Author: Londonbear

If you have read HG Wells’s “Time Machine” or seen the movie you will remember that the main character travels into the far future where he encounters a race of beautiful, graceful humans called the Eloi. Their idyllic life hides a horrible secret, the threat from a race of literal “undermensch”, the Morlocks. Descended from the economic underclasses, they are the opposite of the Eloi and embody Hobbes’s description of man’s life being “poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

As with so many of HG’s predictions, it now seems that this one will come true and possibly in a shorter time scale than he envisaged.
The BBC has a report about the extrapolations made by an elvolutionary theorist at Oliver Curry at the London School of Economics, a world reknowned college and therefore he should be considered a reasonably authoratitive source. There is however a caveat that he explained his projections in a program for the Bravo channel.

Assuming his theories hold out, mankind will peak around the year 3000. That’s presumably based on the assumption that we have not completely buggered up the planet by then. By then everyone should average between 6ft and 7ft tall and lifespans will extend to 120 years.

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds.

In the words of the 1970s  song the “great big melting pot” will have produced a race of “coffee coloured people”. Unforunately their dependence on technology will start a decline.

In 10,000 years time, reliance on technology and medicine will start to take a toll.

Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.

Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.

Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.  

As a result of sexual selection and economics as in the HG Wells novel, there will be an eventual split into two distict types.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.

The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the “underclass” humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

If we discount the economic aspects that have yet to play out, maybe we can already see the prototypes of the Eloi

and the Morlocks

The UK Army Chief of Staff has launched an extra-ordinary attack on the Labour government’s policies in an interview for Friday’s Daily Mail. This guy is no liberal and indeed condemns the “threat to Christian principles” in the UK.

He also makes what could be considered a side-swipe at Rumsfeld and the neo-cons:

“I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning,” he said.

“The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East.”

“That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naïve hope history will judge. I don’t think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition.”

He also calls for the withdrawal from Iraq “soon”.
General Sir Richard Dannatt is operational head of the British army (the Queen is the titular commander-in-chief) so the importance of the statement is not so much what he said, which many others have commented, but who he is. This is his analysis of the current position in Iraq:

He says clearly we shoud “get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems.”

“We are in a Muslim country and Muslims’ views of foreigners in their country are quite clear.”

As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren’t invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time.

“The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance.”

“That is a fact. I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them.”  

The interview also makes criticism of domestic policy in the UK like the closure of military hospitals in favour of treatment in specialist units within NHS hospitals. But it is the percieved threat to “Christian values” with its echoes of Bush’s “Crusade” that will possibly cause the most damage.

“Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind.”

“There is an element of the moral compass spinning. I think it is up to society to realise that is the situation we are in.”

“We can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life.”

“We need to face up to the Islamist threat, to those who act in the name of Islam and in a perverted way try to impose Islam by force on societies that do not wish it.”

“It is said that we live in a post Christian society. I think that is a great shame. The broader Judaic-Christian tradition has underpinned British society. It underpins the British army.”

These last ill-considered comments will probably be used to re-inforce the opposition in both Iraq and Afghanistan by legitimising claims about those campaigns being anti-Muslim

Or  Bodies, Boos and Bloopers

Today was not a good day for Blair. The rot started as the two main news stations, BBC News24 and Sky News, devoted 70 straight minutes to the repatiation ceremonies for the 14 British service personnel killed in a plane crash last week.

Later he had to go to the Trades Union Congress annual conference where there was a walk-out by one union, boos and protests throughout his speech and then he let slip confidential information that could have repercussions.
The plane carrying the bodies of the 14 servicement stopped briefly at RAF Brise Norton in Oxfordshire so that the formal inquest can be carried out by the Coroner  who has experience of such legalities. The usual arrangement is for the ceremony to be held there but because of the location of most of the families round the main Nimrod base, it was moved to RAF Kinloss in Scotland. Scottish law does not have inquests but “Fatal Accident Inquiries” which would not be legally possible for these men.

The ceremony always follows the same pattern. It is intended to be both a repatriation of the body so that the family can organise a funeral and a salute from the nation in gratitude for their sacrifice. Six men from the dead’s unit carry the coffin from the plane. A seventh man, usually an NCO commands the party and has to steady the coffin as it is carried down the unloading slope. The senior officer of the regiment or in this case the base commander will salute as the coffin is pauses before being carried to a waiting hearse. Sombre music is played. As well as the families, a representative of the Queen, in today’s case her husband, and representatives of the Government and the Chiefs of Staff. The protocol is for men from the Navy (as the senior service) to take precedence by rank followed by the army and then the air force. Today that meant one of the youngest and most junior of the dead was removed first as he was a marine.

I explained that at length as it contrasts so much with the way the American dead and their families are treated.

Moving on to a slightly lighter note, Blair had to go to the Trades Union Congress to give his last speech to their annual conference before he retires. The Labour Party still gets most of its funding from the unions and they have half the votes at the Labour Conference and form one third of the electoral college for the election of leader.

As he got up to speak, the delegation from the RMT (Rail, Maritime and Transport workers – the union that used to sponsor his deputy John Prescott) walked out. Other delegates held up placards protesting Iraq and urging him to resign. His speech was peppered with protests and catcalls which he attempted to make light of.

As he explained that a large part of the Western world were inclined to believe “the threat is George Bush and not Islamist terrorism”, a number of delegates shouted: “Yes.”

Some jeered “troops out”, to which Mr Blair replied angrily: “We should be proud of what we are doing to support democrats in Iraq and are proud of it.”

 

The speech ranged over some of the more contentious policies but also hinted at Blair’s idea of his legacy and perhaps his exit strategy, the peace attempts in the Middle East.  After there was a heavily stage-managed Town Hall meeting type session where he answered pre-submitted questions. In one answer he let slip that the unemployment figures to be released tommorrow will show a reduction. That was his great mistake.

There figures are prepared by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) which is soon to become an arms-length agency rather than part of the government civil service. The numbers are released to the Government exactly fourty and one half hours before they are officially published. This is done under the terms of strictest confidence as they could affect the stock market and lead to “insider trading”.

By revealing the figures Blair breaches this agreement. The last time it happened was in the 1990s and the culprit was Michael Heseltine. Then John Prescott called the mistake a “monumental blunder” ans suggested Heseltine had done it to divert attention from the internal civil war in the Tory government. (Plus ca change!) When the ONS becomes that arms-length agency it could use today’s incident to justify refusing the advance advice of statistics. That would mean the Government would have to wait to get the numbers at the same time as eveyone else. They would not be able to prepare their spin in advance. As they often spin so hard you can hear the whirling, this would potentially be disasterous for them.

All in all not a good day for Blair.

