±«Óătv

Dear Newsnight

Well done to the LibDems for standing its ground on the rule of law. What a sorry state our nation is in. The law broken here to help squander billions of pounds of the money of Saudi Arabian's on useless weapons, the law broken to invade Iraq. Lie after Lie.

What a disgusting futile waste of money to spend it in this way, what a useless waste of talent and ingenuity to spend on designing ways to kill others rather than save lives.

At least I hope the debate on drug addiction and prostitution is about to fundamentally change so that these people can be helped rather than prosecuted.

Add a national DNA register that would immediately give us the name of the monster/s in Ipswich, all other serious criminals and 40% of burglars might be at last seriously considered, and we would be making some progress.

Plus a hypothecated tax on alcohol so that the breweries and pubs pay for the problems they cause, from the extra policing needed to medical treatment and other help needed for the people who fall victim to this 'other' addiction and scourge of our society.

Best wishes
Bob Goodall

This was the best television report I've seen so far on the Litvinenko case.

Also a very interesting interview with Ehud Olmert by John Simpson in which Mr Simpson asked some very good questions.

ARMS:

Find it rather ironic, that in matters of armaments designed to kill & maim, people expect 'clean' politics & business.

National interest is at stake, period.

Meantime the ever opportunistic Lim Dem's as every trying to satisfy everyone, esp listening to Simon Hughes today reminds me the Lib Dems like to swing any & all ways.

Other countries, the antiwar brigade hold up as virtuous (because of stance of Iraq - although they were equally also in bed with Saddam) i.e. the French would be quicker in the bed with Saudi's than Osama missus would be whipping her veil on when strangers call.

End of the day, if:
- evidence dated & scant
- facing a costly investigation
- facing a lengthy investigation
- undermines relationship with key regional ally.
- prosecution success unlikely to result in convictions.

Why bother?

Sure the antiwar brigade will endeavour to use such opportunities to further undermine UK defence industries.

Humbug !

If any regional player (for the greater good) requires defending its Saudis, given the state of the region & the history of behaviour of their neighbours (Shia Iran for one).

It's politics ladies & gentlemen.

Q. what’s the beef, that the Saudis are open to being possibly influenced with their own money?

I thought the anti war & Liberal Left were respectful of local tradition of other cultures.

vikingar

How can we ever know the course set for the Saudi arms deal has been handled correctly ? The two most powerful Labour Politicians involved are behaving in a childish manner squabling over places at the Top table.
Reportedly,The Clunking Fist, Mr Brown is throwing his toys out of his pram because & I paraphrase," No 10 is trying to take the heat off Mr Blair by dragging me into cash-for- honours scandals...says Mr Brown.

Methinks you & other No11 aparatchiks protest too much Sir.

An excellent item on the Litvinenko case, but it seemed oddly truncated. Why so little about the possibility of involvement of Berezovsky and the Chechens? Also, why blandly accept the assumption that the polonium originated in Russia - as it is something that is so easily contained, traces on two BA planes might suggest merely that someone accidentally or deliberately left the traces in a journey to Moscow and back to London - i.e. the source was in the UK, or perhaps even somewhere else (Italy?).

I think the action to stop the investigation into the alleged bribery associated with the Saudi Government is another corrupt action by a government led by a seemingly morally corrupt prime minister.

The action of going to war with Iraq on a pretext, his probable association with the disposal of Grace and Favour positions (i.e. peerages) and now his intervention to protect BAE and the Saudi Government from exposure of corrupt dealings, is a continuation of his inadequate and morally warped judgement.

Blair condemns dictatorships of less influential states and has the arrogance to advocate to them British and American styled democracy.
Whilst demonstrating his double standards by supporting the corrupt administration and dealings of the Saudi regime, because it is supposedly in our “National Interest”.

When the leaders of third world states misappropriate the wealth or belonging of the their people, he condemns their actions, but when it suits, America (friends of the Saudis), or British companies to perform similar actions, the rulebook seems to be changed.

I think, that if he wished to fight terrorism, it would be better for him to adhere to universally recognised moral standards, rather than be seen to expose himself as a hypocrite.

The throws into doubt any moral stance, which Britain adopts as a “World Power”.

I would have thought that the time for Blair to resign has passed, and it would be in the “National Interest” for him to do so immediately, before he further undermines the opinion and standing of this country in the eyes of the rest of the world.

