Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

[A_Gupta]

Notice the author and the web-site and the headline:
"India shatters Obama's dream by banning BBC documentary".
http://sikhsiyasat.net/2015/03/17/india ... cumentary/

[Tuvaluan]

Two points to note -- This Iqtidar Cheema is a red blooded paki lowlife. Writes blogs on ARY TV among other things, and also seems to be unaware of search engines when he lies about being an Indian. Also, he is writing for paki khalisthani propaganda website. Pakis never disappoint.

Also, note how he quotes himself claiming 20 million rapes a year in India, a number that he obviously pulled out of his orifice when he was in a pakistan. This moron's mug is on his twitter handle https://twitter.com/drcheema786

Also seems to have written this http://www.nazariapak.info/Quaid-e-Azam ... ffairs.php

[Prem]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/books- ... h-century/
Even William Dalrymple, seasoned historian of India, finds the scale of violence and racism during the Raj quite jaw-droppingWilliam Dalrymple’s review of The Tears of the Rajas by Ferdinand Mount reminds us that the British empire was erected on the dead bodies of hundreds of thousands of its Indian subjects

ometimes, strolling through the ruins of earlier civilisations, we idly wonder what it must have been like to live through the end of one of them,’ writes Ferdinand Mount at the end of The Tears of the Rajas. ‘Now we know for ourselves.’This is a long, wonderfully discursive and reassuringly old-fashioned book which tells the story of the British in India through the lives of one British family — the author’s ancestors, the Lows of Clatto in Fife. The Lows also happen to be the ancestors of Mount’s cousin, David Cameron.The action opens in 1805, in the aftermath of the Second Maratha War, when the East India Company had established its dominant military position through most of the Indian interior. The narrative takes us through to 1905, just as it was becoming clear that, despite Curzon’s efforts, the Raj could not go on for ever and independence would sooner or later be inevitable.At the centre of the book lies the quietly determined figure of General John Low, whose life spanned the century between 1788 and 1880. A cultured man who spoke fluent Persian, Hindustani and French, as well as being a talented flautist, the general was one of those people who had a talent for popping up in all the most important events of his age. Initially, as a junior officer, he was at the fringe of things, present but almost invisible at crucial moments in imperial history such as the Vellore Mutiny of 1806 and the little remembered but successful British invasion of Dutch-held Java in 1810–11. Few of hisletters survive from this period, so initially he is a somewhat ghostly figure, flitting in and out of a narrative dominated by his superior officers.

The bloodiest moment of all came in September 1857, when British forces attacked and retook the besieged city of Delhi. They proceeded to massacre not just the rebel sepoys but also the ordinary citizens of the Mughal capital. In one neighbourhood alone, Kucha Chelan, some 1,400 unarmed citizens were cut down. ‘The orders went out to shoot every soul,’ recorded one young officer. ‘It was literally murder.’ Delhi, a bustling and sophisticated city of half a million souls, was left an empty ruin. In the aftermath, Low’s son-in-law, Theo Metcalfe, turned into what today we would call a war criminal, shooting and hanging survivors with abandon:Theo erected a gallows in the grounds of Metcalfe house made out of the blackened timbers of his beloved home… Refugees sheltering in mosques would be plucked out and executed.
The general’s son, William Malcolm Low, was also implicated in the mass hanging of civilians.
It is a remarkable story, and cumulatively amounts to an epic panorama of British Indian history much more substantial than the ‘collection of Indian tales, a human jungle book’, which Mount modestly describes as his aim in the introduction. Instead it shows, as well as any book I’ve ever read on the subject, how much Britain lost in 1947 as the Indian empire imploded — but also the jaw-dropping scale of the violence, cruelty, racism and war crimes it had taken to found and maintain that Raj by brute force. For we must never forget that, in the final analysis, our empire was built by the sword and erected over the dead bodies of tens if not hundreds of thousands of our Indian subjects.

[vishvak]

Two points to note -- This Iqtidar Cheema is a red blooded paki lowlife. Writes blogs on ARY TV among other things, and also seems to be unaware of search engines when he lies about being an Indian. Also, he is writing for paki khalisthani propaganda website. Pakis never disappoint.

Also, note how he quotes himself claiming 20 million rapes a year in India, a number that he obviously pulled out of his orifice when he was in a pakistan. This moron's mug is on his twitter handle https://twitter.com/drcheema786

Also seems to have written this http://www.nazariapak.info/Quaid-e-Azam ... ffairs.php

Miya Iqtidar Cheema does not talk of documentary "United Kingdom's Daughter" so there has to be some reason to it. I think Paki munna and western masters could have agreed upon to hide each other's problems while going to town, literally, in the name of India, Hindoo culture, who knows may be cow worship, etc.

There must be reasons why documentaries like "United Kingdom's Daughter" do not get awards - it is because likes of miya Iqtidar Cheema giving cover of propaganda.

[Kashi]

Miya Iqtidar Cheema does not talk of documentary "United Kingdom's Daughter" so there has to be some reason to it.

Probably because it would mean admitting that his brethren, his 'kith and kin" and among those responsible for the deplorable state of "United Kingdom's Daughters".

He probably talks or rather boasts about it in private.

[vishvak]

Not to mention that he did not mention that the director, of the documentary he chutzpahs about, could not go to Pakistan for security reasons in the first place so there is no information whatsoever to begin with; and he won't be welcomed in the land of pure if he has become chacha MUTU to his kith and kin, within UK or in Pakistan.

So all a miya MUTU does it sh!t in others' name, and paki being paki will sh1t in the name of India/heathein/pegein i.e. Indians.

In other words, MUTUs from sh!tlands will spend time pooping in the name of Indians, since local paki population has become just mobs that would treat UKstan just as bad as Pakistan.

[Tuvaluan]

This Paki RAPE Cheema probably gets all pious when he visits pakistan, and all this coat wearing whisky swilling with his masters at cambridge and Wash DC is the behavior outside pakistan. Notice how he tweeted the same tweet quoting his own fake quote about 2 million rapes in India per year (like all the faithful, zeros have no value to him so 2 million is pretty much the same a 2 lakh)

[pankajs]

Rape stats from Englisthan, Refer

www.rapecrisis.org.uk/

Government statistics released in January 2013 estimated that 85,000 women are raped on average in England and Wales every year, that over 400,000 women are sexually assaulted annually, and that 1 in 5 women (aged 16 - 59) has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16. The same study reported that 28% of women who are victims of the most serious sexual offences never tell anyone about it, and we know from our experience within the Rape Crisis movement that only around 15% of women and girls who experience sexual violence ever report to the police.{85% rape unreported in the land of pee pee see}

One reason women and girls tell us they are reluctant to talk about their experiences is a fear of not being believed, or of being blamed for what has happened to them, as well as feelings of shame or self-blame.

[kancha]

United Kingdom's Daughter: released by an Indian guy as response .. factual & blunt

[A_Gupta]

This news-item could just as well have been in the ASEAN thread.
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/catego ... t-british/

LONDON: The High Court will hear a suit against the British Government on March 30 for claims on behalf of indentured workers brought from India to work in Malaya during colonial times.

It is the second suit to be filed against the British government by the Hindraf civil rights movement, seeking redress for the socio-economic plight of the descendants of indentured Indian labour left behind after the collapse of the British Empire.

The first suit in 2007 lapsed, and Hindraf filed a second suit five years later.

Hindraf adviser N Ganesan, in a statement issued here, said the movement had “overwhelming” documentary evidence in taking on the British establishment and calling into question the doings of the Empire over 180 years.

[Philip]

http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/242493-vio ... -services/

British diplomatic services are incompetent nowadays - Foreign Office veteran

March 20, 2015 10:30
Download video (224.07 MB)

The Middle East has turned into a constant battlefield. War rages in Iraq and Syria, violence is a common occurrence between Gaza and Israel, Libya’s in turmoil. We’ve spoken many times about the role of the US in this never-ending conflict, but what about its closest ally? What path is there for the United Kingdom? Should it follow Washington’s lead, or there are better choices for the people of Britain? What solution can it bring to the Mid-East - or should it leave this riddle aside? We ask a prominent former ambassador and ex-chief of the Foreign Office’s Near-East and North Africa Department, Oliver Miles, on Sophie&Co.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Oliver Miles, retired British ambassador,former chief of the Foreign Office’s Near East and North Africa Department, welcome to the show, it’s really great to have you with us. Now, you were always strongly opposed to Tony Blair’s role as a middle east peace envoy and you’ve called him a “war criminal” for his actions in Iraq. It is now said he will be leaving the post - why do you believe he was unable to achieve anything?

