Janet Woollacott (1982: 108-110) offers a useful critique of Policing the Crisis, a key work by Stuart Hall et al.(1978). The work reflects an analysis of the signifying practices of the mass media from the perspective of Marxist culturalist theory inflected through Gramsci's theory of hegemony, and 'an Althusserian conception of the media as an ideological state apparatus largely concerned with the reproduction of dominant ideologies', claiming relative autonomy for the mass media (Woollacott 1982: 110). For Hall et al. the mass media do tend to reproduce interpretations which serve the interests of the ruling class, but they are also 'a field of ideological struggle'. The media signification system is seen as relatively autonomous. 'The news' performs a crucial role in defining events, although this is seen as secondary to the primary definers: accredited sources in government and other institutions. The media also serve 'to reinforce a consensual viewpoint by using public idioms and by claiming to voice public opinion' (Woollacott 1982: 109).

If John Terry was Italian, far from stepping down as the national team captain, he'd be running for president of the country.

I would add the bookshops to Orwell's list (by implication he is already referring to the strange unaccountable court of judgement which decides if a book gets a good or bad review or - worst of all - no review at all). Even if it is well-reviewed, a book's success and influence depend greatly on how and where bookshops display it in the crucial weeks when it is in the public eye. The difference in the influence of the book that's piled in heaps on the table at the entrance, and the book which you have to ask for, or which is concealed on a back shelf in a basement, is colossal. Yet nobody ever classifies this often completely unfair treatment as censorship or bias. It is odd how so few people are conscious of being manipulated by bookshops, whereas I think most people are aware of the way in which supermarkets try to manipulate them. And so the huge responsibility of deciding whose book gets prominent display goes unexamined. Often it's a matter of money. But I think most bookshop staffs are left-wing, in that boring default way which afflicts most graduates, and they let their prejudices govern their display.

Since 9/11, the scale of the threat that we face has increased significantly – this means that there can be no guarantees. The figure of 2,000 terrorist targets that the Head of MI5 referred to publicly in his speech is not scaremongering. It is a frightening figure that some have suggested cannot be right. We would suggest that there are a great deal more people out there who pose a threat to the UK, beyond those known to MI5.

2,000 potential threats

Adult Muslim population of the UK is 1,2million.


1.2million/2000 = 600

So 1/600 Muslims in the UK is a terorist. (at the very least)

On a given Friday afternoon in White Chapel there are statistically at least 5potential terrorists roaming the streets.

Many problems remain: a region of dictators that has no experience with democracy; a lack of infrastructure, resources and training for an independent press; government control and oversight; a lack of competition; an obsession with "consensus" issues, such as Palestinian rights, at the expense of local news; and repressive laws, censorship and self-censorship.

‘This country is hurtling towards massive debt and ever higher taxes under Gordon Brown. It is hurtling towards a position in the world that is dramatically more minor than the position that Mrs Thatcher presided over and Tony Blair was happy to exploit.

‘Britain will be diminished, its voice silenced, its credibility shredded.

‘It will be too late to come back in five years’ time.’

I don't see that this is necessarily so, nor do I see any reason why, if it is so, a Cameron government would prevent it. The main damage done by New Labour was done in its early years, the mass immigration, the hand-over of powers to Brussels, the smashing up of the House of Lords, the politicisation of the civil service, the rundown of the armed forces, the huge increases in public sector employment, the theft of pension funds, the sexual revolution, the law banning new grammar schools, the assault on the top universities and the independent schools, the Iraq and Afghan Wars, the surrender to terrorist gangsterism in Ireland, the break-up of the United Kingdom, and the general assault on civil liberties - the things the Tories failed to oppose, let alone halt, and in many cases accepted. Just because most political journalists aren't interested in these things, and don't understand their importance, the rest of us don't need to buy their dim-witted, outdated version of events.

States must never make civilians the object of attack and consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. . . States do not have unlimited freedom of choice of means in the weapons they use.

...

The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (if not the Pentagon) on September 11, 2001 pose the legal dilemma of how to respond proportionally when the initial attack was itself unreasonable, excessive, and against civilians. Nonetheless, the suggested policy of holding entire nations accountable for the acts of a few would not appear to be lawful since collective punishment would, by definition, entail the unnecessary suffering of innocent populations.

B. Welling Hall
Professor of Politics and International Studies
Earlham College

International law issues could arise if and when the United States or any of its allies takes countermeasures against a country suspected of harboring the persons responsible for the terrorist acts of September 11. The issues would be particularly acute if the countermeasures are in the form of armed action. Armed reprisals are highly questionable under the United Nations Charter (a treaty to which the United States is a party) because of its strong emphasis on peaceful resolution of disputes. Nevertheless, article 51 of the U.N. Charter recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Thus, if the coordinated use of force to hijack and use large airliners loaded with fuel to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon can be classified as an armed attack against the United States, and if it is necessary to take countermeasures involving the use of armed force in order to prevent further attacks, the United States arguably could use force under article 51 until such time as the Security Council can act to maintain international peace and security.

The North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) parties, by invoking article 5 of that Treaty, have expressed their understanding that an armed attack against the United States occurred. Article 5 requires the NATO parties to assist the attacked country in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense under article 51 of the UN Charter, but it does not specify the action to be taken. It does say that the action could involve the use of armed force.

If the party responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is not the government of the country from which the terrorists operate, a question could arise whether use of armed force that causes injury to that country is lawful. The UN Charter was not drafted with such situations in mind. An argument can be made, however, that the principle of article 51 could extend to such a case if the government is knowingly harboring the
terrorists.

Press TV and the other propaganda organs of the Iranian and jihadi causes will not be balancing tales of Mohamed's torture with glowing descriptions of how kind Britain was to allow the Ethiopian to live here, even though he had lost his claim to be a refugee. If you want to be an accountant, you must take Evans's concern seriously, and put the effect that decisions in human rights cases have on boosting the enemy's morale in wartime into a profit-and-loss register.

Although I am sure that Britain is a happier country than Saudi Arabia and that a sensible person would rather live in France than Cuba, the case for basing societies on liberties is not a utilitarian one. Listen to the current debate on rights, however, and you will find that virtually everyone involved pretends that we can enjoy them without paying a price; that a cost-benefit analysis will always show gain without pain.

