Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Britain

Man Who Threatened Prime Minister and MPs over Fear Mother Would Fail Immigration Test Jailed

2020-11-22

[BREITBART] Wajid Shah, 27, was locked away Maw! They're comin' to get me, Maw! for two years after being found guilty of six counts of sending threatening communications to politicians, including a death threat to former Prime Minister Theresa May. The court heard that Shah had sent messages to those connected to British immigration laws over fears his mother would fail her citizenship test. The Slough resident was first arrested for sending threatening messages in March 2019 and was rearrested the following month after he continued to send malicious communications. Charged in September 2019, he was found guilty at Southwark Crown Court on October 6th after a six-day trial and was sentenced on Friday. Thames Valley Police said that all the communications sent via email had "conveyed a threat with the sole purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient". Shah had sent messages to then-Prime Minister May as well as past and present serving parliamentarians in the Labour and Conservative parties, according to the BBC. In an impact statement read on behalf of the former Conservative leader, it was revealed that while Mrs May was used to receiving threatening messages, it was the fact that Shah lived so close to her Maidenhead constituency and the "extremely offensive, threatening and disturbing" nature of the messages that left her "feeling anxious and concerned". Mrs May, who Shah threatened to kill "with a knife or gun", added that "what made this one different was the explicit and repeated threat to kill me". He had also sent messages to MP Tan Dhesi and former MP and current Member of the House of Lords Mark Lancaster, in which he threatened to cut off their heads. The threats against Mr Dhesi, which included a racist slur, were taken so seriously by police that the Slough Labour MP was advised to leave his constituency office. Former Conservative immigration minister Caroline Nokes was also targetted with a message that said: "I’m going to kill you fucking bitchh and I’m going to kill you fucking bitch." Ms Nokes noted that the email she received indicated that Shah had done some research on her constituency, leaving her with the feeling that the threat was reminiscent of the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, who was shot and stabbed outside of a library where she was holding a surgery in 2016. Shah had also sent former Labour minister Lord David Blunkett abusive messages, calling him a "regarded blind bastard" in two emails. Prosecutor Barry McElduff had told jurors that Shah was concerned that his mother Noreen Shah would fail her naturalisation test because she speaks "little or no English", as he often had to act as her translator.

Link

Britain

Government lunatic magnet goes live

2010-07-01

Anyone wondering exactly what Nick Clegg has been up to since not being elected David Cameron's fag deputy need wonder no more - he's been busy setting up yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk. The site is supposedly an attempt to find out what useless and unnecessary laws the public would like to see removed from the statute book. Plenty of scope for reasoned debate there, we'd have thought. Luckily the site is already attracting some of the internet's finest minds. Impeccably reasoned and correctly spelled calls for castration of paedophiles, stopping IVF on the NHS and repealing laws forcing motorcyclists to wear helmets have all been made already. Meanwhile, submissions supporting stronger legal rights for people who batter burglars or bugger animals are also gaining support. Meanwhile, submissions supporting stronger legal rights for people who batter burglars or bugger animals are also gaining support. Luckily the wisdom of crowds has also brought action on that burning issue of the day - necro-bestiality. Alan Penweather, who is concerned what might happen to his cat after its death, notes that while UK law bans sex with dead people there is no such law stopping people shagging unalive animals. Clearly Penweather's concerns will have to be weighed up against Cooper23's demand that the coalition "Remove the law preventing incest and bestiality". We can only assume that Cooper is related to, and fancies, some animals. To be fair the site does seem to be popular - we assume that's why it's crawling between pages right now. Presumably the site replaces the e-petitions service, currently suspended, which used to be the website government mainly ignored when writing legislation. Get involved yourself here. In other news it would be hard to make up... Tony Blair is to be awarded the National Constitution Center's Liberty Medal. He is presumably an example of someone who has "strived to secure the blessings of liberty to people the world over". That's the same Tony Blair who, just to examine his local record, made David Blunkett Home Secretary, looked the other way on internment and torture and restricted trial by jury. Blair won for his work in Northern Ireland.

