±«Óătv

Hi Newsnight

Like the look of the new banknotes, when are they going into production?
Hey, You know that I’m just joking about this, but is Stephanie Flanders risking a spell in the tower with this new venture when HM returns with her gong?

Best wishes

Bob

Sad that I am to have time to do this but I did find the following
.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence on the internet stating that it
is illegal to write on banknotes in the UK but it is difficult to
track down any evidence. There appears to be nothing stating this
fact on either the Bank of England or Royal Mint websites. I have
though managed to track down some evidence!

"The British Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, provides: —
If any person prints or stamps or by any like means impresses on any
bank note any words, letters or figures, he shall, in respect of each
offence, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding
one pound."

Upon further research into the British Currency and Bank Notes Act I
found this statement on the Wikipedia:

"Concerning notes, the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928 says If any
person prints, or stamps, or by any means impresses, on any bank note
any words, letters or figures, he shall, in respect of each offence,
be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one pound.
The penalty was changed to ÂŁ25 in 1977 (Criminal Law Act, s.31) and to
ÂŁ200 in 1982 (Criminal Justice Act, s.46)."

It therefore does appear to be illegal to write on banknotes in the UK.

Further reading on this subject can be found here:

You can also contact the Bank of England directly here:

Deport Abu Qatada? I should say so! I trust Jordan to be civilised enough to treat him humanely - that aside, it is time we sent out a message that those hostile to us and our way of life, cannot also expect us to provide a safe haven.

Hi Newsnight

Good to see the 'banknote' blog arrived, except that when i tried to send it, it wouldnt go through for some reason, but just goes to show, they get through somehow-

talking of which does anyone know what it means if you get calls but they dont register as calls made ?! -

my friends are noticing the same thing, is BT using a new exhange system?

best wishes

The parties do not represent suitable ways forward for the vast majority...instead they represent economic claims to repression of the opportunities of others...

All those who fund such activities are and have obviously been complicit in fraud and embezzlement often grievously enforced with much damage...they should be prosecuted as a party...

We of the public do not want to fund their activities...

Every member of the public may need additional customer representation ..

But did that so often need to become politicised ...?

Government is seen to be about getting people to go away, democracy is about mocking them, and parliament is about lying....as each economic greed and dispute is fought to the detriment of the under-represented public...

Is the enforcement of beliefs of one creed faith and gender on another anything other than a source of conflict and undesirable compromise...

Full exposure and preparatory understanding of each other's politics is desirable...with proper accountabilities as is seen to be more suitable as is obvious around the world...

The many different companies show off the success of their particular politics of customer representation economics, achievements, accountabilities, application of suitable approaches, and public support persuasion...

They of the blairmons want to remove or pervert all public bodies to enable their economics against us...

We do not need to support those against us... they should be investigated and prosecuted...and politically leveraged by every taxpaying body to get what is wanted...

Full customer representation to service providing bodies is required and often asked for... more potency and consideration is needed to ensure that service offerings are suitable worthy and supportive of the objectives of the public...

There's a really interesting story to be told around private equity - not all of it good - but newsnight didn't do it tonight. The package managed to be sneery, superficial and not very accurate all at the same time. There followed a tedious debate between John McConnell (small time political hasbeen/never was) and some labour apologist for its dodgy funding techniques (never seen before, never to be seen again).

Why take such a predictable line? What about an interesting story on how the private equity guys make their money? What about some case studies of some good and bad private equity investments? What about the story of why private equity has been successful (not tax driven as the package tried to suggest)? Most of all, why such a flippant and generally noddy piece of reporting?

Why can't the ±«Óătv do decent, thorough and interesting business reporting? Why all the looking down your noses at business? Why do you really find it all so grubby? Don't you have to work to live too?

The party of servilities reigns everywhere...

Why bother to vote and support labour liberals or conservatives...

Service provision is ruled by selectivism until there is only one politics that of finance deservence based on creeds of education and niceness....

The party of servilities tries to reign us all for their money and the sacrifice of our lives...

Their creeds excuse crime...grievous damage... embezzlement against the charitable objectives of the taxes paid... fraudulent in their presumptions of budgets and workability..negligent ..they are self serving and greed securing and disbelieving...

The world has been saved by the politics and generosity of technologists...they deserve the tax and the support...

What an atrocious "interview" with the representative of Amnesty International over the Qatada case. Paxman gives in (as he does all too often) to the temptation to skip the chance of a real discussion of a difficult ethical and justice issue in order to pointlessly harrangue without illuminating in any way at all. Really, this is not journalism. There are real questions to be asked on both sides of this debate - why don't we hear them asked on Newsnight? Why must Paxman (and his equivalent number on the Today Programme) always reduce important and complex political issues to an artificial confrontration between "for" and "against"...?

It's a pleasant change to see the boss of Network Rail, John Armitt accepting responsibility for the accident. Next we will hear people wanting his resignation.
Those that should resign or probably be charged are those who supposedly checked the points.
One wonders what excuse will be given why it was not checked on the 18th.,-- sickness, couldn't be bothered, or worse still, a cost cutting exercise? Seeing that so much "metalwork" was missing, unless it is found when the track and train is cleared, it must have been missing on the previous inspection? Somebody removed it or noticed it wasn't there. Some por sod "down the line" will be getting it in the neck?

Richard Branson is right, we have to return to the old days when a gang was responsible for its own length of track on a daily basis, but that will be too expensive.Private equity rules OK here maybe as well?

