Monday, July 31, 2006
PARLIAMENT PROTEST
Parliament Protest blog
Another useful blog, which gives more specific details relating to the curtailing of rights to protest outside Parliament.
Another useful blog, which gives more specific details relating to the curtailing of rights to protest outside Parliament.
BRIAN HAW - PEACE PROTESTOR OR CRIMINAL?
Brian Haw Peace Protestor
A website dedicated to the anti-war campaigner Brian Haw and his efforts to continue his legitimate protest in the face of the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005.
A website dedicated to the anti-war campaigner Brian Haw and his efforts to continue his legitimate protest in the face of the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005.
CURBING PROTEST
Call for curb on billboards blighting the countryside
By Valerie Elliott,
Countryside Editor
A CRACKDOWN on roadside billboards that blight the countryside and distract drivers has been ordered by the Government. There is particular concern about farmers and landowners who allow lorry trailers festooned with advertisements to park in their fields alongside motorways and other main routes.
Yvette Cooper, the Planning Minister, is urging councils to take action against advertisements by roads and to ensure they are safe and within the law. She also wants councils to set up a database of persistent offenders who display illegal advertisements and posters.
Ms Cooper wants planning officers to work closely with the Highways Agency to ensure that advertisements are not a risk to motorists. The move has been prompted by a huge postbag to MPs criticising the way advertising posters are spoiling the countryside and causing driving hazards. This is believed to have been inspired by intensive lobbying by the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
Billboards for kitchens, bathrooms, computers, the internet, second-hand cars, hotels, supermarkets, fast-food chains and housing developments are strewn in fields by main roads and motorways.
Rural campaigners, however, fear that the crackdown may be an attempt to silence the hunting community, who are determined to overturn the ban on their sport. Official Countryside Alliance posters to save hunting and unauthorised anti-Blair displays are frequently spotted along motorways in the main hunting areas.
Tim Bonner, for the alliance, said: “The alliance supports the enforcement of existing planning regulations. We hope, however, that this is not an attempt by the Government to silence the rural minority. Ministers might not like being reminded of the folly of legislation like the hunting Act when they are being driven along motorways, but roadside banners are a legitimate form of protest.”
Farmers insist that they need the vital income from letting sites to advertisers to boost their profits and remain viable.
Ms Cooper told The Times that she had noticed a growth in advertisements along the M62 and A1 near her Pontefract and Castleford constituency that were a distraction while driving. She denied that there was a move to silence hunt supporters, adding: “I haven’t noticed many hunting signs along the M62 between Hull and Manchester.”
She wants advertisers to go through the planning system and to consult their local council before setting up a billboard. “We’re not saying there should be no roadside ads, but they’ve got to be checked and must be safe so they do not distract drivers,” she said.
By Valerie Elliott,
Countryside Editor
A CRACKDOWN on roadside billboards that blight the countryside and distract drivers has been ordered by the Government. There is particular concern about farmers and landowners who allow lorry trailers festooned with advertisements to park in their fields alongside motorways and other main routes.
Yvette Cooper, the Planning Minister, is urging councils to take action against advertisements by roads and to ensure they are safe and within the law. She also wants councils to set up a database of persistent offenders who display illegal advertisements and posters.
Ms Cooper wants planning officers to work closely with the Highways Agency to ensure that advertisements are not a risk to motorists. The move has been prompted by a huge postbag to MPs criticising the way advertising posters are spoiling the countryside and causing driving hazards. This is believed to have been inspired by intensive lobbying by the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
Billboards for kitchens, bathrooms, computers, the internet, second-hand cars, hotels, supermarkets, fast-food chains and housing developments are strewn in fields by main roads and motorways.
Rural campaigners, however, fear that the crackdown may be an attempt to silence the hunting community, who are determined to overturn the ban on their sport. Official Countryside Alliance posters to save hunting and unauthorised anti-Blair displays are frequently spotted along motorways in the main hunting areas.
Tim Bonner, for the alliance, said: “The alliance supports the enforcement of existing planning regulations. We hope, however, that this is not an attempt by the Government to silence the rural minority. Ministers might not like being reminded of the folly of legislation like the hunting Act when they are being driven along motorways, but roadside banners are a legitimate form of protest.”
Farmers insist that they need the vital income from letting sites to advertisers to boost their profits and remain viable.
Ms Cooper told The Times that she had noticed a growth in advertisements along the M62 and A1 near her Pontefract and Castleford constituency that were a distraction while driving. She denied that there was a move to silence hunt supporters, adding: “I haven’t noticed many hunting signs along the M62 between Hull and Manchester.”
She wants advertisers to go through the planning system and to consult their local council before setting up a billboard. “We’re not saying there should be no roadside ads, but they’ve got to be checked and must be safe so they do not distract drivers,” she said.
Friday, July 28, 2006
JEHOVAH JOKE
Another marvellous utilisation of police resources, must be taking a break from persecuting those with Bollocks to Blair shirts.....
Jehovah's Witness joke fails to amuse the police
By Stewart Payne
(Filed: 28/07/2006)
A woman has been told by police that she must remove a sign on her garden gate that reads "Our dogs are fed on Jehovah's Witnesses" because it is "distressing, offensive and inappropriate".