Oliver Miles:Well, first of all, the post was a very strange one, because he was not appointed as a peace envoy, he never actually claimed to be peace envoy. The peace process was given toGeorge Mitchell, senator, and then subsequentlypicked by John Kerry, but not Tony Blair.

SS: Who do you picture as a replacement after he leaves his post?

OM: Well, if you’re talking about a replacement as “peace envoy” - that’s really a completely new concept, because the quartet as such has always left it to the Americans, to provide the centerpiece of peace negotiations. Well, the Americans have failed, and the reason they failed is because they’re too close to Israel and they found it very-very difficult for political reasons to stand up to Israel when they had to, where there was a compromise, which required some give on the Israeli side. So, if you’re talking about a new peace envoy, I personally wouldn’t want to see it as representing the “quartet”. I think it ought to be… I’m in favor of European envoy, I’m in favor of UN envoy; I’m not against the American envoy, but the Quartet, I think is not a convincing framework.

SS: But going back to Tony Blair’s role at this post - why do you think he wasn’t able to achieve much?

OM: Well, I’m told he did achieve a bit in his task of developing the Palestinian economy, but of course that’s a very secondary task, related to the big issue, which is to find a compromise, a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine - if you don’t do that, then economic development is fine, I’m not against economic development, but look at Gaza - Gaza’s just a heap of ruins! It’s no good having an economic development unless you have peace.

SS: Netanyahu recently said that there’ll be no Palestine as long as he’s in power. So, are peace efforts today impossible? What can move the Middle East peace effort?

OM: Of course, Netanyahu said that at the high point of the election, which is just over. It seems he did very well in the election, which is not very encouraging news for those of us who are looking mainly for a peace settlement. Israeli elections, like our elections don’t just depend on foreign affairs - in fact, much more they depend on internal issues, like Israeli economy and so on. I think we’ll have to assume that what Netanyahu said is subject to variation, because he hasn’t even formed a government, yet, he’s going to find that very difficult - Israeli governments are always coalitions, he’s got to bring all the parties to work with him, and that process hasn’t even started.

SS: Just a bit more about Tony Blair. I know you’ve been very outspoken about this Mr. Blair’s association with the war in Iraq, “makes him an incompetent Middle East peace envoy - you’ve said it a couple of times.” - but he wasn’t the only one who had a hand in the invasion of Iraq. Why is he the only one being publicly targeted. I mean, most often, at least, in England?

OM: Well, he’s a very controversial figure in England, internally. He was very-very successful Prime Minister in some respects, but he stayed too long, like most prime ministers do - and a lot of people very disillusioned. One of the main reasons they were disillusioned was over the Iraq war, not just because he got the intelligence wrong and he told us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction when it turned out that he didn’t, and so one; but the whole way the war was run, with no planning or no effective planning, the way that we allowed American decisions to be taken, which were extremely damaging - all that has stuck to Tony Blair in British opinion. Now, of course, George Bush also is not very popular these days, but George Bush is out of sight. Tony Blair has remained very much in sight, and I find it mysterious, to be frank, that the British government, which, after all, now is a Conservative government, opposite party from Tony Blair, has been happy that he continue this role. Russia has been happy that he should continue this role. Very strange. He’s popular in America, but not popular in Britain or Europe.

SS: Now, you’ve just mentioned a misleading intelligence that was a huge issue in Iraq war, obviously, and in the aftermath of the Iraq war. You’ve also wrote that the lack of adequate training, especially in languages, has hindered British diplomacy in recent years. Does that mean the Foreign Office is not making informed decisions?

OM: What worries me as an old-timer from the Foreign Office, if you like, is that the British Foreign Office and British diplomatic service used to have very good reputation for foreign languages, unlike Britain generally, because British people are not good at foreign languages, but the diplomatic services is or was, and we also, perhaps more important than the question of languages, we had a good reputation for having deep understanding of foreign policy issues generally - so when we were talking to the Americans or the other Commonwealth countries or to anyone, I mean, I remember, for example, myself going to Moscow in 1982 for discussions with the Soviet Foreign Ministry about Middle Eastern affairs and we were able to hold our own with the Great Powers and in some ways we were better than the Great Powers. Now, I don’t think that it is true.

SS: Now, the letter that is calling for mr. Blairs removal from the post of envoy to the Middle East says “he was responsible for the rise of fundamentalist terrorism in the land where none existed previously” and that means Iraq, obviously. Now, wouldn’t it be also fair to say the same about those responsible for strikes against Libya?

OM: Yes, some people would say that. I don’t agree with that myself, because I think that although I was very hesitant about it, I think it actually, the decision to go into Libya in 2011, to send aircraft, the NATO and Arab League intervention, was right. I was, as I said, very hesitant about it, but it got the agreement of the UNSC, if you remember, with three permanent members - Britain, France and U.S. in favor and Russia and China allowed it to go through by abstaining - I think that it was necessary to prevent an act genocide by Gaddafi at that time. It was limited, I think that British PM put quite right when he said, quite early on, I think it was in September 2011, he said “we finish our intervention now, the revolution is successful, now it’s up to the Libyans”...

SS: Yeah, but what I am really talking about is intervention that actually breeds terrorism and fundamentalism - because we do see ISIS in Libya right now as well, that’s what I meant.

OM: ISIS? And you blame that on the intervention in 2011? And you would rather see Gaddafi there still? I wouldn’t personally. I think, if anyone’s to blame - I am afraid, that’s the Libyans. The fact is that the libyans set out in 2011 to try to build a state, and for various reasons they haven’t yet succeeded. It would be too early to say that they’ve failed, and I think we should give them every possible support in what they’re trying to do now, which is to reach agreement internally, to form a national government and to manage a ceasefire. ISIS, or IS, or Islamic State element in Libya is vicious and dangerous, but it’s not the key to the problem, it’s relatively small, it’s not the situation that you have, for example, in most of Iraq, where the whole business of government has been taken over by Islamic State, that doesn’t exist in Libya.

SS: But this is just a question of time, though, isn’t it? It’s not now, but it will be soon, and all the data is actually leading us to think it will be rather sooner than later…

OM: I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that at all. No, I think that IS or whatever we’re going to call them, ISIL, are a threat, but I don’t see any reason to suppose that they’ll be more of the threat tomorrow that they are now - on the contrary I think that it may well be that their high-point has passed.

SS: That’s interesting. Also, in 2012, because you were so outspoken about Libya as well, you wrote that “media reports suggesting Libya is on the brink of civil war are absurd” - do they still seem as absurd to you as of today? Because, I mean, we don’t see a state, an army, a centralised government, governing the country. It does seem like Libya is in shambles right now.

OM: Yes, it’s very depressing. Things have got a great deal worse since then. You’re quite right to remind me of what I’ve said in 2012, and that was based on what I saw and I was there. I think to talk about civil war at that time was absurd, but things have gone a lot worse since then. It is still not a civil war, but it is...you used the word “shambles” - I think that is not much of an exaggeration of it, if it is an exaggeration at all. The reason I say it is not a civil war is that if you compare it with Syria or you compare it with Algeria, when Algeria had civil war, or Lebanon when Lebanon had civil war - the situation was vastly worse. Now, of course, it could become vastly worse in Libya, but let’s not assume that it will - let’s try and prevent it.

SS: When you say “let’s try and prevent it” - what exactly do you mean? Because I just want to recap, so, 4 years after the Western-led Libyan intervention, we are seeing Islamic State gaining ground - you think not that much - I think maybe more, because they’re talking over oil fields, and there’s no central government or army as we said - but should we be seeing Western allies back in Libya right now? Why isn’t anyone intervening right now?

OM: You’re exaggerating. They’re not taking over oil fields. They’ve attacked oil fields, they’ve damaged oil fields and then had withdrawn. These are hit-and-run attacks. The real problem is not ISIS or Islamic State in Libya, the real problem is the failure of the various Libyan groups, including the two claimants to government, one based in Tripoli, the other based in Tobruk - to reach an agreement. That can be done, and that’s what we should be trying to do. And, when, for example, the Libyans say, as they have done, “please relax embargo on arms, please arm our forces, please do this, please do that” - our reply should be “Yes. We will do that in support of the united Libyan government, but not for an individual faction”.