The bosses of Network Rail must have their eyes and ears on the Lords' debate on Corporate Manslaughter, on Thursday. I will be certainly reading carefully what they decide!

Abu Qatada or our values?
The court decision today simply amount to abandoning the core principles and values that made the UK.
If we can take the July terrorist to court I can’t see why we can’t when it came to these men and Abu Qatada ? They are innocent till proven otherwise and sure its not worth the damage to the UK reputation and its judicial system.

I found the item on private equity companies funding the Labour Party quite nauseating and another example of sloppy journalism. It seemed to cover three betes noires of the ±«Óătv- capitalism, tax breaks and Jews. There is no suggestion that private equity companies are operating illegally in this country yet Stephanie Flanders' report had a constant implication that they were. She at one point suggested that if the tax regime were changed many equity fund managers would no longer be UK residents for tax purposes although no equity fund manager was produced saying this and no other evidence was produced for this assertion.

Michael Crick's statement that Ronald Cohen would be "Gordon Brown's Lord Levy" i.e. the in-house Jew I found deplorable and this kind of innuendo should be deemed unacceptable but unfortunately anti-semitism seems to have migrated from the right to the left and is now de rigeur on the ±«Óătv (I notice the programme also featured the usual attack on Israel in the piece on the Bedouins without balancing the item by looking at how the Bedouins are treated, or mistreated, by the surrounding Arab states).

The item on Abu Qutada is not only another example of how the ±«Óătv regularly pours cold water on the "alleged" war on terror (the ±«Óătv's phrase) but how also friendly Muslim countries, such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who are allied to the West and have been victims of islamist terrorism are portrayed as oppressive states that regularly use torture (although no evidence is ever provided for this). Jeremy Paxman might have pointed out that Al-Qaeda, whom Qutada appears to support, regularly employ torture and the most barbaric execution methods (which they film for public consumption) on their captives (who generally are guilty of no crime at all except being in the wrong place at the wrong time). Once again, however, the evil-doings of terrorists were put in the shade by the supposed evil-doings of friendly Arab governments.

In this report about the Bedouin Newsnight has unnecessarily politicised the issue. Rather than being an Arab-Israeli or Jewish-Muslim issue, the matter is related to the wider question of how to integrate nomadic peoples into a state and provide them with the legal status and infrastructure of its citizens. Every country with a nomadic population (including Britain) shares the problematic question of how to provide for a section of the population that does not operate within the legal framework of land ownership and registration. It is impossible for any state to provide services to a house, settlement or village that is not registered with a council, the land registry and for which planning permission has not been obtained. How should a state collect taxes to pay for these services? Is it legal to build a house in rural part of Britain without planning permission? The Newsnight report delved straight into a criticism of Israel, and concluded that the question was how Israel could come to terms with the indigenous people who lived there before the state was founded. Rather than being about a conflict between the state of Israel and the indigenous population, Israel's treatment of the Bedouin relates to the general question of the integration of nomadic peoples everywhere.
I would urge Newsnight to find out whether other countries such as Jordan and Egypt, where the Bedouin also live, have found better solutions.

I really don't think Michael Crick was talking about in-house Jews, just fund-raisers (post 8).

Excellent interview with the chap from Amnesty International. Some hard questioning by Paxo and some clear honest answers from the Amnesty man. Why can't the politicians do that?

So ref Abu Qatada one-way trip back to Jordan.

Q.1 which airline will have the pleasure of taking him?

Q.2 what will be his in-flight meal?

Q.3 will they offset set the Carbon for his trip?

Ref Qatada lawyer, Gareth Peirce, for her is it - ego/ideals and/or gravy train? [2a] [2b] [2c]

Either way, not too bad a lifestyle for a talented supporter of the Trotskyist Socialist Alliance [2b]

"She has no time for small talk and no social graces whatsoever" - charming :) but her expertise is exactly what you want if you are rather unpopular & in a corner [2c]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2a]
[2b]
[2c]

The Abu Qatada failed appeal can only be a good thing,but how much has this illegal immigrant and spiritual leader of Islamic terrorism cost the British taxpayer.The price of keeping this man for years in this country and the court/prison costs must be a small fortune that would keep a small African state in fire arms for the next five years. Many who watch this debacle unfold and played out in the media can only be described as a surreal twilight world full of weird lawyers trotting out the same old human rights nonsense,whilst the rest of us,and i think paxman can be included in this,is bewildered by the defense for the Islamic lunatic fringe(its a big fringe).No doubt Abu Qatada lawyers will be handsomely paid,regardless whatever happens to him.Can i suggest we send him back to Jordan tommorrow whilst his defense team are busy reading the Guardians list of potential Islamic terrorist groups who may face deportation from this country to a state that does not adhere to human rights laws.oh wait a minute..oh another appeal,when he eventually looses the next appeal and maybe the one after that,deport his defense team as well because they will be safer in Jordan than on the streets of Britain,people are getting very angry and may want to string them up or at least do them harm.its a vision i have and a fervent prayer.I for one will be at the front of the crowd with my mobile phone videoing the spectacle and rejoicing that we have cleansed the world of sick and evil people,and got rid of a terrorist leader to boot,the world would be a better place,the birdies would tweet in the trees and the sun would shine through the clouds and all would be well in the world,share my vision please,its quite liberating....maybe i should get into politics,i think i would do well,certainly get the popular vote for sure.(disclaimer:its satire but the angry sentiments are truthful so stop foaming at the mouth)

As reported on Newsnight...

