Sky News has a viewers’ vote which shows 88% believe that Tessa Jowell should resign. However they have two guests to discuss the issue with Adam Boulton. One was her friend and former ministerial colleague Baroness Jay and the other her junior minister! They are featuring nobody who thinks she should resign.

The BBC is still worse. The streamer under BBC News 24 regularly tells us that the separation is not a ploy to save her political career. I listened to Radio 4, watched Andrew Marr’s political programme and BBC New 24 from 9.55 to 10.40. Not a single critic of Jowell has appeared on the BBC, even though it is the headline story on all these outlets. They are simply deluging us with pro-Jowell propaganda.

For anyone who ever doubted the existence of the “Establishment”, this is a real lesson. The views of the people can’t get on to the media at all.

BBC – Tessa Jowell splits from husband

The latest move in the Jowell scandal is the most cynical bit of media manipulation. Tearful Tessa, lower lip trembling, eyes welling, torn apart from the man she loves. Altogether now: Aaah! But wait – there is hope. The couple need time to “rebuild” their relationship. So they will get back together after all, in a happy reconciliation, probably just after the local elections.

Who could be so stupid as to buy this crap? Well, the BBC has been reporting it all morning without the tiniest touch of irony. Even the saintly Martin Bell was wheeled out to say that Tessa is now out of the woods.

This answers none of the questions about the money laundering and the corrupt payment she has already received, and is plainly a ploy to divert attention from the continual lies she has told about her involvement in the family finances. Her story yesterday wouldn’t stand up to a moment’s genuine scrutiny – so let’s divert the scrutiny.

It is as if Fred and Rosemary West had said: “OK, we’ve separated now. We’ll see if we can rebuild our relationship. So there is no longer any need to dig up the garden or the cellar.”

The Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger still tries to defend his personal friend Tessa Jowell. From today’s Guardian Leader:

“Ms Jowell has been acquitted by a questionable procedure. That does not make her guilty; a less questionable procedure would very likely acquit her too.”

Oh yes. A genuinely independent judge would have no difficulty believing that her husband did not tell her for four years that he received a $600,000 gift, or that she saw nothing to indicate the mortgage had been paid off. Or that when she then remortgaged the same house again – twice – it did not occur to her that this would not be a problem if, as she claims, she believed the first mortgage had not been paid off.

Let me rephrase my “Does anyone believe her?” question. Does anyone believe her except Alan Rusbridger and Michael White? We all wait for Polly Toynbee’s article entitled “Money laundering is OK if you have a peg on your nose.”

(I suppose I ought to explain that. At the last general election, Polly Toynbee’s Guardian column urged voters to vote New Labour but to show their disapproval of the illegal war on Iraq by wearing a peg on their nose while they did it.)

Craig

I now learn that Tessa Jowell not only claims that she did not know that her husband had received $600,000, but did not know that her own mortgage had been paid off.

I simply do not believe her. Let me be perfectly plain. I am calling her a liar. Go on, sue me.

I recently paid off my mortgage. That involves paperwork. It also involves the deeds of the house being sent from the mortgage company. This is a very careful and important transaction, and the mortgage company will make absolutely certain that it has the agreement of all parties to the mortgage as to where the deeds are being sent. Paying off a mortgage in your name is simply not the sort of thing you can miss happening.

Presumably she also didn’t notice for four years she wasn’t receiving any mortgage statements.

Who does believe her? I should be most grateful if anyone who does believe her could sign in and leave a comment. In fact, please sign in and tell me whatever you think. (I am sorry about the signing in, but it isn’t painful and has reduced the porno spam in which we would otherwise be drowning).

One last thought. If you do believe her, do you think that a woman who does not know if her own home is mortgaged or not, who does not know her family income within the odd 600 thousand dollars or so, is a sensible person to put in charge of an Olympic Games?

Sir Gus O’Whitewash has ruled. Tessa Jowell did not break the rules because for four years David Mills did not tell her he had received what he then believed was a gift of $600,000.

How nice it must be to be so fabulously wealthy that a gift of $600,000 is so unimportant to you that you do not even bother to mention it to your partner!

Actually, I have a lot of experience of the very rich, and they are much more obsessed with money than the poor, and certainly talk about it more. I just don’t believe Jowell.

This is particularly true as the money was used to pay off a large remortgage which she herself had just taken out. She is now saying that she didn’t have any idea, or apparently ask, where all the money to pay off the mortgage came from.

There is also a peculiar bit of reasoning by Sir Gus O’Whitewash. Jowell alleges that she did not know about the money for four years, and by that time tax was paid for it, so it had become earnings, not a gift.

Actually, that doesn’t follow. If you receive a large cash gift it is still classed as income, and taxable.

Of course, what we still do not know, is who this money came from, and why. If it did not come from Berlusconi or from another illegitimate source, show us the paper trail. It is inconceivable that such a large sum from any legitimate source is not documented.