The exact numbers of those killed on 9/11 will probably never be known. The best estimation of the totals include 40 killed in the crash in Pennsylvania, 184 in Washington and 2749 (the most uncertain numbers) in New York. On Moday in Houston a field of US flags was laid out in their memory but that is both incredibly offensive to some of those killed and conceals the reality of 9/11, it was not a uniquely American loss. To pretend it was both dishonors some of the dead, denies the grief of those who mourn them and distorts the perception of the disaster.

In this I find myself surprisingly in tune with the sentiments of Christopher Hitchens.

More than 80 nationalities, as well as many people of all faiths, were numbered among the victims of what was actually an assault on civilization. To commemorate it as a “national” day would be to miss a large part of its point.

The relatives of the 67 Britons killed gathered in two places.  The smaller one was in a memorial garden in New York half a mile from “Ground Zero”. Prince Andrew made a speech but also spoke to some of the relatives who had chosen to be there. One whose son was killed, Patricia Bingley, 72, from the seaside town of Clacton-on-Sea in eastern England, said

It seems like it’s going to be a little English garden which we need here in New York for when British relatives come over.

….

I feel much closer to my son here in New York, it’s more comforting.  

A symbolic 67 British police paid their own way to attend the Ground Zero ceremony to express solidarity with their colleagues from the NYPD who died that day.

More relatives attended a simple gathering in London’s Grosvenor Square next to the US Embassy. The ceremony was private at their request – so much so that the police refused to let some in as they had been given the wrong list. In that memorial garden they planted crosses with white roses, the symbol of England, to remember their loved one. Buried under that ground is a beam recovered from the debris of the WTC. Also there were representatives from Cantor Fitzgerald, a financial company who lost almost their entire New York staff in the WTC leaving the London operation to rebuild the business. For the last five years they have given 25% of their profits to a trust to help the relatives of their dead and will continue to provide healthcare insurance for the dependents for the next 5 years.

The relatives in London included those who have no grave to grieve at. The families’ representatives called into guestion the continued operation to identify the fragments of tissue that are stored in a tent next to the site and which are intended to be moved to the WTC memorial. There, there will be a forensic laboratory trying to use DNA techniques to provide identities as the science improves. She asked how many funerals are they expected to organise as  more shards of flesh are confirmed as being the remains of their loved one? How many more times must the emotional wounds of that day five years ago be torn open?

I have no answers but in all the ceremonies and grand designs, perhaps it is time to listen to those who grieve for the people they love rather than those who want to exploit their continuing sorrow to justify yet more killing.

Pictures of ten month old babies can be cute. This one may seem that way with her over-big white bonnet and her appealing eyes but do not be fooled. She is filth.

The picture was taken in an orphanage in May this year. I know a little of her story but cannot find her name so I will just refer to her by the first name I thought of, Eve.  It does not matter though what I name her. After all, she is filth.

Do not think of “saving” Eve. Save your sympathy and outrage, put away your check book,  you cannot help her. She died a month after the picture was taken. Eve was filth.

Here is a picture of a filthy hovel for you to look at.

You may not think it much but the people who live in it in Bulawayo must love living there. After all their previous home must have been a lot worse. Their Government demolished it because it was so filthy.

In case you have not realised by now, I am talking about a campaign last year by the Zimbabwe (Zim) regime called  “Operation Murambatsvina”.  In Mugabe’s Orwellian use of language this translates as “Operation Drive out the Filth” This involved the whole-scale demolition of buildings erected using provisions from previously unused town planning legislation dating back to the colonial period he decries so much. By targeting the urban areas in which his opposition had the most support, Mugabe wanted to use the operation stay in power.

The idea was to drive people from the towns back to their tribal homelands. This would gerrymander the election system as the constituency boundaries would stay the same with obviously more seats remaining in the previously crowded towns but these would now have a majority of those supporting him. As I have remarked in comments before, a lot of African politics is tribally based.  “Filth” therefore had a triple reference. The first was the cover story of slum clearance (even if much of the housing was far from that). The second and third layers of meaning were the political opposition parties’ supporters and of course the other tribe. Katrina simply decimated the black population of NOLA, Murambatsvina  was intended to ethnically cleanse Zimbabwe’s cities of Ndebele and the other minority tribes supporting the Movement for Democratic Change, his opponents. 750,000 lost their homes and livelihoods.

You may wonder what this “slum” housing was like. As you must realise, the usual urhan African home is far more modest than an American MacMansion. The people’s expectations are lower. If you ever go on a game park safari you may have a room consisting of a “rondavel”, a round thatched building with enough space to make it a comfortable double bedroom of the sort of size you get in a US motel. In rural areas that would house a fairly large family. I well remember on a tourist visit to a Johannesburg gold mine about 40 years ago where we were proudly shown a hostel for their single male migrant workers. The rooms were indeed light and airy and each man had his own area. One of three concrete shelves stacked  on top of each other with a locker built at the end for their possessions. Thankfully things have improved somewhat since then even if the wrench of being away from their families for most of the year still affects many of those miners (and increases the  spread of AIDS if they use prostitutes to relieve the absence from their wives, something to think about the next time you catch yourself watching a jewellery hour on QVC).

A visual would be better. Here is a picture of some of the housing that the government has built to fulfil its promise to build to replace the homes it tore down. Not fancy but reasonable shelter for a family, away from the heavy rains, the summer heat and the cold of winter. Yes despite the usual mental picture it does get cold – very cold – because of the height of the land during the winter.  

Characterising Zimbabwe’s political and economic picture is difficult. It is probably best described as a tribal kleptocracy. Mugabe gathers members of his clan or sub-tribe around him and I often compare this to Saddam Hussein who relied on his tribe from Tikrit to fill the top government jobs – so much so that he changed the naming system to remove the “Al-Tikriti” (“from Tikrit”).  In Zim this clan allegance means that many of the parliamentary seats and the senior police and army posts and the party’s most influentian posts are filled by his loyalists. Unlike Marcos in the Phillipines it means if Mugabe is removed from the scene, there will be a replacement for him until proper democratic institutions are established. They are the ones who have gained the most from the land confiscations. Often they have been given more than one of  the best siezed farms which have gone to ruin as they have no agricultural expertise. Spreading down, the wider tribe are kept loyal as their Zanu membership cards give them privileges. In Zimbabwe’s chaotic economy this might only mean they actually get their food ration but when it is drummed into you that your country is under siege because of the sanctions of the US and British neo-colonialist you are grateful. If you are not a party member or belong to the right tribe, you are “filth”.