One of the BIGGEST private equity entrepreneurs (so called) is a very good friend of Gordon Brown and a BIG financial donor to NEW Labour.

Says all you want and need to know really.

Mr. Wallace, Your long and quite correct "posting" can be summed up in a few words,-"The lawyers have their noses in the trough, yet again"

Terrorism?--a nice little earner for lawyers with the bloke from Amnesty ignoring the atrocities of some Muslim fanatics and more intent of mentioning torture in other countries, as well as Jordon, as an excuse for us to keep this one at our great expense, in this country.

How can we expect friendly Arab governments like Jordan to work with us as allies when we try to impose our own bizarre human rights orthodoxy on them? The same human rights lunatics who accuse Jordan of using torture have spent the last 6 years claiming that Britain and the USA are also guilty of using torture. Or putting it another way, in the parlance of these left wing lunatics, why should we impose our cultural norms on another sovereign state. Qatada is an enemy of our state and he deserves nothing from us, and we own him nothing. Is it any wonder that the Islamist see Britain as ‘low hanging fruit’ in their efforts to Islamise the West?

I think Paxman did a great job in the interview with the Amnesty International guy. Asked all the right questions and clearly showed the AI's liberal bent takes no account of UK taxpayers' well-being and security. I'll remember not to support them or any such organisation in future.

I was disappointed by Stephanie Flanders' report on Private Equity. Amongst other things already mentioned by other posters, the report was fairly inaccurate, specifically on tax.

Flanders kept insinuating that Private Equity is tax driven when it just isn't! Fair enough, if you build up debt in a business, interest payments on that debt are deductible from the profits. But merely loading up a company with debt is not a good reason for buying it up. No Private Equity firm would want to sell on a debt-laden business with no prospects. Private Equity is entirely founded on turning businesses round, not running them into the ground.

The other tax point I'm struggling with is the Capital Gains/Income suggestion. This does of course depend on what the nature of the investor is. Limited Partnerships (LPs) are often used by Private Equity firms as a structure to buy up companies. LPs are tax transparent and can therefore lead to differences in the tax treatment of capital and income receipts. However, to suggest that sometimes a capital gain for a Private Equity investor can be taxed at 10% is naĂŻve as almost every investor will be charged at much higher rates. Even then, the revenue stream will pass to a company which will pay corporation tax on all its profits at 30%.

To suggest that the taxman is being duped by scheming men in the City is a caricature which needs to be discarded.

I think that Stephanie Flanders found that this area of business is complicated and as a consequence it was difficult to write an accurate yet pithy report. Instead of trying to combine the two, she went for pithy and almost threw accuracy completely out of the window.

Merryn Somerset Webb gave a good explanation of the financial engineering behind private equity deals in last week's Sunday Times.

Ref #20 Bill Bradbury

Hear Hear

Personally thought death by terrorism (blown up, shot, kidnapped & tortured) was the real form of injustice here, the real TORTURE for victims surviving family & friends to having to cope with death of a loved one by such means.

The disingenuous attempts by usual ultra liberal forces to over egg & widened the definition of true torture, with other tactics - 'hooding', 'stress position' or 'periods of incarceration' - has only undermined the public's willingness to take 'Torture Claims' more seriously 
 its an own goal.

The public can differentiate against TRUE torture & redefined PC/RIGHT ON attempts of abusing the term torture.

The public can also differentiate between necessarily robust measure of democratic progressive societies (esp in wartime as a non norm) & the high levels of torture, persecution & injustice of totalitarian & radical regimes, metered out as the norm *

* esp when which the Liberal Left yet again want to promote a form of moral equivalence between wholly differing societual models.

The reality is in wartime, unpleasant things happen to nasty people, esp when some people use a 'peacetime' metric to gauge such & have a 'peacetime' expectation of things.

Q. does anyone really consider Jordan to be a risk? **

** esp in regional context, in comparison to real unhealthy & unpleasant regimes like Iran & Syria.

Just think that usual factions intentionally want to foster a raised level of rights (yet again) but one which is totally unachievable, outside theoretical discussions, given how the world & people demonstrably are, as opposed to how some would wish the world & people to be ***

*** its called human nature, amply demonstrated over history

More advanced & civilised nations, can offer their citizens/subjects a greater amount of enforceable rights, than in comparison with more repressive regimes.

Whilst there can be basic amount of rights for all, its wholly impractical to expect ALL to have universal access to the SAME level of enforceable rights, at the higher end.

Ironically, in more advanced & civilised nations, the burgeoning demands from ultra liberals (their currency) in respect of 'rights', has lead to unsustainable forms of expectation amongst certain groups.

This has started to impact the states ability to govern it citizens.

Hence a 'Renaissance of Rights' is taking place, whereby there are growing counter demands are to rebalance the 'individual v state' model, rightly in favour of society.

Burgeoning demands for more 'Rights + Expectations' regardless, SHOULD NOT disable a state's ability to govern its society.

vikingar

"any choice but to deport Abu Qatada?"

No problem here for NEW Labour they have been deporting people to torture and murder for sometime. Have you not heard about rendition flights???.What is the difference???.