Link

Britain

More Allegations About UK's Labour Government Mass Immigration Policies

2010-02-10

The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends. The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour's migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country's economic needs, but also the Government's "social objectives". The paper said migration would "enhance economic growth" and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be "economically damaging". But it also stated that immigration had general "benefits" and that a new policy framework was needed to "maximise" the contribution of migration to the Government's wider social aims. More evidence (if it were needed) that left-wing politics represents cultural suicide. The Government has always lied through its teeth/ denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy. However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to "social exclusion". That was on Tony Blair's watch. While we Americans appreciated his foreign policy, and especially his ability to articulate so beautifully George W. Bush's ideas, you Brits insisted there were serious problems on the domestic side. So it now appears. Last night, the Conservatives demanded an independent inquiry into the issue. It was alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door ­policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism. Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour. The existence of the draft policy paper, which was drawn up by a Cabinet Office think tank and a Home Office research unit, was disclosed last year by Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. He alleged at the time that the sharp increase in immigration over the past 10 years was partly due to a "driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multi-cultural". However, the full document was made public only yesterday following a Freedom of Information request by Migrationwatch, a pressure group. A version of the paper was published in 2001, but most of the references to "social objectives" had been removed. In the executive summary alone, six out of eight uses of the phrase were deleted. Labour has overseen an unprecedented rise in immigration, which has led to a rise of about three million in the UK population since 1997. Until recently, it accused opponents who called for tougher controls of playing the "race card". Gosh, that sounds familiar. Labour was forced to change its rhetoric amid concerns that the economic and social reality of immigration had alienated voters in its heartlands. Gordon Brown pledged to secure "British jobs for British workers" as the recession led to a rise in unemployment and, just four months ago, he was accused of a U-turn when he insisted that it was "not racist" to discuss the issue. There is no level of contempt that Brown is unworthy of. The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title "Migration: an economic and social analysis" but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to "social objectives". The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase -- "if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives" -- was edited out. Another deleted phrase suggested that it was "correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy". Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the document showed that Mr Neather, who claimed ministers wanted to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", had been correct in his account of Labour's immigration policy. "Labour had a political agenda which they sought to conceal for initiating mass immigration to Britain," he said. "Why else would they be so anxious to remove any mention of social aspects? Only now that their working-class supporters are deserting them in droves have they started to talk about restricting immigration." Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, accused the Government of having a secret policy. "This shows that Labour's open-door immigration policy was deliberate, and ministers should apologise," he said. "This makes it all the more important that there is a proper independent inquiry in the origins of this policy and whether ministers have been deceiving people." Jack Straw, who was home secretary when the paper was drawn up, has adamantly denied any secret plot and insisted that he had been tough on immigration. Liar! I do apologize. For a given value of tough that statement would of course be true. Granted, the value would not match common dictionary definitions, but even so. Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister, said the policy changes introduced in the 1997-2001 Parliament toughened immigration rules. Do tell. Really, do tell us. "The reports confirm there is no evidence to back the idea there was an open-door policy," he said. "The Government was criticised at the time for tightening the policy." Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, will announce today moves to make it harder to earn citizenship. Tightened citizenship rules are lovely idea. How about radically reducing the number of entrants allowed into the country as well? Related: Oxford Student Screams 'Kill the Jews' at Israeli Foreign Minister

Link

Britain

Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us

2009-10-26

So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened. Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate? The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate. There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage. This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed. In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised 'firm control over immigration' and in 2005 it promised a 'crackdown on abuse'. In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages. But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy. For Neather wrote that until 'at least February last year', when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration. This has been achieved. Some 2.3million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1222977/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-outrageous-truth-slips-Labour-cynically-plotted-transform-entire-make-Britain-telling-us.html#ixzz0V4tXXPNU

Link

Britain

Labour let in migrants 'to engineer multicultural UK'

2009-10-24

Huge increases in immigration over the past decade were a deliberate attempt to engineer a more multicultural Britain, a former Government adviser said yesterday. Andrew Neather, a speechwriter who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said Labour's relaxation of controls was a plan to 'open up the UK to mass migration'. As well as bringing in hundreds of thousands to plug labour market gaps, there was also a 'driving political purpose' behind immigration policy, he claimed. Ministers hoped to change the country radically and 'rub the Right's nose in diversity'. But Mr Neather said senior Labour figures were reluctant to discuss the policy, fearing it would alienate its 'core working-class vote'. Who happen to stand more with the Tories on that issue ... On Question Time, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour's immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP. Writing in the Evening Standard, Mr Neather revealed the 'major shift' in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office. The published version promoted the labour-market case for immigration but Mr Neather said unpublished versions contained additional reasons. 'Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. 'I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.' The 'deliberate policy', from late 2000 until 'at least February last year', when the new points-based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said. Mr Neather defended the policy, saying mass immigration has 'enriched' Britain and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place. Especially the spittle-throwing imans ... Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: 'Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite. Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock-up but a conspiracy. They were right. 'This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage.' The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: 'We welcome this statement which the whole country knows to be true. It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.'

