DAVID BLUNKETT has admitted breaking the Code of Conduct For Ministers by taking a job at a firm linked to the Government.
The Work And Pensions Secretary became a non-executive director of DNA Bioscience in April after he was forced to resign as Home Secretary.
Under the code, Mr Blunkett was obliged to inform a special advisory committee about his appointment.
He did not do so, despite a previous warning from the committee when he failed to notify them of an earlier role with lobbying firm Indepen.
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling said: “There needs to be an urgent inquiry into Mr Blunkett’s conduct.”
A spokesman for the minister said: “Mr Blunkett was involved with DNA Bioscience for two weeks, which fell during the general election and while Parliament was prorogued (dissolved).
“Had Mr Blunkett not returned to government, there would have been time to seek clarification in regards to the committee, accepting as he does its helpful role.
“He believed that he was acting within the ministerial code, but with hindsight it might have been better if he had written to the committee prior to Parliament returning.
“Mr Blunkett has asked the Secretary to the Cabinet to clarify the procedure to avoid any confusion in future.”
from Keith Gladdis at N.O.W.
Ed: Shame Mr Blunkett doesn't ask his own sense of honour if he has done anything wrong in relation to his elevated position in our democracy.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Monday, October 24, 2005
London top traffic cop does 80mph in 40mph zone
Road safety campaigners have reacted furiously after it emerged that London's most senior traffic policeman had escaped with a written warning for being driven in a police car which was caught speeding.
Chief Superintendent Les Owen, head of the Metropolitan Police traffic division, was reportedly late for a meeting when the marked force vehicle he was travelling in drove at up to twice the speed limit.
The Vauxhall Omega, occasionally using its sirens, was said to have sped along roads in north east London at one point hitting 86mph in a 50mph zone.
It was also reported to have been driving along parts of London's North Circular and surrounding roads at 82mph in a 40mph limit.
A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said Mr Owen had accepted a written warning from its Directorate of Professional Standards for "failing to challenge the manner in which a Pc drove a police car in which he was a passenger".
However, a spokeswoman for the national road safety charity Brake condemned the reprimand as "appalling" and "insane".
"As somebody who knows first hand the devastating consequences of high speed car crashes, it is just appalling," she said.
"Speeding is endemic on our roads and the most dangerous places are in residential areas, where you have children and other people who at 86mph would not survive if hit.
"He should do the right thing now and resign. If he truly believes in road safety and the things he has said about the dangers of speeding and how horrific car crashes are, then he should resign."
Kevin Delaney, head of traffic and road safety at the RAC Foundation, added: "He was in a position to slow that car down. All he had to do was to say to the driver 'slow down'. He may not have been holding the steering wheel, but he was the one who held all the power. He and the driver and everyone else on that road was exposed to a greater risk than they need have been."
Ed: Do you think Tony Blair will advise the Home Secretary to transfer Chief Superintendent Les Owen to none traffic duties as he has lost any credibilty in relation to road safety issues or will it be another example of one law for the Party and State bureaocrats and another for the people?
Chief Superintendent Les Owen, head of the Metropolitan Police traffic division, was reportedly late for a meeting when the marked force vehicle he was travelling in drove at up to twice the speed limit.
The Vauxhall Omega, occasionally using its sirens, was said to have sped along roads in north east London at one point hitting 86mph in a 50mph zone.
It was also reported to have been driving along parts of London's North Circular and surrounding roads at 82mph in a 40mph limit.
A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said Mr Owen had accepted a written warning from its Directorate of Professional Standards for "failing to challenge the manner in which a Pc drove a police car in which he was a passenger".
However, a spokeswoman for the national road safety charity Brake condemned the reprimand as "appalling" and "insane".
"As somebody who knows first hand the devastating consequences of high speed car crashes, it is just appalling," she said.
"Speeding is endemic on our roads and the most dangerous places are in residential areas, where you have children and other people who at 86mph would not survive if hit.
"He should do the right thing now and resign. If he truly believes in road safety and the things he has said about the dangers of speeding and how horrific car crashes are, then he should resign."
Kevin Delaney, head of traffic and road safety at the RAC Foundation, added: "He was in a position to slow that car down. All he had to do was to say to the driver 'slow down'. He may not have been holding the steering wheel, but he was the one who held all the power. He and the driver and everyone else on that road was exposed to a greater risk than they need have been."
Ed: Do you think Tony Blair will advise the Home Secretary to transfer Chief Superintendent Les Owen to none traffic duties as he has lost any credibilty in relation to road safety issues or will it be another example of one law for the Party and State bureaocrats and another for the people?
Blair's wife to have taxpayers car
CHERIE Blair has become the first Prime Minister’s spouse to receive a Government car and driver.
Use of the bullet-proof Vauxhall Omega is estimated to cost taxpayers more than £50,000 a year.
She also has use of a Ford Galaxy people carrier as a back-up.
Mrs Blair was provided with the car in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks.
Its existence was unearthed by an official request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Use of the bullet-proof Vauxhall Omega is estimated to cost taxpayers more than £50,000 a year.
She also has use of a Ford Galaxy people carrier as a back-up.
Mrs Blair was provided with the car in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks.
Its existence was unearthed by an official request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
New Labour cave into Unions
Trade unions and the government have agreed a deal over the future of several public service pension schemes.
The TUC says the government has dropped its suggestion that current members of the health, civil service and education schemes should retire later, at 65.
In exchange the unions have accepted that a higher retirement age will be phased in for new staff.
The TUC said the agreement was a "sensible compromise" which meant that pensions promises would not be broken.
The trade union organisation hailed today's agreement as a major breakthrough which it would recommend to its members.
The government had originally proposed that a higher retirement age be introduced for the existing pension scheme members from 2013.
The TUC said its members now "need suffer no detriment in their pension arrangements".
Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson, who has been leading the government's negotiations, was also pleased with the deal.
"This is quite a breakthrough because the normal pension age in education, health and the civil service will be 65 for new entrants from next year," he said.
But business leaders were furious and claimed the government had caved in to union pressure.
On Monday, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) complained to Tony Blair that it was unfair for the public employees to have better pension arrangements than private employers.
David Frost, director general of the BCC was furious at today's agreement: "This deal is unacceptable from the standpoint of British business.
"The government needed to grasp the nettle and increase the public sector retirement age for existing employees on a sliding scale. They have failed to do this," he added.
David Willets, the Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, criticised the move.
"There is a growing divide between public and private sector pensions which cannot be sustained," he said.
"At this rate it could take forty years for the public sector retirement age to rise. The Arctic ice cap is melting more rapidly than the Government is reforming public sector pensions."
The TUC says the government has dropped its suggestion that current members of the health, civil service and education schemes should retire later, at 65.
In exchange the unions have accepted that a higher retirement age will be phased in for new staff.
The TUC said the agreement was a "sensible compromise" which meant that pensions promises would not be broken.
The trade union organisation hailed today's agreement as a major breakthrough which it would recommend to its members.
The government had originally proposed that a higher retirement age be introduced for the existing pension scheme members from 2013.
The TUC said its members now "need suffer no detriment in their pension arrangements".
Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson, who has been leading the government's negotiations, was also pleased with the deal.
"This is quite a breakthrough because the normal pension age in education, health and the civil service will be 65 for new entrants from next year," he said.
But business leaders were furious and claimed the government had caved in to union pressure.
On Monday, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) complained to Tony Blair that it was unfair for the public employees to have better pension arrangements than private employers.
David Frost, director general of the BCC was furious at today's agreement: "This deal is unacceptable from the standpoint of British business.
"The government needed to grasp the nettle and increase the public sector retirement age for existing employees on a sliding scale. They have failed to do this," he added.
David Willets, the Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, criticised the move.
"There is a growing divide between public and private sector pensions which cannot be sustained," he said.
"At this rate it could take forty years for the public sector retirement age to rise. The Arctic ice cap is melting more rapidly than the Government is reforming public sector pensions."
Thursday, October 13, 2005
New Labour spend £1.3m and 7 years to agree with a 1994 study.
Seven years after starting to examine how to deal with the amorous activities of the ruddy duck, at a cost of £1.3m New Labour has decided to spend a further £2 million shooting them.
This decision agrees with a Department of the Environment study in 1994 which had said that shooting was the answer.
The ruddy duck, a North American species, was introduced to Britain in the 1940s by the British conservationist Sir Peter Scott.
In 1998 the Government set up a task force to decide what action it should take.
The group took until 2002 to report, when it said that a Department of the Environment study in 1994 had said that shooting was the answer.
It concurred, after trials that included contraceptives, and said that the ruddy could be eradicated from Britain in 10 years.
It has taken until now for the Government to announce a five-year programme, jointly funded with the European Union, to wipe out the British population of 6,000 ruddies as part of an international conservation effort. (Ed: Good job Ruddy Ducks won't fly in from elsewhere.)
The delay and expense have baffled many countryside groups.
Charles Clover Environment Editor for The Daily Telegraph
This decision agrees with a Department of the Environment study in 1994 which had said that shooting was the answer.
The ruddy duck, a North American species, was introduced to Britain in the 1940s by the British conservationist Sir Peter Scott.
In 1998 the Government set up a task force to decide what action it should take.
The group took until 2002 to report, when it said that a Department of the Environment study in 1994 had said that shooting was the answer.
It concurred, after trials that included contraceptives, and said that the ruddy could be eradicated from Britain in 10 years.
It has taken until now for the Government to announce a five-year programme, jointly funded with the European Union, to wipe out the British population of 6,000 ruddies as part of an international conservation effort. (Ed: Good job Ruddy Ducks won't fly in from elsewhere.)
The delay and expense have baffled many countryside groups.
Charles Clover Environment Editor for The Daily Telegraph
New Labour less whiter than white
Government minister Patricia Hewitt has been forced to make the embarrassing admission that she sexually discriminated against a leading member of Bath and North East Somerset Council. Tory councillor Malcolm Hanney was deemed to be "much the strongest candidate" by the independent interview panel for a top development agency post - but Miss Hewitt over-ruled the panel and appointed a woman instead.
The Health Secretary, who at the time of the incident was Trade and Industry Secretary, has now been found by a court to have discriminated against Cllr Hanney in October by denying him the £9,000-a-year post on the board of the South West Regional Development Agency.
Instead of the job going to Cllr Hanney - a former Hong Kong-based banker - Miss Hewitt gave it to Christine Cannon, a 60-year-old Devon county councillor who was only the panel's third choice.
Cllr Hanney, who is the council's executive member for finance and resources, used laws under the Freedom of Information Act to access the interviewers' notes. Among the panel's comments were "Malcolm Hanney was much the strongest candidate at interview" and "Agree to appoint Malcolm Hanney to the Local Authority position".
Upon unearthing the comments, he complained to the Commissioner for Public Appointments. After an investigation the commissioner upheld Cllr Hanney's complaint.
Soon after officials at the Department for Trade and Industry told Cllr Hanney the department was prepared to give an apology for the incident - but insisted it was not appropriate for the minister to apologise.
The former HSBC director pressed on with his complaint and lodged an employment tribunal against the Secretary of State, which was decided in the High Court at the end of month.
The court ruled Cllr Hanney had been sexually discriminated against, which in turn prompted a personal apology from current Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson. The department has now agreed to pay Cllr Hanney's £18,000 legal costs in bringing the case.
BY MATTHEW PARDO AT THIS IS BATH
The Health Secretary, who at the time of the incident was Trade and Industry Secretary, has now been found by a court to have discriminated against Cllr Hanney in October by denying him the £9,000-a-year post on the board of the South West Regional Development Agency.
Instead of the job going to Cllr Hanney - a former Hong Kong-based banker - Miss Hewitt gave it to Christine Cannon, a 60-year-old Devon county councillor who was only the panel's third choice.
Cllr Hanney, who is the council's executive member for finance and resources, used laws under the Freedom of Information Act to access the interviewers' notes. Among the panel's comments were "Malcolm Hanney was much the strongest candidate at interview" and "Agree to appoint Malcolm Hanney to the Local Authority position".
Upon unearthing the comments, he complained to the Commissioner for Public Appointments. After an investigation the commissioner upheld Cllr Hanney's complaint.
Soon after officials at the Department for Trade and Industry told Cllr Hanney the department was prepared to give an apology for the incident - but insisted it was not appropriate for the minister to apologise.
The former HSBC director pressed on with his complaint and lodged an employment tribunal against the Secretary of State, which was decided in the High Court at the end of month.
The court ruled Cllr Hanney had been sexually discriminated against, which in turn prompted a personal apology from current Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson. The department has now agreed to pay Cllr Hanney's £18,000 legal costs in bringing the case.
BY MATTHEW PARDO AT THIS IS BATH
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Blunkett fouls up again
David Blunkett today admitted wrongly using official House of Commons notepaper to make a personal objection to a planning development near one of his London homes.
The work and pensions secretary, who is back in the cabinet after resigning as home secretary over his intervention to speed up the processing of his lover's nanny's visa, wrote to Wandsworth council to complain at plans to convert a nearby building into flats. In using officially headed Commons stationery, he breached parliamentary rules.
Today his spokesman said Mr Blunkett had committed the offence but called it "an honest mistake".
He told the Evening Standard: "After being approached by residents, he expressed his concerns about the environmental impact. He did so as an ex-resident who knows the area well.
"He dictated the letter to his office. In retrospect, he recognises he should have specified that the letter went out on plain paper. This was an honest mistake in good faith."
The row revolves around a property in Southfield, in south London, that Mr Blunkett bought in 1987 and subsequently let out.