Isn't it a shame that the Amnesty man could not bring himself to stick to the point of the interview. I suppose it is difficult when they the likes of Amnesty and Liberty try to defend the indefensible. As I understand Abu Qatada was found guilty in Jordon of Bombing.
It is therefore the right of Jordon to apply their law to fit the crime, and Qatar knew the consequences of his actions.
Is Britain really as Amnesty states to be the bolt hole for all bombers and crooks in general?
Would the likes of Amnesty, Liberty etc. accept responsibility for any killings/bombings that follow by the likes of Qatada - nope thought not!
The likes of these people will be the death of many of us.
The rules on deportation/repatriation should be 'if in doubt, kick them out'!

# 26 George Dutton

Well George, you don’t know what the difference is because you have no evidence of Jordan’s use of torture and you have no evidence that ‘rendered’ terrorist suspects were actually tortured. If you had evidence that, for example, Jordan was chopping detainees’ fingers off (as Saddam did) and the UK and USA were subjecting detainees to very loud Boney M music, then you could pose the question “what is the difference???.” But then the question would just appear stupid, wouldn’t it???

Labour Finances - they couldn't care less where they get their funding from. India (Mittal) is another source.
They are insolvent are they not, therefore operating whilst insolvent, is that not an illegal position?
Has the Labour Party found out where the cheques handed over inside No.10 were banked?
Do they care?
Does anyone care anymore? Have we all just accepted that we are now as much 3rd world as the recognised 3rd world, the 3rd way in action maybe.

There is no way should the tax payer be expected to finance any Political Party.

So we had stories of a train crash in justice, the train crash that is israel, the train crash of party funding and a real train crash. Only one person apologised for having loose screws.

In response to Lesley Boatwright although Ronald Cohen has given money to the Labour Party Michael Crick made no suggestion that he had encouraged others to do so or that he was particularly interested in the problems of the Middle East. Even during his rather muddled and, imo, foolish intervention in the programme Crick allowed himself the dispensation that Cohen "would not play the same role as Lord Levy, of course". The only other possible inference to be drawn therefore was that they are both wealthy Jews.

I totally agree with taxman about Stephanie Flanders totally misunderstanding the role and function of private equity companies. They buy up loss-making companies which, did they not do so, would in the normal state of affairs declare bankruptcy and go into receivership resulting in the dismissal of all the workforce. Had this point been understood Paxman could have made it to the arch-Stalinist John McDonnell who, as Deputy Leader of the former GLC, found even Ken Livingstone too right-wing and, had he got his way, would not have even set a rate when faced with financial difficulty.

The item neatly illustrates the anti-business bias of the ±«Óătv which of course is exempt from the disciplines of the market place (as well as distorting it for other entrants) by a guaranteed flow of income enforced by criminal sanctions. At least Susan Watts in her reports demonstrates that she knows something about science. It's a pity that "Newsnight" cannot employ a business correspondent who knows even a little about business.

28. At 12:51 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Alan C wrote:
# 26 George Dutton

Well George, you don’t know what the difference is because you have no evidence of Jordan’s use of torture and you have no evidence that ‘rendered’ terrorist suspects were actually tortured. If you had evidence that, for example, Jordan was chopping detainees’ fingers off (as Saddam did) and the UK and USA were subjecting detainees to very loud Boney M music, then you could pose the question “what is the difference???.” But then the question would just appear stupid, wouldn’t it???

It would all depend Alan on who you Believe Blair or Amnesty International?.I know which one I Believe and it ain`t someone who told me there were WMD in Iraq when there wasn`t.

stupid...Hmmm...A word I would use to describe someone who has never heard of Amnesty International knows nothing about what their reports say or the work they do Alan.

32. At 02:18 PM on 27 Feb 2007, vikingar wrote:
Ref George Dutton #27

' 
 "any choice but to deport Abu Qatada?" No problem here for NEW Labour they have been deporting people to torture and murder for sometime. Have you not heard about rendition flights???.What is the difference??? 
 '

... ah the old attempt from usual quarters of fusion & Moral Equivalence

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

This is why the mainstream British Society is not looking to the usual suspects (ultra liberals) for answers, as they created the problem of such radicals (indigenous or otherwise).

"Mr Qatada, 40, settled in London with his wife and four children eight years ago when he was given asylum after claiming that he had been persecuted in Jordan for his religious beliefs" [1]

Believe we all know the nature of his 'beliefs' & what murderous intentions they entail.

Booo Hoo .... (wipes away tears) .. poor old Abu Qatada, the Islamic radical cleric who advocates suicide bombing & the killing of women & children in support of terrorism, could be facing a harder time (in the country that both spawned & convicted him) than in the CJS of the society whose values he rejected (despite being given a home) & advocated others attack

Nope 
 few loosing any sleep about that reality :)

Pending final appeal ... bye bye Abu Qatada .. perhaps you can hook up with Omar Bakri Muhammad, heard he too is in the region.

vikingar

Firstly vikingar I am #26.

vikingar you miss TOTALLY the point of all of this...You said...

"society whose values he rejected (despite being given a home)"

That is whole point of this blog we have values that say we don`t NO MATTER what they have done or said send people to be torture OR somewhere to be potential torture if we do that then we DON`T have any values don`t you see that?.

In January, Manfred Newak, UN Human Rights Investigator, cited consistent and credible sources to reach the conclusion that:
"The practice of torture is widespread in Jordan, and in some places routine, namely the General Intelligence Directorate (GID), the Public Security Directorate's Criminal Investigation Department, as well as Al Jafr Correction and Rehabilitation Centre."

