would potentially allow conservation areas to be ravaged without the perpetrators facing prosecution.
The RSPB has a pre-formatted letter to send to your local MP which can be accessed at this page:
RSPB letter
You are able to add your own comments, so for what it is worth this is what I appended to mine:
As an adjunct to this RSPB letter, I would like to believe that a strong Bill would also re-impose our sovereignty over an area of our territory we seem to have turned a blind eye to as a nation. We have to put an end to wasteful and unfair fisheries policies, and while it is always going to be a hard battle at the EU level, we can win the fight in our own waters with a strong Bill.
We must see this as being of strategic national importance. Just as we prohibit the building of houses on prime agricultural land, because we know that it is a scarce resource on our island -- let alone globally -- we should see the marine environment as part of this equation. Just because it is out of sight beneath the waves, does not mean it should be out of mind.
Of course all this means nothing if the Bill is not enforceable, and so it is vital that adequate resources are made available to protect our coastline more adequately. But then if that joins up with a desire to bolster our Customs & Excise patrols against smuggling, then there could be a shared budget with an expanded remit to monitor fishing vessel movements and activities. And if all vessels carry transponders then there is no reason at all that this could not be easily monitored with a satellite and GPS.
No, it is down to having the will in the House to take a tough decision for long, rather than short term benefit. That may be too much to hope for in the current climate. But as primary resources become increasingly scarce on this planet, we will face more and more challenges. And adequately managing our marine environment will probably be one of the easiest for us to rise to, as the resource lies within our control.
Monday, 27 July 2009
Faith versus flu
Yesterday, the act of sharing the chalice of wine will have been absent from many Anglican Holy Communion services following instructions from the archbishops of Canterbury and York to withdraw it temporarily.
At face value this might seem a sensible precaution in light of fears that sharing the communal cup could engender the spread of swine flu. At worst it was a bit of an over-reaction, given that during the plague years there didn’t seem to be a need to alter the distribution.
Times article
But there are two aspects of this that rankle.
First of all, the decision on whether or not to participate in sharing the wine has been taken away from the individual. One institution, the Department of Health, has advised another, the Church of England, not to share "common vessels" for food or drink. No-one has thought to give the communicant the choice -- which would seem grossly unfair on at least two counts.
For a start, the same worshipper can step from church and into a tube train. Why is that not equally proscribed, given that there would seem to be at least as much opportunity to catch the disease this way, as from sharing a drink with strangers?
Beyond this issue of common sense, you then have to ask where the individual's ability to show, and act in, faith is.
Scale this up and it becomes the second aspect of the edict that annoys me. It seems that the central ritual of becoming one with Christ and the affirmation of a belief in God has been demoted. It is of lesser importance than the recommendations of government scientists and advisors. Once again in an echo of the Age of Enlightenment, reason has triumphed over faith.
What is upsetting is that the custodians of the faith do not seem to have understood how their actions now undermine their belief system. They were in a position to inform the congregation of the dangers, particularly to pregnant women and those with existing health issues, but then could have left it up to the people to decide if they wished to take the risk.
When Princess Diana shook hands with Aids victims in the eighties, it sent shock waves through the world. No matter that she was highly unlikely to contract the condition through such contact -- it was still an act of faith and a demonstration of compassion that was much needed to alleviate misinformation and prejudice at the time. John Gummer fed his daughter a beef-burger at the height of the mad cow disease scare. He was pilloried for doing so (well, he should have eaten it himself) but again the risks taken were minimal yet a message was needed to avert panic on the streets.
Where is the Church's act of faith now? Where is that photo of an archbishop sharing the communal cup with his flock, safe in the belief that his life is in the hands of God – and not the Department of Health?
At face value this might seem a sensible precaution in light of fears that sharing the communal cup could engender the spread of swine flu. At worst it was a bit of an over-reaction, given that during the plague years there didn’t seem to be a need to alter the distribution.
Times article
But there are two aspects of this that rankle.
First of all, the decision on whether or not to participate in sharing the wine has been taken away from the individual. One institution, the Department of Health, has advised another, the Church of England, not to share "common vessels" for food or drink. No-one has thought to give the communicant the choice -- which would seem grossly unfair on at least two counts.
For a start, the same worshipper can step from church and into a tube train. Why is that not equally proscribed, given that there would seem to be at least as much opportunity to catch the disease this way, as from sharing a drink with strangers?
Beyond this issue of common sense, you then have to ask where the individual's ability to show, and act in, faith is.
Scale this up and it becomes the second aspect of the edict that annoys me. It seems that the central ritual of becoming one with Christ and the affirmation of a belief in God has been demoted. It is of lesser importance than the recommendations of government scientists and advisors. Once again in an echo of the Age of Enlightenment, reason has triumphed over faith.
What is upsetting is that the custodians of the faith do not seem to have understood how their actions now undermine their belief system. They were in a position to inform the congregation of the dangers, particularly to pregnant women and those with existing health issues, but then could have left it up to the people to decide if they wished to take the risk.
When Princess Diana shook hands with Aids victims in the eighties, it sent shock waves through the world. No matter that she was highly unlikely to contract the condition through such contact -- it was still an act of faith and a demonstration of compassion that was much needed to alleviate misinformation and prejudice at the time. John Gummer fed his daughter a beef-burger at the height of the mad cow disease scare. He was pilloried for doing so (well, he should have eaten it himself) but again the risks taken were minimal yet a message was needed to avert panic on the streets.
Where is the Church's act of faith now? Where is that photo of an archbishop sharing the communal cup with his flock, safe in the belief that his life is in the hands of God – and not the Department of Health?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
