, so I won’t comment too much about the BBC’s no attention spared coverage of the latest Abu Graib photos. David Vance has put it very nicely (with tongue in cheek):
‘never before in the field of human conflict, has so much cruelty been inflicted on so many by so few, right? (Although nobody died or was even seriously injured that we know of but HEY, it’s a cool story, right?)’
Of course the BBC’s point was always that Abu Graib indicated some kind of systematic abuse, which extended upwards to the top. The allegation of systematic abuse was the holy grail for Abu Graib enthusiasts, and the only justification for returning (ghoulishly) to the images again and again. Wikipedia’s account of the conclusions of investigations is pretty good: ‘Guards invented their own rules and supervisors approved of their actions. Personnel lost track of prisoners, did not count their prisoners, and kept no records regarding dozens of escapes. The facility held too many inmates and supplied too few guards. Training of those on guard was insufficient, and superiors neglected to visit the facilities in person. Top military personnel disagreed on whether military police or military intelligence should be in charge. Prisoner treatment varied between shifts and between compounds.’
A balls-up, not an evil plot.
David Vance goes on to say that ‘here’s the thing, when I want to go and check out the infamous “Danish” Cartoons that have already led Muslims to riot and kill, for some odd reason they are not to be found’
I would make little distinction between the images from Abu Graib and the cartoons: both are open to wide interpretation; photos may often not yield facts, while cartoons do not necessarily yield fiction. The BBC’s coy descriptions of the Abu Graib pictures (they ‘seem to show’ etc) have come despite the fact that they’ve alternated the photos they describe on the front page of BBC News online all day, from dawn to dusk- and still going.
But if I wanted to talk about double standards in showing pictures I wouldn’t be short of examples. One of the best might be the consistent images of cruel murder which emanate from Iran, time after time ignored by the Beeb; never rotated at the top of the front page; a systematised process of violence, often against innocents.
For example, I think all will agree, this is worse than Abu Graib; not too much room for interpretation in this one.
“They are not in office now because of weakness”
Cameron’s wimp out over the cartoon affair was regrettable. He could have gone all Churchillian – and would have been in tune with the vast majority of the British public.
a wasted opportunity in every respect.
heres the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html#j001
it gives Ministers arbitary powers by order without reference to parliament i.e. they could amend existing legislation without parliamentary approval. so for example, a broader interpretation of “terrorism” could be inserted into the current anti-terror legislation – WITHOUT a parliamentary vote.
the transcript of the house of commons debate is here:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2006-02-09a.1048.0
Pete
The ideological ‘ism’ which I understand you subscribe to has as its core principle the belief that the market rules all. Unfortunately its adherents have been unable to convince more than two men and a dog of the utopian merits of this approach, mainly because there’s holes in it that you could drive a JCB through. Given that a pretty significant element of success in a market economy is convincing ‘consumers’ of the benefits of your ‘product’ doesn’t this kind of confirm that libertarians are seriously lacking credibility. Back in your box.
Anyway, voters got fed up with first Thatcher then the Conservatives because the holes in her/their approach were becoming increasingly apparent to everyone who occasionally left their house. I for one don’t vote based on the principle of who has historically performed best, otherwise I’d probably be plumping for the Romans or something. Has Labour been worse than the theoretical Conservative alternative – not a lot in it I’d say – however I certainly think that a far more grown up and productive way to right the wrongs of Blairite tyranny is to convince people via well thought out arguments in support of well thought out policies rather than spraying abusive and contrived bluster via niche websites at anyone who disagrees with you.
I assume that you’ll have a s**t weekend on the basis that the evil oppressive dictatorship won’t let you do otherwise.
Cockney,
What’s the correct level of extortion then?
“I assume that you’ll have a s**t weekend on the basis that the evil oppressive dictatorship won’t let you do otherwise”
yeah. he couldnt fox hunt.
archduke
Thanks for the link to the Mother of All Bills transcript. True, we can’t hunt foxie woxy in quite the same way we did but there are ways and means.
Cockney
Have no fear, we on the Right of things are perfectly capable of enjoying our weekends, but then we don’t live in north London slums surrounded angst-filled liberals and the Guardian weekend supplement.
Now as for a test of whether or not we do indeed live under a Blair Tyranny you could try standing at the Cenotaph whilst reading a list of our Irag war dead. Oh hang on … I’m told that’s been tried recently. Apparently the young woman who did that was arrested and charged under an anti-organised crime act. Ah well, file that one under ‘tried and proven to be true’.
Oh look Cockney, Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail refers to you today. Not to you personally of course but obliquely. And when I say Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail I realise you know not of whom I speak. I understand in your circles he’s known as Obergruppenfurher von Littlejohn of the Daily Stormfront. Referring to Blair he says:
In the Commons this week he has managed to force through laws to introduce ID cards, ban the ‘glorification’ of terrorism, and stub out smoking just about anywhere. This, in the kaleidoscope world of New Labour is seen as success.
As he says, you couldn’t make it up.
Cockney
I would have loved to know the holes that you think were so wide. Also which holes you think have been closed by anything this goverment has done.
For the last 2 years after the most prolonged period of growth in recent history, official living standards have fallen.
This you should know effects the pourest people the most.
I know personaly many people living on income support who have never ever know live so hard.
It would seem obvious to any-one not brain washed by 40 years of BBC/Labour party properganda that all and more of our extra taxes are simply going on more goverment and goverment employees.