Jean Grove, a pensioner, has displayed the sign for 32 years. Her late husband, Gordon, put it up after members of the Church banged on their door on Christmas Day 1974.
Mrs Grove, from Bursledon, Hants, said that police officers had taken her details and insisted that she remove the sign. Once they had left, she put it back.
She said the sign was not intended to cause offence and that no one had complained to her about it, not even Jehovah's Witnesses. It was merely a way of showing that she did not welcome their calls.
"It was just a bit of a lark," she said, pointing out that the only dog she had now was a Jack Russell pup called Rabbit, which was too small to savage callers of any religion.
Mrs Grove, 77, said: "If someone had told me they were offended, I would have taken it down. Why should it suddenly be a problem?" She said she kept the sign as a memorial to her husband, who died two years ago after 52 years of marriage.
"I couldn't believe it," she said. "The police put my name and address in their little black book and everything."
Her son, Richard, 53, said his father had become fed up with repeated calls from Jehovah's Witnesses and the visit on Christmas Day was the last straw.
He said his parents used to keep alsatians but they were good-natured and would have licked a visitor to death.
The only apparent visit from the Church since 1974 was when the sign was removed and on that occasion police helped to recover it.
"There's no way we could take the sign down," Mr Grove said. "It is a testament to dad's sense of humour."
Diana Sneezum, the chairman of Bursledon parish council, said the police should be concentrating on the bigger problems in the village.
"I find it quite surprising that they are concerned with this.
"We don't have the same responses to what many people feel are more pressing matters in the village, such as vandalism and trouble with yobs."
A spokesman for Hampshire police said: "We were informed by a member of the public who found the sign to be distressing, offensive and inappropriate.
"Officers attended the address and the sign was taken down."
A spokesman for the Jehovah's Witness movement in Hampshire accepted that the sign was a joke.
He said: "If we see signs like that we turn around and walk away."
"If they were naming individuals, then obviously that would be deeply offensive, but a sign like that is just stupid rather than deeply hurtful."
Jehovah's Witness joke fails to amuse the police
By Stewart Payne
(Filed: 28/07/2006)
A woman has been told by police that she must remove a sign on her garden gate that reads "Our dogs are fed on Jehovah's Witnesses" because it is "distressing, offensive and inappropriate".
Jean Grove, a pensioner, has displayed the sign for 32 years. Her late husband, Gordon, put it up after members of the Church banged on their door on Christmas Day 1974.
Mrs Grove, from Bursledon, Hants, said that police officers had taken her details and insisted that she remove the sign. Once they had left, she put it back.
She said the sign was not intended to cause offence and that no one had complained to her about it, not even Jehovah's Witnesses. It was merely a way of showing that she did not welcome their calls.
"It was just a bit of a lark," she said, pointing out that the only dog she had now was a Jack Russell pup called Rabbit, which was too small to savage callers of any religion.
Mrs Grove, 77, said: "If someone had told me they were offended, I would have taken it down. Why should it suddenly be a problem?" She said she kept the sign as a memorial to her husband, who died two years ago after 52 years of marriage.
"I couldn't believe it," she said. "The police put my name and address in their little black book and everything."
Her son, Richard, 53, said his father had become fed up with repeated calls from Jehovah's Witnesses and the visit on Christmas Day was the last straw.
He said his parents used to keep alsatians but they were good-natured and would have licked a visitor to death.
The only apparent visit from the Church since 1974 was when the sign was removed and on that occasion police helped to recover it.
"There's no way we could take the sign down," Mr Grove said. "It is a testament to dad's sense of humour."
Diana Sneezum, the chairman of Bursledon parish council, said the police should be concentrating on the bigger problems in the village.
"I find it quite surprising that they are concerned with this.
"We don't have the same responses to what many people feel are more pressing matters in the village, such as vandalism and trouble with yobs."
A spokesman for Hampshire police said: "We were informed by a member of the public who found the sign to be distressing, offensive and inappropriate.
"Officers attended the address and the sign was taken down."
A spokesman for the Jehovah's Witness movement in Hampshire accepted that the sign was a joke.
He said: "If we see signs like that we turn around and walk away."
"If they were naming individuals, then obviously that would be deeply offensive, but a sign like that is just stupid rather than deeply hurtful."
MORE FOXES WOUNDED
'More foxes wounded' since hunt Act
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
(Filed: 28/07/2006)
More foxes have been wounded rather than killed since the Act banning hunting came into force, a new study says.
The survey of 600 sheep farmers, commissioned by the Middle Way Group of MPs - which supports regulated hunting rather than a ban - to examine the effects of the Hunting Act, shows that there has not been the increase in animal welfare predicted by anti-hunting groups.
Most farmers in the survey - published at the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) Game Fair, which starts today at Broadlands, Hants, - report that they attempt to control foxes to the same extent that they did before the Act was passed, and this means that their use of shooting and snaring has increased.
Shotguns were used in fox control by 68 per cent of farmers polled, with one quarter of the foxes shot being only wounded, according to estimates. On the 49 per cent of farms where rifles were used at times, farmers estimated that an eighth of foxes were wounded, not killed.