That money was used to pay off a mortgage which was 50% in Jowell’s name. So to accept it is only her husband’s business is simply nonsense.

Whitehall’s whitewash has become so watery as to cover up nothing.

It is a sign of our appalling times, and the arrogance of New Labour, that Blair clings on to his loyal muppet Jowell, while Sir Gus O’Donnell, Cabinet Secretary, earnestly enquires whether there is anything in the Code of Conduct for Ministers that specifically precludes multiple acts of money laundering. (link)

Well, Sir Gus, there is certainly this; the Code precludes acceptance of gifts. That is what Mills claims this money was. As this “Gift” (note the use of a capital ‘G’) went to pay off a mortgage which was 50% in Jowell’s name and which she had signed, she also accepted it. She should be out. But doubtless the Cabinet Office are working overtime on how to Hutton their way around this one.

In the meantime, the Blairite cheerleaders in the media bravely try to save her. In particular Britain’s worst journalist, the wholly odious Michael White (Political editor of the Guardian), argues against all the evidence that Jowell and Mills’ finances are separate. (link)

That man White is so far up Jack Straw’s rectum that for years he hasn’t had any daylight to report by. He also seems not to know that the ministerial code specifically covers gifts to family members.

Two more shockers…

1. Jowell had remortgaged her home to launder money not just once, but five times. (link)

Does she still claim this is “Normal”? On one occasion she had paid it off again in just 19 days.

2. Finally, yesterday I reported a fact that the mainstream media still does not dare to print; that Mills was under Serious Fraud Office investigation (and his office was raided as a result) at around the same time that New Labour came to power. I also reported that some of the SFO staff on the case were confused and concerned that no prosecution arose.

The mainstream press are too scared of this story to tackle it properly, but I’m sure you’ll excuse my own caution as I state this next bit very, very carefully:

I have seen no evidence to suggest to me that it was a particular handicap to Mr Mills at around that time that his sister-in-law, Barbara Mills, was the Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Head of the Serious Fraud Office.

I mean no more than appears on the face of that sentence.

Tessa Jowell tells us she did nothing wrong. She merely signed documents to remortgage her home. She strongly asserted today that this was ‘a very normal thing to do, and certainly not illegal.’

It is indeed not unusual to remortgage, though it was unusual that she remortgaged with an offshore bank. It is also unusual to remortgage for as much as ‘400,000. But it is very unusual indeed to remortgage for ‘400,000, then pay off the full loan, within a month, with spare cash.

What sort of people do such a thing? Well, money launderers. If you have ‘400,000 of cash not easily explained, you now have remortgage papers available to show where you got it.

Now, where did the money actually come from? Well, on two occasions, David Mills has said in writing that it came from Silvio Berlusconi. He said so in a signed confession to the Italian police, which he now says was extracted under duress. And he said so in a letter to his own accountant, where he explained that it was not in fact a bribe from Berlusconi for the evidence he had just given in an Italian court to keep Berlusconi out of jail. It was rather a personal gift. Mills now says that this second occasion when he wrote that the money came from Berlusconi was in fact a lie to protect another client. One can believe him or not ‘ he is claiming to be a liar already. What we do know for certain is that, shortly after giving evidence on behalf of Berlusconi, evidence which Italian authorities now allege was perjured, David Mills received a lot of money from an Italian source, which he has difficulty accounting for and claims he needed to disguise. His wife then took out a mortgage for about the same sum, which they almost immediately then paid off again.

It stinks to heaven.

Mills is, beyond dispute, a confidante and adviser of the odious Berlusconi. Mills’ job as an international corporate lawyer is to help the cosmopolitan super rich move their money about and avoid tax, and to disguise their cash flows if necessary. Mills is a long term shyster whose activities and profession should appal Labour supporters. Everything Mills stands for is what Keir Hardie and Clement Atlee were against. So it should be of no surprise that he is close to Blair and a member of his personal circle. The day I decided Blair was calculating and self-seeking, rather than honest and misguided, was the day that Blair first chose to spend family holidays with the Berlusconis, at some of their palaces. But Blair’s friendship with the likes of Mills should have warned all of us sooner.

Now for something else you won’t find in the mainstream media. Mills was under long term surveillance by the Serious Fraud Office for numerous dubious financial transactions. Approximately nine years ago, his office was actually raided by the SFO. As the investigation drew to a close, New Labour came to power. An inside source tells me that SFO staff believed they had a good case, and wondered whether his friendship with the new Prime Minister Blair had any bearing on it not coming to court. A Sunday Times Insight investigation into Mills was spiked by the editors.

So these current peculiar financial dealings do not drop out of a clear blue sky. A lot of taxpayers’ money has been spent investigating Mills before. He is well dodgy.