...

Fiat justitia ruat caelum – "let justice come though the heavens fall" – but many will tolerate justice only if it leaves the heavens undisturbed. According to the Mohamed judgment, a man's right to obtain evidence that he has been tortured depends on whether the judges think that it may harm the intelligence services. If the Court of Appeal has got it wrong, and it seems to have got it very wrong, then the policy could change.

As for the even more ludicrous Macpherson Report of 1999, its airy accusation of ‘institutional racism’ against the police was all that was left when it could find no actual evidence of any racially biased conduct.

No doubt the police bungled the investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. They bungle a lot of investigations. But was this because of racial bias? If so, how come they successfully prosecuted three other racially motivated homicides in the same part of London in the same period?

As always (and as was famously said by the excellent American journalist Michael Kinsley) the surprise is not about what's illegal. The surprise is about what is legal. That is to say, that things most people would regard as wrong, greedy and despicable are officially permitted, and still remain so despite months of scandal.

The revolutionary force of Dadaism lay in the fact that it put the authenticity of art to the test.
The Dadaists made still-lifes out of tickets, spools, cigarette butts that were integrated into painted elements. Then
they showed it to the public: see, the picture-frame explodes time, the tiniest real fragment of everyday life says more
than painting. Just as the bloody fingerprint of a murderer on the page of a book says more than the text. Many
aspects of this revolutionary attitude have made their way into photomontage. You only need to think of the work of
John Heartfield, whose technique made book jackets into a political instrument. But now follow the path of
photography further. What do you see? It becomes more and more subtle, more and more modern, and the result is
that it can no longer photograph a run-down apartment house or a pile of manure without transfiguring it. Not to
speak of the fact that it would be impossible to say anything about a dam or a cable factory except this: the world is
beautiful. The World is Beautiful—that is the title of a famous book of photographs by Renger-Patsch, in which we see
the photography of the ‘new objectivity’ at its height. It has even succeeded in making misery itself an object of
pleasure, by treating it stylishly and with technical perfection. For the ‘new objectivity’, it is the economic function of
photography to bring to the masses elements which they could not previously enjoy—spring, movie stars, foreign
countries—by reworking them according to the current fashion; it is the political function of photography to renew
the world as it actually is from within, in other words, according to the current fashion.

In our literature,’ a leftist author writes, ‘oppositions which mutually enriched each other in earlier, happier times,
have become insoluble antinomies. Thus science and belles lettres, criticism and production, culture and politics have
fallen away from each other, without maintaining any relationship or order. The showplace of this literary confusion
is the newspaper. Its content is “material” which refuses any form of organization other than that imposed by the
reader’s impatience. This impatience is not only that of the politician who expects a piece of news, or of a speculator
who awaits a tip: behind them hovers the impatience of whoever feels himself excluded, whoever thinks he has a
right to express his own interests himself. For a long time, the fact that nothing binds the reader to his paper as much
as this avid impatience for fresh nourishment every day, has been used by editors, who are always starting new
columns open to his questions, opinions, protestations. So the indiscriminate assimilation of facts goes hand in hand
with the similar indiscriminate assimilation of readers, who see themselves instantly raised to the level of co-workers.
But this phenomenon hides a dialectical moment: the fall of literature in the bourgeois press reveals the formula for
its resuscitation in the Soviet Russian press, because the realm of literature gains in width what it loses in depth. In
the Soviet press, the difference between author and public, maintained artificially by the bourgeois press, is
beginning to disappear. The reader is indeed always ready to become a writer, that is to say, someone who describes
or even who prescribes. As an expert—even if not a professional, but only a job-occupant—he gains entrance to
authorship. Labour itself speaks out for writing it out in words constitutes part of the knowledge necessary to
becoming an author. Literary competence is no longer based on specialized training in academic schools, but on
technical and commercial training in trade schools and thus becomes common property. In a word, it is the
literarization of the relationships of life which overcomes otherwise insoluble antinomies and it is the showplace of
the unrestrained degradation of the word—that is, the newspaper—which prepares its salvation.’ [4]

Alistair Campbell is actually right that the media aren't interested in the getting to the 'truth' but simply setting their own agenda.

They seem to be reacting belatedly to a tide of critical public opinion when it is far too late to have any impact on anything.

Back in 2003 as US tanks first rolled into Baghdad:
In a jaw-dropping display, the BBC's political editor, Andrew Marr, described how Blair's critics "aren't going to thank him - because they're only human - for being right when they've been wrong". He continued: "It would be entirely ungracious, even for his critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger Prime Minister as a result."

"Marr is poor on foreign affairs as such, and he really has no clue about the Middle East or about how wrong all this could well go for Blair and Britain, not to mention Iraq and the Arabs, in the coming months, on many levels."

Manuel Zelaya: “Those who want to put me on trial are my adversaries. They are not judges. Those who have not wanted to start a legal process, lift one finger against murderers, criminals, those who torture Hondurans and who continue torturing them and myself, who was attacked at a diplomatic venue, they can’t judge anybody.”

The bourgeois writer of popular stories does not acknowledge this alternative. So you show him that even
without admitting it, he works in the interests of a particular class. An advanced type of writer acknowledges this
alternative. His decision is determined on the basis of the class struggle when he places himself on the side of the
proletariat. But then his autonomy is done for. He directs his energies toward what is useful for the proletariat in the
class struggle. We say that he espouses a tendency

Harriet Harperson - equality tsar

Where are all these gay people queuing up to join the catholic church? Surely this equality bill will be about as consequential to the church as the BNP changing their membership constitution.

Killing somebody or procuring their death is a very serious matter and to say that it doesn't require the full protection of the law - I'm afraid we're going to become a brutalised society.

Latte-sipping liberals – it's time to grind some beansAs tea party patriots drag the GOP to extremes, the left has replaced its revolutionary zeal with decaffeinated compromise.

Richard Madeley as chief apologist for Blair has invited us to consider where we would be now, in 2010, if we hadn't committed to invading Iraq. Well for a start a million people would probably still be here who otherwise had their lives snuffed out.