A next door building, Clevedon Lodge, had applied for planning permission to be converted into flats, to fund a £4m improvement to the nearby Linden Lodge school for blind and partially sighted people.
Last month Mr Blunkett wrote objecting to a "loss of shrubbery and foilage".
According to the Evening Standard, the letter also stated he was "deeply concerned about the effect on wildlife, on the quiet enjoyment of the area and on the ecology".
The revelations come after a bad run of headlines for the returned cabinet minister: at the weekend he was accused of not declaring his free membership of the private members' club Annabel's after a week of reports about his relationship with a younger woman he met there.
Later David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth, said he had written to the serjeant at arms, Peter Grant Peterkin, calling for an investigation.
Mr Davies said: "I sat on the planning committees in the Welsh assembly for a couple of years. I know if you get involved in a planning application in which you have an interest, you have to disclose it immediately.
"It is astonishing that a minister of Mr Blunkett's experience did not know that."
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent at The Guardian Wednesday October 12, 2005
The work and pensions secretary, who is back in the cabinet after resigning as home secretary over his intervention to speed up the processing of his lover's nanny's visa, wrote to Wandsworth council to complain at plans to convert a nearby building into flats. In using officially headed Commons stationery, he breached parliamentary rules.
Today his spokesman said Mr Blunkett had committed the offence but called it "an honest mistake".
He told the Evening Standard: "After being approached by residents, he expressed his concerns about the environmental impact. He did so as an ex-resident who knows the area well.
"He dictated the letter to his office. In retrospect, he recognises he should have specified that the letter went out on plain paper. This was an honest mistake in good faith."
The row revolves around a property in Southfield, in south London, that Mr Blunkett bought in 1987 and subsequently let out.
A next door building, Clevedon Lodge, had applied for planning permission to be converted into flats, to fund a £4m improvement to the nearby Linden Lodge school for blind and partially sighted people.
Last month Mr Blunkett wrote objecting to a "loss of shrubbery and foilage".
According to the Evening Standard, the letter also stated he was "deeply concerned about the effect on wildlife, on the quiet enjoyment of the area and on the ecology".
The revelations come after a bad run of headlines for the returned cabinet minister: at the weekend he was accused of not declaring his free membership of the private members' club Annabel's after a week of reports about his relationship with a younger woman he met there.
Later David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth, said he had written to the serjeant at arms, Peter Grant Peterkin, calling for an investigation.
Mr Davies said: "I sat on the planning committees in the Welsh assembly for a couple of years. I know if you get involved in a planning application in which you have an interest, you have to disclose it immediately.
"It is astonishing that a minister of Mr Blunkett's experience did not know that."
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent at The Guardian Wednesday October 12, 2005
Former CND protester Tony Blair loves nuclear dispite Chernobyl
Former CND protester Tony Blair said Tuesday his government has not ruled out building new nuclear power plants as it strives to meet international targets to cut global warming.
In his monthly news conference, Blair said the need to address climate change and ensure a secure energy supply for Britain meant he could not rule out a new building program, as the country's aging nuclear plants are phased out over the coming 10 to 15 years.
"The reasons why it has got to go on the agenda, and I am not expressing a concluded view, are security of supply and global warming," said Blair.
"There will be a debate about that, but it should be conducted with an open mind, I hope, by everybody. The issue of energy is, in my view, going to start to come centre stage, not just in our own politics but in the politics of other similar countries, and that is for a very simple reason."
"We have a very ambitious renewables target and there are obviously issues there that we have got to address and get right," he said.
Britain's energy strategy unit has advised ministers that nuclear power must play a major role if Britain is to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Blair has acknowledged in the past his government must reassure people about the costs and safety of building more nuclear plants.
Ed: Like on a number of issues the reality of power has changed Tony's point of view on nuclear power. So again it seems that in opposition Tony was either stupid or a liar. Either way unfit for his job don't you think.
In his monthly news conference, Blair said the need to address climate change and ensure a secure energy supply for Britain meant he could not rule out a new building program, as the country's aging nuclear plants are phased out over the coming 10 to 15 years.
"The reasons why it has got to go on the agenda, and I am not expressing a concluded view, are security of supply and global warming," said Blair.
"There will be a debate about that, but it should be conducted with an open mind, I hope, by everybody. The issue of energy is, in my view, going to start to come centre stage, not just in our own politics but in the politics of other similar countries, and that is for a very simple reason."
"We have a very ambitious renewables target and there are obviously issues there that we have got to address and get right," he said.
Britain's energy strategy unit has advised ministers that nuclear power must play a major role if Britain is to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Blair has acknowledged in the past his government must reassure people about the costs and safety of building more nuclear plants.
Ed: Like on a number of issues the reality of power has changed Tony's point of view on nuclear power. So again it seems that in opposition Tony was either stupid or a liar. Either way unfit for his job don't you think.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Tony Blair to allow all schools to be independent
Tony Blair says the pace of state sector reform must accelerate.
All schools in England will be given the chance to be "independent, non fee-paying schools" says the Prime Minister Tony Blair.
In his monthly press conference, Mr Blair promised to "accelerate change" in the state sector - allowing schools more "freedom to innovate".
Mr Blair said his government's plans for "radical reforms" would give "more power to parents".
A White Paper, due this month, will provide the "route map", said Mr Blair.
Sending a message that the process of reform in the state school sector is not going to slow down, Mr Blair promised more autonomy for schools and more choice for parents.
"We can either soft pedal these changes and hope to see some further incremental improvement - or seize this moment and drive through lasting radical reform that will cement the renewal of our state education system for this generation," said Mr Blair.
"The challenge is clear - we need to deepen the change. That means giving more freedom to schools, more power to parents, more opportunities for children.
"By the end of this third term, I want every school that wants to be to be able to be an independent, non fee-paying state school, with the freedom to innovate and develop in the way it wants and the way the parents of the school want, subject to certain common standards."
The forthcoming White Paper from the Education Secretary Ruth Kelly is expected to suggest ways in which schools can innovate and which parents can have more choice.
The independence promised by the prime minister will make it easier for both primary and secondary schools to adopt "foundation" status - giving them more control over their affairs and a more detached relationship with local education authorities.
Parents will also be given a fuller picture of the individual progress of their children - looking deeper into the tracking data that schools hold on pupils.
Ms Kelly has pointed to the lack of school choice for poorer families who cannot afford to buy houses in the areas that will get them a place at a successful school.
This has raised questions as to how school places could be allocated, so that more families have access to the best schools. A survey this week from the Sutton Trust showed that better-off families dominated the intakes of the top 200 state schools.
Ed: Is a place in the top 200 a function of the families who dominate the intakes?
There have been suggestions of improved transport to bring more schools in reach of all families - and changes to admissions rules to widen access.
It is expected that more "new providers" will be encouraged to set up schools - such as parents' groups, religious and community organisations and partnerships with the private sector.
In his press conference, Mr Blair echoed this concern over a lack of school choice.
ED: Good job a fragmenting privatisation in the Education sector will work better than in the Rail transport sector. Obviously any privitisation done by Tony and his mates will be better than the Tories. It will won't it.
All schools in England will be given the chance to be "independent, non fee-paying schools" says the Prime Minister Tony Blair.
In his monthly press conference, Mr Blair promised to "accelerate change" in the state sector - allowing schools more "freedom to innovate".
Mr Blair said his government's plans for "radical reforms" would give "more power to parents".
A White Paper, due this month, will provide the "route map", said Mr Blair.
Sending a message that the process of reform in the state school sector is not going to slow down, Mr Blair promised more autonomy for schools and more choice for parents.
"We can either soft pedal these changes and hope to see some further incremental improvement - or seize this moment and drive through lasting radical reform that will cement the renewal of our state education system for this generation," said Mr Blair.
"The challenge is clear - we need to deepen the change. That means giving more freedom to schools, more power to parents, more opportunities for children.
"By the end of this third term, I want every school that wants to be to be able to be an independent, non fee-paying state school, with the freedom to innovate and develop in the way it wants and the way the parents of the school want, subject to certain common standards."
The forthcoming White Paper from the Education Secretary Ruth Kelly is expected to suggest ways in which schools can innovate and which parents can have more choice.
The independence promised by the prime minister will make it easier for both primary and secondary schools to adopt "foundation" status - giving them more control over their affairs and a more detached relationship with local education authorities.
Parents will also be given a fuller picture of the individual progress of their children - looking deeper into the tracking data that schools hold on pupils.
Ms Kelly has pointed to the lack of school choice for poorer families who cannot afford to buy houses in the areas that will get them a place at a successful school.
This has raised questions as to how school places could be allocated, so that more families have access to the best schools. A survey this week from the Sutton Trust showed that better-off families dominated the intakes of the top 200 state schools.
Ed: Is a place in the top 200 a function of the families who dominate the intakes?
There have been suggestions of improved transport to bring more schools in reach of all families - and changes to admissions rules to widen access.
It is expected that more "new providers" will be encouraged to set up schools - such as parents' groups, religious and community organisations and partnerships with the private sector.
In his press conference, Mr Blair echoed this concern over a lack of school choice.
ED: Good job a fragmenting privatisation in the Education sector will work better than in the Rail transport sector. Obviously any privitisation done by Tony and his mates will be better than the Tories. It will won't it.
Tony Blair oversees people-smuggling misery
An alleged multi-million pound people-smuggling racket believed to have brought up to 200,000 people into the UK has been smashed, say police.
Nineteen people were arrested after dawn raids in London and Lincolnshire as part of a crackdown on the alleged smuggling of Turkish Kurds into the UK.
Eight of the 19 were arrested on suspicion of involvement in aiding people smuggling, said police.
Operation Bluesky has involved officers across six European countries.
Detectives from Italy, Holland, France, Belgium and Denmark have all taken part along with the Metropolitan Police.
The network is thought to have brought people to Britain, in groups of up to 20 a time, concealed in cars, vans, lorries and aircraft.
The illegal immigrants, smuggled in from the Kurdish areas of Turkey, pay between £3,000 and £5,000 for journeys which often take months, said police.
The journeys involve being passed on to gang members in several European countries and staying at safe houses before being smuggled into the UK in cramped conditions.
Many of the immigrants find low-paid, black market menial jobs in north London's Turkish community.
The alleged racket is thought to have made millions of pounds for its ringleaders with some of that money being invested in businesses like cafes and snooker halls.
Eighteen people were arrested in raids on 12 residential and business addresses in London and a 19th man was arrested at a residential address in Boston, Lincolnshire.
Police said the racket's suspected ringleaders were among the 19 detainees.
Eight men were arrested on suspicion of aiding people smuggling.
A further six people were arrested on suspicion of immigration offences, two on suspicion of interfering with the inquiry, two on suspicion of theft and one on suspicion of money-laundering offences.
More than 200 officers were involved in the London raids at addresses in Enfield, Bexleyheath, Barnet, Hackney, Hammersmith, Haringey and Tower Hamlets.
Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur said the raids had been aimed at those "right at the top of this network".
The racket had mainly targeted people from the Kurdish areas of Turkey with the promise of a better life, he said.
"Once here some of these people get into low-paid jobs, others are clearly left to their own devices to find work," he added.
BBC
Nineteen people were arrested after dawn raids in London and Lincolnshire as part of a crackdown on the alleged smuggling of Turkish Kurds into the UK.
Eight of the 19 were arrested on suspicion of involvement in aiding people smuggling, said police.
Operation Bluesky has involved officers across six European countries.
Detectives from Italy, Holland, France, Belgium and Denmark have all taken part along with the Metropolitan Police.
The network is thought to have brought people to Britain, in groups of up to 20 a time, concealed in cars, vans, lorries and aircraft.
The illegal immigrants, smuggled in from the Kurdish areas of Turkey, pay between £3,000 and £5,000 for journeys which often take months, said police.
The journeys involve being passed on to gang members in several European countries and staying at safe houses before being smuggled into the UK in cramped conditions.
Many of the immigrants find low-paid, black market menial jobs in north London's Turkish community.
The alleged racket is thought to have made millions of pounds for its ringleaders with some of that money being invested in businesses like cafes and snooker halls.
Eighteen people were arrested in raids on 12 residential and business addresses in London and a 19th man was arrested at a residential address in Boston, Lincolnshire.
Police said the racket's suspected ringleaders were among the 19 detainees.
Eight men were arrested on suspicion of aiding people smuggling.
A further six people were arrested on suspicion of immigration offences, two on suspicion of interfering with the inquiry, two on suspicion of theft and one on suspicion of money-laundering offences.
More than 200 officers were involved in the London raids at addresses in Enfield, Bexleyheath, Barnet, Hackney, Hammersmith, Haringey and Tower Hamlets.
Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur said the raids had been aimed at those "right at the top of this network".
The racket had mainly targeted people from the Kurdish areas of Turkey with the promise of a better life, he said.
"Once here some of these people get into low-paid jobs, others are clearly left to their own devices to find work," he added.
BBC
New Labour fail with £10bn benefit scandal
DAVID Blunkett admitted the benefits system was “crackers” yesterday as it emerged £10billion was lost to fraud and blunders in three years.
Mr Blunkett said there were FOUR TIMES more people claiming incapacity benefit than were on the old invalidity handout 25 years ago.
Yet health has got better, and medical science has boosted treatment, and technology has changed the nature of work.
Mr Blunkett said the “paradox” was that old heavy industry, where people were physically worn out and left on the scrapheap, had been largely replaced by hi-tech jobs.