Sixteen per cent of farmers used snares to kill foxes and two per cent used poison. A large number of farmers, 44 per cent, claim that they are now suffering greater losses of lambs to foxes at lambing time because of the difficulty of killing predators since the Hunting Act came into force in February last year. The findings indicate that wounding rates in fox control are higher than shooting bodies accept. These bodies estimate that only nine or 10 per cent of foxes shot are wounded rather than killed.
Lembit Opik, the co-chairman of the Middle Way Group, said the results of the survey confirmed what it said during debates in Parliament on the Hunting Act: that animal welfare would be worsened if the law passed on to the statute book. He accused animal welfare bodies of sacrificing animal welfare for a political victory over hunt supporters. David Fursdon, the president of the CLA, said: "This survey is not an attack on shooting. It is an attack on the restriction of types of wildlife management available to landowners, forcing them into methods that are unsuitable."
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
(Filed: 28/07/2006)
More foxes have been wounded rather than killed since the Act banning hunting came into force, a new study says.
The survey of 600 sheep farmers, commissioned by the Middle Way Group of MPs - which supports regulated hunting rather than a ban - to examine the effects of the Hunting Act, shows that there has not been the increase in animal welfare predicted by anti-hunting groups.
Most farmers in the survey - published at the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) Game Fair, which starts today at Broadlands, Hants, - report that they attempt to control foxes to the same extent that they did before the Act was passed, and this means that their use of shooting and snaring has increased.
Shotguns were used in fox control by 68 per cent of farmers polled, with one quarter of the foxes shot being only wounded, according to estimates. On the 49 per cent of farms where rifles were used at times, farmers estimated that an eighth of foxes were wounded, not killed.
Sixteen per cent of farmers used snares to kill foxes and two per cent used poison. A large number of farmers, 44 per cent, claim that they are now suffering greater losses of lambs to foxes at lambing time because of the difficulty of killing predators since the Hunting Act came into force in February last year. The findings indicate that wounding rates in fox control are higher than shooting bodies accept. These bodies estimate that only nine or 10 per cent of foxes shot are wounded rather than killed.
Lembit Opik, the co-chairman of the Middle Way Group, said the results of the survey confirmed what it said during debates in Parliament on the Hunting Act: that animal welfare would be worsened if the law passed on to the statute book. He accused animal welfare bodies of sacrificing animal welfare for a political victory over hunt supporters. David Fursdon, the president of the CLA, said: "This survey is not an attack on shooting. It is an attack on the restriction of types of wildlife management available to landowners, forcing them into methods that are unsuitable."
Saturday, July 15, 2006
LABOUR SLEAZIER
Labour 'sleazier than Major's Tories'
By George Jones, Political Editor, Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 15/07/2006)
The public regards Tony Blair's government as sleazier than John Major's, which New Labour swept from power nine years ago, a poll for The Daily Telegraph says today.
It shows that Labour's reputation for honesty and integrity has been demolished by a series of scandals, culminating in the allegations of cash for peerages.
In the past nine months David Blunkett has resigned from the Cabinet for a second time; Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, split from her husband after allegations about his business interests; John Prescott was stripped of his department after an affair with his secretary; and the police have questioned Lord Levy, the Prime Minister's chief fund-raiser, and two ministers over party funding.
The YouGov survey says that 69 per cent of the public regard Labour as "very sleazy and disreputable", compared with 63 per cent of voters who thought the same of the last Conservative government. Nine years ago only 19 per cent of voters thought that Labour gave the impression of being disreputable.
The public belief that Labour in power is sleazier than the Tories is a humiliation for Mr Blair, who in 1997 pledged that his Government would be "whiter than white".
Labour promised to clean up politics, end sleaze and reform party funding. But Mr Blair and his close associates are at the centre of the storm over peerages because they tried to circumvent the funding rules that Labour introduced by taking secret loans instead of declarable donations.
The poll shows strong public backing for the investigation by Scotland Yard into whether honours were offered in return for loans and donations. A large majority suspects that Labour raised money in that way and thinks that Mr Blair and those around him had a good idea of what was going on.
Mr Blair, who flies to St Petersburg today for the G8 summit, looked strained as he refused to comment on the disclosure that Scotland Yard had questioned Lord Sainsbury, the science minister, and Ian McCartney, the former party chairman and now a trade minister, who was interviewed as a witness.
"You wouldn't expect me to and I am not going to comment on any of these inquiries," he told a Downing Street press conference.
The poll findings will increase the pressure on him to step down soon and allow the party to make a new start under Gordon Brown.
John McDonnell, a Left-wing Labour MP who yesterday launched a campaign to succeed Mr Blair, said that "spin and allegations of sleaze were causing decent people to lose trust in the party".
No 10 said the Met had not asked to interview Mr Blair. But after his return from his summer holiday next month, he is expected to become the first serving British prime minister to be questioned by the police as part of a corruption investigation.
David Cameron, the Conservative leader, was asked about the fact that more Tory than Labour figures had been interviewed by the police.
He said: "The police must go ahead with their inquiries in the way they see fit."
By George Jones, Political Editor, Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 15/07/2006)
The public regards Tony Blair's government as sleazier than John Major's, which New Labour swept from power nine years ago, a poll for The Daily Telegraph says today.