In order for goverment to justify its increased money/power it neads more laws to administer. Which is why this goverment neads so many new ones.
Thatcher believed in capitalism because it works, as does New Labour. But she (although you never would know it,if you watched the BBC ) believed in FREEDOM. This reflected in an ability to at least control the civil-service. Otherwise they would have taken the piss. Which is what they are now doing.
Good goverment is small goverment,or at least as small as possible. For everyone.
If this is not clear to you by now sadly, it never will be.
Rich
After reading your comments on my post. It is clear that you have not understood a single thing I have written. If my spelling is bad your comprehension is non exsistant. As you are obviously ESN let me remind you that even in an A level exam comprehension and content scores much more than spelling and grammer. Which is why I have an 30 year old A grade O level in it.
I have until now understood everything you have written, and agree with everything you write. You clearly show why the party I am a member of will never get into power in a form that YOU would like.
Is that people like you not only dont listen you cant even here.
One more point for the record.
The people that really run the country except when the odd “wistle blower” blows never get a mention in the media. This should give us a clue to the extent of their real power.
I am talking about the civil-service.
Their wages and benifits including pensions have increased in line with MPs. Which is one hell of an increase and not a comment that I remember on the BBC about it.
Smell anything fishy?
“The people that really run the country”
Yes, if it wasn’t for the fact that almost all politicians are prats, you would feel sorry for them carrying the can for errors that have been made by an army of well paid & securely employed administrators.
Their wages and benifits including pensions have increased in line with MPs
Wrong way round.
Some years back MPs linked their salaries to those of Cvil Servants since 1996 Senior Salries Review Board Report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3762670.stm
Click to access rp04-040.pdf
gordon bennett:-
Conservative sleaze is continally regurgitated and Labour sleaze has been ignored.
We really only have Labour’s word for it that there ever was any Conservative sleaze. Aitken and Archer, basically, in 18 years in power. Labour managed worse than that in its first 6 months.
well as I recall Labour made a lot of private sexual peccadilloes with Piers Merchant I think, and Tim Yeo and their sexcapades.
They did not mention Stephen Pound’;s long-lost child; nor Clare Short’s; nor Mandelson’s boyfriends, nor Ron Davies ‘madness’; nor Nick Brown, nor Chris Smith and HIV…………….nor did they mention Ian McCartney’s drug-addled son…………….
Rick
I think you miss the point regarding the sexual indescretions of the Tories. The Tories had a big “back to basics” camapign that had “family values” at the heart of the campaign. It was the hypocrasy of the public policy and the private acts that was highlighted. I care not what anyotne gets up to in the bedroom unless it is illegal or at odds with their public poilcies.
On that basis I don’t see how Peter Mandleson’s boyfreinds are of any interest, unless of course you are homophobic, which I take it from your comments you proabably are.
As to long lost children, I do recall there being a piece about Clare Short’s long lost child. If it was such an imporant political embarrassment why didn’t the Tories make capital from it?
What has Chris Smith’s HIV got to do with his politics – unless of course you have some form of bigotry against folk with HIV or you think it is some curse inflicted on gay people.
Ian McCartney’s drug addled son? Again how is this relevant? There are addicted offspring of politicians from all political parties – and thankfully this is not something that is made into a major public story. It is not in the public interest.
Very simple A. Lurker it is called hypocrisy. Labour should learn that “people in glass houses should not throw stones”.
Either private lives are off-limits politically or they are not.
“Back to Basics” had zero to do with sex or private lives. Labour merely used its smear tactics in which Mandelson is a real pro.
A Lurker
Hear you are again proving everyones points again. Are you shure you are not a plant from Central Office, you Tory you.
Still you dont understand that everthing you say is straight out of the BBC handbook. Which is why we all know what your going to say , before you even say it. We have been hearing it every day on your favorate TV channal for 40 years.
Why dont you explane what is good about big goverment in general and this very big one in particular that has not been told to the poor missinformed British public already.
A lurker
With reference to Chris Smith. If you cant see your blantent hypocracy. I suggest you read back what you have just put your name to. Are you saying that only Tories have to act honestly, simply because they are Tories? The Tory party is based on a liberal tradition. It is you lott that insist by LAW on morals. Just think of all the new LAWS this goverment has brought in. Dont use “straw man” arguments about things that Tories are supposed to beleive in.
Please remember if liberals, working class people, trade union members, and public service workers, did not vote Tory their would not be a Conservative party at all.
If middle-class self haters,who should have joined the C of E like you, stop voting socialist. The Labour party would never have come into exsistance. Socialism is a 19th centuary theory,eminated from an old German fool, seaching for lost attention from his mother. The only reason it is so popular is that it makes goverments rich and powerfull. Because in theory only the state has any of either.
If it was not for Carl Marx and his fanatics I would by now be living in a Free non-racist prosperous nation, and my children would have a future to look forward to. When you lott finaly realise what damage you have done, I hope at least you dont sleep at nights.
“We really only have Labour’s word for it that there ever was any Conservative sleaze”
Mellor admitted a scandal and resigned over it, and we have Edwina Currie’s word for ‘it’ as well.
Gary and Rick, you miss Lurker’s argument, namely that the Tories had a big ‘Victorian values’ and ‘back to basics’ campaign which clearly they didn’t consider applied to themselves. Hypocrisy; and they were found out.
End of story.