Link

-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

Farmers issue warning after fatal cow attacks

2009-08-25

LONDON (Reuters) - The deaths of no fewer than four people after being trampled by cows in the past two months has prompted Britain's main farming union to issue a warning about the dangers of provoking the normally docile animals. No more cow tipping! Cows can become aggressive and charge, especially when calves are present and walkers are accompanied by dogs, said the National Farmers Union (NFU). To keep them from charging I suggest taking away their charge cards. The union and the Ramblers' Association both advise that walkers release dogs from their leads when passing through a field of cows. Ramblers' Association. Sounds like an old car club. "The cattle are interested in the dog, not the walker," said Robert Sheasby, Rural Surveyor at the NFU. "As the cattle try to get the dog, there's a high chance they will get the walker too." Maybe the walkers should try running faster than the dogs. Britain has 7.5 million cows but in the past eight years there have only been 18 deaths involving cattle, including bulls whose dangers are well-known. The current spate of attacks by cows began on the Pennine Hills on June 21, when Liz Crowsley, a veterinary surgeon from Warrington, was crushed against a wall and then trampled underfoot while out walking with her two dogs. "Eat more chikin!" On July 15, another attack took place in Derbyshire, when Barry Pilgrim, a 65-year old from the area, was trampled to death by a cow as his wife looked on. Spectator sport? Three days later, Anita Hinchey, a 63-year-old, was walking her dog near Cardiff when a cow attacked her and trampled her to death. The fourth fatal attack claimed the life of Harold Lee, a 75-year-old farmer from Burtle in the West Country. He was killed by his own herd, which may have been made nervous by the siren of a passing ambulance. Seems to be exclusively older people. Thinning the herd? The risk is especially high in the spring when many of the calves are only a month or two old and the mothers are therefore especially protective, the NFU said. My baby will not be McBeef! Kepp yer hands off! "It's to do with spring and autumn calving," said Sheasby. "In the autumn, cattle will be coming into winter housing but in spring you want them out grazing the grass." Cow-charging incidents received extended coverage when former Home Secretary David Blunkett was attacked by one in June as his guide dog led him across a field in England's Peak District. How much did the cow charge? What's the going rate for pasture-crossing? Blunkett broke a rib and was heavily bruised but survived.

Link

Europe

German Bishop Protests Against UK Shariah Comments

2008-02-09

As the Archbishop of Canterbury comes under fire for suggesting parts of Shariah law be applied in the UK, the head of Germany's Protestant Church told Deutsche Welle a country needs a single legal system for everyone. Speaking to journalists at the Deutsche Welle in Bonn, Wolfgang Huber, head of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany, slammed the proposal by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams to introduce parts of Islamic Shariah law for Muslims in Britain. Williams also said introduction of some aspects of Islamic or Shariah law was "unavoidable" in Britain to promote social cohesion. "Hoping to achieve integration through a dual legal system is a mistaken idea," Huber told Deutsche Welle in an exclusive interview. "You have to ask the question as to what extent cultural characteristics have a legitimate place in a legal system. But you have to push for one country to have one system." Williams, head of the 70-million member Anglican Church, provoked an outcry in an interview with the BBC on Thursday by saying a single approach to the legal system with one law for everybody was "a bit of a danger." He also called into question whether the current legal system could fulfill the demands of a "multi-faith society." The archbishop also stressed that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states, the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women." "Recipe for chaos" Williams' interview prompted strong reactions from policymakers in Britain. The idea of formalizing Islamic Shariah law in Britain would be "catastrophic" for social cohesion, David Blunkett, a former Home Secretary and prominent member of the government of Tony Blair, said on Friday, Feb. 8. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a blunt response to the issues on Friday. "The prime minister is clear that in Britain, British laws based on British values will apply," a spokesman said. Culture Secretary Andy Burnham added that there is no basis for applying different laws to people of different religions, saying: "You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other. That would be a recipe for chaos." Britain's Muslim Council wants debate The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Great Britain's largest Muslim association, also said it rejected a "dual legal system" but was in favor of a larger debate on the issue. Britain, which has 1.7 million Muslim citizens, had to "face up to the fact" that some of them did not relate to the British legal system, said Williams. Integration has been widely debated in the UK since four British Islamists killed 52 people in suicide bombings on London transport in July 2005. Williams proposed that Muslims should be able to choose whether to have issues like marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in Shariah-compliant proceedings or the existing legal system. Shariah councils exist in UK "We're looking at a very small aspect of Shariah for Muslim families when they choose to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children and so forth," said Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain. Islamic Shariah Councils, which have no legal authority under the British system, deal with everything from banking to alcoholism, forced marriage and divorce -- an issue that features in 95 percent of the cases brought before the councils. Under English law, people may settle disputes in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process. Tariq Ramadan, and Islamic scholar who teaches at Oxford University said Muslims needed to find a way to merge religious beliefs and law. "[Williams'] kinds of statements just feed the fears of fellow citizens," he told the Guardian newspaper. "I really think we, as Muslims, need to come with something that we abide by the common law and within these latitudes there are possibilities for us to be faithful to Islamic principles."

