July 2005 Archives

The Sunday Times reports the astonishing news from a "Downing Street source" that the disgreced ex-Home Secretary David Blunkett is to take over control of the Home Office, whilst his replacement Charles Clarke goes on holiday.

'A senior Downing Street source said: "There has been a lot of fuss over Charles going on holiday, but we think he deserves one and David Blunkett will fill in over that brief period while he is out of the country. He obviously has a lot of experience in the area."

Tony Blair, who is to go on holiday this week, has also given Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, a role in the day-to-day running of the department. John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, will be in overall charge of government while Blair is abroad.

The source added: “Prescott is in charge, but Blunkett will have control over issues relating to the Home Office.”'

So why is Hazel Blears MP, Minister of State for Policing, Security and Community Safety, who is meant to be responsible for "Counter terrorism" not up to the job ?

David Blunkett did not resign from the Home Office for reeasons of health or family , it was the result of getting caught out in a meddling with an immigration visa as part of his scandalous private life.

David Blunkett should not have been brought back into the Cabinet as Minsister for the Department for Work and Pensions, let alone anywhere near the Home Office where, presumably he will be rubber stamping Control Orders, Extradition Warrants, Electronic Intercept Warrants, and Immigration Visas and Appeals etc.

Who exactly is in charge of the massive Department for Work and Pensions, whilst Blunkett is crushing civil liberties and meddling with the Home Office and Police and the Security Service ?

Why was David Blunklett chosen rather than Jack Straw, also a former Home Secretary, who is presumably more currently more up to up to date with anti-terrorism investigations than Blunkett, since MI6 the foreign espionage Secret Service reports to him.

What are NuLabour playing at ? They have not protected our civil liberties and they have not prevented terrorist attacks in London.

Any sucesses by the Metropolitan Police and the Security Service etc. seem to be in spite of the NuLabour politicians, and not as a result of their incompetent leadership.

NuLabour's usual leak, brief, media spin cycle is in operation again regarding the proposed new "Counter Terrorism" legislation.

As the Labour Home Secretary Charles Clarke "consults" today behind closed doors with the Opposition spokesmen the Conservative David Davis and Liberal Democrat Mark Oaten on the vague new legislation there are a few obvious questions which must be answered:

It used to be small donations from millions of workers, mostly through their Trades Unions, which supported the Labour party financially, but no longer.
The Guardian reports on the £2 million donation to the Labour party by Lakshmi Mittal, one of the world's richest men.

"Gift of £2m makes Mittal Labour's biggest benefactor

Steel magnate warns against 'false allegations'

Michael White, political editor
Thursday July 14, 2005
The Guardian

The global steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, one of Britain's richest men, announced yesterday that he had given £2m to Labour funds - making him the party's biggest donor alongside Lord Sainsbury, the supermarket tycoon turned science minister.
The announcement of his latest donation, Mr Mittal's first since he gave £125,000 in 2001, was accompanied by a warning letter from his solicitors, reminding the media that, though he did not sue over "false and defamatory allegations" over his motive in 2001, he would do so if the claims were repeated now."

When the first gift was revealed a year later it was linked to the fact that Tony Blair had written to the prime minister of Romania shortly afterwards, backing Mr Mittal's efforts to take over a steel plant in that country - part of a pattern of worldwide acquisition of ailing steelworks that has amassed him a fortune estimated at at least £12bn.

He topped this year's Sunday Times Rich List, which put his estimated wealth at £14.8bn.

At the time of the revelation Mr Mittal and Mr Blair angrily denied any such link, with Downing Street stressing - as Margaret Thatcher did when confronted with similar charges - that the prime minister was doing what he would do for any British businessman.

It later transpired that few employees of the Mittal Steel Company - whose chairman and chief executive is Mr Mittal - actually worked in Britain.

But governments of both parties have long accepted that UK residence for some of the world's super-rich, even those non-domiciled for tax purposes, has more advantages than disadvantages for the British economy.

The solicitors, Schillings, called Mr Mittal "a very private person" - he rarely gives any interviews.

Schillings also warned last night against invasions of privacy as a result of the announcement or - for security reasons - any attempt by the media to publish his private address."