The corrupt distribution of the land and the grand schemes like building a suitable Presidential residence for Mugabe and buying the air force jets from China (whose main purpose seems to be to “fly by” to honor Mugabe on things like the opening of Parliament) have drained the country’s coffers. International collapse has been avoided by South Africa’s Mbeke giving him the money to pay the bills from the IMF. The currency has recently been reformed and new notes issued to drop the last three 000’s. In the land of the starving millionaire champagne corks popped when the annual rate of inflation dropped below 100% – at one point that was the quarterly rate. Official unemployment is around 75% although that does not take into account the estimated 3 million who have fled the country.  Electoral fraud and intimidation are organised through the  youth brigades who get dubbed “war veterans” when they steal a farm and throw off the workers. Most are too young to have even been born during the struggle against the Ian Smith government. Another part of their job is to supervise the rations distribution system where they make sure that those without a party card are at the back of the line. The resulting starvation is another way of persuading people to leave the towns so that they can at least get some food from the land. Even though at the last election Mugabe got enough seats (over 66%) to change the constitution in Parliament, it was a close thing so  starvation was obviously not working quickly enough. That’s when he devised “drive out the filth”.

AIDS has taken its toll and many children are orphans. It sometimes seems that you have to be incredibly lucky and careful, too old to have casual sex or too young not to be infected. Of course many children become HIV+ while being born. Babies like Eve could be infected through being raped by men who believe the story that you can cure it by having sex with a virgin. (That is more prevalent in South Africa where even the vice-President believed you protected yourself by having a shower after sex. Their health minister seems to prefer recommending beetroot, among other tradition medicines, to cure the symptoms rather than distributing the very cheap anti-retrovirals she could get.) The generational hole means that children only have their grandparents to rely on. Their responsibilities often increase as yet another of their children dies leaving more grandchildren to take care of. Some use ingenious means of supporting their growing young families. Some in the town who had a bit of spare land in front of their house built a home to rent out to others. The small income supported the family. Of course that new structure was built without the planning consent nobody bothered to get. When the people were lucky and the bulldozers were sent in to demolish their building (many were forced to take them down by hand) they not only destroyed one home, they destroyed the livelihood of another family. While those homes never approached the luxury of the palace Mugabe has built they were often as good if not better than the replacements his government has built.

Reporting from Zim has long been difficult if not impossible. Reporters are accused of being agents of hostile governments and internal media are either censored, suppressed or under the tight control of ZANU. Some have entered posing as tourists and even in 2001 when I passed through by bus  from Lusaka to Johannesburg I was questioned closely at the border why I was carrying two video cameras. One group that Mugabe has problems controlling are the churches who have done amazing charitable work in the county in response to the crisis. In the traditions of the churches in southern Africa they have come together in an organisation, the Solidarity Peace Trust to organise for justice and human rights. Their relatively free movement mean that they have been able to do several reports both on the statistics of the Operation and telling a few stories of the families affected by tracing them through the churches and interviewing them.

The latest report “Meltdown” on the position to June this year  was published last week (Link gives the option of download formats). It reveals that many of those forced out of the cities and dumped in the countryside have returned. Even though they are harrassed , there are more opportunities to make a living in the informal economy. It also reveals that far from building houses to replace those demolished as they promised, only a very few had been completed. Many of those has been given to ZANU minor officials or the army. You will note in the picture above the resident is wearing uniform. In addition to the documentation and photos, they also took video. Some of you may have seen this used in a report shown on CNN and Channel 4 in the UK.  This link takes you to their version. If you watch it, look out for the subtitled words of the  man living in an improvised shelter. It speaks much of the tragedy of Mugabe’s fall from grace that he is called “our father” who is mistreating his children.

The statistic and analysis are all very good but these abuses are being heaped on people and it is in the tracking reports of individual families that is the most powerful condemnation of the government. In these studies, tells some of the story of Eve and her extended family which included her father, his brother, their wives and children, including Eve’s brother. This is her two weeks after she was born in Ngozi Mine, an informal settlement in Killarney in Bulawayo, Zim’s second city  and one week after her family’s home was demolished. She would never live with them again in a permanent home. After being forcibly removed the families were pushed from pillar to post and were found living on an open verandah at one point.  

This is her aged three months.

This picture of Eve’s mother was taken in June 2005. She died in January. Her husband has suspected TB which is why Eve was taken into the orphanage.

The family was taken in by a community about 150 Km from Bulawayo.  I will let the  authors take up the story as I find it too harrowing to try to precis.

They were given homestead and cropping space by the local leadership, and the community were prepared to integrate them. The children were registered in the local school and the churches in Bulawayo paid their fees for two terms. The families each managed to erect one small hut before the rains.

However, on visiting in mid-June, the authors established that things had not worked out for these two families. Neither family had grown a reasonable harvest, although one had harvested three bags. Neither family had succeeded in building an additional hut since last year, which is very unusual for a rural area. Families with children do not typically live all in one hut, but will have two or three huts, one being a kitchen.

In June, no adults from either family unit were left in the area; one was deceased and the other three had all gone back to Bulawayo.

There is a surviving son from the Ngozi Mine family, who is eight. He has been taken in by a “grandmother” who is not related. He is the only one still in school in either of these families. However, the school is very far away and there is a good chance that he will drop out of school, and the possibility of him being brought back to Killarney to live with his uncle is being considered.  

At the other homestead, neither husband nor wife was present. The wife was said to have left for Bulawayo some time earlier, and her husband had followed her thereafter. Their daughter, aged between twelve and fourteen, who had been enrolled in Grade Seven, was said to be now out of school and living with her boyfriend in Entumbane suburb in Bulawayo. They were said to be “married”. The parents of the girl are reported to feel this relationship is okay, although others are scandalised by what they consider to be statutory rape.

His two school-going children are still enrolled in school, but are not attending. They are living on their own in the rural areas, under supervision of neighbours. The oldest is around twelve, and is supposed to be keeping both homesteads secure.

The other younger children are all out of school as there is no longer money for fees, as the church funds have dried up.

One child was severely burnt three months ago in the rural setting. She burnt her feet in a rubbish pit that had hot coals in it. Her feet are badly burnt and infected. She was admitted to hospital for two months and was discharged before the wounds had healed. The clinic is so far from the rural home, at least 20 km, so the wounds received no medical care after discharge and were in a very bad state by mid June.  

At Killarney in Bulawayo the authors located the husband and wife. They are brewing beer to make a living. The wife visits a butchery in town and cleans the sanitary lane, in exchange for condemned meat off cuts. Back in Killarney she sells these to the rest of the community, either fresh or dried.

They are basically doing any kind of piecework to survive. They seem to intend to commute from Killarney to their rural home, but are clearly establishing a substantial shack in Killarney. They have a licence of ownership on their homestead in the rural areas, which they paid Z$ 400 (thousand) for. Our perception is that they are investing most in being back in Killarney, but will keep one foot in the rural areas for a while at least.