Link

Britain

Our failure to confront radical Islam is there for all to see

2006-10-18

At long last, the debate on Islamism as politics, not Islam as religion, is out in the open. Two weeks ago, Jack Straw might have felt he was taking a risk when publishing his now notorious article on the Muslim veil. However, he was pushing at an open door. From across the political spectrum there is now common consent that the old multicultural emperor, before whom generation of politicians have made obeisance, is now a pitiful, naked sight. The 10,000 Muslims in my constituency of Rotherham can only benefit from removing the dead hand of ideological Islamism – allowing their faith to be respected and their children to flourish in a Britain that finally wakes up to what must be done. Despite the efforts of extremists to prevent any sort of rational debate about the place of Islam in Britain, it is at last happening. “A fight-back is beginning to reclaim Britain from the grip of those who refuse to acknowledge the centrality of British values of tolerance, fair play and parliamentary democratic freedoms – notably those of free speech and respect for all religions, but supremacy for none.” A fight-back is beginning to reclaim Britain from the grip of those who refuse to acknowledge the centrality of British values of tolerance, fair play and parliamentary democratic freedoms – notably those of free speech and respect for all religions, but supremacy for none. Voltaire noted this attribute of the English three centuries ago, when he wrote: "If there was just one religion in Britain there would be despotism. If two, there would be civil war. But as there are 30, they all live at peace with each other." It is worth returning to Voltaire on this issue. The struggle is not between religion and secularism, nor between the West and Islam, and still less between Bush-Blair and the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents. It is the ideologisation – an ugly word for an ugly thing – of religion that needs confronting. Return to Voltaire who noted, "Neither Montaigne, Locke, Boyle, Spinoza, Hobbes, or Lord Shaftesbury lighted up the firebrand of discord in their countries; this has generally been the work of divines, who, being at first puffed up with the ambition of becoming chiefs of a sect, soon grew very desirous of being at the head of a party." The row ignited by Jack Straw has, so to speak, ripped away the veil over the failure of British policy-makers since the 1980s to come to grips with growing ideological Islamism in our midst. In David Blunkett's diaries, he refers to the arrest of the Finsbury Park radical Islamist imam, Abu Hamza, in January 2003. Mr Blunkett records: "We had been to-ing and fro-ing on this for months." For months! For years, every other politician in Europe had been complaining about the failure of Britain to act against Hamza and the other ideologues of hate who were turning young Muslim minds – long before 9/11 or the Iraq conflict – into cauldrons of hate against democracy, and some, tragically, into self-immolating killers of innocent men, women and children. Where Blunkett and previous ministers failed to act, it has taken a young, devoutly religious Christian politician, in the form of Ruth Kelly, who knows the difference between private faith and public politics, to come forward and to speak en clair to organisations and ideologues who believed that their world view would – and should – overcome British values and traditions. An all-party commission on anti-Semitism that I chaired reported recently. Our most worrying discovery was the complacency on many university campuses about harassment of Jewish students. Jew-baiting behaviour that would have had the Left outraged in the 1930s is now actively encouraged by an unholy alliance of the hard Left and Islamist fundamentalists, and the odious anti-Semites who have infiltrated some lecturers' unions. Ruth Kelly, whose fealty to her faith matches that of any deeply religious British Muslim, is right to make clear there are now limits which must not be overstepped. As a Foreign Office minister, I tried to get Whitehall to take the issue seriously. I argued that diplomats who spoke relevant languages should go and talk, discuss and report back to ministers. Chinese walls in Whitehall prevented effective inter-departmental co-operation. The Home Office, in addition to allowing Hamza to poison the minds of a generation, refused to return to France Rashid Ramda, who was wanted for questioning in connection with the 1995 Paris Metro bombings – a foretaste of our own 7/7. I hated having to go on French television and waffle defensively at a policy of not extraditing this evil man. But the prevailing culture was to deal with religious leaders, not elected politicians. Whitehall sought the advice of friendly theologians from Cairo, or Muslim ideologues such as Tariq Ramadan. This denied political space to British citizens of Muslim faith, women as well as men. Late in 2003, I made a routine speech to my constituency. It followed the murder of British and Turkish men and women at our consulate in Istanbul by Islamist terrorists. At the same time, a young South Yorkshire Muslim had gone to Israel and killed himself in a suicide bombing attack. The two events led me to make a speech in which I said: "It is time for the elected and community leaders of British Muslims to make a choice: it is the democratic, rule of law, if you like the British or Turkish or American or European way – based on political dialogue and non-violent protests – or it is the way of the terrorists against which the whole democratic world is now uniting." I thought my remarks were banal. After 7/7, everyone used them. But, three years ago, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips wrote a whole page in the Observer denouncing me. The Foreign Office and Downing Street would not allow me to defend my position. It was an ugly, uncomfortable time, as no one in Whitehall or the media showed any support for efforts to get a debate going on issues that today rightly predominate. Red boxes are here today and gone tomorrow. But if a minister is to be dismissed for telling the truth, even if the telling of the truth is not perfectly timed, then this or any government is in trouble. Islamist politics is now one of the most important issues for the future of democracy. Getting the right answers will define the world's future. All main parties, other than the odious BNP, rightly shun Islamophobia. British Muslims will be welcome at Eid parties in the Commons to celebrate the end of Ramadan. But we have to find answers to calls for censorship, to celebrations of jihadist terror, or a religiously ordained world view that denies equal rights for women or gays here and in Afghanistan. Some difficult politics lies ahead. It is bizarre that neither David Cameron nor Sir Menzies Campbell have spoken. At some stage, the metro-populism of Notting Hill will have to engage with the worries of British citizens who understand a problem long before Whitehall gets it. There is a new generation of British Muslims who want to engage in politics and reclaim the issues that concern their communities from religious-based outfits or those who see their task as importing foreign conflicts into domestic British politics. They must be encouraged before it is too late. From Margaret Thatcher, until very recently Tony Blair, political leaders have been in denial. It is time to wake up. Denis MacShane is Labour MP for Rotherham and worked at the Foreign Office as PPS and minister, 1997-2005

