The Furrowed Brow
Serious talk.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Now that the smoking ban has come into force, I'll probably visit the Brow more often.
But I notice there's a very nice smoker's shelter in one of the gardens adjoining the Brow, so everybody's welcome.
Since there's been so much discussion about the recent attempts on Glasgow airport and in London by car bombers, perhaps I could open up the discussion by asking fellow browsters
(1) what they would consider to be acceptable levels of infringement of civil liberties at periods of high alert? and
(2) what can the police do to adapt their methods and behaviour in a way to reduce to a minimum potential alienation of the majority of British citizens of all races and creeds during these tense times?
Big Sister (1):
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any civil liberty infringements that would be justified even during a critical alert.
Blocking off access to an area given specific intelligence, I suppose is fine.
Certainly mandatory ID cards - as we've discussed before - would be useless and therefore unacceptable.
Prohibiting liquids and/or electronic equipment in hand-luggage on 'planes is annoying, but I'm not sure that counts as curtailing civil liberties. (Unless the Human Rights bill includes "the right to listen to an iPod".)
Stop and search is probably OK at any time, provided the Police are open to scrutiny and individual Police officers are required to explain their suspicions to the searchee. (But then I'm in favour of PCs having the right to clip offenders about the ear!)
I don't like the idea of increasing the number of armed Police, or increasing the holding time before charging. What else is on the table?
I'm with the Inoxydable Feline! No restriction of basic civil rights is acceptable, and none is likely to be of much use anyway in curbing terrorism.
I would also note that the recent three attempts seem to be incredibly , and even if they had worked, would be more like incendiaries than proper explosives.
My nomination for soundbite of the week goes to the Right Hoonourable Alex Salmond, "Criminals commit crimes; communities don't." Possibly the wisest, most succinct observation on these matters.
I'm glad to live in an area of no strategic value and with no significant population and thus not worth anyone's terroristic effort
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Okay, let me broaden this out a bit further. By infringement of civil liberties, there's already quite a bit that we've come to accept over time. For example, despite the right to privacy, we may have a bag searched on going into a museum, or other public building. Now, I'm all for civil liberties, but I can see the sense in allowing for this to happen. Why? because it is balancing my rights against potential risks, and it does appear to have been pretty effective as a means to deter terrorists from trying to smuggle explosives, etc., into public buildings.
So, if there is a sensible reason for infringing a civil liberty, but the rationale is clear, does it become more acceptable?
And this, I'd suggest, impacts upon my second question, about how police deal with these issues. If a policeman were to stop me in the street and ask to search me, I would probably tolerate this provided they explained to me beforehand why they felt this to be necessary. It would have to be pretty watertight, though, for it to be acceptable, and there would need to be an independent complaints procedure which operated in such a way that its independence was clearly demonstrated (e.g. that, occasionally at least, individual members of the police force might actually be found guilty of misdemeanour - something which, sadly, happens very little at present - and was subject to an appropriate sanction as a result).
These are somewhat random thoughts at the moment, but it's an area that I think really needs to be aired.
N.B. The at my last link can be seen by selecting all (ctrl-a or edit/select all)
Not very well hidden, eh?
xx
ed
UNITED States plans for the so-called "greater Middle East" do not include an independent, sovereign and viable Palestinian state which can act in the interests of the Palestinian people.
The key objectives of US foreign policy in the region are to ensure reliable supplies of oil, to maintain pro-US regimes and remove those which do not comply with US diktats, to redraw national boundaries to produce a patchwork of weak client states, to spread US military bases and facilities up to the borders of China, Russia and India and, eventually, to create a "free trade" area from Pakistan to north Africa in which US corporations are free to buy up energy resources and infrastructure.
If Tony Blair needs a written job description as Middle East envoy for the Quartet, a posting forced on the EU, UN and Russia by his employer President Bush, this is it.
The chief objective of the Israeli ruling class, which is pursued by all three major electoral parties, has been to ensure that any future Palestinian state is hopelessly fragmented, divided and dependent.