It shows that Labour's reputation for honesty and integrity has been demolished by a series of scandals, culminating in the allegations of cash for peerages.
In the past nine months David Blunkett has resigned from the Cabinet for a second time; Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, split from her husband after allegations about his business interests; John Prescott was stripped of his department after an affair with his secretary; and the police have questioned Lord Levy, the Prime Minister's chief fund-raiser, and two ministers over party funding.
The YouGov survey says that 69 per cent of the public regard Labour as "very sleazy and disreputable", compared with 63 per cent of voters who thought the same of the last Conservative government. Nine years ago only 19 per cent of voters thought that Labour gave the impression of being disreputable.
The public belief that Labour in power is sleazier than the Tories is a humiliation for Mr Blair, who in 1997 pledged that his Government would be "whiter than white".
Labour promised to clean up politics, end sleaze and reform party funding. But Mr Blair and his close associates are at the centre of the storm over peerages because they tried to circumvent the funding rules that Labour introduced by taking secret loans instead of declarable donations.
The poll shows strong public backing for the investigation by Scotland Yard into whether honours were offered in return for loans and donations. A large majority suspects that Labour raised money in that way and thinks that Mr Blair and those around him had a good idea of what was going on.
Mr Blair, who flies to St Petersburg today for the G8 summit, looked strained as he refused to comment on the disclosure that Scotland Yard had questioned Lord Sainsbury, the science minister, and Ian McCartney, the former party chairman and now a trade minister, who was interviewed as a witness.
"You wouldn't expect me to and I am not going to comment on any of these inquiries," he told a Downing Street press conference.
The poll findings will increase the pressure on him to step down soon and allow the party to make a new start under Gordon Brown.
John McDonnell, a Left-wing Labour MP who yesterday launched a campaign to succeed Mr Blair, said that "spin and allegations of sleaze were causing decent people to lose trust in the party".
No 10 said the Met had not asked to interview Mr Blair. But after his return from his summer holiday next month, he is expected to become the first serving British prime minister to be questioned by the police as part of a corruption investigation.
David Cameron, the Conservative leader, was asked about the fact that more Tory than Labour figures had been interviewed by the police.
He said: "The police must go ahead with their inquiries in the way they see fit."
ANGER OVER ANTI-HUNT PROPAGANDA
The government is being accused of funding "anti-hunt propaganda" in a new guide to the British constitution.
The guide says Labour MP Kate Hoey almost certainly did not reflect the wishes of voters in her London seat when she voted against a hunting ban.
Tim Bonner, spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, said there was no evidence for the claim.
But the Citizenship Foundation, which produced the guide, insisted it was designed to be impartial.
The Department of Constitutional Affairs paid the foundation £197,000 to produce the guide, which is being sent to all secondary schools and sixth form colleges.
It is aimed at helping teenagers understand Britain's "unwritten constitution" and get them engaged with the political process in a time of low turnouts.
The authors, Tony Thorpe and Richard Jarvis, has used a series of case studies to liven up the 146-page booklet.
They use the case of Cherie Blair being fined for not having a valid train ticket to show how everybody is meant to be equal in the eyes of the law.
And they point to Ms Hoey as an example of MPs acting on their "personal belief".
The short section says: "Kate Hoey is MP for Battersea, an area very close to central London.
"Most people in Britain (around 70%) particularly those living in towns and cities, supported the move by the government in 2004 to ban fox hunting with dogs.
"Ms Hoey disagreed, believing that a kind of law of this kind was a mistake.
"In voting against the bill to abolish fox hunting, Kate Hoey almost certainly did not reflect the wishes of most of her constituents."
Ms Hoey is now chairman of the Countryside Alliance, which says the passage is full of errors and it will be asking the Citizenship Foundation what it will do about it.
Ms Hoey is in fact MP for Vauxhall, not Battersea.
And the alliance said even anti-hunt groups had not been able to produce polls suggesting 70% support for a hunting ban since the mid-1990s.
Mr Bonner said a regional breakdown of polling did not suggest that people in London were any more supportive of the ban than people in other parts of the country.
"The last election result in Vauxhall [when Ms Hoey won a majority of 10,000] certainly did not suggest that Kate was not reflecting the wishes of her constituents," said Mr Bonner.
He suggested the authors of the guide had fallen foul of the traditional propaganda from anti-hunt groups and the assumption that people in cities hated hunting.
"The reality for a long time has been that nobody actually gives a damn," he said.
If forced to make a decision, people might not like hunting but thought the "legislative assault" was unnecessary, he argued.
Mr Bonner was worried about the guide, 90,000 copies of which are being sent to schools across the country.
"It's disseminating information which is patently untrue, it's spreading anti-hunt propaganda," he said.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs said the Citizenship Foundation had handled the content of the guide.
A spokeswoman for the Citizenship Foundation apologised for the mistake over Ms Hoey's constituency and said efforts would be made to repair it.
But she said it was the only mistake found so far in the guide.
"It's designed to be impartial throughout and we would be disappointed if anyone thought it was propaganda," said the spokeswoman.
"The example of Kate Hoey is designed to be an illustrative point to demonstrate that MPs do not necessarily support the causes within their geographic areas."