Link

Britain

Britain 'deserves its drugs problem', says UN

2006-06-27

Cannabis use has turned into a pandemic that is causing almost as much harm as cocaine or heroin, the head of the United Nations anti-drugs office says. He criticised governments, such as the UK's, which have downgraded the cannabis threat, saying that they have got the "drug problem they deserve". Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, appealed to European political parties to agree a long-term strategy for reducing consumption of the drug, which he said was being used in 2004 by 164 million people worldwide. As well as being more widespread, the drug is "considerably more potent" than it was a few decades ago, he said. Speaking at the launch of the World Drug Report in Washington, Mr Costa warned: "Policy reversals leave young people confused as to just how dangerous cannabis is. With cannabis-related health damage increasing, it is fundamentally wrong for countries to make cannabis control dependent on which party is in government. "The cannabis pandemic, like other challenges to public health, requires consensus, a consistent commitment across the political spectrum and by society at large. Today, the harmful characteristics of cannabis are no longer that different from those of other plant-based drugs such as cocaine and heroin." In January 2004, when David Blunkett was Home Secretary, cannabis was downgraded from class B to class C, meaning that possession of small quantities of the drug was no longer an arrestable offence. The decision was taken on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs. In 2005, the committee was asked by Mr Blunkett's successor, Charles Clarke, to review the decision, but it recommended against reversing it. Without naming the UK, Mr Costa fired a shot at governments which have relaxed their cannabis laws. He said: "After so many years of drug control experience, we now know that a coherent, long-term strategy can reduce drug supply, demand and trafficking. If this does not happen, it will be because some nations fail to take the drug issue sufficiently seriously and pursue inadequate policies. Many countries have the drug problem they deserve." His comments were seized on by the Tories. The shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said: "The Government's seriously confused course of action on cannabis has led to chaos and confusion in the enforcement of drug laws. This in turn has led to a continuing failure to reduce this dangerous threat to lives." Cocaine use is also on the rise in Europe according to the UN. The report estimated there are 3.5 million cocaine users in Europe and that the trend is rising, especially in the UK and Spain. Meanwhile, legal loopholes and a surge in internet sales have fuelled a rise in the use of magic mushrooms, according to a report from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The report warned that, while changes to the law were dampening demand, they could also prompt an increased use of legal but toxic alternatives. Nearly 50 per cent of Britons aged between 15 and 24 have tried magic mushrooms, surveys found.The Czech Republic, the Netherlands, France and Belgium have the highest usage. The report said: "Since 2001, six EU member states have tightened their legislation ... New legislation appears to have had an immediate impact on both the availability of hallucinogenic mushrooms in the UK. "[But] the recent prohibition of psilocybin and psilocin-containing fungi appears to have provoked an emerging interest of retailers in alternative, legal, types of hallucinogenic mushroom such as Amanita muscaria (fly agaric). The active chemicals in these are known to carry substantial toxicity risks." Cannabis use has turned into a pandemic that is causing almost as much harm as cocaine or heroin, the head of the United Nations anti-drugs office says. He criticised governments, such as the UK's, which have downgraded the cannabis threat, saying that they have got the "drug problem they deserve". Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, appealed to European political parties to agree a long-term strategy for reducing consumption of the drug, which he said was being used in 2004 by 164 million people worldwide. As well as being more widespread, the drug is "considerably more potent" than it was a few decades ago, he said. Speaking at the launch of the World Drug Report in Washington, Mr Costa warned: "Policy reversals leave young people confused as to just how dangerous cannabis is. With cannabis-related health damage increasing, it is fundamentally wrong for countries to make cannabis control dependent on which party is in government. "The cannabis pandemic, like other challenges to public health, requires consensus, a consistent commitment across the political spectrum and by society at large. Today, the harmful characteristics of cannabis are no longer that different from those of other plant-based drugs such as cocaine and heroin." In January 2004, when David Blunkett was Home Secretary, cannabis was downgraded from class B to class C, meaning that possession of small quantities of the drug was no longer an arrestable offence. The decision was taken on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs. In 2005, the committee was asked by Mr Blunkett's successor, Charles Clarke, to review the decision, but it recommended against reversing it. Without naming the UK, Mr Costa fired a shot at governments which have relaxed their cannabis laws. He said: "After so many years of drug control experience, we now know that a coherent, long-term strategy can reduce drug supply, demand and trafficking. If this does not happen, it will be because some nations fail to take the drug issue sufficiently seriously and pursue inadequate policies. Many countries have the drug problem they deserve." His comments were seized on by the Tories. The shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said: "The Government's seriously confused course of action on cannabis has led to chaos and confusion in the enforcement of drug laws. This in turn has led to a continuing failure to reduce this dangerous threat to lives." Cocaine use is also on the rise in Europe according to the UN. The report estimated there are 3.5 million cocaine users in Europe and that the trend is rising, especially in the UK and Spain. Meanwhile, legal loopholes and a surge in internet sales have fuelled a rise in the use of magic mushrooms, according to a report from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The report warned that, while changes to the law were dampening demand, they could also prompt an increased use of legal but toxic alternatives. Nearly 50 per cent of Britons aged between 15 and 24 have tried magic mushrooms, surveys found.The Czech Republic, the Netherlands, France and Belgium have the highest usage. The report said: "Since 2001, six EU member states have tightened their legislation ... New legislation appears to have had an immediate impact on both the availability of hallucinogenic mushrooms in the UK. "[But] the recent prohibition of psilocybin and psilocin-containing fungi appears to have provoked an emerging interest of retailers in alternative, legal, types of hallucinogenic mushroom such as Amanita muscaria (fly agaric). The active chemicals in these are known to carry substantial toxicity risks." Okay, here's my $.02 FWIW. I'm pretty much a small 'l' libertarian. The real issue here IMO is that European society - and a good part of American society as well - no longer have the self-respect, regard for the future or willingness to postpone gratification that are required for civilization. They are coasting on old achievements, made by those who didn't spend their time toked up or high. There's a direct correlation between this and issues like declining standards in math and science education IMO. When the Thames River is polluted with measurable cocaine, as it has been for a few years now, something is deeply and seriously wrong in Britain. And I'm not at all sure we aren't facing a similar disease here in the States. YMMV etc etc, but this is an issue I worry a lot about.