In 2005, nearly 200 Palestinian trade union, women's, youth, legal, cultural and community organisations called for a worldwide non-violent campaign of boycott, disinvestment and sanctions against Israel until it complies with international human rights law. The initiative came originally from the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions and the PLO-affiliated General Union of Palestinian Workers.
Supporters of Israeli expansionism launched a ferocious counter-attack, joined by some well-meaning but confused supporters of the Palestianian cause.
Some of their objections to the proposed trading, cultural, academic and sports boycott have a familiar ring to them.
First, there is the practical point that such boycotts do not work or that they are ineffectual unless carried out on a wide scale nationally and internationally.
It is true that boycotts did not bring down the dictatorships of General Pinochet or the Greek colonels. The biggest international boycott of recent times - that against apartheid South Africa - played less of a part in winning an historic victory than the internal mass struggle.
When it began in the late 1950s, the boycott movement was small and very uneven. Governments, business and their hired academics and commentators poured scorn on it. Some anti-apartheid campaigners within as well as outside South Africa expressed doubts and even opposition.
But the campaign highlighted the inhumanity of the apartheid system and boosted the morale of the liberation movement.
Eventually, the movement to boycott South Africa and disinvest funds influenced the policies of national governments, international institutions and major transnational corporations. After a period of intransigence and sanctions, Afrikaaner unity began to crumble and National Party politicians were eventually compelled to negotiate seriously with the ANC.
Former head of the ANC military wing and current government minister Ronnie Kasrils has joined the Jewish Not in My Name campaign in South Africa.
"I support the call now for the isolation and the boycott of Israel, I support sanctions," he told reporters at a street protest in Cape Town. "That is actually in the interests of all the people - Muslims, Jews and Christians - in the Middle East because the sooner we can stop this conflict, the sooner we can get to negotiations, to a settlement for peace and a recognition of the Palestinian people's national rights."
Recalling the ANC appeal to British academics for a boycott of South African academia, he has also written that "the boycotts and sanctions ultimately helped liberate both blacks and whites."
Second, it is argued that a boycott of Israeli products and institutions will strengthen the most intransigent elements in Israeli society and so harm the Palestinians themselves, especially those who travel to work in Israel.
In the short term, these consequences are probably unavoidable. But for those Palestinian workers and students crossing the border checkpoints, how much more wretched can life become? The arbitary closures, humiliations, beatings and arrests will continue regardless, as will the periodic shut-downs of Palestinian universities.
Most bodies representing Palestinian workers and students in the occupied territories and Israel proper are fully aware of the further sacrifices they will have to make if a boycott policy bites, yet they still urge the world's peoples and governments to carry it out.
The international economic, financial, cultural, tourist and diplomatic isolation of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' has ultimately strengthened the forces for reconciliation and unity in the north of the island, while maintaining the resolve of Cypriots in the south, including the many thousands driven from their homes by the Turkish invasion of 1974.
Third, objections are raised that a boycott is not supported by progressive Israelis and their organisations and may even alienate them to the detriment of the Palestinian people.
The Socialist Party argues that a boycott would "alienate Israel workers, who are the only force capable of removing the brutal Israeli regime and spearheading the reaching of a lasting settlement with the Palestinian people."
It continues by arguing that capitalist politicians are using the boycott issue to drive workers into the arms of the Israeli right.
"Whereas, in the case of South Africa, a majority of black workers there supported international sanctions against the ruling white elite," we are reminded, "Israeli workers are not in agreement with sanctions against Israel."
In fact, there are considerable risks for any Jews and Arabs within Israel - and for their institutions - who publicly support a boycott or other sanctions. Some do, nonetheless.
Even if they do not, the point of principle is not whether Israelis support a boycott of Israel or whether it harms the economic interests of Israeli workers or disrupts the studies of Israeli students. Who ever objected to sanctions against South Africa on the grounds that the white Federation of South African Labour opposed them?
Rather, the primary question is, what do the Palestinian people - the victims of the oppression at issue - call for?
This has to be starting point for solidarity action on our part, not what is in the short-term interests of the Israeli people or even what we perceive to be in the best interests of the Palestinian people.