The guide says Labour MP Kate Hoey almost certainly did not reflect the wishes of voters in her London seat when she voted against a hunting ban.
Tim Bonner, spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, said there was no evidence for the claim.
But the Citizenship Foundation, which produced the guide, insisted it was designed to be impartial.
The Department of Constitutional Affairs paid the foundation £197,000 to produce the guide, which is being sent to all secondary schools and sixth form colleges.
It is aimed at helping teenagers understand Britain's "unwritten constitution" and get them engaged with the political process in a time of low turnouts.
The authors, Tony Thorpe and Richard Jarvis, has used a series of case studies to liven up the 146-page booklet.
They use the case of Cherie Blair being fined for not having a valid train ticket to show how everybody is meant to be equal in the eyes of the law.
And they point to Ms Hoey as an example of MPs acting on their "personal belief".
The short section says: "Kate Hoey is MP for Battersea, an area very close to central London.
"Most people in Britain (around 70%) particularly those living in towns and cities, supported the move by the government in 2004 to ban fox hunting with dogs.
"Ms Hoey disagreed, believing that a kind of law of this kind was a mistake.
"In voting against the bill to abolish fox hunting, Kate Hoey almost certainly did not reflect the wishes of most of her constituents."
Ms Hoey is now chairman of the Countryside Alliance, which says the passage is full of errors and it will be asking the Citizenship Foundation what it will do about it.
Ms Hoey is in fact MP for Vauxhall, not Battersea.
And the alliance said even anti-hunt groups had not been able to produce polls suggesting 70% support for a hunting ban since the mid-1990s.
Mr Bonner said a regional breakdown of polling did not suggest that people in London were any more supportive of the ban than people in other parts of the country.
"The last election result in Vauxhall [when Ms Hoey won a majority of 10,000] certainly did not suggest that Kate was not reflecting the wishes of her constituents," said Mr Bonner.
He suggested the authors of the guide had fallen foul of the traditional propaganda from anti-hunt groups and the assumption that people in cities hated hunting.
"The reality for a long time has been that nobody actually gives a damn," he said.
If forced to make a decision, people might not like hunting but thought the "legislative assault" was unnecessary, he argued.
Mr Bonner was worried about the guide, 90,000 copies of which are being sent to schools across the country.
"It's disseminating information which is patently untrue, it's spreading anti-hunt propaganda," he said.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs said the Citizenship Foundation had handled the content of the guide.
A spokeswoman for the Citizenship Foundation apologised for the mistake over Ms Hoey's constituency and said efforts would be made to repair it.
But she said it was the only mistake found so far in the guide.
"It's designed to be impartial throughout and we would be disappointed if anyone thought it was propaganda," said the spokeswoman.
"The example of Kate Hoey is designed to be an illustrative point to demonstrate that MPs do not necessarily support the causes within their geographic areas."
Friday, July 07, 2006
NATWEST THREE
Prosecute NatWest Three in the UK, say Tories
By George Jones and Christopher Hope, Daily Telegraph
The three bankers facing extradition to the United States next week should be prosecuted in Britain, the Conservatives said last night.
Dominic Grieve, the Tories' legal affairs spokesman, said a British-based prosecution would lift the threat that the three men would be taken to the US, where they could be held in a maximum security prison for up to two years before the case came to trial.
Mr Grieve tried to maintain the pressure on the Government to intervene by writing to Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, calling for the three men to have the "benefit of British justice".
Writing in The Daily Telegraph today, David Davis, the Tory home affairs spokesman, claimed that when new rules on extradition to the US were introduced - originally intended to speed terrorist cases in the aftermath of September 11 - the Government assured MPs they would not be used by the American authorities to pursue alleged white-collar crime.
"Quite simply, the Government's assurances in 2003 have turned to dust," he said.
"Under this Government, laws intended for terrorists have a habit of being used more widely. The Extradition Act is such a law. More than half of all requests to extradite Britons to the US have reportedly involved business people, not suspected terrorists.
"At the time, ministers told Parliament that ratification of the treaty was expected in the United States in early 2004. In fact the treaty has still not been ratified in the United States and there are no signs of that happening."
Britons can be tried for an alleged crime that was supposed to have occurred in Britain against a British company but where no prosecution was taking place in the UK. "It is far less likely that US citizens in similar circumstances would be extradited to Britain," said Mr Davis.
Extradition was a most traumatic experience, he said. "Not only does it mean separation from friends and family in a foreign land, but it involves an unfamiliar legal system. The difficulty in gathering evidence across inter-national boundaries makes it all the more difficult for lawyers to prepare a case."
The Tory move was welcomed by David Bermingham, one of the three NatWest bankers facing extradition.
He said that over the past three years he had continually urged British and American authorities to go ahead with proceedings in Britain if they believed a crime had been committed.
"We would welcome the opportunity to face these allegations in a UK court, where we can defend ourselves whilst continuing to support our families," Mr Bermingham said.
Mr Grieve said the circumstances surrounding the Extradition Act 2003 in respect of the three NatWest defendants was threatening to bring the extradition system and Britain's criminal justice system into disrepute.