Link

Britain

The ID card vote is won

2006-02-14

Most Britons will be forced to have an identity card within five years after MPs defeated the Lords last night, despite a Labour backbench rebellion. Moves to require people to buy ID cards when they request or renew a British passport were carried by 310 votes to 279, a majority of 31. The Government’s Commons majority was halved, but by recent standards the revolt was modest. The result spared Tony Blair embarrassment. The Prime Minister was again absent for a key division after the aircraft bringing him from South Africa was grounded. Gordon Brown, with a big speech on security, and John Prescott, who stood in for Mr Blair at the weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, appealed to MPs not to damage the Government. The Chancellor spent three hours seeing Labour backbenchers to try to contain the rebellion. The Commons reinstated the Government’s original plans for people to pay an estimated £93 for both documents when they request or renew a British passport from 2008. Critics say that the cost could be higher. The Identity Cards Bill will now go back to the Lords, who had voted to decouple the issuing of ID cards from passports, blocking ministers’ plans to add millions of people to the identity register each year technically on a voluntary basis. The Lords must decide whether to insist that passport applications stay separate from identity cards, amending the Bill again in a “ping-pong” with the Commons, or to give way, which is the more likely option. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, moved amendments overturning changes made to the Bill by peers, saying that the Government had made clear that it envisaged linking ID cards to passports as part of their phased introduction. Applicants for residents’ permits and for visas from certain non-European Union countries and asylum-seekers would also be subject to compulsory registration of biometric data — fingerprints and iris scans — on the identity database. Mr Clarke told MPs that certificates issued by the Criminal Records Bureau might in future be added to the list of designated documents requiring registration on the identity database, but Parliament would debate such a move first. Driving licences will not be conditional on having an ID card. Under the Government’s plans, people will be free to apply for an ID card on their own initiative, at a cost estimated to be £30. But relatively few would be expected to, given that potential benefits such as guaranteeing entitlement to public services could apply only if cards became compulsory. If ID cards are linked to passports, 48 million people will eventually have their details added to the national identity register; 12 million do not have a passport. Several Labour MPs unhappy at the plans intervened during Mr Clarke’s remarks. David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, opposed the plan to link passports with ID cards, saying that it amounted to “creeping compulsion”: people who had to travel abroad for work, family or other reasons would have no choice but to submit to the identity register. David Blunkett, who had set out plans for identity cards when he was Home Secretary, defended the policy, saying that it would enable the Government to know who was in the country and who was entitled to work and services. Alistair Carmichael, for the Liberal Democrats, gave warning that the move would create an “irresistible momentum” towards compulsion and accused ministers of breaching Labour’s manifesto commitment by linking passports with ID cards. Ministers say that they would be unlikely to make ID cards compulsory until at least 2012, by which time at least one general election would have been held.

Link

Britain

Captain Hook set up UK training camps run by ex-British soldiers

2006-02-12

Former British soldiers taught Abu Hamza's followers to use guns at a camp in Wales as part of an ad hoc terror training network set up by the jailed cleric, according to US intelligence agencies. But the British security services were either unconcerned or ignorant about Hamza's activities, despite warnings that he was considered a risk from foreign governments and intelligence agencies as early as 1995. Evidence collected by the American agencies shows that, as early as 1997, Hamza was organising terror camps in the Brecon Beacons, at an old monastery in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, and in Scotland, suggesting that he ran a far more extensive training network than has been officially acknowledged until now. The revelation that Hamza, who was sentenced last week to seven years in prison for soliciting murder and preaching racial hatred, was organising terrorist training camps across Britain almost a decade ago will further embarrass the police and security services. Transcripts of interviews conducted with suspected al-Qaeda terrorists held by America in Guantánamo Bay reveal that the British ex-soldiers, some of whom fought in Bosnia, were recruited to train about 10 of Hamza's followers at the Brecon Beacons camp for three weeks in 1998. The former troops taught them to strip and clean weapons and gave them endurance training and lessons in surveillance techniques. The training camps in Tunbridge Wells, at which no ex-soldiers were present, were held in 1997 and 1998 and were attended by about 30 people who were trained to use AK47 rifles, hand guns and a mock rocket launcher. The value of testimonies provided by Guantánamo detainees is contested by human rights lawyers. But the descriptions of what happened at the camps - unlike other allegations levelled by US intelligence agencies - has been corroborated by several witnesses. The training sessions, attended by men, women and children, were advertised at Finsbury Park mosque in north London, where Hamza had preached until he was removed in 2003 after a police raid on the mosque revealed a small arsenal including blank-firing pistols, a stun gun, gas masks and knives. The sessions included lectures, prayers and debates on the jihad, or holy war. Hamza is understood to have attended several of them, although he was at the camps only for a few hours at a time. The Observer has learnt that two foreign governments - Egypt and Yemen - sought Hamza's extradition from Britain in the Nineties. The Egyptian authorities asked for Hamza and several other suspects in 1995 to face terror charges there, but the British government refused. 'We tried hard to explain to both the British authorities and to other European countries that this is not a situation where they should be guaranteeing a safe haven to these people,' a spokesman for the Egyptian embassy said. In 1999, the Yemeni President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, wrote to Tony Blair requesting Hamza's extradition. US authorities allege Hamza provided a satellite phone and money to terrorists holding hostages in Yemen that year and spoke to them several times. One of those hostages, Laurence Whitehouse, whose wife had been killed during a botched rescue attempt, called yesterday for the government to reveal any links between the kidnappers and Hamza. Nazir Ahmed, a leading member of the British Muslim community and a Labour peer, told The Observer he was dismayed the government had not taken action against Hamza sooner. He had raised concerns about Hamza with the government in 2003, assuring the then Home Secretary David Blunkett that 'Muslim people in Britain would be glad to see the back of Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri [the militant cleric now exiled in Lebanon]'. Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon, north London, said evidence he had taken to authorities was dismissed as not strong enough, yet a lot of it later emerged at Hamza's trial. 'There is a case for the [House of Commons] intelligence and security committee to see what lessons should be learned,' he added.