This does not mean that we suspend our own critical faculties, still less that we act in ways which breach our own fundamental principles of working-class solidarity, social emancipation and mass struggle rather than individual terrorism aimed at civilians.
Certainly, active support from Israeli workers would enormously assist the Palestinians.
The Israeli Histadrut trade union federation has recently organised a wave of strikes on economic and social issues. But it has never lifted a finger against any of the invasions, occupations or massacres perpetrated by the Israeli state.
Its abject failure to defend even the most basic human rights of Palestinian migrant workers has led the PGFTU to call on the trade union movement internationally to sever relations with Histadrut.
At the same time, the boycott, disinvest and sanctions campaign does not propose that political and trade union links with supportive organisations in Israel should be broken.
Fourth, some opponents of a boycott object that Israel is being singled out for special opprobrium, others hinting that this reflects a latent anti-semitism. Yet sanctions have been proposed by left and progressive opinion against military and authoritarian regimes in Burma, Turkey, Indonesia, Colombia and Malaysia. There could be no objection in principle to the victims of British or US imperialism calling for a boycott or sanctions against Britain or the US.
What makes Israel a paramount target is the sheer scale and brutality of its oppression, which is committed in the face of countless UN resolutions, as well as international charters and conventions in defence of basic human rights.
That is not to say that there are not fascist and other deeply reactionary elements which grasp every opportunity to peddle their anti-Jewish filth under the cover of attacking Israel or "zionism." This means that great care must be taken when considering the rationale and content of measures aimed against Israeli state and government policy. It also requires campaigners to exclude fascist and anti-Jewish elements from the Palestinian solidarity movement.
Attempts will also be made by unscrupulous supporters of Israeli expansionism to paint all pro-Palestinian campaigners as witting or unwitting dupes of fascists and anti-semites.
The Alliance for Workers Liberty dishonestly implies that all supporters of a boycott are members of a "kitsch left," which is in alliance with Isamic clerical fascists and opposed to Israel's very existence.
The tragedy is that Israeli state terrorism is daily eroding the material basis for the two-state solution which most of the left and the labour movement in Britain wishes to see.
Boycotts and sanctions will not on their own bring about the establishment of a viable, sovereign and independent Palestinian state alongside a secure and sovereign Israel. But they immediately help to highlight the plight of the Palestinians, the vileness and illegality of Israeli policies and the hypocrisy of the main imperialist powers who collaborate in the crushing of a whole people.
Big Sister (@1)
Two good questions, and my response to them is *long*, and is probably going to get tagged 'malicious'. (it did) (but not as long as rob's post)
The first I would answer from the other end, as it were.
Intelligence gathered before the event so that the event can be prevented is obviously optimum, and we have no idea what is happening in that area *nor ought we to have*: anything we-the-public know about it, so do they-the-cretins-in-cars. I will give the police and intelligence services credit for getting on with that, but by its very nature, if it impinges on the civil liberties of the ordinary citizen it has already failed, since it is then known about and can be circumvented by slightly more clued-up bad lads than the shower this past weekend.
In fact, *anything I know about* is already not working because once it's known about it's what is called 'compromised'. That the government can read all my email, for instance, is known; any half-way-competent conspiritor would not use email or websites to organise a crime, nor mobile phones, and wouldn't discuss their planned crime in any premises that might be bugged. Thank goodness some people have faith in Microsoft 'security'!
The most obviously objectionable infringements of civil liberties, as far as I am concerned, are CCTV all over every public place, and compulsory ID cards linked to a database. Nothing that has happened over the past four days has made me feel that either is of much use in dealing with this sort of thing.
Clearly the first was completely useless in preventing even amateur idiots (which they *were*, praise be: they were incompetent to an almost startling degree) from succeeding in getting their car-bombs to where they wanted and attempting to set them off; the film may be some use after the event in proving who the wannabe bombers were, but this part of London probably has more CCTV cameras per square inch than anywhere in the world, and who spotted the car-bomb? A chap on the scene. Did the CCTV chaps spot the other one? no, they did not: it was towed away by the council, who it seems didn't realise what it was either.