A damning report showed fiddlers and bungling staff cost taxpayers £3billion a year. In the past 12 months, an estimated £2billion was pocketed by cheats while another £1billion was paid out by mistake.
Yesterday Mr Blunkett said: “We’ve had sticking plaster on sticking plaster and it’s a minefield.
“The system is crackers”
The full scale of benefit fraud and error was exposed in a report by the Commons public accounts committee.
It showed that of £9billion overpaid only £550million is recovered. About 2,600 staff work in debt recovery, costing 23p for every £1 recouped.
A check on 800 incapacity benefit claimants found 106 had no supporting papers.
Tory MP Edward Leigh, who chairs the committee, said: “Fraud and error will never be brought under control unless benefits systems are simplified.”
from DAVID WOODING The Sun Whitehall Editor
Mr Blunkett said there were FOUR TIMES more people claiming incapacity benefit than were on the old invalidity handout 25 years ago.
Yet health has got better, and medical science has boosted treatment, and technology has changed the nature of work.
Mr Blunkett said the “paradox” was that old heavy industry, where people were physically worn out and left on the scrapheap, had been largely replaced by hi-tech jobs.
A damning report showed fiddlers and bungling staff cost taxpayers £3billion a year. In the past 12 months, an estimated £2billion was pocketed by cheats while another £1billion was paid out by mistake.
Yesterday Mr Blunkett said: “We’ve had sticking plaster on sticking plaster and it’s a minefield.
“The system is crackers”
The full scale of benefit fraud and error was exposed in a report by the Commons public accounts committee.
It showed that of £9billion overpaid only £550million is recovered. About 2,600 staff work in debt recovery, costing 23p for every £1 recouped.
A check on 800 incapacity benefit claimants found 106 had no supporting papers.
Tory MP Edward Leigh, who chairs the committee, said: “Fraud and error will never be brought under control unless benefits systems are simplified.”
from DAVID WOODING The Sun Whitehall Editor
Monday, October 10, 2005
New Labour's tax credits system suffer massive fraud
The government's tax credit system lost at least £460m two years ago because of mistakes, or fraud by claimants.
The estimate is contained in an audit of the Revenue & Customs' accounts by the National Audit Office.
It says although fraud and error was lower than in previous years, it was still unacceptably high.
The report reveals that total overpayment to claimants in 2003/04 has now risen to £2.2bn, with nearly £1bn likely to be written off.
The current tax credits were introduced in 2003 in the form of child tax credit and working tax credit.
But the new system has come under severe criticism this year for being so complex that 1.8 million claimants were overpaid in 2003/04.
Many of them subsequently faced hardship after being asked to repay money they had already spent.
The report from the NAO makes it clear that according to the Inland Revenue's own estimates, some of this money was claimed fraudulently.
Half of all the overpayments were made to just 283,000 families, who had each been overpaid by £2,000 or more.
But so far, reclaiming the money has not been fully effective.
Some £961m of accumulated overpayment from the first two years of the current tax credit system will probably be written off as doubtful debt.
From the BBC
The estimate is contained in an audit of the Revenue & Customs' accounts by the National Audit Office.
It says although fraud and error was lower than in previous years, it was still unacceptably high.
The report reveals that total overpayment to claimants in 2003/04 has now risen to £2.2bn, with nearly £1bn likely to be written off.
The current tax credits were introduced in 2003 in the form of child tax credit and working tax credit.
But the new system has come under severe criticism this year for being so complex that 1.8 million claimants were overpaid in 2003/04.
Many of them subsequently faced hardship after being asked to repay money they had already spent.
The report from the NAO makes it clear that according to the Inland Revenue's own estimates, some of this money was claimed fraudulently.
Half of all the overpayments were made to just 283,000 families, who had each been overpaid by £2,000 or more.
But so far, reclaiming the money has not been fully effective.
Some £961m of accumulated overpayment from the first two years of the current tax credit system will probably be written off as doubtful debt.
From the BBC
Blunkett says depressed should get a job
A job will cure stress and depression much better than watching daytime TV, Cabinet Minister David Blunkett said.
Mr Blunkett faces the threat of a backbench revolt over plans to get many of the 2.7 million people on incapacity benefit back into work.
He insisted those who needed long-term care would be comfortably provided for. But he added: "If people will reconnect with life, getting out, that is volunteering, being able to re-associate with the world of work, suddenly they come alive again.
"That will overcome depression and stress a lot more than people sitting at home watching daytime television."
Mr Blunkett will set out eight principles behind his forthcoming reforms in Whitehall at lunchtime.
Tackling the high number of people on incapacity benefit (IB) was a first term priority for Tony Blair that never happened.
Labour's new, smaller majority means any suggestion that people are being forced back into work risks a Commons defeat this time around.
However, ministers are adamant that the number can be cut, citing research that shows nine out of 10 hope to return to work up to a year after signing on.
There are four times the number of people claiming IB than there were on invalidity benefit 25-30 years ago, Mr Blunkett said.
"Health has got better, medical science is improving by the day, technology has changed the nature of work so that people can work part-time," he said. "We have a situation where we can offer people liberation from dependence in a way that was never possible before."
Evening Standard 10 October 2005
Mr Blunkett faces the threat of a backbench revolt over plans to get many of the 2.7 million people on incapacity benefit back into work.
He insisted those who needed long-term care would be comfortably provided for. But he added: "If people will reconnect with life, getting out, that is volunteering, being able to re-associate with the world of work, suddenly they come alive again.
"That will overcome depression and stress a lot more than people sitting at home watching daytime television."
Mr Blunkett will set out eight principles behind his forthcoming reforms in Whitehall at lunchtime.
Tackling the high number of people on incapacity benefit (IB) was a first term priority for Tony Blair that never happened.
Labour's new, smaller majority means any suggestion that people are being forced back into work risks a Commons defeat this time around.
However, ministers are adamant that the number can be cut, citing research that shows nine out of 10 hope to return to work up to a year after signing on.
There are four times the number of people claiming IB than there were on invalidity benefit 25-30 years ago, Mr Blunkett said.
"Health has got better, medical science is improving by the day, technology has changed the nature of work so that people can work part-time," he said. "We have a situation where we can offer people liberation from dependence in a way that was never possible before."
Evening Standard 10 October 2005
New Labour cover up education failure
ALMOST half of children are leaving primary school without the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic.
Official unpublished figures obtained by The Times reveal that, after six years of schooling, 44 per cent of 11-year-olds have not achieved Level 4, the expected standard set by the Government, for the combined “three Rs”.
Ministers repeatedly emphasise that meeting this grade is critical for pupils to cope with the secondary school curriculum; 70 per cent of pupils who achieve Level 4 get five good GCSEs at 16, compared with 12 per cent who do not.
Two months ago Jacqui Smith, the Schools Minister, boasted that “this Government’s unrelenting focus on the basics is paying off”, after new figures for Key Stage 2 test results for Level 4 showed that 79 per cent of 11-year-olds had passed English and 75 per cent had passed maths this year.
However, the Government omitted one statistic, which showed in a provisional estimate that the combined percentage of all pupils who had passed Level 4 in reading, writing and maths tests was just 56 per cent.
In an e-mail shown to The Times, a member of the Department for Education and Skills, responsible for compiling the data, wrote: “We have not in the past provided an analysis of those pupils achieving Level 4 and above in the [sic] all of the above subjects, but have done so for English, mathematics and science. This figure will be released in the final 2004 KS2 publication, scheduled for June 2005.”
The results published in August did not include this figure, however. Instead, they revealed that 68 per cent of pupils had achieved Level 4 in English and maths; 79 per cent passed the English test, which combines reading and writing scores. When the English scores are extrapolated into reading and writing tests, those who failed at writing may have passed Level 4 English because their reading ability had pulled up the overall scores.
The Opposition is now calling on the Government to publish the final combined figure and question why it has been suppressed.
From Alexandra Blair, Education Correspondent of The Times
Official unpublished figures obtained by The Times reveal that, after six years of schooling, 44 per cent of 11-year-olds have not achieved Level 4, the expected standard set by the Government, for the combined “three Rs”.
Ministers repeatedly emphasise that meeting this grade is critical for pupils to cope with the secondary school curriculum; 70 per cent of pupils who achieve Level 4 get five good GCSEs at 16, compared with 12 per cent who do not.
Two months ago Jacqui Smith, the Schools Minister, boasted that “this Government’s unrelenting focus on the basics is paying off”, after new figures for Key Stage 2 test results for Level 4 showed that 79 per cent of 11-year-olds had passed English and 75 per cent had passed maths this year.
However, the Government omitted one statistic, which showed in a provisional estimate that the combined percentage of all pupils who had passed Level 4 in reading, writing and maths tests was just 56 per cent.
In an e-mail shown to The Times, a member of the Department for Education and Skills, responsible for compiling the data, wrote: “We have not in the past provided an analysis of those pupils achieving Level 4 and above in the [sic] all of the above subjects, but have done so for English, mathematics and science. This figure will be released in the final 2004 KS2 publication, scheduled for June 2005.”
The results published in August did not include this figure, however. Instead, they revealed that 68 per cent of pupils had achieved Level 4 in English and maths; 79 per cent passed the English test, which combines reading and writing scores. When the English scores are extrapolated into reading and writing tests, those who failed at writing may have passed Level 4 English because their reading ability had pulled up the overall scores.
The Opposition is now calling on the Government to publish the final combined figure and question why it has been suppressed.
From Alexandra Blair, Education Correspondent of The Times
Sunday, October 09, 2005
New Labour to hit savers with new stealth taxes
Savers were last week dismayed when news leaked out about Gordon Brown’s latest stealth tax, this time on life insurance and pension companies.
The chancellor wants to tax the reserves credited to shareholders of these companies, which include such names as Legal & General, Prudential and Norwich Union. Although policyholders will not be directly hit, the companies are likely to turn the screw on customers.
The Association of British Insurers described it as a tax on savings. Coming on top of the notorious £5 billion-a-year dividend tax on pensions, watered-down Isas and the creeping impact of inheritance tax, this will encourage thousands of people to look again at how far they can protect themselves from the Treasury’s tentacles.
Millions more may be affected by a claim by actuaries last week that employers are £130 billion short of the sum needed to pay for final-salary pension schemes, largely because of the dividend tax.
From William Kay at The Sunday Times
Savers were last week dismayed when news leaked out about Gordon Brown’s latest stealth tax, this time on life insurance and pension companies.
The chancellor wants to tax the reserves credited to shareholders of these companies, which include such names as Legal & General, Prudential and Norwich Union. Although policyholders will not be directly hit, the companies are likely to turn the screw on customers.
The Association of British Insurers described it as a tax on savings. Coming on top of the notorious £5 billion-a-year dividend tax on pensions, watered-down Isas and the creeping impact of inheritance tax, this will encourage thousands of people to look again at how far they can protect themselves from the Treasury’s tentacles.
Millions more may be affected by a claim by actuaries last week that employers are £130 billion short of the sum needed to pay for final-salary pension schemes, largely because of the dividend tax.
From William Kay at The Sunday Times
Falconer 'tried to bury' report into fixing court job
New Labour Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, has been accused of lobbying against publication of a damning report by a government watchdog that found he had acted “inappropriately” in appointing an acquaintance as a senior judge.
The affair has angered key figures in the judiciary who have privately condemned it as political interference.
Senior figures, including Sir Colin Campbell, head of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), and Sir Andrew Morritt, head of the High Court’s chancery division, are said to be furious with Falconer after he intervened to appoint Wyn Williams QC to a £126,000-a-year post running the chancery division in Wales.
A report on the affair, to be published next week in the JAC’s annual report, has concluded that Falconer wrongly intervened to appoint Williams, who had been a guest at a party at his London home. A panel ruled Williams was not sufficiently qualified.
The report states: “We found that the lord chancellor had acted inappropriately, in relation to the appointment criteria and procedures in deciding to appoint a candidate found . . . not to meet one of the criteria.”
The investigators interviewed Falconer and examined notes he had made to justify his decision. But they concluded: “It is difficult to see how he reached that view.”
Well-placed legal sources claimed last week Falconer tried to lobby against publication of the report, but was opposed by officials. One said: “He has worked very hard to dissuade the commission from publishing.”
Williams has acted for the government over suspected Islamic terrorists, but chancery work involves land disputes, trust law and commercial matters.
Williams, 54, was part of the intake called to the bar with Falconer in 1974. He said he had not yet seen the report and was unaware of the criticisms. “I applied for the job because I thought I was able to do it. I don’t think there’s any reason why I should be secretive about this,” he said. “On one occasion I believe I attended a party at Lord Falconer’s house for a mutual friend from his chambers who was getting engaged. It is possible that when I visited my friend at his chambers I may [also] have met Lord Falconer.”
Falconer said he had not seen the report before it appeared on the JAC website last month. “I have absolutely no doubt Wyn Williams was the best person for the job,” he said. “I have complete confidence in his ability, as does the lord chief justice.”
From David Leppard at The Sunday Times
The affair has angered key figures in the judiciary who have privately condemned it as political interference.
Senior figures, including Sir Colin Campbell, head of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), and Sir Andrew Morritt, head of the High Court’s chancery division, are said to be furious with Falconer after he intervened to appoint Wyn Williams QC to a £126,000-a-year post running the chancery division in Wales.
A report on the affair, to be published next week in the JAC’s annual report, has concluded that Falconer wrongly intervened to appoint Williams, who had been a guest at a party at his London home. A panel ruled Williams was not sufficiently qualified.