SS: Now, mr. Miles in horrific videos we’re seeing from ISIS executions online, a regular figure is a British jihadi, the man we know by the name of “Jihadi John”. And he’s not the only briton who has joined their ranks.

OM: That’s right.

SS: What makes them go there? Why can’t security services control this movement?

OM: Everyone in the world is asking that question, because you’re quite right to talk about British jihadists, people who have gone from Britain, people who have gone from many countries around the world, from Europe or America, from Russia, China, the Far East, Indonesia - you name it. There seems to be something very-very attractive there, and I think, it’s quite difficult for people like me to understand what’s driving it, because the obvious answer would be to say: “these are young people who are absolutely frustrated by alienation from the societies in which they live, whether that society happens to be Britain or any other country, that they feel frustrated and they feel they’re not given any dignity and so on, and so they turn away from that and they look for adventure, excitement and the sense of purpose, fighting in these countries where there’s conflict going on now, like Syria and Iraq.” The trouble with that explanation is that when you actually look at the individuals who’ve gone, for example, from Britain - and I think the same is true in other countries - they don’t really fit that pattern. Many of them are quite prosperous, many of them are quite well-educated, they’re from families who have got a position in our society, not perhaps a perfect position - but then, who has… I think one has to look at even simpler explanation, perhaps, which is that this is rebellion of young people against their parents. Some people have pointed out that, in case of Britain, for example, they’re not usually talking about “immigrants”, and I don’t think even talking about second generation of immigrants. You’re probably talking about third generation of immigrants, that is to say young people whose grandparents immigrated into Britain, who maybe have done quite well here, and are now trying to persuade their children and grandchildren to become normal members of British society - and they don’t find that attractive. They’re looking for something else.

SS: But that’s a really funny way to rebel against your parents. With Britain now directly affected by the rise of ISIS, its citizens travelling to wage jihad, with everything that’s happened - is the UK still willing to carry out interventions abroad? I just want your personal take on that.

OM: I think that will depend entirely on what sort of interventions you are talking about. It is certainly true that at the moment, right now, this year, last year, there is a strong reaction against what is perceived as the wrong intervention we made in Iraq and a very doubtful intervention we made in Afghanistan. Right now it is perfectly clear that Parliament representing the people and speaking in an unusually direct way for the people, has ruled out the idea of what they’re calling “boots on the ground” - that is to say, sending British soldiers or troops to fight in these wars. But, that’s not… I don’t see that as a permanent change. I think these things go “up and down”, so to speak. Everyone knows that in America, for example, there was a long period after the Vietnam war when America seemed to have turned its back permanently on military intervention, but that didn’t last forever, and I don’t think will last forever, either.

SS: But, right, like you’ve said, it doesn’t last forever and there are different degrees of involvement - but you’ve said it: UK is leading airstrikes against ISIS - and they are sending troops to aid Iraqi forces, not “boots on the ground”, but consultants or whatever you call it. Does the UK have to be involved now for whatever period of time?

OM: No, I don’t think we do - if you want my personal answer…

SS: Yeah.

OM: I don’t think we should be doing it, and I think we’ve done more than we should have done - but what we’ve done is actually quite limited, I am against it, but it is quite limited. I think that the very rapid military success of ISIS last year in Iraq, in particular, and then linking up with Syria, produced very very serious threat and somebody had to react to it - and the reaction came from the Americans, not in terms of boots on the ground but in terms of airstrikes, and I believe that was necessary, but the only way that problem will be solved is by the countries in the area themselves, above all, by Iraq, but also by Syria, by Iran and by the neighboring countries, by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and so - the countries that are threatened. They got to do the job, we shouldn’t be doing the job.

SS: What do you mean when you say “they’ve got to do the job”, because, obviously, like you pointed out, the international airstrike campaign isn’t enough to eradicate ISIS - so when you talk about neighboring countries dealing with this problem, do you mean they need to wage the war against ISIS, they need to send boots on the ground, or what exactly do you have in mind?

OM: I think the responsibility for answering your question rests with the governments of Iraq and Syria, the other ones who’ve got the problem on their hands. If there’s a threat, a real military threat, I mean, not a hypothetical threat, but a real military threat to neighboring countries, whether it is Saudi Arabia or Iran, or Jordan or Lebanon - then those countries too have a right to respond; but the prime responsibility rests with them. We, the international community - Britain, America, Russia - should be ready to consider requests for help from those countries, but the initial drive has got to come from them.

SS: Now, even if the campaign in Iraq proves to be successful and, you know, we pray to God it will, the main ISIS base is Syria - will the coalition on the Iraq border, or will it invade Syria?

OM: That’s really uncertain. Nobody can answer those questions at the moment. The fact is that ISIS have declared, in effect declared the border to be abolished. That doesn’t mean that the rest of the world has to accept that, but we have to accept that ISIS will move from one to the other as it sees fit. Now, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us can ignore those borders, and we don’t - for example, in the case of my own country, we have authorised airstrikes by our forces and support of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq - but not in Syria.

SS: But, look how the situation has turned around - the West and Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad are both fighting ISIS. Do you think the UK and U.S. will have to start talking to Bashar Assad - or at least consider him part of the equation to defeat ISIS?

OM: Yes, I think the answer to your question is yes. He will have to be part of the negotiation, unless, of course, he’s overthrown successfully by the revolution, in the way that, for example, in Libya - we had the same argument in the end, it was settled by the Libyans, they killed Gaddafi. If the Syrians...it’s up to them, but as long as there’s a government by somebody whose name is Assad - I think that that will be part of the political negotiation which we all hope will bring about a settlement. It isn’t just hope - in a sense, you can say, we know that they will bring about a settlement, the question is when? Will it take years and years to do or can we do it now?

SS: Now, Saudi Arabia recently stated that it will consider developing nuclear arms in light of thedétentebetween Iran and other major world powers. Will the West sanction Saudis the same way it does Iran, if that happens - what do you think?

OM: It depends on how the Saudis go about it. I don’t actually think that it is going to happen, but if it did happen, there would be concerns, because there’s always concern when a new country joins the nuclear club. Nobody wants to see that happen, because we’re all afraid that the more countries have nuclear weapons, the greater the risk that one day some disastrous mistake or manipulation of the situation by some party or another will lead to a nuclear war. That’s a terrible threat which we’re all aware of, but we have to be realistic, we know that several countries, whether you think of Israel or Pakistan or India - have acquired nuclear weapons. Very-very difficult to see them giving up those weapons - although it has happened in the past. Nobody wants to see proliferation of nuclear weapons, but on the other hand you can understand why a power, Saudi Arabia or another, seeing that Israel, seeing that Iran, seeing that Pakistan, have nuclear weapons - think “why should we have nuclear weapons?”.

SS: You know that Iran has called for Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. Do you think Tehran is dreaming?

OM: No, I think it is a perfectly legitimate political ploy, but that is not going to happen, because the only way… I mean, can you imagine any way in which Israel is going to give up its nuclear weapons? I can’t.

SS: I want to ask you a question about UK-U.S. relationship. It always has been characterised as “special” - but is it doing more harm than good for Britain? I mean, getting the country into all these foreign military adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan?

OM: Yes. A qualified yes. I think that the talk about “special relationship” is misleading. Each relationship is special. The British media are rather hooked on it, and British political world is rather hooked on the idea that Britain has a special relationship with America. Don’t believe it. We have a close relationship with America, we want to have a close relationship with America, but so do plenty of other countries.

SS: So, you believe that this relationship that they call “special” is just a mere exaggeration?

OM: It’s a very important relationship indeed. It is quite close. We feel and the Americans feel quite close, but that doesn’t mean that we’re the 51st or whatever it is, state of America - we’re not, and we have no intention of being. When we see - as we have seen - rather too close following of American policy in a big mistake, like invasion of Iraq, naturally, we question the relationship with America. We say: “wouldn’t we be better off being a little bit less special” - that’s a perfectly legitimate question. You look at France, for example - France refused to become involved in the Iraq war, the Americans were very critical of France at the time, there was talk of renaming “french fries…”

SS: I know, “freedom fries”, I was actually living in States by then. They’ve renamed it “freedom fries”, exactly.

OM: As a former diplomat and taking a detached view on a question, I ask - did France actually lose anything in its relationship with America over that? I don’t believe they did. I don’t believe the Americans punished them in any way. I don’t believe the Americans rewarded us in any way.