D F Evans

@3 - vikingar

Following what David F. Evans wrote, I pity human beings who have the basis of the analysis of everything as "Me, Myself and I!"

People who don't care about other human beings are no different to terrorists.

Mr. Vikingar has classically demonstarated this point by his explicit and unconditional support to the statment " National Security is at stake, period." As well his amoral support of the UK Defence Industries.

Any Human willing to exist with fellow man and fufill their interest in an amicable should be commended, and those who prefer to force thier interest on other human beings and nations should be lined up and shot at!

I think Mr. Vikingar is forgetting the countless people in the world suffering from deals such as this one. Let alone the "influence" of Defence industries on the "Democratically" elected government!

At the end of the day, it is a really sorry state of affairs that even though we as human beings who are intellectual beings we still in this world resort to the law of the jungle that is " Might is Right"!

Regards

David

Litvinenko assassination report by Susan Watts is one of the most thought provoking Newsnight reports in many years. Likewise Radio 4's Dec 16 report + 'interview'.

The ±«Óătv is doing well by not casting aside this major story...despite distractions (understandably) of the Suffolk killings of five women working as prostitutes. As one of the two identified causes of death is "compressions to the neck", perhaps the murder spree - given nil evidence of sexual motive - could be professional SAS-style random killings for the purpose of distracting media attention away from the Litvinenko assassination and its perhaps ongoing purpose?

Poisoning or drugging also appears to be a factor in Suffolk, as no defence signs exist in the five victims.

Is Newsnight investigating...?

Interesting piece on the Litvinenko saga by Susan Watts, though I wonder why the ±«Óătv persists in not reporting the allegations made recently concerning Litvinenko's business activities before his death, which have been widely reported elsewhere in the press and broadcast media.

When these are taken into account, the roles of Lugovoi and Kovtun and the reason for their apparent contamination prior to 1st November become much clearer. Only one theory of course, like any other, but one which would also hold that the British police and media may have unwittingly been complicit in filling in the details of a rather extreme form of leak inquiry since Litvinenko's death.

Interesting also, in a week when so much media attention was focused on a car crash, that Susan Watts noted the damage to Kovtun's BMW in Hamburg, which looked to have wrapped itself round a tree or pillar of some kind.

A curious parallel with Gazprom billionaire Suleiman Kerimov's crash into a tree in Nice on 25th November.

What a foul interview by John Simpson with Mr Olmert. While pretending to take a liberal stance, Simpson allowed Olmert to justify, unchallenged, his war crimes against Lebanon and Palestine and his appalling oppression of the people of the Gaza strip. He twice claimed to have evacuated the Gaza strip without reference to Israel's blockade of the region and reduction of the people of Gaza to starvation. He was allowed to say of Palestinians: "They are violent." John Simpson might have pointed out that Israel's invasion of Lebanon was a great deal more violent but no, he allowed Olmart's racist comment ro pass unchallenged. He was allowed to laud war criminal Sharon.
Was Simpson confined to a prepared set of questions. If so, he should not have collaborated in such an exercise in neocon zionist propaganda. His questions were mere prompts for Olmert to lie about his governments crimes against humanity. Anybody depending on the ±«Óătv or John Simpson for the truth about Israel's relations with its neighbours would be left thinking that Israel is an island of civilization in an ocean of barbarism, when Israel's barbarity equals and, in July exceeded any of its neighbours.
Shame on John Simpson and shame on the ±«Óătv.

Ref hallelujah jones #10

Rubbish.

Solid & insightful interview & Simpson is as good as ever (if not better).

±«Óătv:

As for the beeb impartiality, which version have you been watching?

Their coverage of recent spat between Hezbollah & Israel, was judge by many/most to have been largely weighted in favour of the former *

Even sympathetic Israel sites think so, then [1a] even now [1b]

* the once great Irish reporter Fergal Keane's journalism way off the mark - the 'pornography of grief' [2]

Other views [1c] & pretty damming ones at that [1d]

It was only some way into the conflict that ±«Óătv notion of reporting impartially returned to somewhat normal service (or as normal as it can be)

±«Óătv - ME COVERAGE:

Personally think John Simpson & Jeremy Bowen are great & are amongst those who represent what's best in British investigative journalism [3]

However, the same cannot be the same of two southern Irish & Canadian reporters who the Beeb had been overly relying on, gone native me thinks long ago:

[a] Irish - Fergal Keane
[b] Irish - Orla Guerin *
[c] Canadian - Barbara Plett **

* Irish ±«Óătv reporter Orla Guerin MBE [4a] [4b] as a self declared socialist [4c] often accused of having a Palestinian boyfriend/husband [4d] but who actually married to Reuters correspondent [4e] she met in Bethlehem. So wonder during her stint, how much of her coverage was unbiased [4f] did her insights give her the edge and/or just made her credentials more palatable with the radicals/terrorists & political players in the region. Now she is beebs Africa correspondent - fyi - good speech ref her honorary degree, esp 2nd from last paragraph [4g] info on the event [4h]. Orla Guerin MBE in her own words [4i]

** Canadian ±«Óătv reporter Barbara Plett [5a] [5b] stint in the region of dubious worth [5c] was best summed up via reporting of Yassar Arafat funeral, earning her a rebuke for letting personal emotions getting in way of doing the job [5b] [5c]. Believe she is now reporting in Pakistan/Asia

SUMMARY:

The international reach & recruitment of the beeb is one of its greatest strengths, but do wonder why its permanent/resident regional journalists do not hail from the UK given the direct influence they have into British households & thus British understanding & opinion of world affairs.

Wonder why the ±«Óătv coverage of the region has so long been dominated by two Southern Irish reporters, whose style has been markedly non Israeli friendly, which led to a cooperation boycott by Israeli government with the ±«Óătv for sometime.

But I am not the only one whose queried the lack of impartiality [6]

How much did their nationality & Ireland historical connections in the area have to play in the decision too keep them there? combined with the journalistic antics of a Canadian reporter even the ±«Óătv Governors have acknowledged concerns [7]

'hallelujah jones' your island analogy, bang on the money would add …. surrounded by a sea full of various predators, some benign but majority lethal :)

vikingar

[1a]
[1b]
[1c] /blogs/theeditors/2006/08/middle_east_restrictions_1.html
[1d]
[2]
[3]
[4a]
[4b]
[4c]
[4d]
[4e]
[4f]
[4g]
[4h]
[4i]
[5a]
[5b]
[5c]
[5d]
[5d]
[6]
[7]

David - 7

I couldn't agree more.

In a piece elsewhere on this NN website, Vikingar has demonstrated his true colours, when he gave a link to a neo-con / rightwing website which attempts to rubbish that callous and murderous live pictures that we all saw in our TV screens, at the Lebanese village of Qana, in July of this year.

I suspect he might have also justified the Israeli massacre at Beit Hanoun back in November!

The man has all the traits of pro-Israeli neo-con Zionist zealot disguised as a "Liberal-Conservative" as he put it.

Ref Mahmud Ibrahim #12

Well thank you for remembering that I am 'liberal conservative' as such & being a British Christian (lapsed catholic) more than happy to side with a progressive democratic society such as Israel (warts & all) which is under consistent attack by radicals, extremists & terrorists.

Yes Israel has a lot to answer for, but given the behaviour & aims of its neighbours, amazing its society is not in 100% state of siege.

Now, as to the colours of 'Mahmud Ibrahim' you certainly do not post like what you wish to be read as, more akin to users from the GU - hay ho *

* very similar style to anarchosurfer posts on NN :)

But I do notice you like to J'accuse, but leave questions about your objectives unanswered, for example are you the 'Mahmud Ibrahim' behind these posts :

- Post #218 & #230 : the Newsnight thread about Hitz but Tahrir [1a]
- Post #60 : the Newsnight thread about Conspiracy Theories [1b]
- Post #7 : the Newsnight thread about Radical Extremism in British Universities - a reply to #1 [1c]
- Post #21 24 33 34 38 - the Newsnight thread about Darfur [2]

btw - I post from all sources (left, centre, right etc) you should try it sometime, read up about the viewpoints of people you disagree with. If you are what you say you are, its a British trait that will help many like you understand key aspects of British Society & thus assist integration & assimilation :)

But either way, not in the mood to take morality lesson from someone whose moral compass (judged by their posts) [2]:

- supports radical & extremists Islamic groups

- promotes a flawed notion of global brotherhood & empathy for strangers justification for acts (contradicts evidence & reality)

- ignores Islamic Fracticide (current & historic evidence)

- in denial about failings in Islam esp as its operates in progressive democratic societies.