The report states: “We found that the lord chancellor had acted inappropriately, in relation to the appointment criteria and procedures in deciding to appoint a candidate found . . . not to meet one of the criteria.”
The investigators interviewed Falconer and examined notes he had made to justify his decision. But they concluded: “It is difficult to see how he reached that view.”
Well-placed legal sources claimed last week Falconer tried to lobby against publication of the report, but was opposed by officials. One said: “He has worked very hard to dissuade the commission from publishing.”
Williams has acted for the government over suspected Islamic terrorists, but chancery work involves land disputes, trust law and commercial matters.
Williams, 54, was part of the intake called to the bar with Falconer in 1974. He said he had not yet seen the report and was unaware of the criticisms. “I applied for the job because I thought I was able to do it. I don’t think there’s any reason why I should be secretive about this,” he said. “On one occasion I believe I attended a party at Lord Falconer’s house for a mutual friend from his chambers who was getting engaged. It is possible that when I visited my friend at his chambers I may [also] have met Lord Falconer.”
Falconer said he had not seen the report before it appeared on the JAC website last month. “I have absolutely no doubt Wyn Williams was the best person for the job,” he said. “I have complete confidence in his ability, as does the lord chief justice.”
From David Leppard at The Sunday Times
Blunkett may face investigation for business pay
THE cabinet minister David Blunkett is this weekend under pressure to explain his financial and personal links to a controversial businessman who introduced him to a 29-year-old blonde.
Blunkett was paid by a company owned by the family of Tariq Siddiqi, a flamboyant businessman with a chequered past. The company said he was paid for almost three months’ work. If this is true, Blunkett should have made a formal declaration to parliament.
However, the minister insists he did only two weeks’ work immediately before this year’s general election and therefore has broken no rules as technically he had resigned as an MP to stand for re-election.
The Conservatives this weekend called for an investigation by the parliamentary standards commissioner. Chris Grayling, shadow leader of the house, said Blunkett, the work and pensions secretary, was “not fit for the cabinet” and that his behaviour was “getting ridiculous”.
Former associates of Siddiqi are staggered that a high-profile politician would ever have become embroiled in his dealings.
Siddiqi, the archetypal wheeler-dealer, has left behind a trail of bankrupt companies and creditors over the past 15 years. In the 1980s he was briefly the manager of Julian Lennon, John Lennon’s son, before he began organising concerts at the Guards Polo Club. The venture collapsed, leaving heavy losses.
In the 1990s he ran several other enterprises, including the Stress Relief Centre, which also collapsed. He then set up a chauffeuring business based in Mayfair, London, to transport rich clients, including the Saudi royal family. This firm went bankrupt in 2000 leaving behind 92 creditors owed tens of thousands of pounds.
Blunkett first met Siddiqi in Annabel’s, the London nightclub, probably last year. While he was out of office, having resigned as home secretary last December, he took up a nonexecutive post at DNA Structures, which trades as DNA Bioscience, a business offering DIY paternity tests and carrying out work for the government.
Siddiqi’s wife Lucy is a director of the firm and the company is largely owned by members of Siddiqi’s family, via an offshore trust thought to be controlled by a younger brother. Siddiqi’s £1m mansion in Surrey is also owned by an offshore trust registered at the same address in Guernsey.
According to the company’s records, Blunkett took up his position at DNA Structures only a fortnight before the general election and he resigned the day after the vote, on returning to the cabinet.
John Coles, a spokesman for the company, insisted that Blunkett had been paid for work spanning almost three months before resigning. “It was about three months and he was paid,” he said. “To be honest, he didn’t have much time to do very much work at all. He joined in February. I don’t know where they got that from (that Blunkett only joined in April).”
A spokesman for Blunkett said: “It categorically is not true that he worked for longer than the [two-week] period stated. This has been declared to the House of Commons, the Electoral Commission and the permanent secretary.”
from Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent for The Sunday Times with additional reporting: Claire Newell
THE cabinet minister David Blunkett is this weekend under pressure to explain his financial and personal links to a controversial businessman who introduced him to a 29-year-old blonde.
Blunkett was paid by a company owned by the family of Tariq Siddiqi, a flamboyant businessman with a chequered past. The company said he was paid for almost three months’ work. If this is true, Blunkett should have made a formal declaration to parliament.
However, the minister insists he did only two weeks’ work immediately before this year’s general election and therefore has broken no rules as technically he had resigned as an MP to stand for re-election.
The Conservatives this weekend called for an investigation by the parliamentary standards commissioner. Chris Grayling, shadow leader of the house, said Blunkett, the work and pensions secretary, was “not fit for the cabinet” and that his behaviour was “getting ridiculous”.
Former associates of Siddiqi are staggered that a high-profile politician would ever have become embroiled in his dealings.
Siddiqi, the archetypal wheeler-dealer, has left behind a trail of bankrupt companies and creditors over the past 15 years. In the 1980s he was briefly the manager of Julian Lennon, John Lennon’s son, before he began organising concerts at the Guards Polo Club. The venture collapsed, leaving heavy losses.
In the 1990s he ran several other enterprises, including the Stress Relief Centre, which also collapsed. He then set up a chauffeuring business based in Mayfair, London, to transport rich clients, including the Saudi royal family. This firm went bankrupt in 2000 leaving behind 92 creditors owed tens of thousands of pounds.
Blunkett first met Siddiqi in Annabel’s, the London nightclub, probably last year. While he was out of office, having resigned as home secretary last December, he took up a nonexecutive post at DNA Structures, which trades as DNA Bioscience, a business offering DIY paternity tests and carrying out work for the government.
Siddiqi’s wife Lucy is a director of the firm and the company is largely owned by members of Siddiqi’s family, via an offshore trust thought to be controlled by a younger brother. Siddiqi’s £1m mansion in Surrey is also owned by an offshore trust registered at the same address in Guernsey.
According to the company’s records, Blunkett took up his position at DNA Structures only a fortnight before the general election and he resigned the day after the vote, on returning to the cabinet.
John Coles, a spokesman for the company, insisted that Blunkett had been paid for work spanning almost three months before resigning. “It was about three months and he was paid,” he said. “To be honest, he didn’t have much time to do very much work at all. He joined in February. I don’t know where they got that from (that Blunkett only joined in April).”
A spokesman for Blunkett said: “It categorically is not true that he worked for longer than the [two-week] period stated. This has been declared to the House of Commons, the Electoral Commission and the permanent secretary.”
from Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent for The Sunday Times with additional reporting: Claire Newell
Street robbery soars under New Labour
Police have blamed a sharp rise in the number of street robberies on the increasing popularity of iPods, MP3 players and the new generation of internet-connected mobile phones.
Figures to be released by the Home Office later this month are expected to reveal that muggings rose by almost 40% in some parts of the country last year.
In London the number of robberies increased for the first time in three years, reversing a steep downward trend.
Robberies went up by an overall 5%, according to figures obtained last week from 22 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. If these statistics are reflected nationally, it will be the first time that robbery has risen since 2002.
In Merseyside robberies went up from 539 between April and June last year to 731 in the same period this year — an increase of 36%.
Robbery also increased by 11% in South Yorkshire and 6% in Hertfordshire.
In London police recorded almost 1,500 more robberies over the period April to June — a 15% rise. Separate figures from the Metropolitan police show that muggings and snatch thefts of iPods have increased more than fivefold since last November. Ten incidents of this kind were reported in that month, followed by 35 in April and 52 in May.
The number of iPods reported stolen from cars and homes also increased from 178 in November 2004 to 395 in May this year.
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, warned earlier this year that the iPods’ distinctive white headphone leads allowed owners to be easily targeted by criminals.
“In street robbery, our concern has been around the smaller portable pieces of kit — the new generation of mobile phones and iPods,” he said. “ It is very obvious when someone is wearing an iPod. That is what is fuelling this.”
From The Sunday Times by Will Iredale with additional reporting: Leonora Oldfield
Ed:
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, seems to be missing the point. His job is to ensure the ordinary citizen can walk the streets of the London in safety. Does he actually believe that law abiding people are being driven to crime because of iPods or, as is more likely, is he using iPods to cover up the failure of policing under New Labour.
Figures to be released by the Home Office later this month are expected to reveal that muggings rose by almost 40% in some parts of the country last year.
In London the number of robberies increased for the first time in three years, reversing a steep downward trend.
Robberies went up by an overall 5%, according to figures obtained last week from 22 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. If these statistics are reflected nationally, it will be the first time that robbery has risen since 2002.
In Merseyside robberies went up from 539 between April and June last year to 731 in the same period this year — an increase of 36%.
Robbery also increased by 11% in South Yorkshire and 6% in Hertfordshire.
In London police recorded almost 1,500 more robberies over the period April to June — a 15% rise. Separate figures from the Metropolitan police show that muggings and snatch thefts of iPods have increased more than fivefold since last November. Ten incidents of this kind were reported in that month, followed by 35 in April and 52 in May.
The number of iPods reported stolen from cars and homes also increased from 178 in November 2004 to 395 in May this year.
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, warned earlier this year that the iPods’ distinctive white headphone leads allowed owners to be easily targeted by criminals.
“In street robbery, our concern has been around the smaller portable pieces of kit — the new generation of mobile phones and iPods,” he said. “ It is very obvious when someone is wearing an iPod. That is what is fuelling this.”
From The Sunday Times by Will Iredale with additional reporting: Leonora Oldfield
Ed:
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, seems to be missing the point. His job is to ensure the ordinary citizen can walk the streets of the London in safety. Does he actually believe that law abiding people are being driven to crime because of iPods or, as is more likely, is he using iPods to cover up the failure of policing under New Labour.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Mr Blair and his mates (or - Does Blair have any understanding of corruption)
Tony Blair is employing Charles Powell as his special envoy to Brunei, the Guardian can disclose, despite the fact that the businessman is on the payroll of BAE Systems. BAE is embroiled in a dispute with Brunei over the purchase of three warships.
The sultan of the small, oil-rich southeast Asian state, Hassanal Bolkiah, was persuaded to order the top-of-the-range vessels for his navy at a cost of £680m, but is now refusing to make the final payments to BAE and take delivery of the ships, which are marooned on the Clyde.
The three patrol boats were built and equipped with missiles at BAE's Scotstoun yard, and the first of them was launched by John Reid as Scottish secretary. The British taxpayer guaranteed the deal and may have to pick up a tab of more than £20m for any outstanding default.
Lord Powell denied yesterday that he had a conflict of interest by being a consultant for BAE while acting as the prime minister's special envoy to Brunei. Lord Powell's brother, Jonathan, is Mr Blair's chief of staff at No 10, and Lord Powell was previously Margaret Thatcher's foreign affairs adviser.
He told the Guardian: "There is no conflict of interest with BAE. Any consultation with BAE specifically rules out anything to do with Brunei." He said he had been acting in the unpaid role for three to four years. Asked how he got the job, Lord Powell said: "You do not advertise it and you do not apply." Asked how often he met the sultan, he said: "That is a matter between him and me."
The appointment of Mr Blair's friend and fundraiser Lord Levy as a special Middle East envoy angered some in the Foreign Office and there is also puzzlement over Lord Powell's new role. It is not clear what he will do that could not be done by the high commissioner to Brunei.
A Downing Street source said Lord Powell met the sultan, who owns the Dorchester Hotel, on his visits to London when Mr Blair was unable to see him. All discussions were on behalf of the British government, the source added.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "Charles Powell is special representative to the Sultan of Brunei and, in that role, he discusses a wide range of bilateral issues and regional issues."
A team from BAE Systems, which has been threatening to bring arbitration proceedings in Paris against the sultan, is believed to have flown to Borneo in July in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the patrol boats dispute. Brunei claims the vessels do not meet the required specifications, but BAE sources say there are no facilities at the local Muara naval base capable of running and maintaining such advanced ships. BAE said last night the quarrel was in arbitration and confidential.
Brunei, whose sultan is propped up by British Gurkhas, is regarded as a crucial arms sales target. The defence ministry lists Brunei as a "priority market" which may buy more than £500m of weaponry if the warships row is resolved.
From Ewen MacAskill and David Leigh in The Guardian Saturday October 8, 2005
The sultan of the small, oil-rich southeast Asian state, Hassanal Bolkiah, was persuaded to order the top-of-the-range vessels for his navy at a cost of £680m, but is now refusing to make the final payments to BAE and take delivery of the ships, which are marooned on the Clyde.
The three patrol boats were built and equipped with missiles at BAE's Scotstoun yard, and the first of them was launched by John Reid as Scottish secretary. The British taxpayer guaranteed the deal and may have to pick up a tab of more than £20m for any outstanding default.
Lord Powell denied yesterday that he had a conflict of interest by being a consultant for BAE while acting as the prime minister's special envoy to Brunei. Lord Powell's brother, Jonathan, is Mr Blair's chief of staff at No 10, and Lord Powell was previously Margaret Thatcher's foreign affairs adviser.
He told the Guardian: "There is no conflict of interest with BAE. Any consultation with BAE specifically rules out anything to do with Brunei." He said he had been acting in the unpaid role for three to four years. Asked how he got the job, Lord Powell said: "You do not advertise it and you do not apply." Asked how often he met the sultan, he said: "That is a matter between him and me."
The appointment of Mr Blair's friend and fundraiser Lord Levy as a special Middle East envoy angered some in the Foreign Office and there is also puzzlement over Lord Powell's new role. It is not clear what he will do that could not be done by the high commissioner to Brunei.