SS: Mr. Miles, thank you so much for this wonderful interview. We were talking to Oliver Miles, retired British ambassador, high-ranking diplomat at the foreign office, discussing Britain’s engagement in the Middle East, who the world powers should be talking to, to solve the crisis in Syria and Iraq, and if ISIS poses a direct threat to Britain and the Western states. That’s it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time.

[Hari Seldon]

UK-stan soaring to new heights. Must be declared a security threat and have its visa-on-arrival facility in many countries re-examined, perhaps...

[Shreeman]

40% off? Thats quite a sale!

[Tuvaluan]

slow news day when a sofa ad is the most interesting thing in the front page.

[chetak]

Revealed: UK govt bans filming at immigrant detention center to avoid bad publicity

March 15, 2015
UK authorities have banned filming at Harmondsworth immigration removal center, where hundreds of asylum seekers are on hunger strike. It is to avoid public criticism over the facility's poor conditions, a staff member said, unaware he was being recorded.

Investigative journalists from the Corporate Watch group snuck into Harmondsworth with a hidden camera and received a pretty straightforward answer from an employee on why no filming is allowed.

“Say you’re in government and you have an illegal immigrant detention center which is this, detention center, yeah. And they (detainees) all have their phones with them, right, and a fight kicks off or, like, there’s bad conditions, which [in] this center there’s bad conditions, right,” an unidentified Harmondsworth staff member said.

“And people/you guys are taking photos of these bad conditions like rats and whatever other sh*t that’s in here. And you’re sending it outside, sending it to news, whatever, that looks bad for the government, doesn’t it?” he added.

The poor conditions at the facility, located near London's Heathrow Airport, have forced nearly half of the inmates to go on hunger strike. The strike has entered its seventh day.

A social media campaign to support inmates kept in detention centers has been launched under the hashtag #DetainedVoices.

Activists protested outside the London detention center on Saturday, backing the hunger strikers and demanding that Harmondsworth and similar centers across the UK shut down, RT’s Harry Fear reported from the British capital.

“We’ve come here to fight to see that [the] detention center is closed down and people are let free,” one of the demonstrators, a Ugandan man named Ahmed, told RT.

Ahmed himself spent two months at Harmondsworth. He now says the very existence of the center goes against claims that Britain is a country of freedom.

According to Ahmed, the conditions at Harmondsworth are inhumane.

“They lock people round all the time. There’s no freedom. There’s no freedom of expression. The healthcare system is so unhuman (sic),” he said.

RT, along with independent journalists and human rights organizations, has collected stories from other inmates – all of whom echo Ahmed’s words.

“I’ve been detained for more than 17 months now and my friend – with me here – four years. I’ve seen everything. I’ve seen everything,” one inmate said.

Harmondsworth “is like a prison,” another detainee said, adding that “the conditions here are very bad…No one is allowed to go out. The officers working in here are very racist, behaving with us like we’re animals.”

Another man said he was worried about the fate of a fellow hunger striker who “went to hospital. He was vomiting because he wasn’t eating. Now we don’t know where he is.”

He said the officers at the detention center “don’t have ears to hear. They don’t have hearts to beat. When guys were protesting outside, they said: ‘Go inside. Otherwise we use hardware to put you people [inside] and lock you up.’”

Another detainee accused the UK Home Office of being “ignorant” regarding the situation.

“We are slaves here. We are being treated like criminals. We are being intimidated here. We are being harassed here,” he said.

The current hunger strike isn’t the first time that Harmondsworth has found itself in the center of controversy.

In 2004, an immigrant committed suicide at the facility, resulting in major disturbances. Two years later, riot police were brought in to halt a protest which erupted after the publication of a damning report by the chief inspector of prisons.

Last year, there was a non-violent protest at Harmondsworth, which was still broken up by security forces.

Britain’s Home Office estimates that some 30,000 migrants and asylum seekers are detained indefinitely in the country each year while their immigration status is resolved. Many are held for months or even years.

[ArmenT]

UK-stan soaring to new heights. Must be declared a security threat and have its visa-on-arrival facility in many countries re-examined, perhaps...

Interesting thing about that article is that not one of them appears to be of (cough) "Sooth Asian" origin. What's up with that?

[Shreeman]

So is he a paki, or is he not?

[Tuvaluan]

Bugger seems to have the very same question:

Replies to a question about whether he likes spicy food by saying: ‘No, I’m not a Paki, am I?’

Wikipedia article on this guy (who is ex-British Military and favorite of the EDL) claims his grandfather fought for the British Indian Army, before independence.

[member_28911]

BBC at war over Panorama on claims of VIP paedophile network
Journalists fear fall-out for BBC as programme tries to ‘debunk’ allegations against MPs

BBC News is at loggerheads with Panorama over plans for a programme that seeks to “debunk” claims of a ‘Westminster paedophile network’.

Panorama embarked on the programme even though the BBC is already reeling from the paedophile activities of one of its biggest stars, the late Jimmy Savile, and the canning of an expose by BBC2’s Newsnight of his sexual abuse of children.

Three sources at BBC News told Exaro that they were anxious about the Panorama, which had been working on the programme for many months, with one saying: “It is taking a very odd angle.”

Anxiety has grown as a series of articles on Exaro has forced the authorities to take seriously allegations of child sex abuse – and even murder – by a network of prominent paedophiles, as well as cover-up claims.

BBC chiefs are discussing whether the programme can go ahead as originally planned in light of the announcement on Monday that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was investigating a series of allegations that Scotland Yard had halted investigations into child sex abuse by MPs and others.

The IPCC investigation will cover allegations that police suppressed operations that might have exposed Lord Brittan, former home secretary, as a paedophile, Exaro revealed this weekend.

Worries about the planned Panorama are shared elsewhere at the BBC after it commissioned a feature-length documentary last week about abuse survivors who came forward to ‘Operation Yewtree’, the police investigation sparked by ITV’s exposure of Savile.

Journalists and producers at BBC News, as well as documentaries, fear that the Panorama will deter abuse survivors from speaking to them.

One source at Panorama said that it would be “perverse” for it to try to discredit the story about “VIP paedophiles”.

Another insider at the current-affairs programme said: “Its approach is in line with a view among some BBC managers that Newsnight should not have even tried to expose Jimmy Savile. But it is being pulled in different directions because of the worries from BBC News.”

But Alistair Jackson, the programme’s producer, denied that it had set out to rubbish claims about VIP paedophiles. He told Exaro: “The programme retains a very open mind, and is not seeking to be definitive. It is simply aiming to explore, where possible, any evidence that has been put forward and test it.”

Work on the programme started at least a year ago when Panorama considered having David Aaronovitch, a columnist on The Times well known for dismissing claims about paedophile VIPs as “conspiracy theory”, to present it.

The idea caused consternation among Panorama producers, who pointed to an article by Aaronovitch in The Observer in 2003 that attempted to diminish the seriousness of “child *****”. The idea of having Aaronovitch present the programme was abandoned.

Jackson said: “The proposal for David Aaronovitch to make a Panorama was not taken further into a commission. There is nothing unusual in this. The programme hears from many potential film-makers and reporters. Only a small proportion of ideas are commissioned.”

Aaronovitch said: “News to me. I have never been in the frame to present a Panorama.”

Senior BBC figures also fear that the Panorama threatens to disrupt the corporation’s negotiations over renewal of its charter and the licence fee.

One Panorama source said that the message from management was: “Do not drop us in the shit in the run-up to the charter renewal around allegations of paedophiles and all that.”

But the source said that this should not mean trying to debunk claims about paedophile VIPs, saying: “That would be perverse. That would get them in as much trouble.”

Panorama was already in “special measures”, the source added.

BBC bosses shifted Tom Giles from his job as editor of Panorama after he oversaw an edition that reported on the suppression of Newsnight’s Savile investigation, making uncomfortable viewing for the broadcaster’s management.

Asked about the clash between BBC News and Panorama and whether the programme on VIP paedophiles was even going ahead, a BBC spokesman said: “We do not comment on investigations prior to broadcast.”

The disclosures come as ministers blocked an attempt to amend the Official Secrets Act so that it does not bar evidence about cover-ups of VIP paedophiles.

[Singha]

RT has taken fight to enemy camp.
Its budget matches the bbc and its utube
Channel has more views than bbc and cnn combined.

[Philip]

Falklands round-2?

