Very rarely, Sky News let a normal person be interviewed. There was a policeman representing Met beat bobbies on this morning who was great – I caught his name as Paul Blecksley, but perhaps misheard as I couldn’t turn him up on google. He had some brilliant one liners, of which my favourite was “If senior officers did less dining and less politicking and more detecting, the taxpayer would be better served.” He also asked why on earth policemen needed a spin doctor anyway, and pointed out that if a normal cop accepts a thank you bag of chips from the local chippie, let alone a £12,000 holiday, he is for the high jump.

This was refreshing as he came immediately after New Labour’s shadow minister for policing (sic) – a name I am not bothered I didn’t catch – who said Stephenson was a man of great integrity blah blah blah.

It is quite wrong to believe that the well-connected bent cops like Hayman and Yates are supported by the average cop. They are rather detested, as was “Lord” Ian Blair. If anyone can find that straight talking interview, let me know. We won’t be seeing him again on mainstream media.

Cameron attempted to make out, in his press conference in South Africa, that the only difference on Libya between Zuma and Cameron was over whether Gadaffi should leave at the beignning or end of a new political process. Zuma then flatly contradicted him by stating unequivocally that the NATO bpmbing should stop.

The US’ decision to recognise the Benghazi regime (which, remember, nobody has elected either) as the government of Libya is purely about removing legal obstacles to huge sums of cash being spread round ruling elites and arms industries. In fact, it is still the case that less than half the population of Libya are under rebel control. Gadaffi has been able in the last fortnight to mobilise much larger mass rallies of supporters than he could in the months before the start of the bombing campaign. There is strong empirical evidence that, exactly as I predicted it would, the effect of the NATO bombing campaign has been to shore up Gadaffi’s popularity and entrench him more firmly into power than when he faced a purely internal rebellion.

What a terrible mess, and terrible loss of life.

A few bungs down police trousers and an extraordinary two way relationship that made New Scotland Yard an annex of the Murdoch empire, have done for Sir Paul Stephenson. A moment’s reflection that the callous killing of an innocent Brazilian man was not considered worth the resignation of anybody. And on the phone hacking scandal, while Stephenson was as enthusiastic an establishment schmoozer as any, it was his predecessor Blair with whom most of the guilt lies. Like Brooks, at the most charitable possible interpretation Blair was a lousy manager who had no idea what was happening.

I am however rather suspicious that Brooks’ arrest comes just in time to avoid any questions about her relationship with Cameron and others at the select committee – or indeed why she was a facebook friend of the committee chairman.

I am still rather puzzled by why the police have not informed approximately 3,750 of the over 4,000 potential phone hacking victims that their names are on the list. By not informing the victims, of course, the police have so far limited the number of civil suits against News International.

It is hard to recall, (and nowadays I try not to recall it) but there was a period of a few weeks back in 2003 and 2004 when I was front page news, and there were a good few tabloid stories about Nadira’s belly dancing past. Now I wonder….

Unfortunately my plans for a weekend of drinking and watching golf were foiled on Friday by a really acute attack of illness, which by 3am Sunday morning had become quite alarming. Happily I feel a good bit stronger now. I did watch the golf all day yesterday, but I felt so unwell that when I awoke this morning I could not recollect any of it.

I am much cheered to learn that Sheikh Raed Saleh was released from jail on Friday. It is quite incredible that he could be imprisoned on the word of the Home Secretary – as grubby third rate politician – for his political opinions, but without clearly definable cause, and after he had already given on this visit a couple of public speeches in which he had said not one word which anyone claimed as constituting an offence.

Both the UK and US governments encouraged the Greeks to prevent the Gaza peace convoy from sailing. This from the invaluable Mary, who should take over writing this blog:

Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central, Labour)
.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Greek Government on the Gaza Aid flotilla.
.
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 13 July 2011, c385W)
.
David Lidington (Minister of State (Europe and NATO), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Aylesbury, Conservative)
.
Officials from our embassy in Athens have discussed the matter of the Gaza flotilla with the Greek authorities and have relayed to them the United Kingdom’s position on this. Our travel advice for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories gives clear guidance against any attempt to enter Gaza by sea. We continue to advise against participating in flotillas or overland convoys to Gaza because of the risks involved.