A Downing Street source said Lord Powell met the sultan, who owns the Dorchester Hotel, on his visits to London when Mr Blair was unable to see him. All discussions were on behalf of the British government, the source added.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "Charles Powell is special representative to the Sultan of Brunei and, in that role, he discusses a wide range of bilateral issues and regional issues."
A team from BAE Systems, which has been threatening to bring arbitration proceedings in Paris against the sultan, is believed to have flown to Borneo in July in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the patrol boats dispute. Brunei claims the vessels do not meet the required specifications, but BAE sources say there are no facilities at the local Muara naval base capable of running and maintaining such advanced ships. BAE said last night the quarrel was in arbitration and confidential.
Brunei, whose sultan is propped up by British Gurkhas, is regarded as a crucial arms sales target. The defence ministry lists Brunei as a "priority market" which may buy more than £500m of weaponry if the warships row is resolved.
From Ewen MacAskill and David Leigh in The Guardian Saturday October 8, 2005
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Home Secretary Clarke commits a serious gaffe
Home Secretary Charles Clarke has committed a serious gaffe which could endanger some of the most high-profile terrorist prosecutions yet seen in Britain.
In a bid to win backing for new terror powers he distributed a seven-page Scotland Yard document which contained details of three terrorist cases which are currently sub-judice.
The contents of the case studies cannot be repeated in full because they would amount to contempt of court. But they included details of evidence against a number of defendants and their behaviour in police interviews.
One of the cases highlighted by Scotland Yard has been described by a senior legal source as the biggest terror prosecution ever mounted in the UK.
The Met's briefing note was drawn up by Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, who is in charge of the anti-terrorist branch, in a bid to explain why police need powers to detain terror suspects for up to three months before charge.
Asked why they had issued a document which could potentially endanger the prosecutions, a Home Office spokesman said: "The Metropolitan Police are responsible for that document.
"The Met have assured us that they intended this document for public consumption. We can only, therefore, presume that the Met have cleared it legally."
The Home Office distributed the Met's document to MPs, peers and journalists. Headings of each case study stated "This case is sub judice and it would therefore be inappropriate to release further details" but then went on to include information banned from publication ahead of a trial by the 1981 Contempt of Court Act.
Media lawyer Rod Dadak said: "I would be most surprised if, in issuing a release seeking to justify new detention powers, any reference would be made to a case which has yet to come to trial. It is inappropriate to do so and clearly calls into question the risk of prejudicing a fair trial."
He added: "The detail they have given impacts on the conduct of the defendants, which would appear to breach the rules with regard to contempt."
From ananova
In a bid to win backing for new terror powers he distributed a seven-page Scotland Yard document which contained details of three terrorist cases which are currently sub-judice.
The contents of the case studies cannot be repeated in full because they would amount to contempt of court. But they included details of evidence against a number of defendants and their behaviour in police interviews.
One of the cases highlighted by Scotland Yard has been described by a senior legal source as the biggest terror prosecution ever mounted in the UK.
The Met's briefing note was drawn up by Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, who is in charge of the anti-terrorist branch, in a bid to explain why police need powers to detain terror suspects for up to three months before charge.
Asked why they had issued a document which could potentially endanger the prosecutions, a Home Office spokesman said: "The Metropolitan Police are responsible for that document.
"The Met have assured us that they intended this document for public consumption. We can only, therefore, presume that the Met have cleared it legally."
The Home Office distributed the Met's document to MPs, peers and journalists. Headings of each case study stated "This case is sub judice and it would therefore be inappropriate to release further details" but then went on to include information banned from publication ahead of a trial by the 1981 Contempt of Court Act.
Media lawyer Rod Dadak said: "I would be most surprised if, in issuing a release seeking to justify new detention powers, any reference would be made to a case which has yet to come to trial. It is inappropriate to do so and clearly calls into question the risk of prejudicing a fair trial."
He added: "The detail they have given impacts on the conduct of the defendants, which would appear to breach the rules with regard to contempt."
From ananova
New Labour terror state
‘LONDON (Reuters): - A London underground train station was evacuated and part of a main east-west line closed in a security alert on Thursday, three weeks after suicide bombers killed 52 people on the transport network, police said. A Transport Police spokeswoman said Southwark station was closed and Jubilee Line services suspended between Waterloo and Canary Wharf in the east London business district.’
This Reuters story was written while the police were detaining me in Southwark tube station and the bomb squad was checking my rucksack. When they were through, the two explosive specialists walked out of the tube station smiling and commenting ‘nice laptop’. The officers offered apologies on behalf of the Metropolitan Police. Then they arrested me.
2005-07-28 Thursday - Southwark, London
19:10 From my workplace in Southwark, South London, I arrange by text message (SMS) to meet my girlfriend at Hanover Square. To save time – as I suppose – I decide to the take the tube to Bond Street instead of my usual bus. I am wearing greenish Merrell shoes, black trousers, t-shirt, black lightweight Gap jumper, dark grey/black light rainproof Schott jacket and grey Top Shop cap.
I am carrying a black Tom Bihn rucksack I use as a workbag.
19:21 I enter Southwark tube station, passing uniformed police officers by the entrance, and more police beyond the gate. I walk down to the platform, peering down to see the steps as, thanks to a small eye infection, I'm wearing specs instead of my usual contact lenses.
The platform is mostly empty. The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift onto the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back.
I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside jacket pocket and begin to read.
The train enters the station.
Police officers, all uniformed men, appear on the platform and surround me. They ask me to take off my rucksack. They must immediately notice my French accent, still strong after living more than 12 years in London. They handcuff me – hands behind my back (the handcuffs have a rigid bar between the two cuffs – i.e. not like the ones often shown on TV). They take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act.
I am told that I am being stopped and searched because they found my behaviour suspicious (from direct observation and then from watching me on the CCTV system):
I went into the station without looking at the police officers at the entrance or by the gates, i.e. I was ‘avoiding them’ (two other men entered the station at about the same time as me)
I am wearing a jacket ‘too warm for the season’
I am carrying a bulky rucksack
I kept my rucksack with me at all times (I had it on my back)
I looked at people coming on the platform
I played with my mobile phone and then took a paper from inside my jacket.
They empty the content of all my pockets into two of their helmets and search me. They loosen my belt.
One or two trains arrive and depart normally, with people getting on and off. Then a train arrives, and moves slowly right through the station. The driver is told not to stop. After that, no more trains pass through the station.
We move away from the edge of the platform into the emergency staircase. We’re shown the way by two London Underground staffs that then disappear. I sit down on the (dirty) steps.
Some police officers go up and later come back. Their radio system does not work deep down in the station. The police say they can't validate my address. I suggest they ask the security guard where I work, two streets away. They use walkie-talkies to pass the phone number I give them to colleagues.
They swap the handcuffs from behind my back to in front of my body, and we move up the escalators to the ticket office floor of the station. I sit in the booth by the ticket gates for about one minute before a police officer decides we should go outside. We go up to the station doors, and I realise that the station is cordoned off.
Two bomb squad officers pass by getting out of the station. One turns to me and says in a joking tone: ‘Nice laptop!’ A police officer expresses apologies on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, and explains that we are waiting for a more senior officer to express further apologies. They take off the handcuffs and start giving me back my possessions: my purse, keys, some papers.
Another police officer interferes, saying that this is not proper. I am handcuffed again.
A police van arrives and I am told that I will wait in the back. After about five minutes, a police officer formally arrests me (until that point I was apparently only detained).
20:53 Arrested for suspicious behaviour and public nuisance, I am driven off to Walworth police station. Forms are filled in (Code: MS - Custody No: 0504437), and my handcuffs taken off so I can write my address. I am given a form 3053 about my rights.
I make one correction to the police statement describing my detention: no train passed before I was stopped. I empty my pockets of the few things they had given me back at the tube station, and am searched again. My possessions are put in evidence bags.
They take two Polaroid photographs (I stand my back to the wall). A few minutes later, they take another set of two.
After washing my hand, a female police officer fingerprints me (all the fingers and palms) by putting some grease on my hands and holding them on a glass surface of some piece of equipment. She then takes DNA swabs from each side of my mouth.
22:06 I am allowed a phone call to my girlfriend: a female police officer dials the number, asks for my girlfriend and tell her that she will transfer me over. My girlfriend is crying and keeps repeating: ‘What happened, I thought you were injured or had an accident, where were you, why didn't you call me back’. I explain that I'm fine and in a police station, my phone was taken and the police officers wouldn't allow me to call. She wants to come to the station. I try to reassure her and ask her to stay at home as I don't know how long it'll take and she caught a cold while waiting and looking for me outside.
22:30 (approx.) I am put into an individual police cell. I ask for a glass of water. The officer says ‘yes’ but doesn't bring it. About 30 minutes later a female officer asks if I am ok. I again request a glass of water, and it is brought to me.
A plainclothes officer tells me that my flat will be searched under the Terrorism Act. I request that my girlfriend be called beforehand, so that she won't be too scared. This request is accepted, and I am asked for her phone number. I don't know it – it is stored in my phone – so I explain it is with the officer at the desk. I later find out that they don't call her.
Apart from the two visits to the cell (the one check and the info about the search), every now and then I notice an eye behind the eyehole but I'm not told anything.
00:25-01:26 at my flat. Three uniformed police officers search my flat and interview my girlfriend. One of them asks her to show him some files on her laptop; he's particularly interested in all ‘documents’. They take away from the flat several mobile phones, an old IBM laptop, a BeBox tower computer (an obsolete kind of PC from the mid 1990s), a handheld GPS receiver (positioning device with maps, very useful when walking), a frequency counter (picked it up at a radio amateur junk fair because it looked interesting), a radio scanner (receives short wave radio stations), a blue RS232C breakout box (a tool I used to use when reviewing modems for computer magazines), some cables, a Black Hat computer security conference leaflet, envelopes with addresses, maps of Prague and London Heathrow, some business cards, and some photographs I took – in particular techie ones such as the ones of the ACM97 conference – for the 50 years of the Association of Computing Machinery.
This list is from my girlfriend's memory, or what we have noticed is missing since. The police officers left a notice of the powers to search premises, but this doesn't include an inventory.
03:20 (approx.) I am retrieved from my cell and formally interviewed by a plainclothes CID officer. I see my rucksack for the first time since I took it off at the tube station. I also notice some of my possessions from home, all bagged up in evidence bags except the tower computer.
This interview is recorded on two tapes. The police again read out their version of events. I make two corrections: again pointing out that no train passed between my arrival on the platform and when I was detained, and that I didn't take any wire out of my pocket – I didn't have any wire. The officer suggests the computer cables I had in my rucksack could have been confused for wires. I tell him I didn't take my rucksack off until asked by the police so this is impossible.
Three items I was carrying seem to be of particular interest to the officer:
a small promotional booklet I got at the Screen on the Green cinema at the screening of The Assassination of Richard Nixon, a folded A4 page where I did some doodles in red ink. The police suspect it could be a map (it really could be anything one would like to see in the doodles; I have no recollection when or why I did them), and the active part of an old work pass where one can see the induction loop and one integrated circuit.
Items from the flat the police officer asks about: the RS232C breakout box, the radio scanner and the frequency counter.
The officer explains what made them change their mind and arrest me instead of releasing me. It was because of my connection with my employer. Apparently, on August 4th, 2004 there was a firearms incident at the company where I work. (The next day I find out that there had indeed been a hoax call the previous year, apparently from a temp worker claiming there was an armed intruder in one of the buildings.) Also that some staff had been seen photographing tube stations with a camera phone. (Most of my colleagues do have camera phones – also on 2nd June, as part of a team building exercise, new graduates were supposed to photograph landmarks and try to get a picture of themselves with a policeman.)
04:30 The interviewing officer releases me on bail, without requiring security. On my 60B bail form it says ‘I have been granted bail in accordance with the Bail Act, 1976, under the provisions of Section 34(5)/(7) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that I must surrender to custody at Walworth Police Station on Wednesday 31 August, 2005 at 09:00.’
He gives me back most of the contents of my pockets, including my Oyster card, USB key and iPod) and a few things from my rucksack (umbrella and eye drop bottles). Initially he says he will keep my mobile phone. I ask if I can at least have the SIM card? He says no, that's what they need; but he eventually changes his mind and lets me keep the whole phone.
I leave the police station and take a night bus home.
2005-07-29 Friday
The next day. I get a solicitor and arrange to meet him on the Monday.
2005-08-01 Monday
The solicitor advises waiting until 31st August.
2005-08-31 Wednesday
09:00 I arrive at police station to surrender to custody as required by bail, and am joined by solicitor five minutes later. We are invited into a small room by a plainclothes police officer a further few minutes later. The officer tells us that it's ‘NFA’ (no further action), explains that this means that they are dropping the charges, and briefly apologises. The officer (DS) in charge of the case is away from the station so the process of clearing up my case is suspended until he signs the papers cancelling the bail and authorising the release of my possessions. The meeting lasts about five minutes.
I send Subject Access request letters to the Data Protection Registrars of
London Underground,
Transport for London (on 2005-09-05, they replied that the ‘retention period for recording of stations is fourteen days’),
the British Transport Police (on 2005-09-14, they sent a reply which is just explaining some aspects of the Data Protection Act – no data included and no information as to when they might send the data requested) and
the Metropolitan Police (on 2005-09-20, they replied with a form asking for more details; on 2005-09-27, I sent back form 3019B with a certified copy of my passport and a £10 cheque; on 2005-10-04, they sent a letter confirming my ‘application has been passed to the National Identification Service who are responsible for conducting searches on the PNC’).