The allegations against Mr Bermingham, Giles Darby and Gary Mulgrew were not a minor matter, he said. If proved, they constituted serious criminal offences that, in view of the alleged sums of money involved, would attract substantial prison sentences.
"It must, therefore, be a legitimate source of public anxiety that, where the defendants are British nationals living in England and the alleged victim is a British corporation, this case is not being prosecuted here," he said. "If it were to be, then public disquiet would, I am sure, be entirely removed."
Mr Grieve said aspects of the American criminal justice system, including the shackling of defendants, "are very different from our own".
Downing Street admitted last night that it had not made any progress on securing assurances from the US that the "NatWest Three" would get bail. "We are considering what we can do," said Tony Blair's official spokesman.
The three men are accused of conspiracy with others to defraud NatWest of £12 million. Of this sum, £6.5 million is alleged to have been shared by two senior executives at Enron. They deny the charges.
By George Jones and Christopher Hope, Daily Telegraph
The three bankers facing extradition to the United States next week should be prosecuted in Britain, the Conservatives said last night.
Dominic Grieve, the Tories' legal affairs spokesman, said a British-based prosecution would lift the threat that the three men would be taken to the US, where they could be held in a maximum security prison for up to two years before the case came to trial.
Mr Grieve tried to maintain the pressure on the Government to intervene by writing to Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, calling for the three men to have the "benefit of British justice".
Writing in The Daily Telegraph today, David Davis, the Tory home affairs spokesman, claimed that when new rules on extradition to the US were introduced - originally intended to speed terrorist cases in the aftermath of September 11 - the Government assured MPs they would not be used by the American authorities to pursue alleged white-collar crime.
"Quite simply, the Government's assurances in 2003 have turned to dust," he said.
"Under this Government, laws intended for terrorists have a habit of being used more widely. The Extradition Act is such a law. More than half of all requests to extradite Britons to the US have reportedly involved business people, not suspected terrorists.
"At the time, ministers told Parliament that ratification of the treaty was expected in the United States in early 2004. In fact the treaty has still not been ratified in the United States and there are no signs of that happening."
Britons can be tried for an alleged crime that was supposed to have occurred in Britain against a British company but where no prosecution was taking place in the UK. "It is far less likely that US citizens in similar circumstances would be extradited to Britain," said Mr Davis.
Extradition was a most traumatic experience, he said. "Not only does it mean separation from friends and family in a foreign land, but it involves an unfamiliar legal system. The difficulty in gathering evidence across inter-national boundaries makes it all the more difficult for lawyers to prepare a case."
The Tory move was welcomed by David Bermingham, one of the three NatWest bankers facing extradition.
He said that over the past three years he had continually urged British and American authorities to go ahead with proceedings in Britain if they believed a crime had been committed.
"We would welcome the opportunity to face these allegations in a UK court, where we can defend ourselves whilst continuing to support our families," Mr Bermingham said.
Mr Grieve said the circumstances surrounding the Extradition Act 2003 in respect of the three NatWest defendants was threatening to bring the extradition system and Britain's criminal justice system into disrepute.
The allegations against Mr Bermingham, Giles Darby and Gary Mulgrew were not a minor matter, he said. If proved, they constituted serious criminal offences that, in view of the alleged sums of money involved, would attract substantial prison sentences.
"It must, therefore, be a legitimate source of public anxiety that, where the defendants are British nationals living in England and the alleged victim is a British corporation, this case is not being prosecuted here," he said. "If it were to be, then public disquiet would, I am sure, be entirely removed."
Mr Grieve said aspects of the American criminal justice system, including the shackling of defendants, "are very different from our own".
Downing Street admitted last night that it had not made any progress on securing assurances from the US that the "NatWest Three" would get bail. "We are considering what we can do," said Tony Blair's official spokesman.
The three men are accused of conspiracy with others to defraud NatWest of £12 million. Of this sum, £6.5 million is alleged to have been shared by two senior executives at Enron. They deny the charges.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
BOLLOCKS TO BLAIR
Stallholders fined for offensive Blair T-shirts
By Devika Bhat, The Times
POLICE issued two stallholders at a farming show with £80 fines for displaying T-shirts bearing the slogan “Bollocks to Blair”. Officers questioned staff on two stands at the Royal Norfolk Show after receiving a complaint, subsequently issuing two fixed-penalty notices of £80 for the offending garments.
Tom Williams, co-director of the clothing firm Splash, who was manning one of the stands, said that police told him it was legal to sell the pro-hunting shirts with the slogan on the back, but illegal to put them on display.
Toby Rhodes, a fellow director, said: “It’s utterly ridiculous and totally out of proportion. We have been selling the shirts for ages as part of the Countryside Alliance’s argument with the Labour Government over foxhunting. Tom was amazed when the officers told him they were distressing some people. They said they were issuing him with a fixed-penalty ticket and asked for his eye colour, shoe size and his National Insurance number, so they could keep track of him in case he reoffended.”
He told The Times: “They just arrived and issued the fine without any warning. We told them we were happy to take the T-shirts down but they said that the offence had already been committed.
“What makes it even more ridiculous is that we have been selling them for 18 months without anyone complaining.