David CaMoron on the hinge of a general election shortly, is desperately looking for some magic bullet with which to steal the election,which from current polls shows his Conservative party in dire straits. The "barbaric" Celtic SNP from north of the border appear to be capable of winning 40+ seats and driving the two mainstream Brit parties scuttling south with their tails between their legs.CaMoron's gambit against Russia over the UKR sending in "troops" to train the Kiev defeatists has not won him any votes but lots of loud guffaws in the pubs around the country. he has hilariously ruled out a "turd term" as PM,even before he has finished his first!

But tis always darkest before dawn and his moment of geni-ass has arrived with his decision to send troops to the Falklands to frighten off the Argies,who've been squeaking about the Malvinas in recent months,an alleged attempt by Pres.Ms.Kirschner to detract attention from her woes over the murder of prosecutor Nisman,who was to arrest her over a terror bombing many years ago. The funny thing about this is that Ms.Kirshner is stepping down in a few months time,not standing for re-election and has no need to whip up hysteria over the Malvinas as she is demitting office. However,CaMorom has nothing but defeats and retreats to gild his legacy and is desperate for some military success so that his name can be remembered in the same breadth as Maggie T,the latter-day Boadicea who retook the Falklands from Argie invasion decades ago. Blame it all on Putin say the pundits of Whitehall,as this move has come after the Argies and Putin struck an arms deal selling the Argies second-hand SU-24s!


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... sed-threat
Britain to bolster Falklands defences, reports say, due to 'increased threat'
Defence secretary expected to announce strengthening of military garrison on islands after Argentina said to have struck arms deal with Russia

Britain’s military garrison on the Falkland Islands could be bolstered to deter an increased risk of invasion, according to reports.

The defence secretary, Michael Fallon, would announce reinforcements of troops and equipment in response to a defence ministry review that suggested an attack on the south Atlantic archipelago was more likely, the Sun said.

A Whitehall source told the Sun: “The defence secretary’s decision reflects operational judgments and the increased nature of the threat.

“We want the people of the Falklands to know they are uppermost in our thinking.”

According to the Sun 1,200 troops are stationed on the islands along with a small fleet of Sea King helicopters and RAF Typhoon jets.

Jane’s Defence Weekly reported in December 2014 that Britain was reassessing the defence of the Falklands after reports Russia was moving to supply Argentina with Sukhoi SU-24 strike aircraft. The Mirror linked the arms deal and Fallon’s expected announcement.

The long-running dispute over the sovereignty of the British overseas territory, which Argentina calls Las Malvinas, has re-erupted in recent years under the presidency of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

David Cameron, in his prime minister’s message to the islanders last Christmas, said 2015 would also see the unveiling of a bronze statue of Margaret Thatcher in the islands.

He said 2015 would be a year when “the British government, again, steadfastly defends the freedom she helped you secure”.

The foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, announced the South Atlantic Medal would be awarded to the archipelago for islanders’ roles during the 1982 conflict.

The Press Association contributed to this report
[/quote]

PS:By the way,"the little island no one listens too any longer",as a Russian diplomat said,has now had the ignominy of an even smaller island ,Barbados booting out the Queen as head of state for not visiting it even once in the last 26 years!

Barbados plans to remove the Queen as head of state almost 400 years after British colonisation
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 28601.html

Barbados could remove the Queen as its head of state, almost 400 years after it was colonised by the British.

The island was under the UK’s control from 1627 up until independence in 1966 and has remained a constitutional monarchy ever since.

But the Prime Minister has laid down his plans for Barbados to become a republic with a ceremonial President in time for the 50th anniversary of independence next year.

Speaking on Sunday evening, Freundel Stuart told a branch meeting of his Democratic Labour Party (DLP) that the change would happen over the coming year. Britain's Queen Elizabeth II (2nd R) shakes hands with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard (R) as Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar (L), Nigeria's President Goodluck Jonathan (2nd L), Rwanda's President Paul Kagame and Barbados Prime Minister Freundel Jerome Stuart (2nd R) before the luncheon for new heads of Commonwealth governments at Government House in Perth on October 28, 2011 Queen Elizabeth II with Barbados Prime Minister Freundel Jerome Stuart (2nd R)

George Pilgrim, general secretary of the DLP, said a draft bill proposing the Queen’s removal will be voted on by Parliament but the government does not expect any opposition.

“This will move the country through to the next major step in the process of nationhood,” he added.

“(The Prime Minister) said he found it awkward in the year 2015 to have to stand up and pledge allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.”

Barbados will retain its links with the British crown though its membership of the Commonwealth, he said. St Lawrence beach in Barbados British settlers invaded Barbados in the 1600s

The official British Monarchy website says the Queen is not involved in the day-to-day business of Barbados’s government but “continues to play important ceremonial and symbolic roles”.

“The Queen's relationship to Barbados is unique,” it continues. “In all her duties, she speaks and acts as Queen of Barbados, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom.”

While acting for the island, she is officially known as "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Barbados and of Her other Realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth".

Plans to make Barbados a republic have been floated several times in recent years. A map of the British Empire from 1897 Barbados was once part of the British Empire

In 2005, the then Prime Minister Owen Arthur outlined his proposals for dropping the Queen in favour of a locally elected president but the process was not completed.

In the same year, Barbados made the Caribbean Court of Justice its final court of appeal, rather than the London-based Privy Council, which has long served as the highest court of appeal for many former British colonies.

Downing Street said it was not aware of the decision but a spokesperson for Prime Minister David Cameron said: “I expect the approach will be consistent with self-determination, decisions around this being a matter for the people involved.”

The Queen is sovereign of 15 Commonwealth realms, including the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Jamaica, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said change in Barbados was a “matter for the government and people” to decide. Prince Harry competes in the Sentebale Polo Cup on January 31, 2010 in Bridgetown, Barbados Prince Harry visited Barbados in 2010

In 2012, Jamaican Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller also pledged to replace the Queen as head of state.

The monarch last visited Barbados 26 years ago in 1989 for the 350th anniversary of the Barbados parliament – one of the oldest in the world.

Prince Harry took a three-day trip there in 2010, when he played in a polo match for his charity Sentebale, and Earl and Countess of Wessex were the last British royals to visit the nation last year.

[Karan Dixit]

Modi Sarkar does not seem to have the right stuff. They are back paddling on the biometric requirement for UK applicants.

Having taken into account feedback from concerned tour operators regarding new rules for Indian visas, the High Commission clarified on Friday its new process for tourist visa applications.
It is no longer introducing biometric testing or requiring every applicant to attend an application centre in person. Applications will also be accepted through post and courier.
For a full description of the new process, see the website of the visa handling company VFS Global http://in.vfsglobal.co.uk/Tourist.html.
The Q&A below was prepared and released by the High Commission of India.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/desti ... -know.html

[Agnimitra]

RT has taken fight to enemy camp.
Its budget matches the bbc and its utube
Channel has more views than bbc and cnn combined.

RT had also seized on the theme of journalistic ethics and hypocrisy on freedom of speech after Udwin broke the agreement with Indian jail authorities to film within the premises -

Revealed: UK govt bans filming at immigrant detention center to avoid bad publicity

[Arjun]

While the Indian Supreme Court relaxes restrictions on social media freedom in India - the Poms head back to their Neanderthal ways

What do they teach at Oxford / Stonehenge anyway nowadays ? - black magic, sorcery, piracy (the Poms sure surpassed the Somalians by a huge mile in their ocean brigandery)

Oxford University buckles under leftist pressure

But my faith in Oxford as a supporter of free thought and speech received a rude jolt on 20 March, when a decision was taken to cancel the lectures on ‘Economic development over the years and new reforms needed to take India forward’ and ‘Rethinking India History based on the book Breaking India: Western Intervention in Dravidian and Dalit faultlines’, by Dr. Subramanian Swamy and Rajiv Malhotra citing “logistical and internal issues”. The decision was supposed to have been taken after a series of meetings between prominent and influential members of Oxford University’s academic faculty and members of the Oxford India Society.

[Philip]

12 secondhand vintage SU-24s (good aircraft though) on lease from Russia for a desperately depleted Argie air force gives the Brits nightmares? They have Typhoons stationed in the islands and the Argies are nowhere close to launching any invasion of the islands either. CaMoron is using this lease,to be paid for with wheat and beef (!) to drum up the jingoistic votebank in Blighty.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... sians.html

Falklands defence: Why is Argentina considering an aircraft deal with the Russians?

Russia's potential deal to lease 12 long-range bombers to Argentina is causing Britain to rethink its protection of the Falklands. Why is Cristina Kirchner cosying up to Moscow?