The first three letters ask for any data, including CCTV footage, related to the incident on July 28, while the final one is much more generic asking for any data they have on me. They all have forty days to respond.
2005-09-08 Thursday
I talk to my solicitor about ensuring the Police return all my possessions, give us all the inquiry documents (which they may or may not do) and expunge police records (apparently unlikely to happen).
The solicitor sends a letter to the officer in charge of my case asking him to authorise the release of my possessions and forward us a copy of the custody record, and conveying to him how upset I am.
2005-09-14 Wednesday
I write to my Member of Parliament about my concerns on what is happening to our civil liberties.
2005-09-22 Thursday
The Guardian publishes a slightly edited version of this page titled ‘Suspicious behaviour on the tube’ on the front page of the 2005-09-22 edition. A great many thanks to those (Andy & Will) who convinced me I should publish this story (against the advice of my solicitor who explained there's often lots of stigma associated with having been arrested even when innocent), to those (Will & Andrew) who helped me edit it and to everyone at the Guardian (especially Jack, Ian, Alan, Paul and Sarah). The Guardian's front page is shown on Newsnight!
The feedback I receive is very supportive. In some email messages, the senders mentioned reading the article prompted them to contact their Member of Parliament. Discussions and comments are happening on many websites. It clearly justifies, a posteriori, this publication. My gratitude to everyone who offered sympathy and to those doing something to ensure civil liberties are respected in the UK (and everywhere else).
2005-09-25 Sunday
I participate in a live interview with RampART radio (Indymedia).
2005-09-26 Monday
I talk to my solicitor. He hasn't received any response from the Police to his letter dated 2005-09-08 (neither have I). He will send another letter higher up the hierarchy.
I realise that it will now be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to travel to the USA (and this may limit my career options): ‘Under United States visa law people who have been arrested are required to declare the arrest when applying for a visa.’ The visa application process takes ‘a minimum of 14 to 16 weeks’ and before that ‘Applicants applying for a visa at the Embassy in London are required to furnish a Subject Access statement from the National Identification Service at New Scotland Yard’.
from David Mery at http://gizmonaut.net/index.html
This Reuters story was written while the police were detaining me in Southwark tube station and the bomb squad was checking my rucksack. When they were through, the two explosive specialists walked out of the tube station smiling and commenting ‘nice laptop’. The officers offered apologies on behalf of the Metropolitan Police. Then they arrested me.
2005-07-28 Thursday - Southwark, London
19:10 From my workplace in Southwark, South London, I arrange by text message (SMS) to meet my girlfriend at Hanover Square. To save time – as I suppose – I decide to the take the tube to Bond Street instead of my usual bus. I am wearing greenish Merrell shoes, black trousers, t-shirt, black lightweight Gap jumper, dark grey/black light rainproof Schott jacket and grey Top Shop cap.
I am carrying a black Tom Bihn rucksack I use as a workbag.
19:21 I enter Southwark tube station, passing uniformed police officers by the entrance, and more police beyond the gate. I walk down to the platform, peering down to see the steps as, thanks to a small eye infection, I'm wearing specs instead of my usual contact lenses.
The platform is mostly empty. The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift onto the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back.
I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside jacket pocket and begin to read.
The train enters the station.
Police officers, all uniformed men, appear on the platform and surround me. They ask me to take off my rucksack. They must immediately notice my French accent, still strong after living more than 12 years in London. They handcuff me – hands behind my back (the handcuffs have a rigid bar between the two cuffs – i.e. not like the ones often shown on TV). They take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act.
I am told that I am being stopped and searched because they found my behaviour suspicious (from direct observation and then from watching me on the CCTV system):
I went into the station without looking at the police officers at the entrance or by the gates, i.e. I was ‘avoiding them’ (two other men entered the station at about the same time as me)
I am wearing a jacket ‘too warm for the season’
I am carrying a bulky rucksack
I kept my rucksack with me at all times (I had it on my back)
I looked at people coming on the platform
I played with my mobile phone and then took a paper from inside my jacket.
They empty the content of all my pockets into two of their helmets and search me. They loosen my belt.
One or two trains arrive and depart normally, with people getting on and off. Then a train arrives, and moves slowly right through the station. The driver is told not to stop. After that, no more trains pass through the station.
We move away from the edge of the platform into the emergency staircase. We’re shown the way by two London Underground staffs that then disappear. I sit down on the (dirty) steps.
Some police officers go up and later come back. Their radio system does not work deep down in the station. The police say they can't validate my address. I suggest they ask the security guard where I work, two streets away. They use walkie-talkies to pass the phone number I give them to colleagues.
They swap the handcuffs from behind my back to in front of my body, and we move up the escalators to the ticket office floor of the station. I sit in the booth by the ticket gates for about one minute before a police officer decides we should go outside. We go up to the station doors, and I realise that the station is cordoned off.
Two bomb squad officers pass by getting out of the station. One turns to me and says in a joking tone: ‘Nice laptop!’ A police officer expresses apologies on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, and explains that we are waiting for a more senior officer to express further apologies. They take off the handcuffs and start giving me back my possessions: my purse, keys, some papers.
Another police officer interferes, saying that this is not proper. I am handcuffed again.
A police van arrives and I am told that I will wait in the back. After about five minutes, a police officer formally arrests me (until that point I was apparently only detained).
20:53 Arrested for suspicious behaviour and public nuisance, I am driven off to Walworth police station. Forms are filled in (Code: MS - Custody No: 0504437), and my handcuffs taken off so I can write my address. I am given a form 3053 about my rights.
I make one correction to the police statement describing my detention: no train passed before I was stopped. I empty my pockets of the few things they had given me back at the tube station, and am searched again. My possessions are put in evidence bags.
They take two Polaroid photographs (I stand my back to the wall). A few minutes later, they take another set of two.
After washing my hand, a female police officer fingerprints me (all the fingers and palms) by putting some grease on my hands and holding them on a glass surface of some piece of equipment. She then takes DNA swabs from each side of my mouth.
22:06 I am allowed a phone call to my girlfriend: a female police officer dials the number, asks for my girlfriend and tell her that she will transfer me over. My girlfriend is crying and keeps repeating: ‘What happened, I thought you were injured or had an accident, where were you, why didn't you call me back’. I explain that I'm fine and in a police station, my phone was taken and the police officers wouldn't allow me to call. She wants to come to the station. I try to reassure her and ask her to stay at home as I don't know how long it'll take and she caught a cold while waiting and looking for me outside.
22:30 (approx.) I am put into an individual police cell. I ask for a glass of water. The officer says ‘yes’ but doesn't bring it. About 30 minutes later a female officer asks if I am ok. I again request a glass of water, and it is brought to me.
A plainclothes officer tells me that my flat will be searched under the Terrorism Act. I request that my girlfriend be called beforehand, so that she won't be too scared. This request is accepted, and I am asked for her phone number. I don't know it – it is stored in my phone – so I explain it is with the officer at the desk. I later find out that they don't call her.
Apart from the two visits to the cell (the one check and the info about the search), every now and then I notice an eye behind the eyehole but I'm not told anything.
00:25-01:26 at my flat. Three uniformed police officers search my flat and interview my girlfriend. One of them asks her to show him some files on her laptop; he's particularly interested in all ‘documents’. They take away from the flat several mobile phones, an old IBM laptop, a BeBox tower computer (an obsolete kind of PC from the mid 1990s), a handheld GPS receiver (positioning device with maps, very useful when walking), a frequency counter (picked it up at a radio amateur junk fair because it looked interesting), a radio scanner (receives short wave radio stations), a blue RS232C breakout box (a tool I used to use when reviewing modems for computer magazines), some cables, a Black Hat computer security conference leaflet, envelopes with addresses, maps of Prague and London Heathrow, some business cards, and some photographs I took – in particular techie ones such as the ones of the ACM97 conference – for the 50 years of the Association of Computing Machinery.
This list is from my girlfriend's memory, or what we have noticed is missing since. The police officers left a notice of the powers to search premises, but this doesn't include an inventory.
03:20 (approx.) I am retrieved from my cell and formally interviewed by a plainclothes CID officer. I see my rucksack for the first time since I took it off at the tube station. I also notice some of my possessions from home, all bagged up in evidence bags except the tower computer.
This interview is recorded on two tapes. The police again read out their version of events. I make two corrections: again pointing out that no train passed between my arrival on the platform and when I was detained, and that I didn't take any wire out of my pocket – I didn't have any wire. The officer suggests the computer cables I had in my rucksack could have been confused for wires. I tell him I didn't take my rucksack off until asked by the police so this is impossible.
Three items I was carrying seem to be of particular interest to the officer:
a small promotional booklet I got at the Screen on the Green cinema at the screening of The Assassination of Richard Nixon, a folded A4 page where I did some doodles in red ink. The police suspect it could be a map (it really could be anything one would like to see in the doodles; I have no recollection when or why I did them), and the active part of an old work pass where one can see the induction loop and one integrated circuit.
Items from the flat the police officer asks about: the RS232C breakout box, the radio scanner and the frequency counter.
The officer explains what made them change their mind and arrest me instead of releasing me. It was because of my connection with my employer. Apparently, on August 4th, 2004 there was a firearms incident at the company where I work. (The next day I find out that there had indeed been a hoax call the previous year, apparently from a temp worker claiming there was an armed intruder in one of the buildings.) Also that some staff had been seen photographing tube stations with a camera phone. (Most of my colleagues do have camera phones – also on 2nd June, as part of a team building exercise, new graduates were supposed to photograph landmarks and try to get a picture of themselves with a policeman.)
04:30 The interviewing officer releases me on bail, without requiring security. On my 60B bail form it says ‘I have been granted bail in accordance with the Bail Act, 1976, under the provisions of Section 34(5)/(7) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that I must surrender to custody at Walworth Police Station on Wednesday 31 August, 2005 at 09:00.’
He gives me back most of the contents of my pockets, including my Oyster card, USB key and iPod) and a few things from my rucksack (umbrella and eye drop bottles). Initially he says he will keep my mobile phone. I ask if I can at least have the SIM card? He says no, that's what they need; but he eventually changes his mind and lets me keep the whole phone.
I leave the police station and take a night bus home.
2005-07-29 Friday
The next day. I get a solicitor and arrange to meet him on the Monday.
2005-08-01 Monday
The solicitor advises waiting until 31st August.
2005-08-31 Wednesday
09:00 I arrive at police station to surrender to custody as required by bail, and am joined by solicitor five minutes later. We are invited into a small room by a plainclothes police officer a further few minutes later. The officer tells us that it's ‘NFA’ (no further action), explains that this means that they are dropping the charges, and briefly apologises. The officer (DS) in charge of the case is away from the station so the process of clearing up my case is suspended until he signs the papers cancelling the bail and authorising the release of my possessions. The meeting lasts about five minutes.
I send Subject Access request letters to the Data Protection Registrars of
London Underground,
Transport for London (on 2005-09-05, they replied that the ‘retention period for recording of stations is fourteen days’),
the British Transport Police (on 2005-09-14, they sent a reply which is just explaining some aspects of the Data Protection Act – no data included and no information as to when they might send the data requested) and
the Metropolitan Police (on 2005-09-20, they replied with a form asking for more details; on 2005-09-27, I sent back form 3019B with a certified copy of my passport and a £10 cheque; on 2005-10-04, they sent a letter confirming my ‘application has been passed to the National Identification Service who are responsible for conducting searches on the PNC’).
The first three letters ask for any data, including CCTV footage, related to the incident on July 28, while the final one is much more generic asking for any data they have on me. They all have forty days to respond.
2005-09-08 Thursday
I talk to my solicitor about ensuring the Police return all my possessions, give us all the inquiry documents (which they may or may not do) and expunge police records (apparently unlikely to happen).
The solicitor sends a letter to the officer in charge of my case asking him to authorise the release of my possessions and forward us a copy of the custody record, and conveying to him how upset I am.
2005-09-14 Wednesday
I write to my Member of Parliament about my concerns on what is happening to our civil liberties.
2005-09-22 Thursday
The Guardian publishes a slightly edited version of this page titled ‘Suspicious behaviour on the tube’ on the front page of the 2005-09-22 edition. A great many thanks to those (Andy & Will) who convinced me I should publish this story (against the advice of my solicitor who explained there's often lots of stigma associated with having been arrested even when innocent), to those (Will & Andrew) who helped me edit it and to everyone at the Guardian (especially Jack, Ian, Alan, Paul and Sarah). The Guardian's front page is shown on Newsnight!
The feedback I receive is very supportive. In some email messages, the senders mentioned reading the article prompted them to contact their Member of Parliament. Discussions and comments are happening on many websites. It clearly justifies, a posteriori, this publication. My gratitude to everyone who offered sympathy and to those doing something to ensure civil liberties are respected in the UK (and everywhere else).
2005-09-25 Sunday
I participate in a live interview with RampART radio (Indymedia).
2005-09-26 Monday
I talk to my solicitor. He hasn't received any response from the Police to his letter dated 2005-09-08 (neither have I). He will send another letter higher up the hierarchy.
I realise that it will now be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to travel to the USA (and this may limit my career options): ‘Under United States visa law people who have been arrested are required to declare the arrest when applying for a visa.’ The visa application process takes ‘a minimum of 14 to 16 weeks’ and before that ‘Applicants applying for a visa at the Embassy in London are required to furnish a Subject Access statement from the National Identification Service at New Scotland Yard’.
from David Mery at http://gizmonaut.net/index.html
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Police investigate assault of New Labour heckler
Police said on Wednesday they were investigating an allegation of assault over the forceful ejection of an 82-year-old heckler from last week's Labour Party conference.