So between Saleh and that, it seems any attempt to support Palestine is simply to be blocked by the force of the state. What astonishes me is that so few people seem to care about this growing fascism.

When you have a fever, thoughts run though your head insistently, in a different pattern of thinking to the normal. Anyone know why this is? While I was ill this morning, I kept remembering one incident. When I stood as an independent anti-war candidate against Jack Straw in Blackburn, the large body of New Labour supporters inside the count booed and jeered me like a football crowd when my result was read out. The BNP candidate – who had been booed a little – turned to me in some astonishment and said “They hate you more than they hate me.”

I did record that in Murder in Samarkand, but had only ever thought of it as an amusing incident. While I was sweating last night, it kept hammering at my brain as important. Now I feel a bit better, it still seems important.

After five years of heated blogging, I take a couple of days off to watch golf and down many a litre of pinot grigio, while sticking up some wind-up posts about abolishing the BBC and Jane Goody accents. The result? Rebekah Brooks falls, Murdoch teeters and the horrid nest of corrupt cop liars are in trouble.

This was a two bottle day. For tomorrow’s third round I shall drink three bottles of pinot grigio (or probably a nice burgundy, given the weather forecast). That should bring down Cameron.

Who said alcohol isn’t good for you? It has wonderful results.

I have managed to cause a stir with my dismissive comments on estuary english on the BBC in my last post. I do not think the estuary english phenomenon should be confused with a regional accent. I have absolutely no prejudice against regional accent. I sport the remnants of one myself. The genuine regional accent of Essex is very pleasant, and not too dissimilar to that of Suffolk. It is not a bastardized version of cockney adopted by the weak-minded because it is redolent of a set of identifiable and fashionable cultural attitudes, of which materialism and anti-intellectualism are the most prominent.

Is it snobbery to despise estuary english and those who speak it? No. It is something called taste.

I am trying to watch the Open on TV, but for some reason the BBC feel the need to interpose some fool with an estuary accent, who has no apparent connection to the sport. We missed Tom Watson’s second to the second because this idiot was interviewing somebody from Celebrity Come Dancing.

It reminds me of the ruining of Panorama by populism, exemplified by it being fronted by the deeply unpleasant Jeremy Vine, who has also been introduced to election coverage, just in case we miss estuary accents there also.

If the BBC exists in a popular culture where current affairs must be explained not by intellectuals but by diamond geezers, and golf presented by unqualified chirpy chappies, it really no longer does anything that the private sector cannot do. It is time to close down BBC Television and abolish the license fee. Radio three, four and the World Service are genuine public services, and could be funded by a small sum from general taxation. A small grant from general taxation should be given to producers of highest quality TV drama. The rest of the populist rubbish should be cut adrift into the private sector, and 97% of the vastly expensive bureaucracy sacked.

I am having a day off to watch the Open on TV. Which is a choice, as I can see the course from my bedroom window across the bay, about five miles as the crow flies. Feel free to talk among yourselves. Here is an excellent article by my friend Stephen Grey, if you want something to read.

In the First Afghan war (1839-42) British India sought to extend its influence by displacing the ruler of Kabul, Dost Mohammed, and replacing him with a puppet ruler, Shah Shujah, who had been deposed by Dost Mohammed in a lengthy civil war some thirty years previously. Both were Dourrani chiefs.

The British also wished to extend their rule by enforcing the sovereignty of Shah Shujah over bits of the old Dourrani Empire that had not been subject to Kabul for many years. To this end they deposed and killed the Khan of Kelat, Mehrab Khan. Here again there was a puppet ruler in our baggage, Nawaz Khan, whose line of the Kelat royal family had been deposed four generations previously.

But Nawaz Khan was soon driven out by popular insurrection led by Mehrab Khan’s 14 year old son, Nusseer Khan. He fought a guerilla campaign in the hills against British occupation for over a year. Finally the British, having spent a huge amount of money on pouring in reinforcements, cornered young Nusseer Khan and about 1200 followers at the head of the valley of Kotra. Colonel Marshall’s Brigade consisted of the 25th N.I> with detachments of the 21st N.I. and second grenadier regiment, plus horse artillery and irregular cavalry.