Two Sukhoi Su-24 all-weather attack aircraft, similar to the dozen that could be sent to Argentina from Russia Photo: ITAR-TASS Photo Agency / Alamy

Harriet Alexander
By Harriet Alexander
24 Mar 2015
Russia's reported plans to lease 12 fighter aircraft to Argentina is forcing Britain to "beef up" it's defence of the Falklands, the Defence Secretary has said.

The Sukhoi Su-24 aircraft would be sent to Buenos Aires in exchange for beef and wheat, in a proposal which would help Moscow beat EU sanctions over Ukraine. Michael Fallon said that while any agreement between Russia and Argentina was not yet signed, Britain would increase its presence on the archipelago.

"That particular deal hasn't been confirmed," said Mr Fallon on Tuesday morning, adding a threat remained nonetheless. "It is a very live threat, we have to respond to it."
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon (David Rose for the Telegraph)

The gains for Russia are evident. Yet why would Argentina want such a deal?
First, their own air fleet is in urgent need of an upgrade.
They lost a third of their 409 warplanes during the 1982 war, and have not yet returned to full strength. Their Dagger aircraft have been in service for over 40 years, with limited upgrades, and in recent years Argentina has only managed to acquire a few dozen planes – many of them second-hand A-4 attack jets from the US.

They are currently thought to possess 100 combat-capable aircraft; by comparison their neighbours in Chile have 79, albeit more modern, while Brazil has 221.

• Britain's military defences in the Falkland Islands

"The entire air force fleet lacks modern avionics and systems, and still uses analogue equipment," Santiago Rivas wrote in Combat Aircraft magazine. "Aircraft have missed out on self-protection equipment, including radar warning receivers, chaff/flare dispensers and so forth.

"Critically, only the A-4s have an aerial refuelling capability and there are just two tankers. [Airborne early warning] capability is nonexistent, despite the fact that controlling the airspace of such a large country is a major and vital task."

Argentina in October began talks with Brazil to procure 24 Saab Gripen fighters, which they would pay for in instalments. Previous attempts to purchase refurbished Mirages from Spain and Kfir from Israel failed.

Dylan Lehrke, military capabilities analyst for Latin America at IHS Jane’s, told The Telegraph at the time: "Argentina’s interest in the Gripen is driven by the need to replace its existing fighter aircraft. Its current combat fleet is comprised of ageing Mirages and A-4AR Skyhawks with limited capability and low availability due to poor maintenance.

"Given the extreme constraints on the Argentine military’s budget, any procurement is going to very difficult to see through."

Mr Lehrke highlighted a second key reason why the Russian deal is so appealing to Buenos Aires: it would see Argentina pay for the lease in wheat and beef, which it has, rather than cash, of which it is short.

Some estimates showed that Argentina's economy shrank by 2 per cent last year. Even the official statistics – which are widely discredited – showed that the current account deficit widened 7.9 per cent, while the economy grew a meagre 0.5 per cent.

On the flip side, good weather has boosted farming and increased crops sizes from a year ago. Farm output directly accounts for around 8 per cent of gross domestic production.

Another key reason why President Cristina Kirchner would warm to the idea of improving her own air force is that it plays well to her own electorate.

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner Photo: AFP PHOTO / ALEJANDRO PAGNI

She is stepping down this year after October elections – she cannot run for a third term – but is keen to gold-plate her own legacy and usher in her chosen successor.
Ramping up the Falklands rhetoric is an easy way of scoring points.

Opponents of her rule also point out that Falklands discourse is a useful distraction from the continuing controversy over the death of Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor who accused Ms Kirchner of collusion to cover up a terrorist attack.

Ever since the January 18 death of Nisman, the president has had to cope with criticism of both her handling of the 1994 terrorism investigation, and of the circumstances surrounding Nisman's death itself.

[svinayak]

While the Indian Supreme Court relaxes restrictions on social media freedom in India - the Poms head back to their Neanderthal ways

What do they teach at Oxford / Stonehenge anyway nowadays ? - black magic, sorcery, piracy (the Poms sure surpassed the Somalians by a huge mile in their ocean brigandery)

Oxford University buckles under leftist pressure

But my faith in Oxford as a supporter of free thought and speech received a rude jolt on 20 March, when a decision was taken to cancel the lectures on ‘Economic development over the years and new reforms needed to take India forward’ and ‘Rethinking India History based on the book Breaking India: Western Intervention in Dravidian and Dalit faultlines’, by Dr. Subramanian Swamy and Rajiv Malhotra citing “logistical and internal issues”. The decision was supposed to have been taken after a series of meetings between prominent and influential members of Oxford University’s academic faculty and members of the Oxford India Society.

Oxford known for Anti India and Anti Hindu literature for more than century

[member_28638]

Ex-Met officer: Royal pedophile allegations dropped

Tue Mar 24, 2015

A former British police officer has claimed that an investigation into a pedophile ring back in 1980s was suspended over the involvement of a member of the British royal family.

“I was in a car with two other vice squad officers. They were discussing a madam who had provided a girl of about 15 to Oliver Reed...the detective sergeant said he had just had a major child abuse investigation shut down by the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] regarding a royal and an MP...he did not mention names, but he said the CPS had said it was not in the public’s interest because it ‘could destabilize national security,” the former Metropolitan Police officer told the Sunday Mirror.

The unnamed officer said the probe was stopped for national security reasons.

A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace has described the allegations as “speculative stories”, saying it will not comment on such issues.

Meanwhile, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has said that it is probing into cover-up allegations from the 1970s to 2005.

Crackdown on pedophiles

Earlier this month British authorities announced that they have charged more than 240 people with sexual abuse of children.

The National Crime Agency says police staff, teachers and civil servants are among those charged with possessing child abuse images.

More than 740 people have been arrested as part of a nationwide investigation launched into the case just over a year ago.

Hundreds of other suspects are still under investigation. Authorities are also under fire for quote-failing to act quickly enough on information about the issue which had been provided by Canadian police.

Scotland Yard is investigating a document which contains names of 22 high profile figures, including three serving MPs and three members of the House of Lords, who have been allegedly involved the suspected Westminster pedophile ring during the 1970s and 1980s.

Labour MP John Mann first reported evidence to the police about a Tory cabinet minister being involved in child sex abuse in 1989.

The inquiry, however, was discarded three month later on "orders of those at the top."

Mann has contended that there could be many more names added to the pedophile list.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, amid growing public pressure, has agreed to open his Conservative party central office for an investigation.

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/03/2 ... ns-dropped

[pankajs]

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/How ... ain/293787
How Corrupt Is Britain?

The City of London, operating with the help of British overseas territories and crown dependencies, is the world's leading tax haven, controlling 24% of all offshore financial services. It offers global capital an elaborate secrecy regime, assisting not just tax evaders but also smugglers, sanctions busters and money launderers.

So Londonisthan with the help of its branches is the biggest tax haven!

[Singha]

Marty spawn seems to be the next RaGa.

he has a corpus of 1000s of crores in his own name(since revered founder put a lot in wife and kids names), plus more from revered founder & co.

if he really wanted to work would return to india and do a well funded startup, show people what he is made of just like 100s of much less silver spoon people are doing now...create jobs...do something for the country.

instead I guess he just wants a green card via investment route , and will start some "lab" in and around havaad as a placeholder.

marty lib and other funds thrown to havaad might be quid-pro-quo for CSE degree seat - and that of his kids and grandkids

[ArmenT]

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/How ... ain/293787
How Corrupt Is Britain?

The City of London, operating with the help of British overseas territories and crown dependencies, is the world's leading tax haven, controlling 24% of all offshore financial services. It offers global capital an elaborate secrecy regime, assisting not just tax evaders but also smugglers, sanctions busters and money launderers.

So Londonisthan with the help of its branches is the biggest tax haven!

The operative words here are "The City of London". I wasn't aware of this until recently, but apparently, the City of London is a legal entity that is separate from the rest of the London metropolitan area. A British colleague of mine informed me that the legal definition of "City of London" is apparently only about 1 sq. mile in area, corresponding to the part that was behind the city walls during Roman times. The residential population of this area is remarkably small (something like 6000-7000 residents) and everyone else who comes to work during the day (about 500,000 people) are all from outside. Therefore, only the small population get to vote in this area. Due to some ancient regulations, this small area gets its own Lord Mayor who is different from the Mayor of London. Not only that, they are subject to a whole lot of different rules from the rest of London or the rest of UK as well! They have different tax laws, their own courts, separate flag, own private police force etc. than the areas just 1 mile away! Hell, even the Queen of England officially has to ask permission from the Lord Mayor of the City of London to enter this small area. This is why financial institutions headquartered within the City of London (e.g. Bank of England), are not subject to British parliament regulations. Average British John Brown is well aware that there is some major corruption going on within the walls.

