Friday, 1 July 2011

Unreality - by Richard... Friday, July 01, 2011


You can feel there is something wrong ... it is in the air. This is not the calm before the storm, not the calm before anything. Just flat, like the world stopped and everyone is frozen in a tableau of immobility. Crazy? Dunno. Just something odd is going on, and I can't put a finger on it.

Certainly, if the world (or our bit of it) hasn't stopped, it has slowed down. The grown-up bit of theFailygraph is telling us that the manufacturing sector expanded at its slowest pace in almost two years last month. Factories have reduced hiring and new orders fell, "reinforcing concerns about the health of the broader economic recovery".

And it isn't just us. China's factory sector grew at its slowest pace in 28 months in June as new orders expanded less quickly. Weaker global demand and tight monetary policy at home is - we are told - pinching production.

But we are not just talking about material things. Sanity is taking a break as well. Via Calling England, we have George Eustice MP telling us in the Guardian content partner that "We now have a genuinely eurosceptic Prime Minister who is better placed to deliver than any of his predecessors, including Thatcher".

Eustice, one might recall, stood unsuccessfully as a candidate for UKIP in the South West of England during the 1999 Euro Elections, going on to work as campaign director for the anti-euro "No Campaign". 

He then became head of press under Howard during the 2005 General and was then press secretary for "Call me Dave" from June 2005 until the end of 2008. Taking part in Dave's successful anointment to the leadership of the former Conservative Party, he has been rewarded with a nice safe seat at the Tory pig trough. 

Having qualified for an early lobotomy, his conversion to a full-time moron is now complete, yet his words, instead of being greeted with snorts of derision, actually get house room in what has become the fantasy world of British politics, where normal life has been suspended.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Churnalism almost wins out - by Richard...


From the press coverage of the Snatch Land Rover litigation, on which a judgement in the High Court was handed down yesterday, you would think that the case against the MoD had been lost. It hasn't. The campaigners trying to bring the Ministry of Defence to book, for knowingly fielding dangerously vulnerable equipment in Iraq, have won a qualified victory.

The impression that the case was lost comes from the misleading headline on the BBC report (above), but this owes its origin to a similarly misleading report from the Press Association, which completely misrepresents the situation.

The essence of the flawed report, which has been replicated hundreds of times in local and national media, is that "a High Court judge has blocked attempts by families of four soldiers killed in Iraq to seek compensation from the Government".

The soldiers concerned were Pte Phillip Hewett, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, Pte Lee Ellis, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, and Lance Cpl Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, Essex, all of whom were killed in Snatch Land Rovers, and Corporal Stephen Allbutt, 35, who was killed by "friendly fire" after his Challenger was hit by another.

Relatives, we are told, said the MoD failed to provide armoured vehicles or equipment which could have saved lives and should pay compensation. MoD lawyers, on the other hand, "said decisions about battlefield equipment are for politicians and military commanders and asked the High Court to stop compensation claims going forward". Then, says the report, "Mr Justice Owen ruled in favour of the MoD".

However, to project – by juxtaposition – that the judge accepted this particular MoD argument is simply false. As a spokeswoman for relatives' lawyers made clear, this was the MoD relying on the principle of "combat immunity", which removes any liability for exercising a "duty of care" in combat zones. 

Here, the judge broke new ground. He refused to accept the principle, allowing Courtney, aged 10, daughter of Pte Lee Ellis, to proceed with a case of negligence. Similarly, the Challenger "friendly fire" case has been allowed through.

Where the Press Association had got itself confused is that there were two separate legs to the case. The first was the group of relatives, including Sue Smith, mother of Pte Hewett, who were not dependents, collectively seeking to make the MoD "... accountable for allowing their loved ones to go into combat in vehicles that were manifestly unsuitable for the job".

Because they were not dependents, they have no claim under common law and cannot seek damages for negligence under duty of care provisions. Before anyone can pursue a claim, the law requires them to prove they have suffered financial loss, which the relatives cannot or will not do.