Because the inhabitants, as producers and as consumers, are drawn into the centre in search of work and pleasure, all the living units crystallise into well-organised complexes. The striking unity of microcosm and macrocosm presents men with a model of their culture: the false identity of the general and the particular.

I wonder why Togo get their team bus attacked and get banned from the next two ACNs, yet Egyptians attack Algeria's team bus and are allowed to win the competition?

The Supreme Court had criticised the growth of "anonymity orders" granted by courts in recent years, which had become an "ingrained habit" among court officials without "the slightest justification".

No such proof is available for the existence of ADHD, which is an assertion based upon a set of changing and subjective 'symptoms'. In fact, 'ADHD' must be one of the very few complaints whose symptoms are mainly felt not by the alleged patient but by those who live with or teach him.

The sense of representing popular interests and values has survived, but is often overridden by either (a) right-wing criticism of this, as in demagogy, which has moved from 'leading the people to 'crude and simplifying agitation, or (b) left-wing criticism of rightist and fascist movements which exploit 'popular prejudices, or of leftist movements which subordinate socialist ideas to popular (populist) assumptions and habits.

In his unfinished Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind (1784--9 1) he wrote of Cultur: 'nothing is more indeterminate than this word, and nothing more deceptive than its application to all nations and periods. He attacked the assumption of the universal histories that 'civilization or culture -- the historical self-development of humanity -- was what we would now call a unilinear process, leading to the high and dominant point of C18 European culture. Indeed he attacked what be called European subjugation and domination of the four quarters of the globe, and wrote:


Men of all the quarters of the globe, who have perished over the ages, you have not lived solely to manure the earth with your ashes, so that at the end of time your posterity should be made happy by European culture. The very thought of a superior European culture is a blatant insult to the majesty of Nature.

There is a general assumption that Israel at some point stole its territory from a legitimate Arab state. Many of Israel’s critics seem to believe that there was at one stage a sovereign country called “Palestine” out of which the Jewish nation was unfairly carved. But no such country ever existed; Palestine was never the name of anything but a Roman province. The only previous title—for so many centuries that it had no real rival claimant—had belonged to the Ottoman Empire. From the Ottomans it passed directly to the British. When Britain, bankrupt and demoralized, scuttled from the region in 1948, Israel grabbed as much as it could of this dubious legacy. Arab armies in turn seized as much as they could.

Even though there will be an increase in orphaned children in Haiti, social workers say it's already a crisis all over the world.

There are 6,000 children waiting to be adopted in Alabama alone.

"That's true for every state in the U.S., as well as every country, if not even greater in other countries and it's just a great thing that everyone is blessed by who participates in it," said

Claims of a million earthquake orphans are clearly false and those making them are being irresponsible.

Memories it seems are short in the media. Already we have stories of 200,000 dead with a million earthquake orphans. I have even seen a UK tabloid claim "2 million earthquake orphans" (do people on the highstreet buy the paper with the higher number?). Okay, schools were out when the earthquake struck, okay offices were at work and breadwinners were killed, perhaps disproportionately.

Perhaps the figure might be 5% or even 10% of the total death toll. But whoever (and the media is quoting "aid agencies" without attribution) is claiming a million orphans is not doing the children of Haiti and their needs any favours. They may get more short term sympathy and money from these claims but the reality is that providing a loving home to every child orphaned by a major earthquake is within our reach. And credibility will be dented as before when all becomes clear. The less accurate and more exaggerated the figures, the more risk of rapid removal of children, who may still have parents searching for them, from their country, their culture and their family.

I'm sure if I was buried under a collapsed orphanage it would give me much comfort to know that pub crawls in camden were being organised to raise money and make liberal middle class twenty-somethings feel slightly less guilty about getting hammered midweek.

"I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," Chavez said on his weekly television show. "They are occupying Haiti undercover."

All mankind are alike.”[62] Love, he professed, was the dominant factor in human existence—“Had violence, i.e., hate, ruled us, we should have become extinct long ago”[63]—whereas the apparent omnipresence of violence is an optical illusion— “History is really a record of every interruption of the even working of the force of love or of the soul.”[64] Just as “families and even clans” manage to resolve conflicts nonviolently due to the binding powers of love, so can “humankind” which is “one big family.”

Christianity as the most excessively thorough elaboration of a moralistic theme which humanity up to this point has had available to listen to. To tell the truth, there is nothing which stands in greater opposition to the purely aesthetic interpretation and justification of the world, as it is taught in this book, than Christian doctrine, which is and wishes to be merely moralistic and which, with its absolute standards, beginning, for example, with its truthfulness of God, relegates art, every art, to the realm of lies—in other words, which denies art, condemns it, and passes sentence on it. Behind such a way of thinking and evaluating, which must be hostile to art, so long as it is in any way genuine, I always perceived also something hostile to life, the wrathful, vengeful aversion to life itself; for all life rests on appearance, art, illusion, optics, the need for perspective and for error. Christianity was from the start essentially and thoroughly life’s disgust and weariness with life, which only dressed itself up with, only hid itself in, only decorated itself with the belief in an “other” or “better” life.

China saw our bankruptcy as its chance. For decades, it has resented the fact that Britain – having dealt with an independent Tibet in the days of Empire – insisted that Tibet’s position was special and different from the rest of China. This infuriated the Chinese leadership, who like to pretend that Tibet has always been part of their empire.

We do not know exactly what happened, but a few weeks after the IMF approach, the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, slipped an announcement on to the Foreign Office website that Britain had finally – after 60 years of refusing to do so – recognised Tibet as ‘part of the People’s Republic of China’. This is a total and unmitigated diplomatic defeat, and a warning of worse to come as we learn to toady to the new superpower.
Fake bravado over drug-smugglers should not hide the speed with which we are ceasing to be a serious or important country.

If you don’t want to be executed in the People’s Republic, my advice is not to carry suitcases given to you by strangers through Chinese customs.

Egypt, which was among the first Arab countries to apply for a domain names with Arabic letters, is ranked by Global Voices as one of the most repressive countries for bloggers.