Methods used include: beatings with truncheons, batons, electrical cables and broom handles, burning detainees with cigarettes and forcing them to hold painful positions.

Barring actually producing a Jordanian tortured by the state, I doubt we culd have much clearer an indication that torture does occur in Jordan, and I seriously hope that all contributors here can accept that this is 'real' torture, as opposed to the 'fake' torture of waterboarding, stress positioning, sleep deprivation, etc. which, apparently, is OK.

You may not like the man, may not like his views, may not like his lawyer, may believe he is a terrorist or gives succour to terrorists (although he is yet to be tried on this in a British Court) - may believe any number of things.

What we do not need to rely on belief for, however, is the fact that the Jordanian state, to which we are to deport this man, practices torture.

Torture.

Why is the Qatada family still here?
Should they not have left today?

Taxman (comment 23), I think that Stephanie's argument about capital gains tax relates to "taper relief", as explained here:

Jeremy Warner of The Independent has covered this point a couple of times over the past few months:

Chief Executive Network Rail takes blame for points failure...no prefabricating & Virgin Boss returned from holiday to be at site of crash asap, all marvelled at the strong build of the train, thank God it wasn't the older vintage, emergency services reacting to events....how very refreshing on all fronts!...
Minister for Transport, nowhere to be seen(on camera)apparently not needed & not spinning!!

Assuming that the Bedouin report was not some sort of avant-garde exercise in reportage, with censorship shown in action by silencing everyone but the reporter,I think there is a problem with the sound here,at least for we poor web users.What a shame.

42. At 11:47 PM on 27 Feb 2007, vikingar wrote:
Ref George Dutton #39

"vikingar to understand what values are you first have to have some"

... ooohhh get her :)

'hand bag set to stun'

vikingar

I don`t know what medication your on vikingar but I can tell you it`s not working?.

Vikingar (apropos #45),

what on earth are your points here, exactly?

What possible bearing does the fact that Jordan has allowed access for a fact-finding mission, but Saudi Arabia has not? What do you have to say about the fact that China and Zimbabwe have allowed (or have extended invitations to) access, but that India has not? Does this in any way diminish his findings: that torture is 'widespread' and 'routine' in Jordan? Moreover, although Jordan may have allowed access to Nowak, his report accuses the government of refusing access to victims and witnesses, obstructing his work, and hiding evidence. You are quite correct: on one level, it does seem like quite the PR coup to allow access to an investigator such as Nowak. On the other hand, it would seem that his report alleging 'widespread' and 'routine' torture in Jordanian prisons *does not even tell the full story* as to the extent of such practices.

Further, what possible bearing does the fact that Jordan has not yet adopted international law on torture into domestic law have? Torture is 'widespread' and 'routine' in Jordan; it matters not whether such state practices are subject to international law or not.

Where do you stand on the issue of torture? I am sorry to say that, from here, it seems that your point is that there are worse torturers around, so we shouldn't be so hard on Jordan; or that they appear to be making an effort to reduce the amount of torture that goes on in Jordan (or allowing access so that the world can see what is going on - it's torture!) and that this diminishes the use of torture there; or that we can't really judge Jordan, since they haven't adopted international standards on torture. Or maybe I've missed your actual point in the post above.

What, precisely (and this goes out to all of you supporting the deportation of a suspect to a country where torture is 'widespread' and 'routine') is the moral difference between torture, permitting torture, delivering people over for possible torture and delivering people over for definite torture?

Keith

Ref keith fleming #45

"What, precisely (and this goes out to all of you supporting the deportation of a suspect to a country where torture is 'widespread' and 'routine') is the moral difference between torture, permitting torture, delivering people over for possible torture and delivering people over for definite torture?"

Sorry Keith, I do see a tremendous difference.

The reality is the UK as an island with limited resources, cannot hold all the genuine cases deserving help in the world, whether NEED is based on:

- persecution (religious, race, politics etc)
- economic reasons
- issues of health
- threatened liberty
- actual/risk of starvation

Therefore, we are faced with extending direct assistance to those in the UK who WE decide WE want to help according to OUR criteria.

The choice is between:

- CRITERIA (1) : assistance to those in NEED who pose no threat to our society *

- CRITERIA (2) : assistance to those in NEED who pose a threat to our society **

* that is open ended to review & may change over time
** just & fair but swift response in the greater national interest

If that means that those who have been denied assistance/residence or who classification has changed, i.e. CRITERIA (2) end up facing inherent risks (ones which typically they were exposed/used to in their country/culture) then that is rather tough & luck of the draw. An additional ironic punishment if you like.

Ultimately, we cannot be responsible for the state of other countries societies, without significant brief & resources, which is in our national interest. But if they pose a threat to us, we engage the process that neutralises the threat :)

Also I thought the usual suspects argue the notion of imposing our 'world view' on other nations was wrong, esp in countries where their CJS, society values & norms (based on their culture) differs to our values.

Ref Jordan, best of a dodgy bunch in the Middle East & they have significant way to go, but a model for the rest & I hope they get to grip with true torture, rather than the torture-lite so beloved of ultra liberals.

Believe the majority in the UK will not loose any sleep sending back Islamic radicals/extremists who face the risk of a harder time in their own societies/countries (typically the ones they have been trying to radicalise & overthrow).