Thus, this group of relatives have instead proceeded under Human Rights legislation (ECHR) and, since even that requires compensation to be claimed, the cases have been lodged in terms of the relatives seeking damages. However, as the entire group have constantly pointed out - articulated by Sue Smith - they are not interested in the money. This, in any case, is likely to be minimal, and soaked up by legal fees and repayment of legal aid. The relatives simply want the MoD brought to book.

Now, it is the ECHR leg of the case that has been blocked - on the grounds that the deceased soldiers were outside the jurisdiction of the UK at the time of their deaths because they were not in the UK nor on a British Army base. Therefore, it is held, the ECHR does not apply.

That the ECHR case would be rejected was actually an expected development, especially after theJason Smith case. When I spoke to Sue Smith after the judgement, she was not at all dismayed. There are other, different cases being heard which may settle this point – or these cases themselves may end up in Strasbourg. 


But on the negligence issue, ground really has been broken. And, for once, the loss-makingGuardian has got it right, a distinction shared by the Belfast Telegraph. Both note that, relying on the principle of "combat immunity", the ministry had argued that this was a complete legal defence for incidents that took place in war zones. 

The judge, says the papers, disagreed. In The Guardian, he is cited as saying: "There can be no doubt that the [MoD] is under a general duty to provide adequate training, suitable equipment and a safe system of work for members of the armed forces". Thus Courtney's claim, plus claims by Cpl Allbutt's widow, Debi, and Dan Twiddy and Andy Julien – two soldiers injured in the Challenger - could continue.

Before all the misleading publicity, a ministry spokesman had declared that: "The courts have upheld our arguments on Article 2 of the ECHR. We will be seeking leave to appeal against the decision about liability claims for equipment provision".

Latterly, Sky News got the news mostly right – but still with a misleading headline. The Mirrorbecame a late entrant, correcting its earlier story - as did the Mail, while The Sun continues to get it wrong. Interestingly, the Failygraph does not carry a report at all.

Nevertheless, the manoeuvring continues. Those who lost their lives in Snatch Land Rovers – as well as the Challenger set - are one step closer to getting their day in court. Unfortunately, due to the bulk of the media and its churnalism, most people will never realise what has happened.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Life copies art - by Richard... Thursday, June 30, 2011


... as yesterday's satire becomes today's news.

Moutie Abrahams, 42, who flew in on a packed BA flight from Cape Town, said: "We came here two months ago and we stood in queues for a really long time. Today it was much quicker. "In South Africa our strikes are more efficient. You would still be standing there."

The airfield was operating normally, with nine out of 10 flights arriving and departing on time.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Another charade - by Richard...


"The notion of Cameron being a strategic genius who will throw off his cloak of Europhilia and reveal his inner democratic nationalist is laughable given the catalogue of pro EU actions to date. So it seems the ignorance is all pervasive and the effort to make us buy into it is being reinforced at every opportunity. The gullible constituency where this idea is being swallowed is obvious to all who look – the British media".

That is quality writing from Autonomous Mind, commenting on the latest report in The Daily Mailwhich parades the EU's so-called "power grab", the one that even seems to have the loss-makingGuardian slightly troubled.

The Mail has "David Cameron" facing pressure to veto the latest "ludicrous" cash demand from Brussels after it announced plans to slap three new taxes on Britain, after the EU Commission – so we are told - "revealed budget demands which would cost UK taxpayers £10 billion".

However, we are not talking about the "budget" here, even if a commission official triumphantly parades it as "a trillion euro budget". It is in fact the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014 – 2020, the manoeuvring for which got underway yesterday when Barroso slime announced the commission proposals at a press conference, telling us that "the European Union works everyday to help realise the aspirations of our 500 million 
people".

The hubris of these people knows no end, but you would not get any sense of this from the Mail, which now no longer attempts to educate its readers. Instead, like the parochial British media always does, it pins a Union Jack on its report, and couches it in domestic terms, the ultimate insult to its readers, whom it believes are not interested in EU stories unless there is a direct British dimension.


This is a charade that is going to run and run but, in the end, Cameron will do a deal. He has faithin the EU and will, therefore, deliver another sell-out. So the wheel will go round and round. It is not going to stop until we decide to stop it.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Britannia Radio at 12:10