So here's the situation. There is no deal. The world's leaders refused to agree to limit our emissions of warming gases. The most they could agree was to officially "note" the scientific evidence about C – with no roadmap to keep us this side of it. You get a sense of how valuable this "noting" is when you look at the things the conference also "noted": the hard work of the airport security staff, and the quality of the catering in the Bella Centre. It seems impossible, but our leaders really did give the stability of our climate the same status as their praise for Danish sandwiches.

The other thing they dislike is that, as a theist, I reject the materialistic explanation of the universe which is held to by some, but by no means all, scientists. Now, if you think that paddle-steamers and telegrams are modern, you may still imagine that this is the triumphant, settled view among scientists. But if you pay any attention at all to modern science, especially Physics, you will find that it simply isn't so. Nor was it from the beginning. There is a perfectly clear argument that science and reason have their origins in Theism, especially monotheism, since monotheism relegates the Moon, stars and Sun from being Gods themselves to being (as someone said, who?) 'mere lamps and clocks'; simultaneously it makes the universe potentially explicable, and potentially reasonable, rather than just something that just mysteriously is, without purpose or direction. If other people wish to use science to exclude the possibility of God, that is their affair, but - as I always argue - it is their choice to do so and there is no ultimate supreme court of science to which they can appeal, which will rule in their favour. Nor can such questions be resolved by claims about 'the vast majority' or 'the consensus', since science, if it is anything, is not ruled by such things. They are equally free to choose a Theist explanation, and they really shouldn't try to pretend that science and God are incompatible.

A lot of what's interesting is found in the negligable..

I think most of what I find interesting, becomes interesting because I've failed to notice something which turns out to be more than what I have foreseen.

In a statement released while Dr Fox was working overseas, he has explained the reason behind the repayments.

He said: "In October I raised with Sir Thomas the issue of the formula used by the fees office to determine reimbursement of mortgage interest against the cost of refurbishment and repairs.

"Sir Thomas has subsequently asked for a repayment of £7984.28 as a settlement for the accumulated overpayments over five years.

In other words you. are. pissed.

Lead singer of the Inspiral Carpets, Tom Hingley, who currently lectures at Salford University on pop music, told Channel 4 News at Noon: "I think it's quite extraordinary for Simon Cowell to describe anyone else as being Scrooge."

He said that Simon Cowell and Spice Girls manager Simon Fuller "have kind of monopolised the top ten in Britain".

"It's like if the people who owned (Aintree) owned all the horses and all the bookies and voted on the winner at the Grand National.

"I don't know why these records from these reality TV shows have ever been eligible for the charts…it's not a fair playing field for all the rest of the music industry."

How long can donors justify this expenditure? If Israel continues, as its prime minister says it will, to build settlements, making an agreement on a viable Palestinian state all but impossible, should the international community simply shrug its shoulders and write more cheques? The money that I spent in Palestine on behalf of European voters and taxpayers over five years as a European commissioner has drained away into the blood-soaked sand. Many projects funded by European taxpayers have been reduced to rubble by the Israeli Defence Forces. Is Europe’s role in the region to be the paymaster for intransigence and the use of disproportionate force?

Just one final point, there is an element of fantasy and arrogance here, that Israel wants to dictate to Great Britain what to do in its judiciary when Britain is the one that founded Israel.

Mr Reddihough brayed, as he wielded the sword of injustice: ‘If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.’

Take this garbage slice by slice. Whose law is it, if not ours? Why shouldn’t it be in our hands? It is wrong to steal, to rape, to kill. We all know this.
Must we stand by while these things happen, and wait for the useless police to come, hours later, and for the CPS then to drop the case?
What he means is that Left-wing fake justice fears competition from the real thing, and will do all in its power to keep the monopoly of force in its hands. That is why some of the toughest sentences are reserved for those who defend themselves against crime.

What ‘civilised society’ is he talking about? Does he live in this country? What is this ‘justice’ that he says will take its course? Heaven forbid that Mr Reddihough should ever need to call upon it, but if he does, he will find that he might as well dress up as a pantomime dame as in his wig and robes, for all the good he is doing.
By the time he qualifies for his large pension, the actions of people like him will have made the country so unsafe that even retired judges may come home to find skunk-crazed robbers waiting for them.

Here’s the point, Mr Injustice Reddihough. People like you have destroyed the rule of law by your weakness and discredited policies. There is no rule of law, just the rule of fear.

Bad people should be afraid of the law. When they are not, we have to be afraid of bad people.

The Germans have restricted their military exertions in Afghanistan to horticulture, when will we see sense and just pull out of this mess.

The symbolic entrance sign to the Nazi death camp Aushwitz has been stolen. My guess is it couldn't have been taken without some help from inside.

There is still a small but significant Nazi/neo Nazi trend in Poland which goes largely unreported.

Simon Cowell wants to open up the X Factor to address serious political issues in a similar TV format, I can't wait to see the death penalty proposed for egregious fashion crimes and see it pass with a comfortable majority.

Under international law, “questionable legitimacy” does not exist. An attack on a sovereign state is a crime. This was made clear by Britain’s chief law officer, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, before his arm was twisted, and by the Foreign Office’s own legal advisers and subsequently by the secretary-general of the United Nations. The invasion is the crime of the 21st century. During 17 years of assault on a defenceless civilian population, veiled with weasel monikers like “sanctions” and “no fly zones” and “building democracy”, more people have died in Iraq than during the peak years of the slave trade. Set that against Sir Jeremy’s skin-saving revisionism about American “noises” that were “decidedly unhelpful to what I was trying to do [at the UN] in New York”. Moreover, “I myself warned the Foreign Office... that I might have to consider my own position...”.

In February, Jack Straw, one of Blair’s principal accomplices, the man who let the mass murderer General Pinochet escape justice and the current “justice secretary”, overruled the Information Commissioner who had ordered the government to publish Cabinet minutes during the period Lord Goldsmith was pressured into changing his judgement that the invasion was illegal. How they fear exposure, and worse.

What about some kind of political engagement for the X Factor?

If you went around the public now there would 5 or 6 big issues... so I think there could be some kind of referendum type TV show... because I'm more interested in hearing what the public have to say than politicians.

There are so many really hot topics, for instance, should we or shouldn't we be in Iraq and Afghanistan? If you actually asked most people in the country, why are we there? I couldn't even tell you I don't know why we're there, I knew why we were in the Falklands, I don't know why we're over there. So when we see all these people coming back dead, I think we have a right to have a say in something like that, or knife crime, or just the whole way I don't think the justice system is working properly at the moment.