On 26 November 1840 Marshall caught up with Nusseer Khan and gave him one hour to surrender. Just as the hour elapsed an envoy appeared under a flag of truce and terms were agreed. Nusseer Khan was given three days to disperse his forces, and would then travel to Quetta to submit to Captain Bean, the political officer. As Nusseer Khan was broke, Colonel Marshall advanced him £200 to pay off his men and travel to Quetta. Marshall then retired back down to the mouth of the valley.

The next day, Marshall received this order from his superior, General Brooks:

Sir,—I am directed by Major-General Brooks, commanding the Field Army, to acquaint you that, by information received from Sehun Lal, the native agent at Kotria, it appears that a body of insurgent Brahoes, amounting to about 1200 men, located at the entrance of this Pass not more than 8 miles from your post, have been lulled into fancied security by our apparent inactivity.

2. This state of affairs leads the Major-General, in communication with the Political Agent, to consider that an attack judiciously planned, and with the utmost secresy and caution, will enable you, without fail, to cut up and destroy this body ; and with this view I am to give you the following information.

3. The enclosed Persian letter from Mr. Ross Bell to Sehun Lal, contains that gentleman’s instructions to him to place himself under your orders, for the purpose above mentioned, to furnish you with guides, to accompany you in person, and to procure and furnish you the most specific information as to the position occupied by the Brahoes,—whether on the height, in the hollow, or in the defile, and their state and numbers ; in order to enable you to concoct your plans for surprising them.

4. You will send for Sehun Lal, and deliver the enclosed letter to him—no other person being present, directing him, after he has read and made known its contents to you, to deliver it into your keeping : you will then arrange your plans with him—placing the most implicit reliance on his good faith.

5. You are not to communicate the subject of this letter to any one, as the whole success of the plan depends on the most profound secresy being observed ; and you will endeavour, in preparing your troops, to do so in such manner as to give rise to no suspicions of your objects.

6. You will leave 200 men, under the command of a steady intelligent officer, in your camp ; and you will take with you the remainder of your infantry, and all your cavalry ; and so arrange your march as to fall on the enemy at day-break.

7. You will take no tentt or baggage of any kind : the men to carry one meal in their havresacks, and to fill their canteens ; their pouches are to be well supplied with cartridges.

8. You are on no account to advance more than one day’s march from your camp : you will pay particular attention to the guides ; they are to be well treated, but closely watched, and in case of treachery put to death on the spot ; and you will take care that, if there is the least cause for suspicion, they shall not escape you.

9. In conclusion, I am directed to repeat, that nothing but the most complete secresy, as to your plans and intentions, can give you success,—and the Major General enjoins this above all things: even your officers should not know your intentions till you are close to the Pass. You will, of course, grant quarter to those who surrender.

(Signed) James Holland, Major,
Dep. Qr.-Mr. Genl. of the Army

On the morning of 29 November 1840 Colonel Marshall’s force, quietly and under cover of darkness, surrounded Nusseer Khan’s camp, sleeping peacefully under truce. At daybreak they opened fire. About 500 were killed in the massacre, and many more wounded. Young Nusseer Khan remarkably managed to escape over the mountain with a handful of supporters.

General Brooks argued later that he did not know the terms of the truce when he wrote his order. Nonetheless the massacre took place under truce. It is a breach of faith to rank with Glencoe, and a much bigger massacre, and 150 years more recent. These things help explain why our troops now are so resented in Afghanistan.

The great airline bomb plot was a totally impractical idea in the minds of a very small number (four) of isolated extremists, penetrated from the start by the state, who never did make their liquid bomb cocktail work, never did blow anything up, never did buy plane tickets and for the most part hadn’t actually got round to applying for passports yet. However, these deluded fantasists provided the excuse for billions of taxpayers’ money to be pumped to the security industry, and made air travel even more annoying with the crazy war on shampoo.