Either the cretins in the cars were British citizens, in which case they'd have had ID without the option, or they weren't, in which case they had ID to get into the country and it didn't do any good whatever in preventing them from doing what they subsequently did.
As for the second question, what the various authorities could do to annoy people less, well, I dunno, but I can't help feeling that most ordinary people dislike a feeling that they are being constantly watched and harrassed. If I were subject to stop-and-search too often, I'd begin to get ratty about it -- back when that was something that happened to people who wore a leather jacket (which was an optional 'mark of difference' rather than being something one was born with and could never choose to discard) I became very pissed off on about the fourth occasion, even more pissed off when the officer on the scene asked me 'When did you stop taking drugs then?' on failing to find any in my pockets. So perhaps a combination of not making too much of a habit of that sort of thing, and not being needlessly offensive whilst doing it, might be a good place to start.
In other words assuming that everyone is innocent until they are shown to be guilty. I can think of two cases in which that would have saved the police a lot of embarrassment and saved the life of one man, meant that another was not shot and wounded.
Those two cases in themselves would be enough to make me very edgy about the police if I were brown-skinned and under thirty, because a mistake on their part might mean that I was D E A D, even if I lay on the ground and tried very hard indeed to surrender. Or wounded even though all I had done was get out of bed in my pyjamas to see who was breaking into my house. That sort of thing really isn't helpful in reassuring brown-skinned youth that they are safe, and it springs from a state of mind that is not helpful either. There are about two million Muslims in this country, I think; of those how many are bombers-in-waiting? Maybe a hundred who are a serious risk? Perhaps as many as two hundred? That leaves an awful lot of lads like the three in the family who live next door to me and have no more interest in bombing anything than they have in quantum physics, chances are. Overkill on suspicion might raise that figure rather than lowering it, I feel, just by annoying the uncommitted into a state of mind in which they feel so pissed off that they actually get involved instead of just muttering about it being Unfair.
My evil side reckons that a good way to eliminate wannabebombers would be to encourage the promulgation of The Anarchist Cookbook, actually. Not only would possession of it indicate an interest in making bombs, but an attempt to make bombs using it would probably wipe out quite a few of the ones who tried it. No, I am not going to elaborate on that. :-)
I suppose there are *active* and *passive* measures, CCTV being amongst the latter, like being tracked via your mobile. It may not stop an outrage being committed - but it doesn't half make the police's job easier in catching the so and so's who did it, thereby preventing the next outrage. Growing up in Northern Ireland in the 70's and 80's people took getting searched going into shops and stopped and questioned occasionally, very much in their stride. But I think Big Sis hit the nail on the head, people will accept it if they feel the seriousness of the situation warrants it. In NI in the 70's it obviously did. In London today? I'm not so sure that they do, even with the weekend's events. Personally I would view things like being stopped at random as a bit of a nuisance rather than an infringement of my civil liberty. I would reserve that description for matters like being held without trial and so on. However I suspect I may be in a teeny bit of a minority.
Chris: I agree with your first point. So, I'm all for intelligence gathering. However, much of that will already have involved infringements of the traditionally accepted concept of civil liberties - which means we're accepting such violations for the greater good.
CCTV - Hm. I've mixed views about that. I don't like it in principle, that's for sure, but I can see some benefits with regard to apprehension of criminals and terrorists. Just as long as coverage is restricted to truly public places, allowing people to live a private life in their homes. No '1984' for me, thank you! It will be interesting to see whether its usefulness is demonstrated in the coming months.
ID cards. Well, I lived in Spain for a while, where everybody had one. As a non Spaniard it meant I had to carry my passport with me at all times as it could be extremely inconvenient not to be able to produce evidence of identity if required by the policia or guardia civil. I agree that there is huge room for misuse in the kind of system currently mooted for the UK, particularly because of the vulnerability of computer-based systems. I wouldn't feel too bothered about having an ID card per se, but would be bothered about the information contained thereon being open to abuse. And I'd very much object to it being the repository of all the essential information about 'me' as I would feel vulnerable, not only to criminals, but also to government and other agencies. So, thumbs down overall.