Stella Artois are hoping that their 'send a card, save a tree' campaign will save a million rainforest trees before Christmas, too bad half a million were cut down to process the promotional beer mats. Oh well you've got to kill trees to save trees, moving on.

The class war is not about hanging the Bourgeoisie from lampposts, its about recognising that different sections of society have interests which don't coincide with yours, and deciding which side you're on.

You had not formerly yet left the services... [and] that has attacked one of the fundamental principles of our constitution, which is the separation between the government and the military.

Mohammed Nasheed, the President of the drowning Maldives, said simply: “The last generation of humans went to the moon. This generation of humans needs to decide if it wants to stay alive on planet earth.”

Sooner or later the Conservative party will have to face up to the fact that they are the first party in history to devise a tax cut entirely for themselves.

NIR ROSEN: This is impossibly naïve and would require a revolution in the way America does business, but stop supporting dictatorships in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and elsewhere, stop supporting the Pakistani dictatorships or quasi-dictatorship, stop supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Be perceived as a fair player in the Middle East and the Muslim world. Stop killing Muslims and Muslims will not want to kill you. It is really very easy.

the McChrystal report or assessment identified the Afghan police as one of the main problems in the country, so your going to double them? —So you’re going to double? Basically the Afghan police are the recruiters for the Taliban. They oppress the population. They are mostly on drugs. They are incompetent. Some of them are very brave and they are being killed in large numbers, but your going to double this corrupt and oppressive force? That is truly not going to win you any support among the local population. The Afghan army, meanwhile, which we have spent billions on, was a failure. We saw in the Helmand operation in July, they just decided not to show up. I was in Helmand and the Americans and Brits were surprised and complaining the Afghan army didn’t feel like taking part. They perceive themselves more as a force designed for external threats, not for internal purposes. So that’s a complete waste.

If we are talking about Al Qaeda and the whole reason for why we are in Afghanistan allegedly is this threat from Al Qaeda which has been severely exaggerated, then at least understand their motives. Their chief motives are the Indian occupation of Kashmir, the Israeli and American backed occupation of Palestine. These are the motives. If your goal is to weaken Al Qaeda, understand their motives, address their grievances. This is not some James Bond villain the wants to attack the U.S. for no reason. These people who have grievances, the same grievances that have been troubling people around the world for decades. They were once explained using a secular Marxist nationalist discourse, today it has become a more religious discourse; but the grievances have remained the same. So why, if your goal is to weaken Al Qaeda, are you attacking the Taliban? The Taliban being a local movement with a very limited and unsophisticated ideology. Al Qaeda exists to much larger extent in Pakistan yet there are no American troops in Pakistan, so why do you need such a huge military footprint in Afghanistan were there is no Al Qaeda really if they are coming in from Pakistan?

In Pakistan you do not have this American presence and yet you have been relatively successful. There been no attacks on America thanks to intelligence, interdiction, heightened security. Al Qaeda isn’t really a threat. You have a couple of hundred relatively unsophisticated guys. They used their A team on September 11 and it was tragic, but it wasn’t that significant and didn’t really affect the U.S. What affected the US was the American response internally and abroad. Al Qaeda isn’t really a big deal, but even if you think it’s a big deal, even if you think this is a huge threat that really deserves so much of our resources, understand their grievances and address them.

If your remove Palestine and Kashmir, you’d have way less people in the world who support Al Qaeda, who want to join it. Instead, what we are doing is increasing the occupation of a Muslim country. Although Obama mentioned the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, he mentioned Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, what about the American occupation of Afghanistan? What about all the innocent people who being killed there today thanks to American counter-insurgency, counter terrorism operations only further increasing ethnic tensions? You are going to have a civil war in Afghanistan between Tajiks and Pashtuns at some point. It is going more and more in that direction.

Why is the Copenhagen summit looking more and more like a tin-foil hat convention for self-righteous Millenarians

The confusing and varying disparity between the popularity and perceived worth of various products and artistic endeavours is much documented and discussed. Why are some shit things so popular – Madame Tussauds and Dan Brown books, for example? And yet some popular things are also brilliant, like The Simpsons and the Angel of the North. While other brilliant things hardly anyone buys – I'd put my friend's first novel and sherry in this category. And then there are things for which there's an apparent consensus of abhorrence, and yet loads of people do: hogging the middle lane, going to James Blunt concerts and so on.

So I realised the commercial viability of I Dreamed a Dream is no guarantee of musical excellence. It'll just make a fortune for some, while others' minds turn darkly to eugenics. I've listened to it now and I think I prefer it to But Seriously. Mind you, it's been a long time since I heard that – I couldn't get the cassette to go on my iPod.

It was the misplaced deference of civil servants and others, and the trusting compliance of a largely gullible media, which led us into folly. If we can learn one thing from this, it is that we trust our governments far too much.

Your work has focussed on what you call the 'terrorism', the 'criminal acts' of the United States, and yet your parents view America as a safe haven, as a place of opporutnity and security, how do those two elements of your life fit together?

Chomsky: Very simple as in the same way it did for my parents, yes its a land of opportunity and in fact we know why: its a land of opportunity because the British colonists came and effectively exterminated the indiginous population, which is a typical property of settler colonialism the worst kind of imperialism, conquered half of mexico, instituted slavery, committed huge crimes and created a rich, prosperous country from which I benefit, enourmously. And since then have gone on to carry out horrendous crimes everywhere, the Vietnam war alone is probably the worse crime since the second world war, maybe 4million people killed, three countries devasted, these are real crimes and there are many others.

I don't want to go into detail I think its more the style of argument that I'm getting at now.

Chomsky: I think the style of argument should be to tell the truth, about important things..

Its very easy to condemn the crimes of others, Stalinist hacks condemn the crimes of the West, I don't applaud them for that. I applaud the Soviet dissidents who condemn the crimes of their own government.

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”

But today's revelations show that Lord Goldsmith told Mr Blair at the outset, and in writing, that military action against Iraq was totally illegal.