They also proved an invaluable bogeyman of last resort for bent Met cops, who could not chase real harmful monsters like Rupert Murdoch because they were too busy colluding with Murdoch in pumping out propaganda about the fantasy monsters – sorry, saving us all from terrorists.

An invaluable analysis on the bent cops from Nick Davies here – although even he feels he has to genuflect to “the terrorist threat”.

Aren’t members of parliament amazing? Suddenly they all have noticed that the Murdoch influence is a cancer in society, which is something the rest of us have known for 30 years. Equally suddenly they have noticed that Andy Hayman is a lying buffoon, whereas before they took him as a great bastion against terrorism whose every word must be treated with respect. This blog and other blogs have been telling them he was a lying buffoon for years, most indisputably over the appalling lies he spread in the media about Jean Charles De Menezes.

Good work on Hayman here. I had missed the fact that Murdoch employed him after he left the cops.

Anonymous have apparently released 90,000 military email addresses, according to news sources everywhere. I am afraid I need help to understand this. Where are these addresses, and is each listed with its password so we can read actual emails? If not, what use is this? I am not technology savvy, so I may be missing something here.

No man is an island, and each man’s death diminishes me.  But some more than others and the loss of Ahmed Wali Karzai, Governor of Kandahar, monster of corruption, second largest heroin dealer in the world, is not particularly saddening.  It is, however, a tremedous reminder of the absolute futility of the war in Afghanistan.

NATO have killed uncounted thousands, many of them civilians, precisely to put Ahmed Wali Karzai and his like into power.  Ahmed Wali and his counterparts have stolen many billions of  Western taxpayers’ money, intended for aid and reconstruction.  They have flooded the world with more and cheaper heroin than ever seen before.  Somehow this has all been a great victory for the West.  

The difference between Karzai and his brother is one of style, not substance.  The idea that Ahmed Wali was up to his ears in drugs and corruption, but elder brother Ahmed is clean, is absolute nonsense.  It is however part of the myth we are supposed to absorb to justify this war, which has been extremely profitable for weapons manufacturers and other military suppliers, and boosted the funding and standing of the military themselves, mercenaries and the whole shady “security industry”.  What it has not done is improve the lives of the people of Afghanistan. 

 Ahmed Wali Karzai, by getting killed by his bodyguard, has done us a favour.  Otherwise the media could have ignored him and all he stands for about the Afghanistan which NATO has created, and just continued to sell us the lies about improved security, wise governance and girls going to school – none of which are true.

What do Rebekah Brooks, Christopher Lee and Vincent Price have in common?

The answer is obvious – they were all born on May 27th.

John Whittingdale MP is Chairman of the parliamentary select committee on media, culture and sport. He was interviewed on Sky News today, where he suggested that his committee should do nothing at all about the fact that Rebekah Wade Brooks misled parliament and lied to the committee, at least until police investigations and the judge-led inquiry are over. Murdoch’s main priority on this visit will doubtless be to work with Cameron to get the right safe judge appointed, while Clegg poses for the tabloids with the family of poor Millie Dowler.

Whittingdale, incidentally, is the man who allegedly warned MPs on the select committee that if they interrogated Rebekah, then their personal lives would be shredded. He hardly gave her a hard time in the committee, and for a committee chairman to whom she brazenly lied, he has been notably pusillanimous since; nor did he make any real effort to do anything about her astonishingly candid admission to his committee that the News of the World paid bribes to policemen.

Is it not therefore interesting that, at least as late as the end of last week (when Rebekah hid her facebook page), Whittingdale and Rebekah were friends on facebook, along with several Murdochs?

I am awake at this unholy hour because I am about to start the tortuous Sunday rail journey between Ramsgate and Diss, in order to attend Julian Assange’s fortieth birthday party at Ellingham Hall.

I am not sure who else is going, but the initial invitation did not give train information, but did tell you where to land your private plane or helicopter. I am going because I think Wikileaks do essential work and because I think Julian is an extraordinary mand and is being stitched up – his appeal against extradition is on Tuesday and this week he could be in a cell in Sweden on those entirely ludicrous sexual assault charges. I am also gong because I hope that some of the whistleblowing community might be there. And I am going because it says “party”!