- your support of dubious ages of consent argument given religious & cultural reasoning/justification

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1a] /blogs/newsnight/2006/11/tuesday_14_november_2006.html
[1b] /blogs/theeditors/2006/12/too_much_conspiracy.html
[1c] /blogs/newsnight/2006/11/friday_17_november_2006.html
[2] /blogs/newsnight/2006/12/friday_8_december_2006.html

Susan Watts is the Science Correspondent but this report on the Polonium Trail was, I'm sorry to say, missing the elements of scientific method. Sourcing the Polonium was glossed over with a weak assertion that some of the people involved were powerful enough to have evaded Russian safety controls. Does Ms Watts have any evidence that Russian nuclear installations are open to corruption in that way? It seems potentially a huge slur upon both the professional ethics of the staff there and the Russian state. Just the sort of assertion that this unsavoury group of anti-Russian (and anti-democratic - remember they were involved, prior to the Italian elections, in a right-wing sponsored attempt to smear the now Prime Minister of Italy as a Russian spy) agitators would have wanted Newsnight to broadcast.

Did Ms Watts miss the apparently carefully researched piece in the New York Times [1] that showed that way-more than sufficient quantities of Polonium for thousands of murders are available to buy in the USA, and the quantity involved in Litvinenko's death would cost less than thirty dollars? Yes, it is made in Russia, but is exported legitimately and used in making, for example, anti-static products. That seems a far more likely source.

The Russian exporters, incidentally, are quoted in that piece as stating that none has been exported to the UK for many years.

Newsnight's very first report on Polonium and Litvinenko was therefore completely misinformed when it said that Polonium is "incredibly rare" and and that a lethal dose would have cost millions of dollars.

I wonder too if Ms Watts, in having herself only "virtually" placed (by having a still image of the bar placed behind her by electronic means) in the bar in which the poisoning probably took place, missed that the hotel in which it is located adjoins US embassy buildings in Grosvenor Square? That hotel has long been regarded as an annex to the embassy, and might seem a coincidental location, of all those thousands available in central London for a quick "social drink" meeting between anti-governmental Russian men, if some US-government involvement in this affair were entirely missing. It would be entirely consistent with current US government policy to disrupt Russian relations with other countries. Let us remember that US Secretary of State Rice is a career specialist in anti-Soviet issues, and, if it were not for the continuing anti-Russian obsession of the Bush White House would have been am odd choice for Secretary of State in a time when middle-east, latin-american, North Korean and anti-terror issues might have seemed of higher priority.

[1]

I love John Simpson's interviews, usually. I go out of my way to see those in which he strolls around some colourful location gently chatting with a fascinating and informed character as the insights tumble forth. They are uniquely valuable. But this interview with the Israeli Prime Minister (which I also took the trouble to see in full on News24) was something else.

I willingly assume that Olmert was unwilling to do anything but a stark, formal, sat-down, face-to-face. I'll assume that both Simpson and Olmert were happy with the resulting product. But then I have to assume that Olmert really is one of the most dishonest, and unpleasant men I have seen on television in a long time. Or could it be that he he just took lazy advantage of Mr Simpson not pressing, past one level of query, any of the questions that were asked?

Did Simpson feel that Olmert condemned himself from his own mouth and that was sufficient? I, for one, would have dearly liked to have had more detailed responses from Olmert on such subjects as the bombing of Lebanon. His assertion that roads were only bombed when they were supply routes for Hezbollah (a plain lie), or that Christians in Lebanon celebrated the bombings of other areas, and were not bombed themselves (when we saw live footage of bombings in Christian areas, for example when water drilling rigs parked for months in a suburban street opposite a block of flats in which a UK news crew were staying were attacked) were surely invitations for challenge? Why did Simpson not immediately question if such false assertions should be taken as indicative of Israeli attempts to provoke civil war in Lebanon?

Did Simpson not have more detailed questions ready, such as on Israel's nuclear stockpile? On settlement withdrawals and the 1967 borders, on turning Gaza into the world's largest prison, on Iran, on undermining moderate Palestinians and trying to pick and choose who one speaks with whilst claiming a total commitment to seeking peace, on Israeli abductions and false imprisonments, on Israeli extra-judicial killings, on failure to abide by UN resolutions whilst demanding others do the opposite, on Israeli violations of international human rights laws in general? How about the deliberate, dead-centre-of-the-cross canon-fire attacks on sacrosanct Red-Cross ambulances that were amply documented? How about the legal proceedings Israel is bound by solemn international treaty to prosecute against it's own forces, or leaders, who perform, or order, or allow such atrocities; why, Mr Simpson should surely have asked the man who has stated that he takes full responsibility, is there no sign of them having started yet?