The disclosures deal a massive blow to Mr Blair's hopes of proving he acted in good faith when he and George Bush declared war on Iraq. And they are likely to fuel further calls for Mr Blair to be charged with war crimes.

The USA’s ex-Vice President, the propagandist Al Gore, got audiences going ‘Aaah!’ by saying the bears had ‘nowhere else to go’. Really? The picture was taken in August, when the Alaskan ice always melts. The polar bears were fine. Think about it.

They can swim and they weren’t far from land. Recent studies show that most polar bear populations are rising.

The world was warmer than it is now in the early Middle Ages, long before industrial activity increased CO2 output, a fact that the warming fanatics have worked very hard to obscure.

Oh, and the most important greenhouse gas by far is not CO2 but water vapour, which is not influenced by human activity at all.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231694/The-inconvenient-truths-Mr-Gore-fanatical-friends-DIDNT-tell-climate-change.html#ixzz0YGOQ3bnX

It gets worse. As you type 'Michelle Obama' into google one of the first suggested terms after 'mother' is 'monkey'.

Why are our distant cousins not up in arms at this blatent attempt at defamation.

The bloc party video for 'mercury' springs to mind..

Interestingly, exactly the same problem afflicts Al-Jazeera Arabic, which has never been profitable, and has to be heavily subsidised by the emir of Qatar, even though it is the most popular news channel in the Arab world. Western analysts usually ascribe Al-Jazeera Arabic’s problems to the fact that it is an independent broadcaster trying to operate in the undemocratic environment of the Middle East. What does this suggest about Al-Jazeera English’s problems?

Clearly, any fledgling commercial media organisation – if it did not already understand the commercial imperatives facing a broadcaster in the West – would have been able to draw obvious conclusions from Al-Jazeera English’s treatment. In fact, one could plausibly argue that Al-Jazeera is starting to draw the right conclusion itself, toning down its own coverage to ensure it does not sound too much like its more “controversial” Arabic sister channel. And it may yet choose to make further compromises in the hope of gaining entry to the US market.

all that women and ethnic minorities in parliament have proved is that they can be just as venal and crooked as anyone else. I'll stick with the class-ridden cravat &blazer brigade thank-you.

First, he refers to something called 'Al Qaeda', on the assumption that there exists a defined, centralised organisation going under this name. Can he tell me: a) where I can find AQ's statement of aims, as opposed to baseless journalistic and political assertions of what those aims are; b)where and when it was founded, and by whom; c) how does it raise and where does it bank or store its funds, and how and to whom does it disburse them? d) what specific aims, methods, etc allow an analyst to decide whether an Islamist terror group is or is not affiliated to AQ, as in ‘such and such an action “bears all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda” ‘. What precisely are these 'hallmarks'? In what way are they different from the modus operandi of any fanatical Islamist terror group, and what reason do we have to assume that they are linked, except in the vaguest sense, with the actions of any other such group, Islamist fanatics existing in places as distant and different as Bosnia, Leeds and the Philippines, and often being from differing and even hostile types of Islam? e) what its political front organisation is, and how we can tell objectively that statements or actions attributed to AQ by journalists or intelligence organisations or governments are in fact connected with it?

Passed unanimously, Resolution 1887 calls for the end of threats of force and for all countries to join the NPT, as Iran did long ago. NPT non-signers are India, Israel and Pakistan, all of which developed nuclear weapons with U.S. help, in violation of the NPT.

Iran hasn't invaded another country for hundreds of years -- unlike the United States, Israel and India (which occupies Kashmir, brutally).

The threat from Iran is minuscule. If Iran had nuclear weapons and delivery systems and prepared to use them, the country would be vaporized.

Another indication that the ridiculous amount of hatred aimed at Gordon Brown is entirely hollow and irrational.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2720233/Bloody-shameful-Gordon-Brown.html

Brown argued that it was a conflict that must be "prosecuted out of necessity" to protect this country and the wider world from terrorism. On the other, he warned President Hamid Karzai that in a country that had become a "byword for corruption" and cronyism, he would no longer put Britain's soldiers in harm's way unless Karzai improved.

Barack Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, is planning another war to add to his impressive record. In Afghanistan, his agents routinely extinguish wedding parties, farmers and construction workers with weapons such as the innovative Hellfire missile, which sucks the air out of your lungs. According to the UN, 338,000 Afghan infants are dying under the Obama-led alliance, which permits only $29 per head annually to be spent on medical care.

Within weeks of his inauguration, Obama started a new war in Pakistan, causing more than a million people to flee their homes. In threatening Iran – which his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said she was prepared to “obliterate” – Obama lied that the Iranians were covering up a “secret nuclear facility”, knowing that it had already been reported to the International Atomic Energy Authority. In colluding with the only nuclear-armed power in the Middle East, he bribed the Palestinian Authority to suppress a UN judgment that Israel had committed crimes against humanity in its assault on Gaza – crimes made possible with US weapons whose shipment Obama secretly approved before his inauguration.

If people hate you, and you train and arm them, you are training and arming your enemies, the better to kill you – as we see. But none of the three front benches has the small courage to admit that the war was a mistake. When it was popular, they were happy to share in its popularity.

There is a laboratory where these Tory policies are being played out now. It is called London. Boris Johnson said he was a "progressive conservative" who would "help the poor" and "green the city". One of his first acts in power was to lay off half the people in London government working on lowering the city's carbon emissions, and to kick plans to limit pollution levels into the long grass.



One year in, it is clear he has delivered handsomely – for the rich. He has given them a de facto tax cut by abolishing the extension of the congestion zone to well-heeled west London, and by abandoning the £25-a-day charge for SUV drivers. He has paid for it by pushing up costs for the poorest people in London, ramming up bus fares by 20 per cent. He has opposed all new regulation on the City of London, and still praises sub-prime mortgages – the cause of the Great Crash of 2008.



Under the Conservative council of Hammersmith and Fulham – named by Cameron as a model for how he will rule – things have gone further. It has paid for tax cuts by shutting down 12 homeless hostels, increasing the cost of meals on wheels for poor pensioners by 60 percent, and suddenly charging disabled people who need home help £12.40 an hour.