The 12 bedroom mansion at 18-19 Kensington Palace Gardens, "knocked together out of the former Egyptian Embassy and an annex to the former Soviet Embassy" , and reputed to be the world's most expensive private residence.

Is Mittal planning to sue the even richer Bill Gates' MSNBC for
publishing a photo of it ?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4722789/

No doubt Lakshmi Mittal can afford more than one private address, but he has no more right to keep these anonymous than anyone else does in the UK.

"The house is now expected to become the main British residence of Mittal, who also has a £9m mansion in north London and a luxury flat near his Mayfair office"

Lakshmi Mittal's stated reasons for the donation simply do not add up:

"In a brief statement he explained the reasons for the donation.

"I believe that the Labour party has made a significant and very positive impact on the overall prosperity of the United Kingdom since it came to office in 1997," he said.

"The party has set out long-term investment plans to further improve education, health, employment, skills and technology and I am supportive of the work it is doing in these fields.""

That is a creepy conflation of the distinct roles and achievements of the British Government and people with the alleged achievements of the NuLabour clique. Most of the achievements have been in spite of the meddling and bumbling by NuLabour political commissars, and not directly as a result of their policies.

Having made his fortune by asset stripping and re-vitalising former Communist steel works, have his experiences of dealing with authoritarian bureaucrats and Party officials led him to this strategy for obtaining access and influence to NuLabour apparatchiki ?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown seems to be keen to give the appearance of being "seen to be doing something" about terrorism.

Invoking the spectre of the Madrid and London bombings, according to this BBC report:

"Chancellor Gordon Brown is to urge EU finance ministers to step up efforts to seize the assets of terrorist groups in the wake of the London bombings.

He will make the plea during talks at the European Parliament in Brussels.

Mr Brown also wants European ministers to target the resources of people who support the targeted organisations."

Except, of course, that his Treasury and Bank of England have a pathetic record of doing this, as shown by this:

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 22 Mar 2005 (pt 25)

"22 Mar 2005 : Column 713W—continued

Terrorist Assets
Dr. Vis: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money suspected of being linked to terrorist assets (a) worldwide and (b) in the United Kingdom has been frozen since 11 September 2001. [223023]

Mr. Timms: Since 11 September 2001, 44 accounts totalling some £347,000 have been frozen in the UK. In total, 45 accounts, totalling some £378,000 are currently frozen by UK financial institutions. There is no global figure of the total assets frozen—monitoring frozen funds is a matter for individual jurisdictions.

All organisations and individuals whose assets have been frozen in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolutions, associated EC Regulations and domestic legislation are listed, by HM Treasury instruction, on the Bank of England's Financial Sanctions website. Asset freezing is an essential measure in countering the financing of terrorism by denying terrorists and their financiers access to funds across the world. Taking action not only freezes any funds in the UK but also creates a hostile environment to deter terrorists from using the UK's financial system in future. "

£380,000 would not buy the average NuLabour Cabinet minister a second home, let alone pose a serious threat to international terrorist finances in the three and a bit years since September 2001.

How many individuals do the "45 accounts" represent ? There certainly have not been 45 people arrested, let alone charged or convicted of "terrorist fundraising" or "financing" under the Terrorism Act 2000

The concepts of financial blacklists for suspected but not proven "people who support" terrorist organisations is also rubbish, since it usually means a flawed reliance on the anglicised spellings of foreign names and addresses.

Of course not every "terrorist group" e.g. the Taleban in Afghanistan, or the various Chechen separatist groups, are actually even designated as proscribed terrorist organisations according to the Home Office - simply pretending that every terrorist somehow belongs to the nebulous "Al-Quaeda" is stupid and wrong.

How do NuLabour Ministers get brainwashed into making NuSpeak declarations, which even to supporters of ID cards must sound hollow and false ?

Spy Blog notes that:

"The NuLabour Home Secretary Charles Clarke seems to expect us to believe his statement during the Second Reading debate that

"I argue that the ID card system is in fact a bulwark against the surveillance or Big Brother society, and not a further contribution to it."

Is it terrorists, serious organised criminal, illegal immigrants, benefit fraudsters or "identity thieves" (the presumed statutory targets of the Identity Cards Bill) who are setting up multi-billion pound technological mass surveillance infrastructures to spy on everyone in the UK, or is it the NuLabour Government which is planning to do so ?"