Nonetheless, I worry that the amusing fact that the invitation tells you where to land your private jet or helicopter, actually is an indication of where Wikilleaks is going wrong.

That is perhaps strange for me to say of a thriving organisation with funds and staff, who have exposed much more of government wrongdoing than I ever managed. But I could not understand why Julian was using the celebrity media lawyer Stephens rather than one of our great, solid human rights lawyers. I emailed wikileaks several times before the trial to say they had absolutely the wrong kind of lawyer, and that there were several much more appropriate human rights lawyers used to dealing with politically motivated criminal charges, with a terrific record and respect in the courts, and who may well take it on pro bono. I got no reply. I presumed that this was because Wikileaks were being loyal to lawyers who believed in them, had been their lawyers before criminal charges arose, and who worked for them for nothing. But I now read that Assange has unpaid legal bills of £200,000. I think that Don King haired lawyer bloke who yelled a lot was a major mistake.

I also worry that they managed to fall out with David Leigh of the Guardian, for whom I have huge respect (which he has made plain to me is not mutual, but that is another story). I was myself very offended indeed when I was kicked off the panel of Assange’s New Statesman debate on whistleblowing. I suspect it was a combination of establishment objections, and a desire to curry favour with the New Statesman and Al Jazeera, for both of whom I made room. But the whole Stephens/Al Jazeera/stately home/celebrities in private jets thing indicates to me a fascination with the bubble celebrity which will leave you crying when it bursts.

I am one of Assange’s admirers, not one of his detractors. I am going along to show my genuine support. There may in fact be a good turnout, because this is probably the best chance this weekend for the radical chic wealthy to get together and thrill over the wounds of Murdoch. There is an auction of donations to raise funds for his legal expenses, which I hope goes well – personal bids will establish a reserve price, and then the items will go on to ebay. I do hope that goes well too. And I hope when Assange’s celebrity dies down, those helicopter riders will still support him.

I just doubt it.

Hat-tip to Mary for pointing me in the right direction.

For those of us who experienced a surge of naive hope that News International have been referred to Ofcom for a ruling on the “Fit and Proper Persons” test, here is a bucket of cold water. Rather than being disinterested public servants, the Board of Ofcom represent the political and financial establishments which are so irreversibly penetrated by the spores of News International. Many of them hold directorships of companies – like banks and insurance companies – which have a direct interest in seeing no further plunge in News Corp/News International share price. They are also beneficiaries of the policies Murdoch has championed – private equity firms and privatised utilities, for example.

Bluntly, there is no chance that a body of which the Chairman, Colette Bowe, is a Director of Morgan Stanley and of Electra Private Equity is going to pull the rug on News Corp.

Here is but a selection of some of the Directorships held by Ofcom board members:

Morgan Stanley
Electra Private Equity
Thames Water
Axa
Betfair Group
JJB Sports
Pace Plc – supplier of set top boxes to Murdoch’s Sky
Nujira Ltd – defence contractors to US military
Standard Life

That is just a selection. In addition, the Chairman is a director of the Wincott Foundation, a “charity” whose purpose is to spread the far right economic doctrines of Milton Friedman in Eastern Europe – to the benefit, ultimate if incidental, of Morgan Stanley and Electra Private Equity, in which she also holds directorships.

She is most unlikely to find the Murdoch influence pernicious, wouldn’t you say?

How on earth did we come to have a regulatory body for the communications industry composed of these kind of parasites? Why is it so overpacked with businessmen and so devoid of intellectuals? Again, to put that simply, why the Chairman of JJB Sports and no Eric Hobsbawm?

Our entire fabric of government is a sick fucking joke.

Rebekah Brooks has now laid down several hundred jobs to save her own. She has also made way for the brand new super soaraway Sunday Sun. News International have evidently decided to gamble on the idea that there is no end to the gullibility of the British mass public.