“What was funny was that the show’s president then asked us to stop selling them altogether, but then later on the vice-president came and asked us how he could go about buying one himself. We’re continuing to display them at shows and they are selling really well. It is a bit of a punchy slogan but I personally find it offensive for young girls to go round in T-shirts with FCUK written on them. Perhaps we should spell it Bollokcs to Blair.”
Splash Clothing, which is based in Northampton and specialises in clothes for horse riders, is this week offering the same shirts at the Royal Show in Stoneleigh, Warwickshire.
Mr Rhodes said: “The word ‘bollocks’ has come to mean rubbish. It certainly doesn’t have the same shock value that it might have had when the Sex Pistols first used it on an album.”
Last night Norfolk police defended the action. A spokesman said: “Officers from Norfolk Constabulary issued two fixed penalty notices, each with a value of £80, at the Royal Norfolk Show in relation to two trade stands displaying T-shirts emblazoned with offensive language.
The notices were issued under Section 5 of the Public Order Act as the language was deemed to cause harassment, distress or alarm at an event, where a cross section of people were present including families and young children who may have found the displays offensive. Police did receive a complaint from a member of the public.
“The police officers in question explained the reasons for their actions to the two individuals concerned. Both men now have the right to either pay the penalty or challenge the action before magistrates.”
Inspector Andy Taylor added: “The stallholder was dealt with in an appropriate manner.”
By Devika Bhat, The Times
POLICE issued two stallholders at a farming show with £80 fines for displaying T-shirts bearing the slogan “Bollocks to Blair”. Officers questioned staff on two stands at the Royal Norfolk Show after receiving a complaint, subsequently issuing two fixed-penalty notices of £80 for the offending garments.
Tom Williams, co-director of the clothing firm Splash, who was manning one of the stands, said that police told him it was legal to sell the pro-hunting shirts with the slogan on the back, but illegal to put them on display.
Toby Rhodes, a fellow director, said: “It’s utterly ridiculous and totally out of proportion. We have been selling the shirts for ages as part of the Countryside Alliance’s argument with the Labour Government over foxhunting. Tom was amazed when the officers told him they were distressing some people. They said they were issuing him with a fixed-penalty ticket and asked for his eye colour, shoe size and his National Insurance number, so they could keep track of him in case he reoffended.”
He told The Times: “They just arrived and issued the fine without any warning. We told them we were happy to take the T-shirts down but they said that the offence had already been committed.
“What makes it even more ridiculous is that we have been selling them for 18 months without anyone complaining.
“What was funny was that the show’s president then asked us to stop selling them altogether, but then later on the vice-president came and asked us how he could go about buying one himself. We’re continuing to display them at shows and they are selling really well. It is a bit of a punchy slogan but I personally find it offensive for young girls to go round in T-shirts with FCUK written on them. Perhaps we should spell it Bollokcs to Blair.”
Splash Clothing, which is based in Northampton and specialises in clothes for horse riders, is this week offering the same shirts at the Royal Show in Stoneleigh, Warwickshire.
Mr Rhodes said: “The word ‘bollocks’ has come to mean rubbish. It certainly doesn’t have the same shock value that it might have had when the Sex Pistols first used it on an album.”
Last night Norfolk police defended the action. A spokesman said: “Officers from Norfolk Constabulary issued two fixed penalty notices, each with a value of £80, at the Royal Norfolk Show in relation to two trade stands displaying T-shirts emblazoned with offensive language.
The notices were issued under Section 5 of the Public Order Act as the language was deemed to cause harassment, distress or alarm at an event, where a cross section of people were present including families and young children who may have found the displays offensive. Police did receive a complaint from a member of the public.
“The police officers in question explained the reasons for their actions to the two individuals concerned. Both men now have the right to either pay the penalty or challenge the action before magistrates.”
Inspector Andy Taylor added: “The stallholder was dealt with in an appropriate manner.”
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
ANIMAL RIGHTS TERRORISM
These bullies don't scare me!
Three animal rights activists launched a terrifying attack on a family, including a 75-year-old grandmother, for having a pro-hunting sticker on their car, a court heard yesterday.
Heather Nicholson, Natasha Avery and Daniel Wadham jumped out of their car while stuck in a traffic jam to spit, screamed abuse and banged on the windows of their victims.
At one stage they hit a 75-year-old grandmother and tried to open the car doors to drag her 21-year-old grandson into the street. It was only the intervention of outraged members of the public that halted the attack.
Avery and Nicholson, both 38, are founding members of the controversial group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) which has instigated the hate campaign against companies involved in animal testing.
Together with Wadham, 19, they pleaded guilty to one charge of affray at Kingston Crown Court today.
Judge Nicholas Jones remanded Nicholson in custody and warned Avery and Wadham they could face jail when they are sentenced on July 21. The judge said: 'Custodial sentences appear to be merited in relation to these matters.'
The family who cannot be named for legal reasons to protect their safety were travelling in Richmond, south-west London during the attack on November 9 last year.
On the back of their Audi driven by the grandmother's daughter, Mrs A, in her mid-40s was a small sticker that said: 'Two working dogs, working people, work in hunting.'
The driver suddenly heard a bang on her window and a woman screaming: 'F+++ing scum, f+++ing perverts,' while Wadham was banging on the side of the car. One woman shouted: 'Get that sticker off your window.'