I do not know if Eve died of AIDS, another infection she picked up or was simply too weak after her tribulations to survive. I do know her mother died but not how her father is . I do not know what killed her. I do know who killed her. Mr Mugabe, je t’accuse. Eve was not filth. You and your corrupt cronies are the filth. I long for the day that the people can organise their own Operation Murambatsvina and drive you from their beautiful land so all can share its riches.

In yesterday’s diary on the Orange One I gave the background to a letter to Blair in effect telling him to go and go now. Today seven of the signatories, one junior minister and six “Parliamentary Private Secretaries” – the first unpaid rung on the ministerial ladder – resigned their posts. These were not traditional left wingers but avowed “Reformers”, i.e. even more right-wing than Blair. Their motives are pure self-interest as no doubt they will be expecting office in the next Government, probably under Gordon Brown, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister).

The former Opposition Leader, Iain Duncan Smith, dubbed himself “the Quiet  Man”. Today the biggest threat to Blair was the Silent Man, his next door neighbour Gordon Brown.

Update [2006-9-6 17:18:15 by Londonbear]:: An 8th holder of a junior government post has resigned. Iain Wright was a PPS and was handpicked to replace Peter Mandleson when he became an EU Commissioner
The depth of the schism can be judged from the letters exchanged between the most senior to resign, junior Defence minister Tom Watson and Blair. Watson, while professing his “New Labour” confidential writes in his “Dear Tony” letter:

Your leadership has been visionary and remarkable.

The party and the nation owes you an incalculable debt.

So it is with the greatest sadness that I have to say that I no longer believe that your remaining in office is in the interest of either the party or the country.

How and why this situation has arisen no longer matters.

I share the view of the overwhelming majority of the party and the country that the only way the party and the government can renew itself in office is urgently to renew its leadership.

For the sake of the legacy you have long said is the only one that matters – a renewed Labour party re-elected at the next general election – I urge you to reconsider your determination to remain in office.

It also lets slip this indication of the panic in the Blair camp as they tried to get him to withdraw his signature from the original letter.

As you know, I had a conversation with the chief whip last night, in which she asked me to withdraw my support from the 2001 intake’s letter calling on you to stand down, or my position would be untenable as a government minister.

Instead of succeeding this approach was completely the wrong  tactic for the Blairites. It shows his weakness and instead of firing Watson first, Blair gave him enough time to set the agenda by resigning. Briefings given to the press were obviously more bitter as the BBC political editor indicates he was told it was not necessary for Watson to resign as he would have been fired anyway. Blair’s letter is a bit less petulant but indicates some degree of distance from reality.

The way to renew and win again now is not to engage in a divisive – and since I have already made it clear I will be leaving before the election – totally unnecessary attempt to unseat the party leader, less than 15 months after our historic third term victory; but through setting out the policy agenda for the future combined with a stable and orderly transition that leaves ample time for the next leader to bed in.

We are three years from the next election.

We have a strong policy platform.

There is no fundamental ideological divide in the Labour Party for the first time in 100 years of history.

For the first time ever, we have the prospect not just of two but three successive full terms.

To put all this at risk in this way is simply not a sensible, mature or intelligent way of conducting ourselves if we want to remain a governing party [Or “ya boo you are disloyal, a fool, immature and stupid”]

His comment about the lack of ideaological differences is interesting. Perhaps it is an indication that he has driven traditional socialists out of his party.

One person who is spun as a traditional socialist despite being a co-founder of New Labour is Gordon Brown. He was possibly the one person who would have made a difference if he had expressed support for Blair today. Instead the Silent Man snuck out of a meeting at 10 Downing Street via the back door to avoid facing the press. Relations between Brown and Blaie are said to have broken down recently and for Brown this is obviously the time for his “Granita Revenge”. After that infamous meeting Brown came away with the impression Blair had guaranteed to go in his second term as PM and support him in the subsequent internal election. Lately there have been rumbles that Blair is casting around for a more “suitable” successor. It is almost certain that there will be a contested leadership election rather than the “coronation” of Brown that had been expected.

If Brown remains silent we are probably looking at Blair going this year rather than resigning the leadership on 31 May 2007 as was obviously leaked to the Sun for today’s headline. With this dominating the headlines and news bulletins, only a “Grantina 2” is likely to let Blair survive past the Labour Party conference at the end of the month.

Once in a while it is good to take time out to celebrate extraordinary individuals. Today is such a day. This morning in New York a remarkable lady completed a 6782 Km bike ride starting from the Golden Gate Bridge on 30 June to the Brooklyn Bridge to raise funds for charity, with a “victory lap” to Battery Park.

Jane Tomlinson is 42 and comes from Leeds in northern England. In the last five years she has raised over $2 million for charities by being sponsored for her athletic exploits. In that time she had completed a full Ironman (4km Swim, 180Km bike ride and full marathon – to be done inside 17 hours). Has completed two half Ironmans, the London Marathon 3 times, the New York Marathon and three London Triathlons. A previous epic cycle ride took her from Rome to her home.

Her exploits have not gone unrewarded. She received an the MBE from the Queen in 2003, winner of the Helen Rollinson Award at the BBC in 2002, twice recognised at the Sportswoman of the Year Awards, won a Great Briton Award and voted the most Inspirational Woman in Britain in 2003.

It’s not merely the fundraising that makes Jane such a inspirational woman. More below the fold.
In the normal course of events Jane should be dead by now, indeed this will probably be her last athletic effort but she will continue to raise funds for a charitable trust set up under her name so that her work can continue after her death.

Six years ago eactly she was told her breast cancer had mestacised and she had six months to live. She has had four courses of chemotherapy, the last ending on 30 April – an injury meany that she had to delay training for this ride until 3 weeks before she set off. She completed one of those marathons while she was on a previous coourse of treatment – the only person to do so. While advances in drug treaments have kept her alive, they have left her with chronic heart disease and her prognosis is still terminal.

She had planned to complete the cross-USA ride yesterday on the exact 6th anniversary of her diagnosis but was delayed by illness – two days ago her support team almost called off the effort as her health deteriorated. Jane had had support all the way from her husband and young son. At first they raised money for specific charities but they have now set up a charitable trust in her name. It has trustees from the major charities she has supported in the past. The site has a fuller story of the ride.

Her achievements should not just be measured in the amount of money she has raised. In the words of her charity’s site:

One of Jane’s motives is to show that people with a terminal prognosis can still lead an active and fruitful life. Death doesn’t arrive with the prognosis.

Today she achieved that ambition.