But let us stop and consider. A great part of British newspaper history, a paper that supported imprisoned Chartists , has just been lost. With it have gone hundreds of jobs. It has been lost because the management of News International at the News of the World was either criminally involved or culpably negligent – there are no other choices. By their destruction of the News of the World, News Corp have proven beyond any doubt that they are not fit and proper persons to run media in this country. Ofcom must now act on this to use its powers to disbar unfit persons, and force News Corp to sell all its media interests in the UK.

The result of the News International scandal should be that senior News International figures and senior policemen go to jail. It won’t be – the result will be a public inquiry, pushed back till long, long after media interest has abated, and concluding regrettable mistakes were made, by comparatively junior people.

Hardly any of the media noticed the announcement yesterday that the Gibson inquiry into UK government complicity in torture will finally start to get under way. This should be a dreadful warning – particularly not to be misled by the Nick Clegg device of valuing a “judge-led” inquiry as the indicator of worth. Gibson is a judge – and was also the Commissioner for the Security Services, asked now to “independently” investigate whether he was himself complicit or ineffective. Similarly Hutton was a judge – a Northern Irish one, so close to the security services as to be a thoroughly reliable tool for government.

Anybody who thinks that the Tory Party and Murdoch don’t already have a tame judge firmly in mind, is a complete fool.

Gibson’s protocols and terms of reference are a complete farce. As I told you months ago, after I was tipped off by senior British diplomats, they will only accept evidence related firmly to individual named detainees, rather than consider the general policy of cooperation with extraordinary rendition and receipt of intelligence from torture chambers abroad. The US Government will have a veto over what can be revealed by UK officials and documents about CIA involvement – and, as the UK/US intelligence sharing agreement and the CIA’s extraordinary rendition programme is the entire context of the torture policy, that already renders the inquiry useless. The Cabinet Secretary – ie the government – and not the judge, will decide which documents can be made public.

The Guardian deserve congratulations for doing an excellent job in reporting this.

So restrictive are the terms under which the inquiry will be conducted, however, that Justice, the UK section of the International Commission of Jurists, warned that it was likely to fail to comply with UK and international laws governing investigations into torture. Eric Metcalfe, the organisation’s director of human rights policy said: “Today’s rules mean that the inquiry is unlikely to get to the truth behind the allegations and, even if it does, we may never know for sure. However diligent and committed Sir Peter and his team may be, the government has given itself the final word on what can be made public.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: “When is an inquiry not an inquiry? When it’s a secret internal review. The use of torture by great democracies was the most shaming scandal of the war on terror. Today’s disappointing announcement suggests ministers, not independent judges will decide what the public is entitled to know. It is very hard to see the point of wasting public money on such a sham.”

Clive Stafford Smith, director of the legal charity Reprieve, said the inquiry was heading for a whitewash, with the US authorities in effect deciding what the public should learn. “Virtually nothing will be made public that is not already in the public domain,” he said. “This is meant to be an inquiry into British complicity into torture and rendition, almost all of which was complicity with the Americans. Yet these terms give America a veto on much of what should be public.”

Solicitor Gareth Peirce, who also represents several victims, described the inquiry as “a wholly inadequate response to the gravest of state crimes – torture”. She added that while the Ministry of Defence exposed the torture of Baha Mousa to public scrutiny “the intelligence services, in contrast, are being allowed to hide”.

Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP for Chichester, who chairs the all- party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, said: “Sir Peter Gibson has stated that he will not be asking the US or other foreign organisations for information on rendition. Without this information, his examination of other aspects of rendition is likely to be incomplete. The plain and highly regrettable fact is that the UK government is not in possession of all the facts on its own involvement in rendition. This is what government departments have confirmed to me.”

Keith Best, chief executive of the charity Freedom from Torture, said: “Effective survivor participation demands an open process. Every decision along the way that privileges secrecy will erode the inquiry’s capacity to deliver justice to victims of torture that Britain knew about or was otherwise complicit in.”

Amnesty International said the government appeared to have “squandered the opportunity to address a mounting pile of allegations of involvement of its agents and policymakers in the torture and ill-treatment of detainees” in a way that ensures public confidence.

There was no immediate response from the inquiry team to the criticisms it is facing.