Stewards threw out Walter Wolfgang after he shouted "liar" and "nonsense" during Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's speech on Iraq at the conference in Brighton.
Another delegate who complained about his ejection was also thrown out of the hall.
The treatment of Wolfgang was captured on film, severely embarrassing the party and forcing Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior government members to make numerous apologies.
"We are going to investigate a complaint of assault in relation to the incident in which Mr Walter Wolfgang was removed by stewards from last week's Labour Party Conference in Brighton," a Sussex Police spokesman said.
He declined to say who had made the complaint.
Officers will prepare a file to be sent to prosecutors who will decide whether to proceed with criminal action.
The day after the incident, Blair said: "People are perfectly entitled to freedom of speech in our country and we should celebrate that fact and I'm really sorry about what happened to Walter and I have apologised to him."
LONDON (Reuters)
Stewards threw out Walter Wolfgang after he shouted "liar" and "nonsense" during Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's speech on Iraq at the conference in Brighton.
Another delegate who complained about his ejection was also thrown out of the hall.
The treatment of Wolfgang was captured on film, severely embarrassing the party and forcing Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior government members to make numerous apologies.
"We are going to investigate a complaint of assault in relation to the incident in which Mr Walter Wolfgang was removed by stewards from last week's Labour Party Conference in Brighton," a Sussex Police spokesman said.
He declined to say who had made the complaint.
Officers will prepare a file to be sent to prosecutors who will decide whether to proceed with criminal action.
The day after the incident, Blair said: "People are perfectly entitled to freedom of speech in our country and we should celebrate that fact and I'm really sorry about what happened to Walter and I have apologised to him."
LONDON (Reuters)
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Vicar serves 28 days over "illegal" Council Tax
A retired vicar is due to be released from prison after serving 28 days for not paying his council tax in full.
Magistrates sent the Rev Alfred Ridley, 71, of Towcester, Northants, to HMP Woodhill, a Category A lock-up near Milton Keynes, after he refused to hand over an 8.5% council tax rise, branding it "illegal".
Instead he and wife Una, 72, paid South Northamptonshire District Council a 2.5% increase, in line with inflation.
The resultant shortfall, together with bailiff and court costs, brought the total owed by the Ridleys to £691.
In July, a 28-day jail term was imposed on Ridley but Towcester magistrates suspended it for a month on the condition he paid up.
He refused to settle the debt and in September he was jailed.
It is thought Ridley is the first person in the UK to be sent to prison for withholding the full amount of his council tax.
However, council tax rebel Sylvia Hardy served time in prison last week for refusing to pay council tax arrears on her home.
The 73-year-old retired social worker from Exeter was given a seven-day prison sentence for refusing to pay an increase more than the rate of inflation on her tax bill.
But she was freed after less than two days after a mysterious donor paid the £53.71 council tax arrears on her home.
Magistrates sent the Rev Alfred Ridley, 71, of Towcester, Northants, to HMP Woodhill, a Category A lock-up near Milton Keynes, after he refused to hand over an 8.5% council tax rise, branding it "illegal".
Instead he and wife Una, 72, paid South Northamptonshire District Council a 2.5% increase, in line with inflation.
The resultant shortfall, together with bailiff and court costs, brought the total owed by the Ridleys to £691.
In July, a 28-day jail term was imposed on Ridley but Towcester magistrates suspended it for a month on the condition he paid up.
He refused to settle the debt and in September he was jailed.
It is thought Ridley is the first person in the UK to be sent to prison for withholding the full amount of his council tax.
However, council tax rebel Sylvia Hardy served time in prison last week for refusing to pay council tax arrears on her home.
The 73-year-old retired social worker from Exeter was given a seven-day prison sentence for refusing to pay an increase more than the rate of inflation on her tax bill.
But she was freed after less than two days after a mysterious donor paid the £53.71 council tax arrears on her home.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Blunkett wants an estate agent's babies
Blunkett told a woman half his age that he wanted to have children with her only weeks after meeting her on a date.
The secretary of state for work and pensions, 58, who previously resigned as home secretary amid a row over his love child, told the 29-year-old that she had not yet been “blessed with children” because she had not found the right person. In a serious tone, he added: “Maybe that’s where I might come in.” Friends of Sally Anderson, an estate agent from Ascot in Berkshire, revealed this weekend the extent of her relationship with Blunkett. Speaking with her agreement that the relationship should be made public, they said that it had become “intimate” rather than “platonic”, as the minister had implied.
Remarkably, Blunkett’s suggestion that Anderson might have children with him was made after just a few meetings. The revelation will provide further ammunition to critics who have called into question his judgment after his personal life has once again made headlines.
His supporters, meanwhile, threaten a new privacy law if the “unwarranted” media intrusion continues.
Since details of their relationship came to light eight days ago, Anderson has paid a heavy price. She has been forced to move out of her home and now fears for her job. According to friends, she has received “frightening” telephone calls from people close to Blunkett, telling her not to speak to the press.
One Labour MP said: “It is clear the prime minister still holds David in high regard.” But other colleagues are less tolerant. Another said: “There is a sense he is becoming unstable.” Sources close to Blunkett insisted last week that his relationship with Anderson was platonic. He had “eaten dinner with her — that’s the top and bottom of it”, they said. However, Anderson’s friends give a different account.
The couple’s first meeting was a blind date over dinner at Annabel’s, an exclusive nightclub in Mayfair. It was arranged by a friend, Tariq Siddiqui. He told her there was someone he wanted her to meet. She had no idea who it was and was taken aback when Blunkett turned up to join them for dinner. But according to her friends, Yorkshire-born Anderson and the minister hit it off immediately.
They included a second dinner date at Annabel’s, arranged by Siddiqui, and they also spent time at Blunkett’s “grace-and-favour” residence in Eaton Place, west London. Blunkett also offered to help Anderson, who wants to publish a novel about eating disorders and other difficulties facing young women. She has told friends that she “dare not say” exactly how he had said that he could help her, but insists she refused all his offers. Siddiqui, 54, who met Anderson when she was 16, would seem an unlikely acquaintance for Blunkett. He became prominent in London society when he organised a festival in 1991 for the Guards Polo Club, based in Windsor Great Park. Placido Domingo and the London Symphony Orchestra entertained a crowd of 150,000, but the event lost tens of thousands of pounds.
In November 1993 it was reported that he was fighting to stave off bankruptcy. “I have very considerable debts,” Siddiqui admitted at the time. “In order to prevent me from going bankrupt my family have agreed they will make £20,000 available for the purposes of a voluntary arrangement.”
Siddiqui’s brother, Muhammed Naviede, was involved in the Manchester finance group Arrow, which collapsed in the early 1990s with debts of £120m. Naviede was jailed in 1995 on fraud charges relating to the company’s collapse.
Siddiqui was not involved in the Arrow affair. He has a home in Berkeley Square and a modern detached house in Surbiton, Surrey. Lucy, his wife, is a director of DNA Bioscience, which specialises in providing paternity tests.
Blunkett had agreed to become a non-executive director, but on rejoining the government he was obliged to give it up. For his paternity battle he used another company.
“None of this is a hanging offence,” said a Labour MP. “There is still a feeling, we think, among the general public and some in the party that he has had to put up with a lot in life and needs to be given a break.”
The Sunday Times - JOHN-PAUL FLINTOFF AND JON UNGOED-THOMAS DAVID
The secretary of state for work and pensions, 58, who previously resigned as home secretary amid a row over his love child, told the 29-year-old that she had not yet been “blessed with children” because she had not found the right person. In a serious tone, he added: “Maybe that’s where I might come in.” Friends of Sally Anderson, an estate agent from Ascot in Berkshire, revealed this weekend the extent of her relationship with Blunkett. Speaking with her agreement that the relationship should be made public, they said that it had become “intimate” rather than “platonic”, as the minister had implied.
Remarkably, Blunkett’s suggestion that Anderson might have children with him was made after just a few meetings. The revelation will provide further ammunition to critics who have called into question his judgment after his personal life has once again made headlines.
His supporters, meanwhile, threaten a new privacy law if the “unwarranted” media intrusion continues.
Since details of their relationship came to light eight days ago, Anderson has paid a heavy price. She has been forced to move out of her home and now fears for her job. According to friends, she has received “frightening” telephone calls from people close to Blunkett, telling her not to speak to the press.
One Labour MP said: “It is clear the prime minister still holds David in high regard.” But other colleagues are less tolerant. Another said: “There is a sense he is becoming unstable.” Sources close to Blunkett insisted last week that his relationship with Anderson was platonic. He had “eaten dinner with her — that’s the top and bottom of it”, they said. However, Anderson’s friends give a different account.
The couple’s first meeting was a blind date over dinner at Annabel’s, an exclusive nightclub in Mayfair. It was arranged by a friend, Tariq Siddiqui. He told her there was someone he wanted her to meet. She had no idea who it was and was taken aback when Blunkett turned up to join them for dinner. But according to her friends, Yorkshire-born Anderson and the minister hit it off immediately.
They included a second dinner date at Annabel’s, arranged by Siddiqui, and they also spent time at Blunkett’s “grace-and-favour” residence in Eaton Place, west London. Blunkett also offered to help Anderson, who wants to publish a novel about eating disorders and other difficulties facing young women. She has told friends that she “dare not say” exactly how he had said that he could help her, but insists she refused all his offers. Siddiqui, 54, who met Anderson when she was 16, would seem an unlikely acquaintance for Blunkett. He became prominent in London society when he organised a festival in 1991 for the Guards Polo Club, based in Windsor Great Park. Placido Domingo and the London Symphony Orchestra entertained a crowd of 150,000, but the event lost tens of thousands of pounds.
In November 1993 it was reported that he was fighting to stave off bankruptcy. “I have very considerable debts,” Siddiqui admitted at the time. “In order to prevent me from going bankrupt my family have agreed they will make £20,000 available for the purposes of a voluntary arrangement.”
Siddiqui’s brother, Muhammed Naviede, was involved in the Manchester finance group Arrow, which collapsed in the early 1990s with debts of £120m. Naviede was jailed in 1995 on fraud charges relating to the company’s collapse.
Siddiqui was not involved in the Arrow affair. He has a home in Berkeley Square and a modern detached house in Surbiton, Surrey. Lucy, his wife, is a director of DNA Bioscience, which specialises in providing paternity tests.
Blunkett had agreed to become a non-executive director, but on rejoining the government he was obliged to give it up. For his paternity battle he used another company.
“None of this is a hanging offence,” said a Labour MP. “There is still a feeling, we think, among the general public and some in the party that he has had to put up with a lot in life and needs to be given a break.”
The Sunday Times - JOHN-PAUL FLINTOFF AND JON UNGOED-THOMAS DAVID
Sunday, October 02, 2005
David Blunkett facing fresh integrity claims
David Blunkett was facing fresh questions last night about the extent of his role during an exam grade fiasco that threatened his son's results.
A senior official, who worked for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), has given The Observer a detailed account of a meeting where its then chief executive, Nick Tate, spoke of being placed in a moral dilemma by the marking crisis.
The source supported allegations, which emerged last week, that a senior civil servant at the Department for Education, where Blunkett was then Secretary of State, made inquiries of the authority, which oversees exams.
'The request had come from an official, or through an official, at the Department for Education.
'[Tate] came into the room and began a conversation with a couple of people about whether we were being asked to do something which he clearly felt was immoral,' said the official, whose identity The Observer has agreed to withhold. 'There was concern and confusion about whether we were being asked to make general inquiries about the exams, or Blunkett's son in particular. The circumstances speak for themselves.'
Separately, Tim Cornford, then a member of the authority's management team, told the Sunday Times they were warned the marking crisis had become more significant because of the possible involvement of the Education Secretary's son.
'There was a problem with an [A-level] subject and David Blunkett's son was awaiting a result. I would not be surprised at all if David Blunkett's office or the DfES official who liaised with QCA had given Nick a ring,' he said.
The meeting took place in August 1998 at the height of fears over a computer error which threw grades into doubt. The exam board concerned, Oxford and Cambridge, was the one used by Sheffield College, which young Blunkett attended.
The minister's critics claim that if officials intervened, even to check whether Blunkett's son was affected, that would have been a call that no ordinary parent could have made.
David Blunkett, who is now Work and Pensions Secretary, has denied interfering, and Tate has said he has no recollection of the incident.
The claims resurfaced last week in the New Statesman magazine, in the wake of allegations from the former Metropolitan police chief, Lord Stevens, that he had found Blunkett 'duplicitous and intimidating'.
Opposition politicians called for a full internal inquiry not only into the allegations, but also into the 1998 sacking of an authority employee who first alerted The Observer to the claims, although they were not published at the time.
But the authority appeared to perform a U-turn late last night when it said it had 'no plans' to launch an inquiry, having earlier indicated it would consider this.
David Cameron, the Conservative shadow education secretary, said: 'These are serious allegations and the situation needs to be clarified as soon as possible.'
He was backed by Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat education spokesman, who signalled that MPs will raise the issue when the Commons returns from its summer break next month.
Referring to Blunkett's resignation as Home Secretary last year, over claims that he used his position to help his lover's nanny get a visa, Davey said: 'Given Blunkett's record, there is an even stronger cause for an inquiry this time round. Abusing your position once is bad enough but if he is a serial offender, huge question marks are raised.'