Stop and search, etc., and ethnic groups: Yes. I agree. Misuse of this, and other police methods, historically, has contributed in a great measure to the disaffection of afrocarribean and asian youths and the consequent escalation in crime. How the police can rebuild trust I don't know, but that concern lies largely behind my second question.
Peej (8) - Also living in Northern Ireland and with similar experiences, I mostly agree with you. If the restrictions are seen as proportionate and necessary most people will readily accept and tolerate them. Stupid and inconsistent regulations just irritate people. I would love somebody to explain why nail files or nail scissors are banned from aircraft, presumably because they could be used as weapons, but yet it is perfectly acceptable to take on bottles of wine and spirits. The fact that one could fashion a pretty effective weapon out of a broken bottle doesn鈥檛 seem to count. And why are cosmetics more visible in a clear plastic bag than not in a clear plastic bag?
Entering large stores, especially in Belfast at the height of the "troubles" it was commonplace to be frisked by security staff - in Marks & Spencer this was done by staff wearing dark blue waterproof jackets. On holiday in England, I had occasion to go into an M&S store (in Cambridge I think). There was a guy standing at the entrance wearing a blue coat - I suspect he was just waiting for his wife. Force of habit made me stand in front of him with my arms stretched out, ready to be frisked. He looked at me as if I was some sort of loony! I felt such a prat that I didn鈥檛 even try to explain it to him 鈥 I just mumbled something and quickly walked away.
It occurs to me, reading through, that what is most needed of all things is a sense of proportion and priorities.
The media, obviously, draw attention to the horrors as much as possible because that is what sells papers, and for whatever reason it seems to be to the advantage of HM Government to do the same. Obviously the Police and Security Forces are going to play it up: the more terrorism is perceived as the most important thing in the known universe, the more justification there is for their funding to be increased, and for them to be given more powers and more techy toys to play with.
But.
60,000,000 people, how many killed by terrorists?
60,000,000 people, how many put in fear of what is statistically very, very unlikely to come anywhere near them? (more likely to be hit by a drunk in a car, over the past decade)
Molly slept badly because of being terrorised, and I deferentially suggest that the people who terrorised her were at least as much the media as the failed incendiaries -- who had actually hurt *nobody at all*, though of course not for lack of trying.
Meanwhile poor maintenance and inadequate funding for public transport means that incidents such as those which occurred at Manchester, Hatfield, Moorgate, King's Cross (I could go on) are waiting to happen again, without a single terrorist raising a hand to cause them. Which killed and horribly injured more people: the King's Cross fire, or all the July 7th bombings put together? I don't know for certain, but I'll bet it's a close-run calculation. I am more afraid of blasted incompetents not bothering to check the points and signals and *rails* on the main line railways than I am of blasted incompetent terrorists.
This may make me a rare person at present, but it is statistically sensible. I also realise that it may leave me open to accusations of supporting terrorism or whatever else, which of course I don't, but that is a risk I have to take if I am to try to look at these matters with an open mind.
Where has my response to Rob gone? It was here a few minutes ago.
Rob (6),
Maybe we should all boycott ?
Salaam/Shalom
ed
(More at my namelink)
Just an everyday story of an .
More ethnic cleansing at my namelink
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Thanks Ed. Will respond soon. Missed the program!!! I'll have to get my email address to you some how.
4XMalicious! Tum tee Tum!
Have just switched off telly and come here to let off steam. Been watching 'The Tower' on 大象传媒 1 and feel so irritated by the stereotype 'PR girls' . Also feel desperately sad for the guy whose girlfriend has left him. He's a drinker and an addict; he also seems a decent bloke and my heart goes out to him.
I expect this is exactly the effect the producer(s) wanted from their viewers... emotion!
Yes, I can be a b1tch and a softie, too, in the same half-hour. But it's all a bit too much for nearly bed-time.
Rant over.
Hi Ed Iglehart!
This for you. I'll sort you out from the junk, then pass on my regular address.
Have a good Frog.
OM!