It gets worse. The inquiry’s offices, at 35 Great Smith St, are in a Cabinet Office building. It is staffed not by people from the judicial service but by central government civil servants. All the inquiry’s computers are Cabinet Office computers which are an integral part of the Whitehall central government computer network, and the inquiry’s papers can be accessed by MI5, MI6, the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office without leaving their desks. I contacted the Inquiry last night offering to give evidence – and some staff in the FCO had copies of my email this morning. That is how “independent” the Gibson Inquiry is.

Consider this – the Secretary of the Inquiry is Alun Evans, former Director of Strategic Communications in No. 10 and before that John Precott’s spin doctor. The secretariat staff:

Four are from the Cabinet Office, two from the Ministry of Defence and one from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. .

An independent inquiry?

This is such a sick joke it is beyond belief.

My present thought is, that while I very much respect those who are boycotting this inquiry, yet given that I have an eyewitness account that the Foreign Office specifically sought to twist the terms of reference to exclude my evidence, it would be crazy to make them happy by boycotting. But nor do I wish to submit unsolicited written evidence that the Inquiry can simply bury in Volume III Appendix B p. 4278-4291. Their website says specifically that Crown Servants and Former Crown Servants will normally be approached by the Inquiry – they are anxious not to encourage whistleblowers to come forward. So I have written to them, offering to give evidence but putting the onus on them to call me. This is what I sent:

I was, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the only senior British civil servant who entered a formal written objection to my Secretary of State on the subject of our complicity in torture, and in doing so I specifically referred to our being in breach of the UN Convention on Torture.

I submitted evidence and gave oral testimony on the UK’s policy of complicity in torture to the European Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry into Extraordinary Rendition in Brussels, and the Council of Europe Inquiry into Extraordinary Rendition in Strasbourg, as well as the UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. I note that your guidance says that normally your Inquiry will take the initiative to call former crown servants. I am therefore making contact with you, so the Inquiry has my contact details, and I expect to be called.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Craig Murray
HM Ambassador to Uzbekistan 2002-4

I am going to approach the FCO for assistance over this provision:

Current and former civil and crown servants called as witnesses can expect to receive legal and financial support from their current or former Department or agency.

I have a feeling we will find that whistleblowers are excluded from this provision!

Actually, you could not invent a more farcical “independent” inquiry if you tried to write the blackest of satires. Yet, if there was one area where I honestly did believe that the Lib Dems and even the Tories would be better than New Labour, it was over civil liberties. Plainly we just don’t have career politicians who care about freedom at all, or any principle other than their personal power and self-enrichment.

The total corruption of this country’s political community is the lesson from both the immunity of the Murdoch empire, and the Gibson non-inquiry into state complicity in torture.

A couple of points are worrying me. Why have the police not been into all of News International’s offices, particularly its HQ, and removed all the hard drives, rather than waiting for News International voluntarily to sort through their own emails and hand over what they choose? This seems to me absolutely remarkable. The Met even raided Damian Green’s House of Commons office, but they treat News International precisely as though it were a foreign embassy with diplomatic immunity.

The second point is, how can Lord Macdonald – whom I have respected in the past – be acting as their lawyer now, when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions responsible for inaction on this some years past?

This scandal is fascinating because it has the potential to expose so many layers of the cosy corruption of the British establishment.

If anybody feels that News International’s chief executive Rebekah Brooks and those close to her should have their champagne lives a little bit interrupted and annoyed, facebook members can always go to her facebook page. You can scroll down her friends on the left hand side, and send them messages telling them exactly what you think of the company they keep. They include several Murdochs, and the odd MP, so you can get quite abusive. Don’t do threatening, please.

I do think an hour’s harmful diversion breaks up the working day to useful effect. Nobody will be nearly as upset as were the families of muder victims by what Ms Brooks’ organisation did in phone hacking their lost relatives.

The most astonishing fact to emerge so far is that it is now six months since News International emails were given over listing tens of thousands of pounds of corrupt payments they made to police. Yet nobody – bent policeman or Murdoch slime – is in handcuffs for this yet. Is there any possible innocent explanation for this?