In September, director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland for leaving the U.S. in 1978 before being sentenced to prison for raping a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in Hollywood. During the time of the original incident, you were working in the industry, and you and Polanski had a common friend in theater critic and producer Kenneth Tynan. So what’s your take on Polanski, this many years later?

Vidal: I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

First, I was in the middle of all that. Back then, we all were. Everybody knew everybody else. There was a totally different story at the time that doesn’t resemble anything that we’re now being told.

The media can’t get anything straight. Plus, there’s usually an anti-Semitic and anti-fag thing going on with the press – lots of crazy things. The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, Polacko – that’s what people were calling him – well, the story is totally different now from what it was then.

You think anti-Semitism is motivating the prosecution of Polanski?

Anti-Semitism got poor Polanski. He was also a foreigner. He did not subscribe to American values in the least. To [his persecutors], that seemed vicious and unnatural.

What are “American values”?

Lying and cheating. There’s nothing better


You first started traveling to California in the 1950s; then you moved here. What’s the most dramatic change you’ve seen in this state since those days?

More foreigners. But that’s a very healthy change. At one time, California was the most parochial place on earth. It was kind of gooney. In a sense, Hitler put the United States on the map by murdering as many Jews as he could get his hands on and driving the others away. They came here, to America, and many to California. My first years here, right after I got out of the Army, Aldous Huxley, Christopher Isherwood, and Thomas Mann dominated this town. We didn’t even have to develop people as good as this! We inherited
them.

‘Talk about Europe and they call you extreme. Talk about tax and they call you greedy. Talk about crime and they call you reactionary. Talk about asylum and they call you racist. Talk about your nation and they call you Little Englanders.

But we trust the people. They are not bigoted or ungenerous. They understand that Britain has responsibilities to those who have been displaced by war or persecution. But they can also read maps. And they can tell that something is going badly wrong when tens of thousands of people are crossing the entire length of the European Continent, travelling through safe countries en route, before suddenly lodging an asylum claim in Britain.’

William Hague speech 2001. Tumbleweeds and the BNP now occupy the ground of abandoned convservatives.

What an absolute red herring this entire week has been, and how convenient for self-righteous bien-pensant liberal elitists to wag their fingers at a thoroughly (and disproportionately) discredited small party, as if this magically waves away the utter mess they've created in this country, and how discredited they themselves are amomgst the public at large.

If anyone on that panel decided to go home thinking they've gained some points for courage for kicking someone while he's not only down but vehemently pinned to the ground by a baying mob, they're more deluded than anyone thought.

The circus preamble around the event only gave Nick Griffin a rock-star aura until the actual show where if anything, being jeered and derided, he ridiculously came to resemble some kind of persecuted Messiah. Vilification ill-befits any serious person, interested in serious issues and discussing them reasonably. All the mud-slinging went beyond its affect and turned the show into a joke. A delicious irony was the way Chris Huhne talked about defending minorities and then proceeded to delight in the format of the show, which pitted one person (and the small constituency he represents) against 4 pannelists, a hostile audience and the entire mainstream press.

Most people who vote BNP, and this wasn't touched on enough, do it stick two fingers up at the political class. This is what the press would be addressing if they weren't inextricably part of the problem. This isn't about Nick Griffin or his party, there is still a major problem about how we as society deal with minority views which don't fit an ever-smaller spectrum of acceptable opinion.

He says today:

Beyoncé belief
Reader Nick Paterson-Morgan drew my attention to the following announcement in The Times:



My first reaction was that this must be a wind-up, probably placed for a bet by someone at the swine flu hotline with nothing better to do. We rang The Times advertising department and they assured us it was genuine.

There’s no mention of a Mr Pong, or any father’s name for that matter. If true, which I still doubt, somewhere out there in Shropshire is a single mother called Kate Pong with quins, variously named after an American pop singer, a model and the U.S. President.

You couldn’t make it up.

Actually you could make it up. MacGuffin at TabloidWatch points out that Littlejohn’s team, typically, didn’t bother checking their facts properly. Kate Pong is a labrador.

He says ‘we’ rang the Times, which suggests he couldn’t even do that himself either. And notice how he even includes a snide remark about single mothers. In a story about a dog.

It is surely a positive that Britain finally has a world champion with an appreciation of the good things in life (Jenson Button) as opposed to a monosyllabic, monkish automaton in a helmet. It also shows what a Japanese lingerie model can do for your lap-times.

But once the partying is over, someone should invite Button to spend 30 seconds on a set of asymmetric bars. By the time they have scraped him off the crash mat and called an ambulance, Tweddle will have gained the limitless respect she deserves.

What makes the new 'Modern' Conservative party modern? There are still more Etonians than women and Ethnic minorities combined.

There is obviously a huge risk in sending an extra 40,000 machine-gun wielding troops into a country they don't understand to "clear" huge areas of insurgent fighters who look exactly like the civilian population, and establish "control" of places that have never been controlled by a central government at any point in their history.

US aerial attacks on the Afghan-Pakistan border have killed 14 al-Qa'ida leaders, at the expense of more than 700 civilian lives. He says: "That's a hit rate of 2 per cent on 98 per cent collateral. It's not moral." It explains the apparent paradox that broke the US in Vietnam: the more "bad guys" you kill, the more you have to kill.

It has been 20 minutes since I’ve read [Jan Moir's] now-notorious column, and I’m still struggling to absorb the sheer scope of its hateful idiocy. It’s like gazing through a horrid little window into an awesome universe of pure blockheaded spite. Spiralling galaxies of ignorance roll majestically against a backdrop of what looks like dark prejudice, dotted hither and thither with winking stars of snide innuendo.

The Iraqi puppet government has requested that Syria turn in Iraqi Ba`thist leaders who are stationed in Damascus. A Syrian official gave a rather (unusually) good response: he said that if Syria were to turn in Iraqi dissidents, Nuri Al-Maliki would have been turned in to Saddam Husayn. Nuri Al-Maliki responded thus: whatttt????

This doesn't surprise me in the least. I can't remember the last time the Nobel peace prize wasn't handed to a rapacious mass murderer. (Before you mention Al Gore he was pretty enthusiastic about destroying Yugoslavia before he started jetting around the world telling us not to use aeroplanes.)