The 21-year-old shouted to his mother: 'Just drive,' to shake off the extremists. The traffic lights turned green and the family drove off but the extremists got back in their car to pursue.
When both cars had to stop at the next set of traffic lights on the A316 the attack began again. Mrs A tried to lock all her doors, but was unable to, and Nicholson launched another hate-filled rant screaming: 'F+++ing perverts, f+++ing scum.'
Mrs A was 'in tears and shaking' as Avery shouted similar obscene abuse at the passenger window. Mrs Nicholson then reached in the passenger door to pull Mrs A's son out of the car by his legs - but he kicked to stop her.
When the 75-year-old put her left arm out to help her grandson Nicholson hit her arm and Nicholson and Wadham spat in the 21-year-old's face and on the passenger door.
Other motorists came to the rescue of the family with one driver shouting to the extremists: 'If you want to start, start on me,' before police arrived to arrest all three.
Jill Evans, defending Nicholson, said her client had committed 'a most unattractive offence' but it was not premeditated.
Nicholson currently in jail on remand was last year jailed for breaching an ASBO placed in January last year which banned her from 500 metres of Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratories in Cambridgeshire or Suffolk, although this breach was later overturned by the court of appeal. Both she and Avery have a long string of previous convictions mostly relating to public order offences and animal rights protests.
The court heard Wadham has no previous convictions.
The court ordered that the trio's exact addresses are not to be published for fear of reprisals.
SHAC, formed in 1999, claims not to condone violence although many of its activists have previous convictions for attacking employees of animal laboratories. With members in the UK, US, Germany and Italy, it has been linked to fire bomb attacks on lab workers.
It has been accused by the FBI of posting the names and addresses of scientists and investors in drug testing firms, who have subsequently been attacked by the terrorist group The Animal Liberation Front. Some observers describe SHAC's role as offering a public face to ALF's paramilitary style tactics.
Three animal rights activists launched a terrifying attack on a family, including a 75-year-old grandmother, for having a pro-hunting sticker on their car, a court heard yesterday.
Heather Nicholson, Natasha Avery and Daniel Wadham jumped out of their car while stuck in a traffic jam to spit, screamed abuse and banged on the windows of their victims.
At one stage they hit a 75-year-old grandmother and tried to open the car doors to drag her 21-year-old grandson into the street. It was only the intervention of outraged members of the public that halted the attack.
Avery and Nicholson, both 38, are founding members of the controversial group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) which has instigated the hate campaign against companies involved in animal testing.
Together with Wadham, 19, they pleaded guilty to one charge of affray at Kingston Crown Court today.
Judge Nicholas Jones remanded Nicholson in custody and warned Avery and Wadham they could face jail when they are sentenced on July 21. The judge said: 'Custodial sentences appear to be merited in relation to these matters.'
The family who cannot be named for legal reasons to protect their safety were travelling in Richmond, south-west London during the attack on November 9 last year.
On the back of their Audi driven by the grandmother's daughter, Mrs A, in her mid-40s was a small sticker that said: 'Two working dogs, working people, work in hunting.'
The driver suddenly heard a bang on her window and a woman screaming: 'F+++ing scum, f+++ing perverts,' while Wadham was banging on the side of the car. One woman shouted: 'Get that sticker off your window.'
The 21-year-old shouted to his mother: 'Just drive,' to shake off the extremists. The traffic lights turned green and the family drove off but the extremists got back in their car to pursue.
When both cars had to stop at the next set of traffic lights on the A316 the attack began again. Mrs A tried to lock all her doors, but was unable to, and Nicholson launched another hate-filled rant screaming: 'F+++ing perverts, f+++ing scum.'
Mrs A was 'in tears and shaking' as Avery shouted similar obscene abuse at the passenger window. Mrs Nicholson then reached in the passenger door to pull Mrs A's son out of the car by his legs - but he kicked to stop her.
When the 75-year-old put her left arm out to help her grandson Nicholson hit her arm and Nicholson and Wadham spat in the 21-year-old's face and on the passenger door.
Other motorists came to the rescue of the family with one driver shouting to the extremists: 'If you want to start, start on me,' before police arrived to arrest all three.
Jill Evans, defending Nicholson, said her client had committed 'a most unattractive offence' but it was not premeditated.
Nicholson currently in jail on remand was last year jailed for breaching an ASBO placed in January last year which banned her from 500 metres of Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratories in Cambridgeshire or Suffolk, although this breach was later overturned by the court of appeal. Both she and Avery have a long string of previous convictions mostly relating to public order offences and animal rights protests.
The court heard Wadham has no previous convictions.
The court ordered that the trio's exact addresses are not to be published for fear of reprisals.
SHAC, formed in 1999, claims not to condone violence although many of its activists have previous convictions for attacking employees of animal laboratories. With members in the UK, US, Germany and Italy, it has been linked to fire bomb attacks on lab workers.
It has been accused by the FBI of posting the names and addresses of scientists and investors in drug testing firms, who have subsequently been attacked by the terrorist group The Animal Liberation Front. Some observers describe SHAC's role as offering a public face to ALF's paramilitary style tactics.