In the case of these Islamic extremist clerics 
. the rights of British Society completely & utterly outweigh the rights of this individual.

vikingar

Vikingar (apropos #50)

At first, upon reading your response, I thought you had failed to answer the question (the general moral question: what is the difference between torture, permitting torture, delivering people over for possible torture and delivering people over for definite torture).

I have given your response some thought, however, and think I can go some way to reconstructing the difference between us on this point.

If you will forgive me the violence of paraphrase, then:

I find torture abhorrent, and firmly believe that we should adopt the moral standard that the British state should use whatever means are at its disposal to ensure that those under its jurisdiction are not tortured. (Thus we do not need to 'impose our worldview' on the practices of other countries or be responsible for the state of other countries when deciding whether to deport a person to a country that practices torture: we do not need to understand or explain the reasons behind the practice of torture in that country; we simply need to acknowledge *our own acions* in deportation and putting a person under significant rsk of torture).

Further, as a fundamental principle of justice, I think that this should be applied 'blind' - without reference to the particulars of a given case.

I have no doubt that you, too, find torture abhorrent. However, it would appear that for you the moral position that the British state should use whatever means are at its disposal to ensure that those under its jurisdiction are not placed at significant risk of torture is, in practice, tempered by two factors:

1. The political, religious or other values held by those to whom the moral position is to be applied: "the majority in the UK will not loose any sleep sending back Islamic radicals/extremists" (That is, jutice will not be 'blind' but will take in to account the particulars of a person before deciding whether they should be put at significant risk of torture).

2. A pecuniary motivation: "The reality is the UK as an island with limited resources". (That is, the financal burden of putting to trial and incarcerating a person may outweigh the abhorrence of torture.)

It is at this juncture that we part ways. The universality of the moral judgement that the UK state should use its powers to prevent those under its jurisdiction being subjected to torture is incomensurable with the pecuniary motivation, and we are forced to pick one set of values to 'trump' another. If we take the moral standard as the 'trump' we cannot allow the implications of cost to enter our reaoning on this matter; equally, if we undertake a cost-benefit analysis to reach a conclusion, we have already discounted the moral principle as such.

Removing Occam's razor from its handy sheath, for me the problem is then this: have you not, with your reasoning, implicitly placed a monetary value upon the issue as to whether a person should be protected from or put at risk of torture? What, presisely, is the figure involved? I assume that each of the two factors you use to reach your decision is necessary but not sufficient (and that, if it was possible, theoretically speaking, to put to trial and incarcerate a person whose views you find odious in the extreme for zero cost, you would not deport that person to the significant risk of torture.) The question then still remains: what, precisely, is the monetary value attached to preventing someone under the jurisdiction of the UK state being put at significant risk of torture?

A relatively straightforward question, I should think.

I remain yours,

Keith

PART I

Ref keith fleming #51

"The question then still remains: what, precisely, is the monetary value attached to preventing someone under the jurisdiction of the UK state being put at significant risk of torture?"

Nice post.

That question can be equally applied to NHS & its patients & other areas like pensioners social/medical care, children in need/at risk of abuse.

Everything comes down to affordability in the end, whether those limits are overtly or covertly realised & adhered too or not.

Below, have blended together a few points, but hopefully it makes some form of sense.

RIGHTS:

The idea that the UK is forever burden with foreign nationals (who often come here illegally) & then we are unable to either to remove them from the UK and/or provide a custodial sentence / house arrest - is beyond the pale.

If they have come form less civilised backgrounds, they are suited & conditioned to return to such backgrounds - tough.

Especially when dozens have been allowed to leave the UK but refuse too.

A line has to be drawn, we have to act decisively & be seen to be acting robustly.

For example, the CJS in the UK has suffered from too much focus on the rights of the criminal (a policy which failed) not the rights of the victim, that is slowly being rebalanced.

Similarly, when dealing with foreign nationals, in whatever form (immigrants, asylum seekers, illegals) we have the right to act in accordance to our national interest, not minority groups conscious

The plethora of burgeoning rights of the individuals, a definite 20th Century thing, cannot override national & societual interest.

The big mistake by ultra liberals (the minority) are their campaign to extend high end universal rights to EVERYONE but his can only be realised if the MAJORITY wish to accommodate such rights (esp if extended too foreign nationals).

If the consensus is broken it will not work & mainstream society is fast loosing patience with the calls for RIGHTS REGARDLESS.

As we move into the 21st Century we cannot afford for EVERY foreign national (esp those who wish to wish our nation ill & make concerted efforts to do so) the same high end rights as a British Subject - that is pie in the sky. Basic rights YES, but the same as a Brit - a big NO.

In terms of: social cohesion ; issues of race/culture ; CJS 
 we have seen those calling for such change over extend themselves, where the state, its citizens, parents, victims etc are neutered in their right to defend themselves & their rights.

TORTURE:

Yes, I believe TRUE torture is abhorrent & we should not do it.

But I have no truck with the new TORTURE LITE, the open ended 'get out clause' for political minorities, who wish to effectively fatally undermined the robustness & effectiveness of our CJS, with their revamped inclusions.

The reality is injustice, injury & hard times befall those under suspicion/in the 'cross hairs' of our pseudo peacetime existence, in our fight with terrorism & the attitude & communities which breed & support such.

As too who gets exposed to the risk of a hard time, punishment, torture (light or true) if they leave our shores, regrettable but tough.