Link

Britain

Police had Hamza 'murder evidence' 7 years ago

2006-02-09

AMERICA will use phone tap evidence gathered by Britain seven years ago to try to jail Abu Hamza al-Masri for life on terrorist offences. Bugged conversations between the radical imam and the leader of a gang that kidnapped 16 Western tourists in Yemen are banned in the British courts. Yet the same wiretap material, amassed by British Intelligence, will be central to the case against Abu Hamza if he is extradited to America, The Times has been told. Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service faced mounting criticism yesterday for delaying action against Abu Hamza, who was jailed for seven years on Tuesday for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred. Last night David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, suggested that the police, MI5 and the CPS could have acted earlier to seize the cleric. He claimed that they rejected his warnings because they feared it would trigger a race crisis. Writing in The Sun, Mr Blunkett said: “So much for those in the security services who told me when I was Home Secretary that I was exaggerating the threat and the closure of the Finsbury Park mosque where he preached his evil message would be a ‘massive overreaction’. “There was a deep reluctance to act on the information coming out of Abu Hamza’s own mouth. And some in the police and security services did not want to believe how serious it all was.” Mr Blunkett is understood to have told the police, security chiefs and the CPS that they would have political backing if they raided the mosque and arrested Abu Hamza. The revelation that Britain had detailed evidence alleging Abu Hamza’s direct involvement in terrorist kidnapping and murder, but was prevented from using it, will reignite the debate on intercept evidence. The Times has also been told that Mr Blunkett argued strongly for such evidence to be used in serious cases but was again rebuffed by the security services. Michael Howard, the former Conservative Home Secretary, also told The Times last night that he backed the use of intercept evidence. A senior counterterrorist source told The Times that the phone taps strongly suggested that Abu Hamza was “involved in operational terrorist activity”. But when Britain tried to move against the cleric in the spring of 1999 the case had to be abandoned because the evidence was deemed “inadmissible”. The FBI stepped in and said that if Britain could not use the material, it would. The US indictment against Abu Hamza alleges that he bought and supplied a £2,000 satellite phone for the kidnappers and purchased £500 worth of air time for the device. It also states that Abu Hamza received telephone calls from the gang leader before and during the kidnap drama in which four hostages were shot dead. He is also charged with sending recruits to al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and trying to train terrorists in America. British detectives are still investigating Abu Hamza’s alleged links with other terrorist incidents including the July 7 London bombings. An uncle of one of the 7/7 suicide bombers blamed the cleric for brainwashing his nephew Shehzad Tanweer, 22, who visited Finsbury Park mosque. Bashir Ahmed said: “No child could have thought of doing something like 7/7 by themselves.” British intelligence has admitted eavesdropping on conversations between Tanweer and Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7/7 bomb cell. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, rejected any change to make intercept evidence admissible a year ago. But the Home Office said the issue was kept “under review”. Recordings of Abu Hamza’s conversations with the Yemeni kidnapper in December 1998 were made by experts from GCHQ, the intelligence listening post. They were made available to British security services and police in early 1999. At the same time a dossier on Abu Hamza was sent by the President of Yemen to Tony Blair. Abu Hamza was arrested in March that year and questioned at Charing Cross police station about the kidnapping and killing of the hostages. The former imam of Finsbury Park mosque admitted that he supplied the satellite phone and spoke to the hostage-taker, Abu Hassan. He told the BBC in 2002: “When they phoned they were actually phoning how to release them.” The gang had demanded the release of ten Britons who had been arrested in Yemen on suspicion of planning terrorist attacks. The group, including Abu Hamza’s son and stepson, were sent to Yemen from Finsbury Park mosque.

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More