While I was doing some background reading on the net for my last diary (on Eurotrib) on the Amnesty International Report alleging prima face evidence of war crimes committed in Lebanon, I came across a link-up that the BBC did yesterday which was basically a web discussion that was not immediately relevant. Going back to it, I have found some very interesting links. These help give the lie to the Israeli claim that the whole incident started with the capture of  their soldiers. Even more interesting, it gives an insight into why the Israeli Defence Force targeted one site shown in the picture and it was nothing to do with Hezbollah fighters firing rockets from there. There are also some surprising insights into Hezhollah as an organisation

(Cross posted at Eurotrib and the orange one)
Yesterday’s BBC web discussion  was a very simple set-up. One of their website workers, Martin Asser,  went to a badly bombed village in southern Lebanon close to the border with Israel and got together a group of returned residents. They then answered questions coming in using the BBC’s laptop link.  This diary was intended just to be about that but the links I came up with to verify some of the wording I was going to use changed that. The name of the town, Al-Khiyam (also spelt without the “y”)  had already rung bells. I was the site of a notorious prison run by the “South Lebanese Army” (SLA) during the Israeli occupation. The SLA was effectively a subsidiary of the IDF used to provide a “Chinese wall” to insulate Israel from criticism of the human rights abuses committed there.  

Abuses by the SLA and involvement of the IDF and Shin Bet (the Israeli secret service)

The culpability of the then Israeli governments is of course strongly denied in official circles. For that reason I have set out in some length the evidence from a variety of sources.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz gave some information in a  profile of Zvi Rish, a human rights lawyer

From 1992 on, he represented a group of 19 Lebanese who had been brought secretly to Israel in 1986-87 after being abducted by the Israel Defense Forces and Lebanese militias that “sold” them to Israel in exchange for money or its equivalent. For years, no one knew where they were. The Israeli authorities did not admit that they were holding them and Red Cross representatives did not visit them.

In court documents, these men appeared under the Hebrew equivalent of “John Doe.” The censor prohibited publication of their names and the circumstances of their arrival in Israel. Their names were published for the first time in March, 1998, on the basis of information distributed by Amnesty International.

The Haaratz article (written in 2004) recognises the Israeli involvement in its reference to “Hezbollah members whom the IDF was holding at Al-Khiam Prison in southern Lebanon”

A briefing paper written for the UK government in 1999 as background for those considering asylum applications gives the history of the conflict and the SLA`s use of the prison. The dufferent atitudes  of the then Israeli government and the current one to UNIFIL on the border should be noted.

3.17 In June 1982 Israeli forces entered Lebanon with the declared objective of finally eliminating the PLO’s military threat to Israel’s northern border. A Multinational Force (MNF) of US, French and Italian contingents was deployed in Beirut after the Israeli siege of the city, to supervise the evacuation of the PLO fighters to various Arab countries. The MNF returned in September following the assassination of Bashir Gemayel (the President-elect) and the subsequent massacres committed by Christian Phalangist forces in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatila. A British contingent (of approximately 100) joined the MNF in February 1983. In early 1984 fighting erupted even more intensely than before, and in response to this deterioration of the security situation the MNF was withdrawn in the Spring. [1,3]

3.18 The new Israeli Government, formed in September 1984, pledged to withdraw Israeli forces from Lebanon. The Lebanese government demanded that the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) be permitted to police the Israeli-Lebanese border. However, when the last phase of the Israeli withdrawal was completed in June 1985, Israel maintained a buffer zone along the border, between 10 km and 20 km wide, to be policed by the pro-Israeli South Lebanese Army. With the Israeli presence in Lebanon reduced to a token force, Syria withdrew 10,000-12,000 troops from the Beka’a valley in July, leaving some 25,000 in position. [1,3]

7.38 Israel holds an estimated 50 Lebanese prisoners inside its borders and the SLA is estimated to hold a further 120-150 at its detention facilities at al-Khiam and Marjayoun. [4(q),5(b)(c),7(e),8(b)] In April 1998, the UN Commission on Human Rights stated it was;

“Gravely concerned at the persistent detention by Israel of many Lebanese citizens in the detention centres of Khiyam and Marjayoun, and at the death of some of these detainees as a result of ill-treatment and torture”.

The Commission also deplored the Israeli;

“abduction and ongoing arbitrary detention of Lebanese citizens, the destruction of their dwellings, the confiscation of their property, their expulsion from their land, the bombardment of peaceful villages and civilian areas, and other practices violating the most fundamental principles of human rights”. [29]

Fourteen detainees have died at al-Khiam. [7(e)]

An article written by Virginia N. Sherry, Human Rights Watch’s associate director of the Middle East and North Africa Division in October 1999 at the time of the prison’s closure explains Israel’s culpability for the torture and deaths committed there. It refers to an affidavit to the Israeli Supreme Court from the IDF  in a case concerning 4 detained in al-Khiyam.

The carefully worded affidavit attempts to distance Israel from direct legal responsibility for crimes committed at Khiam, describing the prison in the present tense only, with no mention of Israel’s role there in past years. It states that “the interrogators, the jailers, and all of the staff of the facility are Lebanese.” It mentions repeatedly that the prison is administered, maintained, and guarded by the South Lebanon Army (SLA), Israel’s surrogate Lebanese militia that it finances and arms. It also notes that the SLA has a “common hierarchic military structure” and is headed by Lebanese commander General Antoine Lahd. The affidavit concedes that Israel “has influence over the SLA,” even to the extent of forcing suspension of visits of the International Committee of the Red Cross to the prison, but maintains that matters concerning Khiam’s detainees are “under the responsibility and discretion of the SLA” and “not within the authority” of the Israeli defense ministry.  

Even if this is the official line, Israel is obligated as a state party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to investigate Gen. Lahd, current and former SLA commanders of the prison, and other militiamen responsible for the crimes of inflicting, instigating, and acquiescing to acts of torture at Khiam. If it is necessary to take Gen. Lahd and other potential suspects into custody to carry out this investigation, Israeli authorities should do so. Since Israel does not have an extradition treaty with Lebanon, the torture convention requires Israel to exercise criminal jurisdiction. Because Gen. Lahd is also known to travel to France, where his immediate family reportedly resides, authorities there are likewise obligated under the convention to initiate an investigation of Gen. Lahd and if necessary detain him when he again sets foot on French soil.  

….