[Karan M]

The entire thing has been kept deliberately for plausible deniability. City of London is just a means to an end.

[Prem]

https://kapilskhichadi.wordpress.com/
Cowardice at Oxford University?

t seems one of our leading universities has fallen foul to either trying to be politically correct, exercising political appeasement or downright lack of respect for freedom of speech. Whatever their true motives, what is clear is that an event that was scheduled to take place at Oxford University, was cancelled after what appears to be cowardice by members of the Oxford India Society, and also by the University itself. I wrote to ALL members of the OIS asking them for their perspective and it seems they have gone all shy on me. So let me tell you who these people are who are part of the OIS. They are: Anjul Khadria President, Dhruti Babariya Secretary, Niharika Gurram Treasurer and committee members Arghya Modak, Nikhil Nair, Pranoy Raul, Shifali Shishodia, Mandvi Dogra, Arvind Jain, Madhav Kumar, Sounak Sahu, Varshita Sher, Ritesh Tibrewal, Devendra Meena, Vishal Maingi and Ashish Thandavan. These Indians from India have shown their remarkable capacity to succumb to pressure.
Martyrs like Bhagat Singh, Shivaram Hari Rajguru and Sukhdev Thapar gave up their lives in their youth so future generations could experience freedom. It seems their sacrifices and those of millions of other Indians mean so little to members of the OIS. People will conclude that they have betrayed their country to appease their new colonial masters at Oxford University. It seems for some Indians they might be enjoying freedom, but they remain slaves in all other aspects.Only a few weeks ago we had the unveiling of the statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. The Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Foreign Secretary of India did the unveiling no less. I am reminded of what Mahatma Gandhi said, “Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologise for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth”.
On closer inspection it seems that Oxford University are very happy to give access to speakers such as Marine Le Pen (Head of French National Front), Wendy Doniger (a writer considered by many to be anti-Hindu), Tony Blair of WMD fame, Gerry Adams of the IRA, David Irving a Holocaust denier and Dr Zakir Naik an extremist Muslim preacher.The executive committee of OIS should hang their heads in shame. Dr Subramanium Swamy is a recognised public champion fighting for justice for the ordinary folks. He puts himself in harm’s way by taking on the most powerful in the country and outing them for their corrupt practices. It is beyond belief that his own country folk on the OIS have let him and the nation down so badly.Freedom of speech is often championed by leading educational institutions. They often cite the ‘Human Rights Act’ when they challenge Government restrictions on free speech. It is therefore shocking that we witness such overt irrational decision making when it comes to a leading Hindu thinker and speaker. Sometimes one wonders if free speech is the reserve of those who exercise extremism.So I say to each and every member of the executive of the OIS. You have proven yourself to be unfit to be considered as an Indian from India. Your decision has shown the highest level of disrespect to both your nation and your rich cultural heritage. Your actions come across as cowardly, and one can only wonder what your family and friends will think of you back home?Fortunately the British Board of Hindu Scholars and the National Council of Hindu Temples will continue with their programme of events around the country. So we will all still have that great opportunity to listen to Dr Swamy and to interact in the question answer sessions. If you want to attend, don’t waste your time. Book your tickets now.

[Lisa]

The operative words here are "The City of London". I wasn't aware of this until recently, but apparently, the City of London is a legal entity that is separate from the rest of the London metropolitan area. A British colleague of mine informed me that the legal definition of "City of London" is apparently only about 1 sq. mile in area, corresponding to the part that was behind the city walls during Roman times. The residential population of this area is remarkably small (something like 6000-7000 residents) and everyone else who comes to work during the day (about 500,000 people) are all from outside. Therefore, only the small population get to vote in this area. Due to some ancient regulations, this small area gets its own Lord Mayor who is different from the Mayor of London. Not only that, they are subject to a whole lot of different rules from the rest of London or the rest of UK as well! They have different tax laws, their own courts, separate flag, own private police force etc. than the areas just 1 mile away! Hell, even the Queen of England officially has to ask permission from the Lord Mayor of the City of London to enter this small area. This is why financial institutions headquartered within the City of London (e.g. Bank of England), are not subject to British parliament regulations. Average British John Brown is well aware that there is some major corruption going on within the walls.

Regretfully a great deal of what your friend has told you is not true. The Corporation Of London manages the City of London and it in that regard no different from any other borough of London. It does have its own police force but there are no internal courts or variance of application of UK Law of any real significance. It would be nice if your friend could provide any references he is aware of to exemplify his opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London#Governance

[member_28638]

Food, empire and colonialism

Colin Todhunter
Friday, March 27, 2015

Some 600 million in UK aid money courtesy of the taxpayer is helping big business increase its profits in Africa via the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. In return for receiving aid money and corporate investment, African countries have to change their laws, making it easier for corporations to acquire farmland, control seed supplies and export produce.

Last year, Director of the Global Justice Now Nick Dearden said:

“It’s scandalous that UK aid money is being used to carve up Africa in the interests of big business. This is the exact opposite of what is needed, which is support to small-scale farmers and fairer distribution of land and resources to give African countries more control over their food systems. Africa can produce enough food to feed its people. The problem is that our food system is geared to the luxury tastes of the richest, not the needs of ordinary people. Here the British government is using aid money to make the problem even worse.”

Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Mozambique, Nigeria, Benin, Malawi and Senegal are all involved in the New Alliance.

In a January 2015 piece in The Guardian, Dearden continued by saying that development was once regarded as a process of breaking with colonial exploitation and transferring power over resources from the ‘first’ to the ‘third world’, involving a revolutionary struggle over the world’s resources.

However, the current paradigm is based on the assumption that developing countries need to adopt neo-liberal policies and that public money in the guise of aid should facilitate this. The notion of ‘development’ has become hijacked by rich corporations and the concept of poverty depoliticised and separated from structurally embedded power relations.

To see this in action, we need look no further to a conference held on Monday 23 March in London, organised by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This secretive, invitation-only meeting with aid donors and big seed companies discussed a strategy to make it easier for these companies to sell patented seeds in Africa and thus increase corporate control of seeds.

Farmers have for generations been saving and exchanging seeds among themselves. This has allowed them a certain degree of independence and has enabled them to innovate, maintain biodiversity, adapt seeds to climatic conditions and fend off plant disease. Big seed companies with help from the Gates Foundation, the US government and other aid donors are now discussing ways to increase their market penetration of commercial seeds by displacing farmers own seed systems.

Corporate sold hybrid seeds often produce higher yields when first planted, but the second generation seeds produce low yields and unpredictable crop traits, making them unsuitable for saving and storing. As Heidi Chow from Global Justice Now rightly says, instead of saving seeds from their own crops, farmers who use hybrid seeds become completely dependent on the seed, fertiliser and pesticide companies, which can (and has) in turn result in an agrarian crisis centred on debt, environmental damage and health problems.

The London conference aimed to share findings of a report by Monitor Deloitte on developing the commercial seed sector in sub-Saharan Africa. The report recommends that in countries where farmers are using their own seed saving networks NGOs and aid donors should encourage governments to introduce intellectual property rights for seed breeders and help to persuade farmers to buy commercial, patented seeds rather than relying on their own traditional varieties. The report also suggests that governments should remove regulations so that the seed sector is opened up to the global market.

The guest list comprised corporations, development agencies and aid donors, including Syngenta, the World Bank and the Gates Foundation. It speaks volumes that not one farmer organisation was invited. Farmers have been imbued with the spirit of entrepreneurship for thousands of years. They have been “scientists, innovators, natural resource stewards, seed savers and hybridisation experts” who have increasingly been reduced to becoming recipients of technical fixes and consumers of poisonous products of a growing agricultural inputs industry. So who better than to discuss issues concerning agriculture?

But the whole point of such a conference is that the west regards African agriculture as a ‘business opportunity’, albeit wrapped up in warm-sounding notions of ‘feeding Africa’ or ‘lifting millions out of poverty’. The west’s legacy in Africa (and elsewhere) has been to plunge millions into poverty. Enforcing structural reforms to benefit big agribusiness and its unsustainable toxic GMO/petrochemical inputs represents a continuation of the neo-colonialist plundering of Africa. The US has for many decades been using agriculture as a key part of foreign policy to secure global hegemony.