This really is of concern.
perhaps it's something that PM can look at over the next few Months? I'd like to think it would never happen in the UK - but if we have Indian call centres then anything is possible.
;-0)
Jonnie! That's Brow Abuse!!
ED;
Area of no strategic value? Oh dear. I thought you were well informed about these matters.
Next time you get down to the beach (the real beach) near you take a look across the Solway Firth almost exactly due East of Palnackie. Look at the last little bit of England before you cross into Scotland.
There's a place there called Anthorn, a little village of almost no significance whatsoever. Almost, but not quite.
It's the home of the only VLF transmitter station left in Britain since Rugby, Criggion and the others were decommissioned only a few years ago. It's solely responsible for sending the firing orders to the British Trident ballistic missile submarine(s) at sea, in the event of a decision to launch a nuclear war.
Highly strategic I'd say, and no doubt on someone's target list in the extraordinarily unlikely event of the Third World War ever breaking out.
Si.
where do you put this?
GEORGE MELLY R.I.P.
What an ole codger 'e was.
Si (20),
Thanks very much for that! I'm not sure I wanted to know, but thanks. :-(
Should you be publishing such sensitive information on this insecure system? You never know who might get ideas.
And Jet, I'll buy a round, and let's all toast ole George:
Here's to absent friends!
An' here's tae us,
Whae's like us?
Gai few, an' they're a' deed!
Slainte
ed
Ed:
Sensitive, possibly.
Common knowledge? Certainly. Find it on Wikipedia by searching for 'Very_low_frequency', 'Anthorn_VLF_transmitter', or 'GBZ'. And in many other places on the Web.
Incidentally, since Rugby and Criggion were demolished it also sends out the National Physical Laboratory's radio frequency time synchronisation code.
This is used, in conjunction with signals from GPS, to regulate the atomic clock recently moved from Greenwich into the basement of Broadcasting House which generates the 大象传媒 pips.
The pips are actually transmitted from Droitwich on Long Wave, timed so that they reach the centre of London (roughly 100 km away) at the exactly correct time. Sadly this means that anyone who doesn't live 100 km from Droitwich is out of step with those who are the right distance away.
Oh no, I've got my anorak on again!
Si.
Thanks for the PM newsletter. I was hoping you would be talking about schools having lessons in social and emotional skills. I have an interest because I鈥檝e been a teacher (and headteacher) for 30 years.
I listened to the item about this on the World At One* with increasing frustration and indeed anger.
For years governments (Labour and Tory) have been telling teachers what to do in schools, focussing more and more on results 鈥 by which of course they mean test and exam results. So where schools have always tried to educate the whole person, they have been pressured into making children jump through an increasing number of academic hoops.
It is not surprising that schools have been tempted to exclude those bothersome children who threaten their league table positions.
It is surprising 鈥 and greatly to the credit of schools all over the country 鈥 that we have not taken that easy route, and have continued to take account of the individual needs of virtually all children in our care.
We then hear of a new initiative to teach those things that good teachers have been teaching for decades. This is backed up by a government minister talking about sanctions (exclusion, confiscation, detention) and an ex-teacher whose idea of respect is to film children secretly and sell the videos to a TV company.
This sort of thing makes me incoherent with rage. Fortunately, I have learnt to manage my anger by writing to PM. To help with my therapy, please could you read out the following message on PM:
鈥淗undreds of thousands of children and their teachers go to school every day and engage in productive learning and teaching. They don鈥檛 just work out how to pass tests; they also learn not to bite, how to help their friends, how a little politeness goes a long way, and many other skills. We have learnt to live with well-meaning but often ignorant advice from government ministers and advisers. We know what we鈥檙e doing. Please leave us alone.鈥
Thank you.
Sid
===============
*not a patch on PM
Right! Anoraks off!
Read .
Another illustration of 'proportional' activity by the warders of the second largest outdoor prisaon in the world! (The biggest is what remains of the West Bank).
So much for having 'withdrawn' from Gaza!
So much for Israel's desire for peace!
Grrrr!
ed
Sid,
I'll second all that you said! God bless the teachers with a true vocation!