It is indisputable that systematic torture occurred in Khiam. And the continuing partnership between Israel and the SLA on matters related to this prison implicates Lebanese and Israelis with legal responsibility for criminal actions. In addition to the periodic visits of GSS personnel, the defense ministry’s affidavit admitted that Israel and the SLA “consult each other regarding the arrest and release of people in the Khiam facility” and that “information from the interrogations in Khiam is transferred by the SLA to Israeli security forces.” The international community must insist that Israel not turn a blind eye to its complicity in torture at Khiam, which now includes admitted use of information yielded from abusive interrogations. Israel is obligated under international law to hold accountable and prosecute its own citizens and Lebanese nationals who participated in or condoned acts of torture at Khiam. If Israeli authorities refuse to act on this legal obligation, countries that are state parties to the torture convention definitely should.

 

After the Israeli Withdrawal in 2000

The BBC description of the town describes what happened to the prison.

After Israeli forces left Lebanon in 2000, and the SLA collapsed, the jail was taken over by Hezbollah, many of whose members had passed through its gates.

The site became a memorial to the liberation struggle and a symbol of the victory claimed by Hezbollah over Israel.

Thousands of people came from across the Arab and Muslim worlds and beyond to visit the jail, their way pointed out by brown “heritage site” road signs, and placards set up by Hezbollah’s public relations department telling the story of the resistance.

One of those visitors was a journalist from the Pakistan newspaper The Daily Times which was copied here as the paper has a subscription wall. The piece was published on 14 July 2006 and her visit was of course just before the war. She describes the use the prison had been converted to. On her way to Al-Khiyam she visited Qana, site of the Israeli bombing that was to prove the turning point in the war.

We later drove further South, passing by Qana, the site of Israel’s Grapes of Wrath operation in 1996. Over 150 people were killed in the operation; after warnings of an aerial assault many people left their homes and took shelter in a UN camp which was bombarded by Israeli

planes. A memorial maintained by the townspeople and their political representatives marked the site of the massacre. The memorial housed photographs of those killed, heart-wrenching and yet also an exhibition space where local artists had captured the grief of their town. There was a collage of words and images that asked in red “where are u arabs?” and another six-foot long painting that was inescapably Picasso’s Guernica done in blue. A statue for the Fijian UN peacekeepers who had died under the attack was erected in granite near the memorial. The site where a church had been burned to the ground, leaving the 54 inside it dead, was preserved. The equanimity of the remembrance was striking.

The situation that day was tense; an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, had been captured days before in the Occupied Territories and Israel had commenced a series of air strikes and bombings on Gaza that has killed more than 75 civilians to date. Israel is calling this operation “Summer Rain” — one wonders who comes up with all these sentimental, poetic operation names for the IDF, and where he was when Operation Enduring Freedom was thought up.

Her party then went on to Al-Khiam

Our last stop that day was to be the Al-Khiam prison, used by the South Lebanese Army (SLA) and later Israel during the Lebanese civil war. It is now run as a museum by Hezbollah. The prison was built in 1933 by France as barracks for their men and was turned into a Lebanese-Israeli detention centre in 1985. The prison which held 5,000 people, including 400 women, was liberated in 2000. The prison guards and major domos left in their Mercedes accompanied by tanks without releasing any of the prisoners. It was the townspeople that stormed Al Khiam and broke free the men and women who had been jailed during the civil war for their resistance. When you enter the gates of Al Khiam you notice how well it has been preserved. And the Hezbollah are not without a sense of humour either; near the prison’s gates there is a room that bears two signs — the first reads “Previously: dormitories of the traitors and collaborators and their bosses” and the second reads “Now: Men’s Bathroom”. There are signs in English and Arabic explaining each and every room and nothing has been altered — the single bulbs that lit both the corridors and the dank cells are still hanging from the ceilings, no other form of electricity guides you around the place. The cells don’t feel empty at Al Khiam. There are toothbrushes in the bathrooms and pillows and sheets still left on the beds. The solitary confinement cells — which were not much larger than the 8ft by 3ft cells that used to house up to four men at a time before the Red Cross inspected the site in the mid-90s — were so small I couldn’t stretch out my arms.

The caption to this BBC picture from their slide show (obviously shot after the war) explains the presence in the open of the large gun.

The jail – where captured military equipment is also on display – has been heavily bombed by Israel in the recent conflict with militant group Hezbollah.

So the jail had been transformed into a visitor attraction much the same as Robben Island in South Africa, where Nelson Mandela was held, or Alcatraz with a few captured weapons as trophies in the grounds. Here are those solitary confinement cells after the war,  note the thickness of the reinforced concrete walls and the damage caused to them.

This picture shows other damage. The BBC caption ascribes the damage to shrapnel (presumably the smaller holes) and cannon fire from aircraft. Clearly this place was subject to prolonged and probably repeated attack.

Hezbollah Surprises

I was of course wary of using as evidence an article in a newspaper from a Muslim country. The alarm bells rang when I read this section of Fatima Bhutto’s piece:

As we left Al Khiam we found ourselves hopelessly lost. Mustafa had no clue how to get us back to Tripoli. We stopped an elderly man on the roads to ask for directions and he offered to show us how to get back to Sidon if we followed him. As part of our newly formed friendship with him, Mustafa asked him if he had been at Al Khiam. He replied that he had. “How long were you jailed for?” we asked. “Jailed?” he responded indignantly. “I was with the Jews. I was a guard there.” He didn’t whisper, he didn’t lower his eyes. He had been a collaborator and he told us so right there in the middle of the road. He had nothing to fear, not from the Hezbollah. They were ruthless, yes, but only to those that had killed. They understood that people did what they had to survive and left them to their homes and their communities after the war. This kind of reconciliatory attitude is not exactly prevalent in the Middle East, nor in all honesty has it ever been.

Surely this was an exaggeration I mused bearing in mind all we have heard about how ruthless they are and how their military and political wings are so closely intertwined. That was until I found a more recent version of that UK government briefing(.PDF file)

6.53 Revenge killings did not occur after Hizbollah entered the former “security zone”, as many had feared might be the case. There are no known reports of violent acts of retaliation against suspected ‘collaborators’ or their families attributed to members of Hizbollah or Amal. [14a] Hizbollah handed over former SLA militiamen and suspected ‘collaborators’ they detained to the Lebanese Army or gendarmerie. [8b] In spite of certain threatening and inflammatory remarks by Hizbollah leaders, it is evident that former SLA members, their families or others accused of ‘collaboration’, are not at risk of violent retribution from Hizbollah or other armed organisations in Lebanon. However, Hizbollah’s stated position is that such people should surrender themselves to the Lebanese authorities to face trial. [16h]

Have many of our preconceptions been shaped by deliberate demonisation by the Israelis? This is what Zvi Rish had to say when interviewed for the Haaratz profile:

“Most of the accusations security sources made against Dirani that were published in the media were not brought up in court – for example, that he tortured Ron Arad; that he locked him into the trunk of a vehicle in which he was traveling; that he sold him to the Iranians. They knew that this wasn’t true. The way the authorities demonize suspects, in most cases on false bases, allows the security services to obtain remands from the judges and support from the public. This dynamic is very disturbing.”