The message has to go out to the world of civil & criminal foreign law breakers that the UK has its limits. They will be deported, they cannot reside here regardless. This stance will help to mitigate & prevent further injustices & preserve our national interest.

The cut off point is both MORAL & MONETARY & the interest of society by these two measures override the right of a foreign national (esp the sort who will British society ill).

vikingar

PART II

Ref keith fleming #51

LIBERAL LEFT

Since the 1960's this minority has sought significant societual change, not only to pursue their agenda, but fix the debate & fix the rules.

They are not happy with the status quo, they are passionate, but myopically so.

Most view themselves as self appointed 'societual engineers' tasked with a mission too overhaul: society, agencies, institutions, politics, monarchy etc

Whether their motivations have been genuinely high minded or disingenuous (following other agenda) the result is they have lost touch with reality & both their strategy & tactics are wholly unable to survive & be sustainable at the macro level.

They have heavily influenced delivery of policy at the chalk face for 40+ years:

- education
- immigration
- political union
- community
- social services
- cultural cohesion
- CJS

Q. what do we have to show for it? .. some gains but too many negatives far out weighing the gains.

Ultimately, we should look to our young too see the impact of this interference & experimentation ... ( restating what I have used before)

- the Liberal Left are responsible for a generation of unfit, unruly, undisciplined, ill educated obese children.

- Or put it another way 
 an ideological own goal ... spawning nothing but citizens whose distinguishing mark is LIABILITY

- fatally burdening this generation in this way & blighting our societies future, is the BIGGEST violation of human rights.

SUMMARY:

For me the ludicrous notion of the extension of UNIVERSAL rights to ALL at the high level, regardless of nationality, affordability, ignoring basic demographics & stats, the nature of people & society, let alone the motivation of people who wish the UK 
. is deadly. A recipe for further social conflict, bigotry, prejudice & war, such measures will not prevent it, it will ensure they will happen.

We are experiencing a significant 'Renaissance of Right' a popular & long over due back lash against the burgeoning number of universal rights being pursued by the minority groups to people who cannot handle these rights and/or abuse them, at cost to mainstream society.

Regardless of whether such people are British Subjects or Foreign Nationals.

If we have to make resource decisions, a basic & min amount to be spent on foreign nationals like Abu Qatada, but there should be an earlier cut off point.

The money saved, to be spent on our needy, our patients, our children, our pensioners.

NOT shoring up the moral conscious of the Liberal Left.

vikingar

PART I

Ref keith fleming #51

"The question then still remains: what, precisely, is the monetary value attached to preventing someone under the jurisdiction of the UK state being put at significant risk of torture?"

Nice post.

That question can be equally applied to NHS & its patients & other areas like pensioners social/medical care, children in need/at risk of abuse.

Everything comes down to affordability in the end, whether those limits are overtly or covertly realised & adhered too or not.

Below, have blended together a few points, but hopefully it makes some form of sense.

RIGHTS:

The idea that the UK is forever burden with foreign nationals (who often come here illegally) & then we are unable to either to remove them from the UK and/or provide a custodial sentence / house arrest - is beyond the pale.

If they have come from less civilised backgrounds, they are suited & conditioned to return to such backgrounds - tough.

Especially when dozens have been allowed to leave the UK but refuse too.

A line has to be drawn, we have to act decisively & be seen to be acting robustly.

For example, the CJS in the UK has suffered from too much focus on the rights of the criminal (a policy which failed) not the rights of the victim, that is slowly being rebalanced.

Similarly, when dealing with foreign nationals, in whatever form (immigrants, asylum seekers, illegals) we have the right to act in accordance to our national interest, not minority groups conscious

The plethora of burgeoning rights of the individuals, a definite 20th Century thing, cannot override national & societual interest.

The big mistake by ultra liberals (the minority) are their campaign to extend high end universal rights to EVERYONE but his can only be realised if the MAJORITY wish to accommodate such rights (esp if extended too foreign nationals).

If the consensus is broken it will not work & mainstream society is fast loosing patience with the calls for RIGHTS REGARDLESS.

As we move into the 21st Century we cannot afford for EVERY foreign national (esp those who wish to wish our nation ill & make concerted efforts to do so) the same high end rights as a British Subject - that is pie in the sky. Basic rights YES, but the same as a Brit - a big NO.

In terms of: social cohesion ; issues of race/culture ; CJS 
 we have seen those calling for such change over extend themselves, where the state, its citizens, parents, victims etc are neutered in their right to defend themselves & their rights.

TORTURE:

Yes, I believe TRUE torture is abhorrent & we should not do it.

But I have no truck with the new TORTURE LITE, the open ended 'get out clause' for political minorities, who wish to effectively fatally undermined the robustness & effectiveness of our CJS, with their revamped inclusions.

The reality is injustice, injury & hard times befall those under suspicion/in the 'cross hairs' of our pseudo peacetime existence, in our fight with terrorism & the attitude & communities which breed & support such.

As too who gets exposed to the risk of a hard time, punishment, torture (light or true) if they leave our shores, regrettable but tough.

The message has to go out to the world of civil & criminal foreign law breakers that the UK has its limits. They will be deported, they cannot reside here regardless. This stance will help to mitigate & prevent further injustices & preserve our national interest.

The cut off point is both MORAL & MONETARY & the interest of society by these two measures override the right of a foreign national (esp the sort who will British society ill).

vikingar

Vikingar,

quite a lot of ground to cover; please forgive me if I inadvertantly follow your lead and signally fail to respond to key areas of your recent postings.