I kept wondering if the ±«Óătv's Middle-East Editor wouldn't have done a much better job of such an opportunity than the rank-pulling, globe-trotting Simpson. Or perhaps Olmert would not grant an interview to anyone else? In which case we should be told that background.

I see that the local mental health service in Ipswich claims it presently has all the necessary resources to save women needing to be on the streets in order to serve their drug habits. But does that include actually relieving the drug cravings?

Two oddities about the reports on police investigations into those murders. If any of the women were carrying mobile phones (and we hear none have been retrieved, so it sounds as if they were carrying them - don't we all!), why do the investigators' pleas for witnesses at "last seen" locations not include where those phones last operated? Surely the police have the locations where they ceased network connections, to within yards?

And, without wishing to be prurient, are police really saying that these sex workers had no recent sexual contacts? That seems how they are reporting the conditions of the bodies. Or do they mean that they all practiced safe-sex?

We need to have confidence in the police enquiries. Good solid convictions would evenually give that, but in the meantime, or in case there never is a conviction, confidence ensuring information would help. And it would have been a useful question to have asked the head of ACPO, when he mentioned that staff were interchangeable between forces because all were trained according to national "best practice", just what is best practice on some things, including the information given out, and the ways the victims are characterised.

@Vikingar

Your response shows how you have little regards for the truth.

While you hide behind a pseudonym of 'vikingar', I am my self real and have nothing to do with individuals you referred to.

Neither do I have any connection with any of the parties that you have mentioned.

I know you are trying to paint a negative picture of me by mentioning names like Hizbu Tahrir, Darfur, and the NN piece about Radical Extremism in British Universities, but readers will judge for themselves when they read the contents.

You want people to take you as an impartial person, but those who have been following your posts, know that you are far from that. Indeed, you seem to have a preset agenda while accussing others of the same.

Take a lead from true impartial writers like Jenny, David, and others above!

Ref Mahmud Ibrahim #17

SAD GUISES:

So after all .....

Mahmud Ibrahim = anarchosurfer

Far too many coincides esp post #38 [1]:

- "I too will very soon cease to converse with people with 'tunnel vision' " (recycled reverse quip)

And then ....

- 'PEACE' etc self styled inclusions in posts (anarchosurfer post signature)

- false extreme/far right wing & BNP outings attempts (again, default intolerant Lefty response to differing opinion)

- quite distinct & similar post constructs

- you don't write like the person you are trying to be

- similar 911 Conspiracy Theory rhetoric

MOST REVEALING POST - Mahmud Ibrahim #60 [2]

Peter,
Can you rationally explain how an Hijacker's Passport was found in a building we were told was so hot that steel melted away very quickly???
How did a LARGE boeing aircraft crash into the Pentagon building without living much debris and charred remains of all those killed??
How could an aviation fuel known to burn at a lower temperature, melt steel which needs considerably higher temperature to melt?
Why were those supposedly fanatic and extremist Muslim hijackers - we were told - were partying away with wine, women and eating pork chops, the night prior to their martydom!
Why did those 'Arabs' live a Van at the airport parking that contained aircraft manual in Arabic, a copy of the Koran, and other paraphenalia that could easily expose their trail? Would a thief cover his/her tracks or advertise themselves as they did?
I could go on with a dozen such questions that defy logic sorrounding that tragic event.
But ofcourse, to Peter Barron and his likes, this line of questioning is not rational!!!

SUMMARY:

If other posters can be bothered, they can judge you by your other NN posts listed in #13 above [3]

Dear sad Newsnight poster playing games under 2+ guises - for a gentle reminder, I refer you too my #27 [4]

Have a Merry Christmas ...... ENDEX

vikingar

[1] /blogs/newsnight/2006/12/friday_8_december_2006.html
[2] /blogs/theeditors/2006/12/too_much_conspiracy.html
[3] /blogs/newsnight/2006/12/friday_15_december_2006.html
[4] /blogs/newsnight/2006/11/wednesday_8_november_2006.html

Litvinenko compared to a nineteenth century Russian novel.."The Idiot"?