Even more fascinating is the analysis of Hezbollah in the 2004 UK Home Office brief, particularly in respect of  the involvement of Iran.

6.39 Iranian Revolutionary Guards sent to Lebanon founded Hizbollah in 1982. A seven-member Shura Council runs it. The Secretary-General is Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. [24][49] The organisation is not directly controlled by either the Syrian or Iranian governments, but the three are said to share a symbiotic relationship. Iran is the major supplier of arms and funds to Hizbollah and its leaders are said to have a strong influence on Hizbollah in political and ideological affairs. [24] However, Iran’s President Khatami clearly indicated during his visit to Lebanon in May 2003 that, were Lebanon, Syria or Hizbollah to give Israel “a pretext for an escalation”, the y would find themselves without the military support of Iran. [23q] Syria’s relationship with Hizbollah is reportedly based primarily on shared short-to-medium term goals with regard to Israel. Syria controls the flow of arms from Iran to Hizbollah, via Damascus airport. [24] Both Syria and Lebanon were reportedly under pressure from the United States of America in 2003 to stop the activities of Hizbollah, which is seen as a legitimate political as well as military organisation by both countries. [23p]

6.40 Hizbollah maintains a strong presence in predominantly Shi’a areas such as parts of West Beirut and the southern suburbs of Beirut, Ba’albek and the Beka’a Valley in the east, and throughout southern Lebanon. Lebanese government control over Hizbollah, which has remained legally armed in order to fight against the Israeli occupation forces in the south, is said to be limited. However, Hizbollah has been willing to submit to state authority, especially regarding criminal justice. [2a][2b] There have been no reports of

Hizbollah harassing or threatening people who publicly disagree with its policies. It does not recruit its members by force. The leadership of Hizbollah is aware that there is a large section of the Lebanese population that disagrees with its ideology, and there have been no known instances where the government has had to provide protection to ordinary citizens because they were afraid of Hizbollah. [2b]

6.41 There is reportedly a strong separation between the political and military wings of Hizbollah and a party member is not necessarily a military man. [24] Hizbollah has 11 and charities. [48][45] The military wing, also known as ‘Islamic Resistance’, is estimated to consist of a core of 300-400 well-trained, experienced guerrilla fighters, and around 2000-3000 reserves. [18][24] Recruits for military operations are volunteers and there is apparently no lack of new recruits [2b][2h] they pass through a strict screening process to eliminate possible double agents. [2b][10] Recruitment for the Islamic Resistance requires strong ideological beliefs, as well as rigorous military training. The principal ideological beliefs are sacrifice to the cause of liberation of Lebanese territory, and martyrdom. The Islamic Resistance leadership must be totally convinced of the person’s trustworthiness, something that cannot be ascertained in a short period of time. [2b][7a][18] A third group, the ‘External Security Organisation’, is Hizbollah’s terrorist arm and this specific group is proscribed under the United Kingdom’s Terrorism Act 2000. [57] The group’s known or suspected activities include truck bombings against US targets in Lebanon in 1983 and 1984, the kidnapping and detention of Western hostages in Lebanon and an attack on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992. [56]

6.42 According to the USSD report on Human Rights Practices for 2002, Hizbollah has, on occasion, undermined the authority of the Lebanese government and interfered with the application of law in parts of the country not completely under government control. [5g] However, according to the Secretary-General of the UNIFIL’s report, dated July 2003, the Government of Lebanon has demonstrated its ability to increase its authority throughout southern Lebanon. [15c] Hizballah forces through early 2002 have continued to launch sporadic military strikes on Israeli positions, drawing responses that have produced casualties on both sides. UNIFIL has recorded numerous violations of the Blue Line by both sides since Israeli withdrawal. [5g][15b][15c] The USSD report on Human Rights Practices for 2002 stated that there were no reports in 2002 of the perpetration of arbitrary arrests by Hizbollah. [5g]

Here in the part of 6.41 I have highlighted we have an explanation of why the Israelis have had so little human intelligence about Hezbollah compared to the wealth it has gained from informers about the Palestinians. Such intelligence can only be gained if the local population is aware of who the Hezbollah fighters are and where they operate. Obviously the who and to some extent where are known but there is a further factor, a positive motive to give this information to the IDF. Such a motive would come IF Hezbollah regularly jeopardised their safety by firing rockets from their vicinity or basing their forces next to civilian houses. Is this strong evidence to deny the Israeli “human shield ” claim?

The Israeli “Causus Belli” False?

Despite the more recent claims that Israel started the war over “daily rocket attacks by Hezbollah”, the original excuse was the abduction of the two reservists and indeed Bush has repeated it recently in his press conference. So far the rebuttal that the capture was part of an on-going round of tit-for-tat has been a bit muted. Certainly so far I have seen nobody giving an immediate Israeli action that would have led to the “cross border raid” by Hezbollah. Now Bhutto’s article provides that piece of the jigsaw. Remember her visit took place on the Saturday before the paper was published, ie 8 July.

 

[After the visit to Qana] We drove on, reaching the border between Lebanon and Israel. It was the first time I had seen Israel, albeit through the barbed wire that was supposed to represent a border. It was also as close as I’d probably  get – my Pakistani passport does not allow me to enter Israel. There was a Hezbollah gift store facing the border. There were huge flags waving out towards the settlements and blaring music strung together with the soundbites from the Party’s speeches. It was certainly ballsy.

We were looking around at the key chains, T-shirts and tapes in the store when we heard Mustafa, our former Baathist cab driver, calling us from the balcony above the store. I climbed the stairs with my friend, Sophia, while my family sat downstairs having a cup of coffee.  There were several men standing on the balcony, we were told they were mukhabarat, Lebanese intelligence. They were there because a Hezbollah man had been captured in Israel that day — an event that would spark the capture of two more Israeli soldiers and the talk of another possible Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The mukhabarat men pointed out a group of soldiers, gathered behind a row of cement columns. They were nothing like what I expected them to be. They were boys. They were as young as Sophia and I, maybe younger. It’s the young that die on both sides. I hadn’t processed Israel into this equation before; I hadn’t imagined them as victims in this way, too. When Sophia asked Mustafa if she could turn on her camcorder, he nervously yelped that it would not be wise to. One of the mukhabarat men leaned forward and said, “Yalla,just do it quickly.” Mustafa nodded and told us to duck down if we heard “pop-pop!” We weren’t encouraged by Mustafa’s miming of us being shot in the head and so the camcorder was put away and we got back into the car and continued our journey

 

Targetting Decisions Explained?