In particulr, I was disappointed (if not surprised) that, although quoting my question above, you did not see fit to answer it in any specific manner. Of course, affordability may be held to come in to the equation in this issue, as it does in health, housing, pensions, etc. I think that, perhaps, it is as simple as this: for me, the cost of putting to trial and imprisoning a man is worth that cost, if the alternative is to deport him to a country where 'real' torture is 'widespread' and 'routine':

"If we have to make resource decisions, a basic & min amount to be spent on foreign nationals like Abu Qatada, but there should be an earlier cut off point."

For me, you see, the cost of trial and imprisonment is 'basic and minimum' if that cost prevents the deportation of a person under UK jurisdiction to the significant risk of torture.(Incidentally, I fail to see quite why you attempt to muddy the waters with reference to 'torture lite' in your post above; I had though we could agree that Jordan practices 'real' torture, ref: postings passim, UN report, etc).

Perhaps all this is because I consider the right not to be placed at significant risk of torture by the direct actions of the UK state as properly belonging to your category of 'basic' rights that you accept should be extended to all, whereas you consider (incredibly to my mind) the right not to be put at significant risk of torture by the actions of the UK state to be more advanced:

"As we move into the 21st Century we cannot afford for EVERY foreign national (esp those who wish to wish our nation ill & make concerted efforts to do so) the same high end rights as a British Subject - that is pie in the sky. Basic rights YES, but the same as a Brit - a big NO."

It seems strange to me that in placing 'freedom from risk of torture' in the 'basic rights package', I am to be considered an extremist. I suppose we shall never agree on this point, and I those 'ultra-liberals' who consider freedom from risk of torture to be pretty basic, as far as rights go, will have to remain in the 'minority' to which you claim we belong.

Now, while I disagree with your first posting, I can at least follow your reasoning. Your second posting, however, has left me dreadfully confused. If it is to be seen as directly linked to the issue at hand, am I to take it that, unless we are prepared to deport people to the significant risk of torture, our children will grow fat, undisciplined and ignorant?

Of course not - the second posting is simply a rehash of several you have posted before.

On this, I'd like to echo George Dutton's remarks above: can we really say that social policy in the UK during the entirity of the 1980s was 'left liberal' in persuasion? Goodness, but I think there will be a lot of people who had thought the Thatcher government to be anything but 'left liberal.' Or do they belong to the 'minority' of 'ultra-liberals' as well?

Of course, it doesn't at all suit your argument to look at that, just as it did not suit your argument to look at the available evidence when forming the initial argument from which you quote extensively in your second posting:

/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/friday_16_february_2007.html

I fundamentally disagree with your moral reasoning on the issue of torture, but I can at least accept that, odious though I find such reasoning, reasoning of a sort it most certainly is. However, I think your reasoning is simply faulty when you ascribe all of society's ills to a 'minority' of 'ultra-liberals' for the reasons set out above and in the posting linked above.

Just saying it often enough does not make it so.

I remain yours, as ever,

Keith

Ref keith fleming #57

1) Chalk face delivery of services has always been the ' self appointed 'responsibility of liberal left -esque people & organisations (it attracts those types) *

* just in the same way capitalism & business attract counter types.

2) Policy has been heavily influenced by these minority groups, the forever burgeoning 'rights' issues is plain evidence of that since 1960's irrespective of who has been in power.

That is WHY a discussion about the rights of a foreign national cannot be held without reference to the domestic discussion about rights & entitlements (covering the areas listed in #56) available to a British Subject. Ref my PART I & PART II

We may agree to differ :)

Just do not loose any sleep what so ever, with the notion that foreign nationals who come here to this country/others ill, are not maintained & supported here - REGARDLESS of what they do - based on what could possibly happen to them elsewhere in the world.

They came from abroad, have grown up in those societies which by western standards are robust/uncivilised to greater extents.

They are the ones conditioned to such environments, not us, they know & are aware of the inherent risks.

We have a duty of care to our society, not to every foreign national, we ARE NOT forever obliged to provide an open all hours lifeboat for ALL *

* there are seating capacity limits & criteria of entry & duration limits

Once again, these foreign nationals could have left the UK at any time, but choose not too (& advised by self interest legal team) - tough [1]

Believe the vast majority of British mainstream society rather relieved that the UK government is being innovative in its response to these parasitical threats.

It’s a non-sense we have to put up with such a ludicrous state of affairs & divert badly needed resources away from British Subjects to such foreign nationals ..

.. and/or shoring up the moral conscious & egos of the Liberal Left.

Q. what message do you think is being sent out to others abroad according to your mantra ref deportation? *

* besides the UK being an easy touch.

vikingar

SOURCES

[1]

Vikingar,

a direct answer to your direct question: "what message do you think is being sent out to others aboad according to your mantra ref deportation?"

Simply put, that the UK state takes seriously the moral responsibility not to deliver over those under its jurisdiction to the significant risk of torture; that the UK state finds torture abhorrent, as opposed to being simply squeamish about the matter (i.e. that our abhorrence of torture extends to ensuring, not only that we do not conduct such practices, but that we do not deliver people over for torture by a third party); and, finlly, that even in times of crisis - particularly in times of crisis - this fundamental abhorrence of torture will not be swayed by anti-liberal, anti-socialist and populist social-nationalist demagoguery.

As ever,

Keith