God Bless our village schools!
xx
ed
Ed, and anyone else interested in the huge topic of conflict, Islamism and the rest, I cannot recommend too highly the book by Ed Husain "The Islamist" which I have just finished reading.
You may remember Ed being interviewed when his book came out a few weeks ago. I was impressed at the time by how articulate and reasoned his arguments were. This is the story of British Islam and Islamists from the inside and made much clearer for me much of the background to where we are now.
Ed I,
Have you checked the tipiglen blogspot?
Anne (27),
Ed's on my list, and I linked to an article in the press by him here
on the 'terror threat' thread
(aitchttps://)www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2007/06/the_terror_threat.shtml
I haven't ordered the book yet, though. A young man wise beyond his years, I reckon.
D.N.Pacem,
I sure have, and responded there. The 大象传媒 link above (25) is a result. Thanks and
Brotherly Peace
ed
Anyone wishing to see some more proof of US/Israeli resistance to peace, please see .
and scroll down...
Thanks to enlightened interchange.
(aitchttps://)home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/loveandpeace3.gif
Houb Salaam
ed
07/07/2007 at 13:45:59 GMT
Ed Hussein in last Sunday's
xx
ed
Two things that have been brought to my attention and that I ought to mention here. One is an addition, the other a correction.
The first I am sure must already be known to the informed folk in this forum but seems worth a mention: last Tuesday the House of Lords debated on "Palestine: Occupied Territories" and this is mentioned in the main letter in today's Independent under the heading "T-shirt was too political for parliamentary police". The debate is of course published in Hansard, though short of going and fetching it in person I'm not sure how one gets hold of that. Ed will probably know.
The other thing is something I was told by someone last night and so it's hearsay, but it's from a source I regard as reliable. Apparently a man at Oxford called Barry Juniper has done research on alcohol in drink, and established that a remarkably small level of alcohol has the effect of destroying germs (I'm sure there's a technical term for that but I can't off-hand think of it), so "small beer" may have contained almost no alcohol, certainly not enough to enebriate anyone. That ties in with a discussion some time ago about the British, as opposed to the Mediterranean, drink culture, as indicating that there is rather less historical reason for binge drinking than we may have concluded. Beer may need to be consumed more quickly after being made than wine does, but it doesn't have to be strong in order to prevent disease, seems to be the message. Boiling the water may be a factor, as I supposed, but it's not in fact the main one. It looks from that as if I was simply wrong: sorry to whoever it was I was arguing with, my data were definitely incomplete.
Chris (32),
It's .
Thanks for the heads up!
xx
ed
Ed @ 33, thanks for the link.
So, the Tory proposal to curb binge drinking is to put 7p tax on a pint of beer.
I think I am correct in saying the coomon view f binge drinking is a Friday night in a city centre pub or night club, where beer is coomonly over three pounds a pint. A good night usually consist of downing 10 pints of your favourite euro fizz, pulling a bird, having a fight, and topping it all off with a kebab. The tax would add an extra, erm, 70p to this extravaganza. Well, won't be doing that again then, not for an extra 70p.
What about the binge drinking I see everyday? I like to pop into my local for a pint after work (sorry Ed, it does mean I miss about a quarter of your programme). There is regularly a crowd in there, fresh from the golf course, who drink 5 or 6 pints of beer and have a laugh and a joke. I am talking middle aged accountant/builder/professional people. Am I right in thinking that is also binge drinking?
OK, now I have changed my mind about GB's idea of whom to invite to be in the Cabinet.
It's not about binning party politics. Sorry but I'm about to start shouting now...
HE'S APPOINTING PEOPLE TO TELL US WHAT TO DO WHO'VE NEVER BEEN ELECTED!!!!!!!!!
Not democratic. At all. Even remotely.
Orwell? Nineteen eighty-four? Anyone listening????
Fifi
With the current housing debate in mind, I am interested to know what happened to the 'cash mountain' generated by the sale of council housing. I remember hearing that if this money were released it would cause severe inflation, has this problem been solved?
Thanks