Blunkett spent much of last week in America and Canada on a fact-finding trip and a senior Downing Street source said Tony Blair had not yet spoken to him about the allegations.
A spokesman for Blunkett said his son's grades had not ultimately been affected by the marking problems, which were caused by a rogue computer database entering pupils for subjects they had not studied or failing to enter them. 'We are sticking to the statement that the allegations are untrue,' he said.
From Martin Bright and Gaby in the Observer Sunday September 18, 2005
A senior official, who worked for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), has given The Observer a detailed account of a meeting where its then chief executive, Nick Tate, spoke of being placed in a moral dilemma by the marking crisis.
The source supported allegations, which emerged last week, that a senior civil servant at the Department for Education, where Blunkett was then Secretary of State, made inquiries of the authority, which oversees exams.
'The request had come from an official, or through an official, at the Department for Education.
'[Tate] came into the room and began a conversation with a couple of people about whether we were being asked to do something which he clearly felt was immoral,' said the official, whose identity The Observer has agreed to withhold. 'There was concern and confusion about whether we were being asked to make general inquiries about the exams, or Blunkett's son in particular. The circumstances speak for themselves.'
Separately, Tim Cornford, then a member of the authority's management team, told the Sunday Times they were warned the marking crisis had become more significant because of the possible involvement of the Education Secretary's son.
'There was a problem with an [A-level] subject and David Blunkett's son was awaiting a result. I would not be surprised at all if David Blunkett's office or the DfES official who liaised with QCA had given Nick a ring,' he said.
The meeting took place in August 1998 at the height of fears over a computer error which threw grades into doubt. The exam board concerned, Oxford and Cambridge, was the one used by Sheffield College, which young Blunkett attended.
The minister's critics claim that if officials intervened, even to check whether Blunkett's son was affected, that would have been a call that no ordinary parent could have made.
David Blunkett, who is now Work and Pensions Secretary, has denied interfering, and Tate has said he has no recollection of the incident.
The claims resurfaced last week in the New Statesman magazine, in the wake of allegations from the former Metropolitan police chief, Lord Stevens, that he had found Blunkett 'duplicitous and intimidating'.
Opposition politicians called for a full internal inquiry not only into the allegations, but also into the 1998 sacking of an authority employee who first alerted The Observer to the claims, although they were not published at the time.
But the authority appeared to perform a U-turn late last night when it said it had 'no plans' to launch an inquiry, having earlier indicated it would consider this.
David Cameron, the Conservative shadow education secretary, said: 'These are serious allegations and the situation needs to be clarified as soon as possible.'
He was backed by Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat education spokesman, who signalled that MPs will raise the issue when the Commons returns from its summer break next month.
Referring to Blunkett's resignation as Home Secretary last year, over claims that he used his position to help his lover's nanny get a visa, Davey said: 'Given Blunkett's record, there is an even stronger cause for an inquiry this time round. Abusing your position once is bad enough but if he is a serial offender, huge question marks are raised.'
Blunkett spent much of last week in America and Canada on a fact-finding trip and a senior Downing Street source said Tony Blair had not yet spoken to him about the allegations.
A spokesman for Blunkett said his son's grades had not ultimately been affected by the marking problems, which were caused by a rogue computer database entering pupils for subjects they had not studied or failing to enter them. 'We are sticking to the statement that the allegations are untrue,' he said.
From Martin Bright and Gaby in the Observer Sunday September 18, 2005
New David Blunkett integrity in question
In his long and chequered career David Blunkett has always had an idiosyncratic grasp of the truth. Last week Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, accused him of being 'duplicitous and intimidating' and his biographer, Stephen Pollard, said: 'Whatever else he may be, Blunkett is indeed a liar.'
His memory also seems to be selective. As Home Secretary, he had to resign because of his poor recollection of details of the visa application for the nanny of his former lover, Kimberly Quinn.
An inquiry by the former senior civil servant, Sir Alan Budd, last year found 'a chain of events' linking the Home Secretary to the visa application.
This newspaper also clashed with Blunkett's office during this period. He had just resigned from the Cabinet ahead of the damaging Budd report and that weekend's papers were full of stories about his downfall.
It was Saturday morning, 24 hours before The Observer hit the streets, when 'a friend' of the MP rang the paper and said: 'Alan Budd appeared to have been as mesmerised by Kimberly Quinn' as Blunkett was.
He claimed Blunkett, a 'working class lad who's the voice of ordinary people', had been the victim of a 'disinformation campaign' by 'American millionairesses'. It was an attempt to undermine the report's author .
The person continued: 'If you had actually planted her [Quinn] it would be a sort of Secret Service plot. Get someone as close as possible [to someone] in one of the high offices of state and then pull them down.' This newspaper reported the source's comments fairly and accurately. But later that night the Labour party issued a categorical denial of our story.
The Observer has now decided to publish evidence that the Labour statement was untrue. The call from the source was made at 8.27am on Saturday 18 December 2004, and the words were recorded on voicemail. This newspaper still has the recording of that message and a later conversation with the same source. In the later conversation, the source asked for the comments to be off the record. We agreed. We will not reveal our source, but there is no doubt David Blunkett knows who it is.
Yet Blunkett must have agreed, later that evening when the story appeared, to the Labour statement, which read: 'Neither David Blunkett or anyone who speaks with his authority has said this.'
The statement was emailed to The Observer at 10.47pm by a party press officer, Matthew Doyle. He is now Blunkett's special adviser and was fielding calls last week about separate claims that Blunkett intervened over his son's exam results.
In a flurry of phone calls that continued late that night, The Observer made clear to Doyle that if the Labour party continued to disown the comments, we would release the voicemail tape and the subsequent conversation. Labour withdrew the statement that evening.
Doyle confirmed this weekend that the original statement to The Observer, in which Blunkett denied that he or anyone authorised to speak for him had made the comments, was 'modified' to reflect our objections and 'was not given to other newspapers'. There is no suggestion that Doyle has done anything wrong.
The Observer did not publish details of the subsequent exchange with the party because the comments were off the record. In addition, Blunkett had resigned from high office.
However, after the election he was appointed Work and Pensions Secretary after less than six months in the wilderness. Now he is tipped for a return to the Home Office. In a week in which Blunkett has been called duplicitous by one of the country's most respected former police chiefs and a liar by his biographer, The Observer has decided to reveal these details.
From Martin Bright in the Observer 18:Sept:05
His memory also seems to be selective. As Home Secretary, he had to resign because of his poor recollection of details of the visa application for the nanny of his former lover, Kimberly Quinn.
An inquiry by the former senior civil servant, Sir Alan Budd, last year found 'a chain of events' linking the Home Secretary to the visa application.
This newspaper also clashed with Blunkett's office during this period. He had just resigned from the Cabinet ahead of the damaging Budd report and that weekend's papers were full of stories about his downfall.
It was Saturday morning, 24 hours before The Observer hit the streets, when 'a friend' of the MP rang the paper and said: 'Alan Budd appeared to have been as mesmerised by Kimberly Quinn' as Blunkett was.
He claimed Blunkett, a 'working class lad who's the voice of ordinary people', had been the victim of a 'disinformation campaign' by 'American millionairesses'. It was an attempt to undermine the report's author .
The person continued: 'If you had actually planted her [Quinn] it would be a sort of Secret Service plot. Get someone as close as possible [to someone] in one of the high offices of state and then pull them down.' This newspaper reported the source's comments fairly and accurately. But later that night the Labour party issued a categorical denial of our story.
The Observer has now decided to publish evidence that the Labour statement was untrue. The call from the source was made at 8.27am on Saturday 18 December 2004, and the words were recorded on voicemail. This newspaper still has the recording of that message and a later conversation with the same source. In the later conversation, the source asked for the comments to be off the record. We agreed. We will not reveal our source, but there is no doubt David Blunkett knows who it is.
Yet Blunkett must have agreed, later that evening when the story appeared, to the Labour statement, which read: 'Neither David Blunkett or anyone who speaks with his authority has said this.'
The statement was emailed to The Observer at 10.47pm by a party press officer, Matthew Doyle. He is now Blunkett's special adviser and was fielding calls last week about separate claims that Blunkett intervened over his son's exam results.
In a flurry of phone calls that continued late that night, The Observer made clear to Doyle that if the Labour party continued to disown the comments, we would release the voicemail tape and the subsequent conversation. Labour withdrew the statement that evening.
Doyle confirmed this weekend that the original statement to The Observer, in which Blunkett denied that he or anyone authorised to speak for him had made the comments, was 'modified' to reflect our objections and 'was not given to other newspapers'. There is no suggestion that Doyle has done anything wrong.
The Observer did not publish details of the subsequent exchange with the party because the comments were off the record. In addition, Blunkett had resigned from high office.
However, after the election he was appointed Work and Pensions Secretary after less than six months in the wilderness. Now he is tipped for a return to the Home Office. In a week in which Blunkett has been called duplicitous by one of the country's most respected former police chiefs and a liar by his biographer, The Observer has decided to reveal these details.
From Martin Bright in the Observer 18:Sept:05
Labour peer expelled for donation
Labour peer Lord Haskins has been expelled from the party for giving money to a Liberal Democrat candidate during the last election.
The wealthy businessman gave £2,500 to Lib Dem Danny Alexander, who beat Labour's Dave Stewart in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey.
Labour said the donation to the Lib Dems broke party rules.
Lord Haskins said Mr Alexander was a friend. The peer said he also donated cash to Labour on the same day.
Labour's National Executive Committee has now expelled him.
Lord Chris Haskins, former chairman of Northern Foods and Express Dairies, was ennobled by Tony Blair.
He was one of Labour"s leading donors. The peer said he would not be seeking a return to Labour or be joining the Liberal Democrats.
The wealthy businessman gave £2,500 to Lib Dem Danny Alexander, who beat Labour's Dave Stewart in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey.
Labour said the donation to the Lib Dems broke party rules.
Lord Haskins said Mr Alexander was a friend. The peer said he also donated cash to Labour on the same day.
Labour's National Executive Committee has now expelled him.
Lord Chris Haskins, former chairman of Northern Foods and Express Dairies, was ennobled by Tony Blair.
He was one of Labour"s leading donors. The peer said he would not be seeking a return to Labour or be joining the Liberal Democrats.
Fire-raising New Labour peer sent to prison
Former Labour MSP Mike Watson has been sentenced to 16 months in prison for starting a fire which endangered lives at an Edinburgh hotel last November.
Earlier this month, Lord Watson had admitted wilful fire-raising.
Passing sentence, Sheriff Kathrine Mackie said a social enquiry assessment had concluded there was a significant risk of Watson re-offending.
However, the sheriff reduced his sentence from 20 months to 16 because of his pre-trial guilty plea.
Lord Watson, 56, admitted setting fire to a curtain after a heavy drinking session at the Scottish Politician of the Year awards ceremony at the Prestonfield House Hotel last November.
The blaze caused £4,500 worth of damage.
The potential for serious injury to guests and staff within the hotel, and for very significant damage to the property, was considerable
After being sentenced, Watson was taken to Saughton Prison in Edinburgh. He will be transferred to a prison near his home in the next week.
He had initially denied he was responsible, despite CCTV footage showing him crouching down at the base of a curtain just minutes before it was engulfed in flames.
After pleading guilty at Edinburgh Sheriff Court at the beginning of September, he stepped down as an MSP, triggering a by-election in his former Glasgow Cathcart constituency, and resigned as a director of Dundee United football club.
In a statement, a Labour spokesman said: "Mr Watson has been expelled from the Labour Party. "His sentence illustrates that if you commit a serious crime in Scotland, no matter who you are, you must face the consequences. That is right."
Scottish Conservative home affairs spokeswoman and deputy leader Annabel Goldie said: "The sentence actually served will not be 16 months.
"Thanks to Labour and Lib Dem insistence of preserving automatic early release, Lord Watson will be out of jail after serving only half his sentence, eight months."
from the bbc
Earlier this month, Lord Watson had admitted wilful fire-raising.
Passing sentence, Sheriff Kathrine Mackie said a social enquiry assessment had concluded there was a significant risk of Watson re-offending.
However, the sheriff reduced his sentence from 20 months to 16 because of his pre-trial guilty plea.
Lord Watson, 56, admitted setting fire to a curtain after a heavy drinking session at the Scottish Politician of the Year awards ceremony at the Prestonfield House Hotel last November.
The blaze caused £4,500 worth of damage.
The potential for serious injury to guests and staff within the hotel, and for very significant damage to the property, was considerable
After being sentenced, Watson was taken to Saughton Prison in Edinburgh. He will be transferred to a prison near his home in the next week.
He had initially denied he was responsible, despite CCTV footage showing him crouching down at the base of a curtain just minutes before it was engulfed in flames.
After pleading guilty at Edinburgh Sheriff Court at the beginning of September, he stepped down as an MSP, triggering a by-election in his former Glasgow Cathcart constituency, and resigned as a director of Dundee United football club.
In a statement, a Labour spokesman said: "Mr Watson has been expelled from the Labour Party. "His sentence illustrates that if you commit a serious crime in Scotland, no matter who you are, you must face the consequences. That is right."
Scottish Conservative home affairs spokeswoman and deputy leader Annabel Goldie said: "The sentence actually served will not be 16 months.
"Thanks to Labour and Lib Dem insistence of preserving automatic early release, Lord Watson will be out of jail after serving only half his sentence, eight months."
from the bbc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)