The jail at Al-Khiyam in its new role as essentially a museum to the previous occupation by Israel was clearly a valuable asset for Hezbollah propaganda. I think we have to seriously question whether they would risk this by placing rocket launchers or even their fighters near it.  So we get back to the question that kept cropping up throughout the conflict – why did the IDF target there?

One answer may come from the identity of the officer who made that affidavit to the Israeli Supreme Court. It begins:

I, the undersigned, Brigadier Dan Halutz, hereby state as follows:

1. I serve as the head of the Operations Division in the IDF and am in

charge, among other things, of the operational activity of the IDF in the

Security Zone in Lebanon….

This is none other than the now Lt-Gen Dan Halutz. Is it conceivable that as well as “taking care of business” in terms of his share dealings the day the two Israeli reservists were captured by Hezbollah,  he used the cover of the wider conflict to get rid of that reminder of his previous failures in the “Security Zone”? Did he want to deny Hezbollah that propaganda asset? Even more worrying, were the attacks on Qana along a similar line, to wipe out the evidence of the previous atrocity when the IDF fired on a UN base sheltering civilians? Was that the real reason those children died?

If you fly at all regularly it is almost certain you have flown on a Boeing 737. They have been the “workhorses” of the skys and are particularly popular with low cost airlines. It has been estimated that there are 1200 in the air at any one time and that one takes off somewhere in the world every 5.3 seconds.

Now a couple of whistleblowers have spoken on camera for the first time about potentially fatal faulty parts vital to the fuselage structural. These parts were used to construct Boeing 737 NG models between 1994 and 2002. They were made by a Boeing sub-contractor which apparently got its workers to manufacture the parts by eye rather than using the hi-tech cutting equipment Boeing thought they were using.

The two whistle-blowers were demoted and dismissed. They have a current case in the courts. I understand the judge in the case is 99 years old which makes him older than powered manned flight. He would have been 1 when the Wright brothers took off at Kitty Hawk.
The (UK) Sky News report details how auditors were sent by Boeing to the subcontractors.

(Jeanne) Prewitt worked as a parts buyer for Boeing as an internal auditor from 1996 to 2003. In 1999, she discovered Boeing assembly workers were having serious problems with “bear straps” – the name for the large pieces of reinforcing sheet metal bonded to the skin around the 737’s doorways.

Prewitt found the bear straps had what they called “shy edge margins” – they were not fitting properly.

An investigation found that instead of using authorised and highly accurate computerised tools, workers at the subcontractors Ducommun were secretly cutting the parts by hand.

Even the chords that form the cage of the fuselage – one of the most fundamental parts of any aircraft – were being cut inaccurately.

“The chords were being made by hand, drawn by magic marker and hammered into shape”, according to the whistle-blowers’ lawyer, Bill Skepnek

The defective parts also had holes drilled in the wrong places and some had to be hand beaten to fit. The 737 is generally considered a safe plane but it has had a chequered history. These include engine problems and defects in the tail rudders. Rudder failure caused the crashes in Colorado in 1991 and Pennsylvania in 1994 in which a total of 157 people died. It is perhaps an indication of Boeing’s influence that the FAA only order these to be replace in 2002 and gave US airlines 6 years to do so.

The 737 is properly a family of aircraft. Since it first came into service 40 years ago it has undergone various design changes, changes of materials and upgraded engines. While demand for them obviously goes in cycles, there is an important indicator that their order books have been falling off. This comes in the shape of Ryanair, the Ireland based low-cost carrier in Europe. Part of their business plan is to use new aircraft to take advantage of the fuel cost savings they can give over the older configurations. At one stage they were Boeing’s biggest customer for the 737 and their entire fleet of over 200 of these planes were purchased in the last few years to replace their older models. One of the reasons for this is that Ryanair took advantage of the slack demand for aircraft after 9/11 and competition from Airbus to get  what is believed to have been a very good deal. There are suggestions that the discount was about 50% but the details have always been a closely kept commercial secret.

Ryanair placed another order for a further 10 aircraft in July, ostensibly to help their expansion. The report values to order at £380 milion ($685m). That presumably is based on the list price of between $66-75 million depending on specification. That Ryanair’s CEO brought when he did may be due to the interesting phenomenon that while orders have increased over the past couple of years, deliveries have declined.

Richard Nixon’s lawyers tried to claim that the President was “as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time”. In the current debates about Presidential power in respect of the unauthorised NSA wire taps and his use of “signing statements” it is perhaps worthwhile pointing out a very much closer analogy. Indeed it points out that even if the USA were still ruled by the British monarchy, the King would still not have those powers.
The British Bill of Rights  was passed in 1689. Parliament was inviting Wiliam of Orange and his wife Mary to become joint monarchs. Their importance was that they was the Protestants with the stongest claim on the throne. They were put ahead of stronger claimants in order as it has “been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince”

Part of the deal was the redress of grievances Parliament had against the deposed James II by limiting the power of the King and re-stating and reforming the rights established in Magna Carta. I often point out that the American Revolution was in a long tradition of Englishmen being stroppy with their rulers. Rather than the acts of Americans, the revolt was the traditional response of English against injustices.

The Bill of Rights is closely paralleled in the Declaration of Independence in that both are set out in very similar ways, they start with a list of the grievances against the King and then assert the rights of the people. The British Act is relatively little know in the USA. This is unfortunate as many of the traditions and rights thought to have been established first in the USA are withing it – even down to the right to bear arms (although in the British case this was limited to Protestants so they could form a militia to fight against Catholic claimants and arguably the US version was so that any counter-revolution would be supressed).

So let’s look at the grievances in the preable amd  I think you can see the remarkably close parallels with the complaints against Bush. Here are the first two in a long list.

# Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate  the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
# By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament; By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;    

To redress this, William had to agree to the bill which went on

[the two houses of Parliament] in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

    * That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
    * That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

So over 70 years before the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the US Constitution, the powers of the head of state were already limited. The monarchs had agreed that “all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom”. Of course this is English law but that is what much of US law is based on. Let me point out another incident recently that is based in this British documents.

Parliament, since Charles II more than 40 years before had been aggressively asserting its independence. Less than 30 years before they had reinstated the monarchy after the Commonwealth. To protect the independence of Members, it was necessary to get the new King to agree to certain measures:

# That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
# That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

The latter is still fiercly defended in both countries. Thus in the UK, MPs have precedence when going to the House of Commons to vote. Technically the traffic lights outside Westminster can be ignored by them. Before they were introduced, police would stop traffic so that MPs could get to the building in time. You will be well aware of the fuss caused when a black Congresswoman was stopped by a Capitol policeman and the protests over the searching of a member’s office.