The purge crushed Most's belief in gradual reform. He became convinced the system could only be changed by blowing it up – and suddenly realised that explosives were now lying all over Europe and the US, in sheds controlled by ordinary workers. Dynamite needed no expertise to operate; it could be carried in your pocket; and it could kill. He announced: "It is within the power of dynamite to destroy the capitalist regime just as it had been within the power of gunpowder and the rifle to wipe feudalism from the face of the earth. A girdle of dynamite encircles the world!"

Most travelled from country to country, urging workers to pick up their dynamite and use it against the bosses who forced them to work 12-hour days, seven days a week, for starvation wages. He became the model for Ossipon, the refugee-anarchist Ossipon in Joseph Conrad's novel The Secret Agent, who walks the street with a bomb forever strapped to him, ready to blow himself up the moment the police swoop. In anticipation of Islamism, Ossipon brags that his enemies "depend on life ... whereas I depend on death, which knows no restraint and cannot be attacked. My superiority is evident."

There is however a need to explain why things like this make the headlines without fail every single time. Who gives a shit? I would love to commission a poll to see how many in the Asian community give a shit. He insulted someone, he probably didn't mean to, he said sorry. A man in his 70s said it wouldn't have been a big deal in his day. What an earth shattering event. This is just an excuse for the chronically PC to rattle their tired old sabre and pseuds to justify writing about a boring, worthless reality TV show they'd otherwise be ashamed to admit they watch.

The Nobel peace committee should retire, and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some understanding of history.

The judge [at his trial] quite liked him, and he was intrigued by the fact that this rather talkative kid who wrote tons of pieces for the press had not defended himself. So he said - Mr McVeigh, could we hear more from you? [McVeigh] said, 'Well, your honour, I will base my case on Justice Brandeis, one of our most brilliant jurists, in his opinion in Olmstead. There, he writes that when government ceases to lead by example and actually provides a bad example, anything can happen. Government is the last teacher. Everything I did, I learned from my government."

Since when, with debt levels lower than almost all other wealthy nations, and lower than almost all of modern British history, is it suddenly "a disaster" which requires savage cuts.

"From 1750 to 1870, Britain won wars, assembled an astonishing navy, built an empire and launched the Industrial Revolution to become the envy of Europe, yet the national debt was consistently above 80 per cent of GDP. Nobody cared. High national debt was a precondition for winning two world wars in the 20th century. Periods when the over-riding preoccupation has been lowering the national debt have coincided with industrial, economic and strategic decline. So it will again."

Just before Vidal arrived, the poverty-wreathed Guatemalan people had elected a left-wing president called Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán. They wanted him to introduce a minimum wage and start taxing the US mega-corporation, the United Fruit Company, that dominated the country's only industry, banana-growing. The outraged United Fruit Company acted to preserve its profits – by getting Washington to topple Árbenz and install a dictator. The phrase "banana republic" entered the language. (Bananistan for a central Asian variation.)

"I was astonished," Vidal says. "I had known vaguely about our numerous past interventions in Central America. But that was the past." He discovered that Senator Henry Cabot Lodge was leading the charge, and "I didn't believe it. Lodge was a family friend; as a boy I had discussed poetry with him". He says he realised then he had been fighting "for an Empire, not a republic". His grandfather, he resolved, had been right all along: wars only serve elites.

He rapidly became the leading left-wing critic of American foreign policy. He warned against every war from Vietnam to Iraq, often with extraordinary prescience. At the height of George W Bush's post-9/11 popularity, he said: "Mark my words – he will leave office the most unpopular President in history."

In the meantime, we should take the only lawful action that is open to us.
At the coming Election, refuse to vote for any of them, and do so in such numbers that they can no longer claim they have any mandate to rule, so that their zombie parties collapse in a heap of dust and worms, and we can start again.

But do not imagine that this is some sort of Labour crisis, which will be solved by a smiling team of Old Etonians floating along our troubled streets.
The evil that drove Fiona Pilkington to her horrible death was released by Labour and Tory governments alike, by the liberal elite in general, during half a century of misguided stupidity

The same techniques, it was hoped, would ensure that the "intelligent minorities" would rule, undisturbed by "the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd," the general public (the Sun readers), "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" whose "function" is to be "spectators," not "participants."

Similarly, the problem is not that writers sell-out, but that, as Noam Chomsky told the BBC’s Andrew Marr, “if you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting". (The Big Idea, BBC2, February 14, 1996) Chomsky once related a story he had heard from a civil rights activist at Harvard Law School:

“He once gave a talk and said that kids were coming in to Harvard Law School with long hair and backpacks and social ideals and they were all going to go into public service, law and change the world. That's the first year. He said around April the recruiters come for the summer jobs, the Wall Street firms. Get a cushy summer job and make a ton of money.

“So the students figure, What the heck? I can put on a tie and jacket and shave for one day, because I need that money and why shouldn't I have it? So they put on a tie and a jacket for that one day and they get the job for the summer. Then they go off for the summer and when they come back in the fall, it's ties and jackets and obedience and a shift of ideology.”

In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Megrahi’s case for appeal. “The commission is of the view,” said its chairman, Dr Graham Forbes, “that based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.”

The words “miscarriage of justice” are missing entirely from the current furore, with Kenny MacAskill reassuring the baying mob that the scapegoat will soon face justice from that “higher power”. What a disgrace.

One of the functions of a capitalist state is to defend capitalism from itself, to defend capitalism from the capitalists. It was Marx—dare we mention him? I hear he’s coming back in style. It was Marx who said one capitalist will kill many other capitalists, that the system begins to consume itself. We see that with Bernard Madoff and the like.

My reading of 1945 tells me that we ended up making a shameful deal with Stalin, under pressure from Roosevelt to do so, giving the Soviet tyrant the very 'free hand' in central Europe that we had impotently sought to deny Hitler. The difference was that by then we had sacrificed huge numbers of lives, all our wealth and our Empire. For what? If we had stayed out of power struggles in which we had no power, there'd have been no need to make a deal with Hitler, or Stalin either.

Joyce - the first senior Government figure to resign over the war - said: "We need to make it clear our commitment in Afghanistan is high but time limited. For many, Britain fights, Germany pays, France calculates, Italy avoids.