Phil Bereano, food sovereignty campaigner with AGRA Watch and an Emeritus Professor at the University of Washington says:

“This is an extension of what the Gates Foundation has been doing for several years – working with the US government and agribusiness giants like Monsanto to corporatize Africa’s genetic riches for the benefit of outsiders. Don’t Bill and Melinda realize that such colonialism is no longer in fashion? It’s time to support African farmers’ self-determination.”

Bereano also shows how western corporations only intend to cherry-pick the most profitable aspects of the food production chain, while leaving the public sector in Africa to pick up the tab for the non-profitable aspects that allow profitability further along the chain.

Giant agritech corporations with their patented seeds and associated chemical inputs are ensuring a shift away from diversified agriculture that guarantees balanced local food production, the protection of people’s livelihoods and agricultural sustainability. African agriculture is being placed in the hands of big agritech for private profit under the pretext of helping the poor. The Gates Foundation has substantial shares in Monsanto. With Monsanto’s active backing from the US State Department and the Gates Foundation’s links with USAID, African farmers face a formidable force.

Report after report suggests that support for conventional agriculture, agroecology and local economies is required, especially in the Global South. Instead, western governments are supporting powerful corporations with taxpayers money whose thrust via the WTO, World Bank and IMF has been to encourage strings-attached loans, monocrop cultivation for export using corporate seeds, the restructuring of economies, the opening of economies to the vagaries of land and commodity speculation and a system of globalised trade rigged in favour of the west.

In this vision for Africa, those farmers who are regarded as having any role to play in all of this are viewed only as passive consumers of corporate seeds and agendas. The future of Africa is once again being decided by rich men in London.

Originally appeared as: ‘Rich Men in London Still Deciding Africa’s Future’.

Courtesy: Counterpunch.org

[panduranghari]

Regretfully a great deal of what your friend has told you is not true. The Corporation Of London manages the City of London and it in that regard no different from any other borough of London. It does have its own police force but there are no internal courts or variance of application of UK Law of any real significance. It would be nice if your friend could provide any references he is aware of to exemplify his opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London#Governance

This was quoted on BRF 2 years back. Quoting again for your perusal.

link

It's the dark heart of Britain, the place where democracy goes to die, immensely powerful, equally unaccountable. But I doubt that one in 10 British people has any idea of what the Corporation of the City of London is and how it works. This could be about to change. Alongside the Church of England, the Corporation is seeking to evict the protesters camped outside St Paul's cathedral. The protesters, in turn, have demanded that it submit to national oversight and control.

What is this thing? Ostensibly it's the equivalent of a local council, responsible for a small area of London known as the Square Mile. But, as its website boasts, "among local authorities the City of London is unique". You bet it is. There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It's not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who "appoint" the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.

There are four layers of elected representatives in the Corporation: common councilmen, aldermen, sheriffs and the Lord Mayor. To qualify for any of these offices, you must be a freeman of the City of London. To become a freeman you must be approved by the aldermen. You're most likely to qualify if you belong to one of the City livery companies: medieval guilds such as the worshipful company of costermongers, cutpurses and safecrackers. To become a sheriff, you must be elected from among the aldermen by the Livery. How do you join a livery company? Don't even ask.

To become Lord Mayor you must first have served as an alderman and sheriff, and you "must command the support of, and have the endorsement of, the Court of Aldermen and the Livery". You should also be stinking rich, as the Lord Mayor is expected to make a "contribution from his/her private resources towards the costs of the mayoral year." This is, in other words, an official old boys' network. Think of all that Tory huffing and puffing about democratic failings within the trade unions. Then think of their resounding silence about democracy within the City of London.


Advertisement



The current Lord Mayor, Michael Bear, came to prominence within the City as chief executive of the Spitalfields development group, which oversaw a controversial business venture in which the Corporation had a major stake, even though the project lies outside the boundaries of its authority. This illustrates another of the Corporation's unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks.

The Lord Mayor's role, the Corporation's website tells us, is to "open doors at the highest levels" for business, in the course of which he "expounds the values of liberalisation". Liberalisation is what bankers call deregulation: the process that caused the financial crash. The Corporation boasts that it "handle[s] issues in Parliament of specific interest to the City", such as banking reform and financial services regulation. It also conducts "extensive partnership work with think tanks … vigorously promoting the views and needs of financial services." But this isn't the half of it.

As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker's chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City's rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London's mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.

Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, "over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster." The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it "has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate". It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.

It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG's wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn't get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead. No wonder priests are resigning over the plans to evict the campers. The Church of England is not just working with Mammon; it's colluding with Babylon.

If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …".

The Corporation's privileges could not withstand such public scrutiny. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why a written constitution in the United Kingdom remains a distant dream. Its power also helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK's dependent tax havens.

But now at last we begin to see it. It happens that the Lord Mayor's Show, in which the Corporation flaunts its ancient wealth and power, takes place on 12 November. If ever there were a pageant that cries out for peaceful protest and dissent, here it is. Expect fireworks – and not just those laid on by the Lord Mayor.

[member_28638]

UK students turn to sex to fund costs

Sat Mar 28, 2015

A newly-released study says about one in 20 UK students has worked in the sex industry to earn money while at university.

The study which is part of a larger project of the University of Swansea titled ‘Student Sex Work Project’ is the culmination of three years’ research involving 6750 students.

According to the study, amid growing tuition fees and rising living costs, over 50 percent of student sex workers in Britain are motivated by the need to earn money

The research also said more men than women engage in sex work, while both sexes engage in ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ activities. Direct sex work involves contact with clients and includes prostitution. Indirect work, however, includes modeling and phone sex.

Young people studying in the UK today can expect to leave university with about £50,000 of debt when maintenance loans are factored in. This figure could be larger when personal debt is included.

More than half of UK universities charge £9,000 per year for tuition fees, the maximum allowed by law.

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/03/2 ... fund-costs

[Lisa]

Panduranghariji,

Thank you for the article. It does not explain away what I am saying, ie, there is no exemption to any UK law upon the square mile and in particular to any financial regulation. More to the point, if such a discrepancy did exist, would anyone care to explain the migration from the square mile of almost all major banks to Canary Warf where allegedly such protection does not exist.

[member_28638]

British universities bar hundreds of foreign students from scientific studies

Hundreds of foreign students have been banned from studying science lessons in UK universities on the alleged grounds that they may learn about nuclear warfare, a media report says.

...

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/03/2 ... n-students

[member_28638]

Nearly 1 in 4 British children abused

The head of a British charity organization says nearly one in four UK kids have been abused.

Peter Saunders, founder of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) says: “I think that we as a society need still to do a lot to protect our children from the scourge of abuse, not the sexual abuse, but all forms of abuse in the United Kingdom today.”

Saunders told Press TV’s UK Desk on Sunday that “something about one in four of our children is subjected to abuse in childhood.”

His comments follow the Friday sentencing of British Catholic priest Tony McSweeney, 68, from West Sussex to three years in jail by a court for child abuse.

“The Catholic priest Father McSweeney was given three years in prison. He will serve less than half of that in prison for destroying the lives of children,” Saunders noted, adding: “He is a priest and therefore carries the authority. Three years is an extremely lenient sentence for a serious crime that he committed and the very great betrayal of trust that he has as a man supposedly of God.”

Asked about how child abuse could be curbed in the society, Saunders said: “I think a lot has to be done and it’s not only abuse by priests, but many of other people in society. We have to have zero tolerance of these crimes. We have to make sure that anybody who in court is convicted is given a very serious prison sentence as a deterrent. In terms of Catholic Church, they have got lot of work to do on rooting out the very many perpetrators of these crimes.”

Catholic priest Anthony McSweeney (pictured above) was sentenced to prison for sexually assaulting a teenage boy at a children's home in west London between 1979 and 1981.

Sweeney was found guilty of abusing the 15-year-old while working at the Grafton Close Children's Home in Hounslow.

A sexual harm prevention order was also made against him at the sentencing on March 27 at Southwark Crown Court.

Earlier in the trial, the priest confessed he had watched children in the shower and collected indecent videos of kids, the state-run BBC reported.

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/03/2 ... ids-abused

[member_28638]

More British schoolchildren have mental issues

Mar 29, 2015

A new survey suggests that more schoolchildren in Britain have mental health issues than two years ago.

...

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/03/2 ... tal-issues