What will it take for the eyes of the very many decent people still left in the Labour Party to be opened to the appalling people who now lead their party? How many of the current cabinet are not, themselves or their partners, personally millionaires? Blair has a ‘3 million house. Straw has a Cotswold mansion as one of his homes. We recall Blunkett’s dodgy directorships, and Mandelson’s loan from Robinson. Who do these people represent, except a self-serving, cosmopolitan elite? Is it any wonder they are so keen on privatising health and education, when they and all their friends can afford the best? And what does any of this have to do with the aims and origins of the Labour Party, or the hopes of those who elected them?

When you have sold your soul to Mammon, you end up doing things like launching illegal wars that kill over a hundred thousand and cost the taxpayer billions, but bring massive profits to your friends who own shares in oil companies or arms manufacturers. I have no doubt that some of those who have made a killing out of the Iraq War will have paid for Mills’ useful professional advice on offshore money transactions.

Mills and Blair will be close to those making a killing, but not those suffering the killing. It is hard to see that far from the marble terrace overlooking one of Mr Berlusconi’s private beaches.

Amnesty International have released a damning 83-page report exposing the damaging effect of the UK’s anti-terrorism policies on human rights.

Irene Khan, Amnesty International’s Secretary General emphasised the extent of the organisation’s concern:

“There is now a dangerous imbalance between draconian actions the UK is taking in the name of security and its obligation to protect human rights. These measures tarnish the UK’s image and its ability to promote human rights abroad.”

The new report presents a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the UK’s anti-terrorism measures on human rights, and follows meetings with senior government ministers. The report also documents how the UK has tried to circumvent its obligations in relation to human rights abuses committed by UK armed forces in Iraq.

“The UK government has introduced sweeping and ill conceived measures that seriously undermine the rule of law,” said Ms Khan.

A summary of the report can be read here

A PDF of the full report can be downloaded here

From BBC News

See also: “She asked me whether I intended to do more documentary films, specifically more political ones like The Road to Guant’namo'”

…Actor Farhad Harun was also questioned, along with Shafiq Rusul and Rhuhel Ahmed, the men whose detention in Guantanamo is chronicled in the film.

Mr Ahmed also alleges that he was verbally abused by a police officer and had his mobile phone taken from him for a short period.

The actor also claims that he was told by police that he could be held for up to 48 hours without access to a lawyer.

He says he was initially questioned at the airport’s baggage pick-up area and taken to a separate room when he demanded to know why.

Human rights organisation Reprieve, who Mr Ahmed has asked to speak on his behalf, called Thursday’s incident an “ugly farce”.

They have called for an urgent inquiry into what happened while one of the film’s producers, Melissa Parmenter, said the detention was outrageous.

Bedfordshire police have said they will issue another statement specifically concerning the allegations made by Mr Ahmed and Reprieve…

If you are concerned about this latest abuse of “anti-terror” powers, you can fax your MP for free at www.writetothem.com

Update from the BBC: Guantanamo duo ‘held’ at airport

See also: UK police arrest stars of award-winning film “The Road to Guantanamo” under the Prevention of Terrorism Act

See also: The Lip Magazine – Full statement from actor Riz Ahmed

From The Guardian

Four actors who play al-Qaida suspects in a British movie that won a prestigious prize were detained by the police at Luton airport as they returned from the Berlin Film Festival and questioned under anti-terror laws, alongside two of the former terrorism suspects they play on screen.

They were returning last Thursday after the premiere of the film, The Road to Guant’namo. It depicts the life of three men from Tipton in the West Midlands, who go to Afghanistan and end up being held for two years by the US at its military base on Cuba before being released without charge.

The film, directed by Michael Winterbottom, won the Silver Bear award for direction at Berlin on Sunday. Released in Britain next month, it depicts the alleged shackling, torture and other ill treatment the Tipton detainees claim they suffered at the hands of the Americans.

The film’s producers say four actors from the film, who all play terrorism suspects, were detained at Luton airport after flying back from Germany on an easyJet flight. They included Rizwan Ahmed and Farhad Harun, who were stopped along with Shafiq Rasul and Rhuhel Ahmed, the former Guant’namo inmates they play on screen.

In a statement, Rizwan Ahmed said police swore at him and asked if he had become an actor to further the Islamic cause. He said he was at first denied access to a lawyer and was questioned about his views on the Iraq war by a policewoman. “She asked me whether I intended to do more documentary films, specifically more political ones like The Road to Guant’namo. She asked ‘Did you become an actor mainly to do films like this, to publicise the struggles of Muslims?'”

Mr Ahmed alleged that he had a telephone wrestled from his hand as he tried to contact a lawyer and was later abused. He claimed that one police officer had called him a “fucker”.

Melissa Parmenter, co-producer of the film, described the detention and questioning as outrageous.

A spokeswoman for Bedfordshire police, which patrols Luton airport, said that none of the six men had been arrested. “The police officers wanted to ask them some questions under the counter-terrorism act,” she said. “All were released within the hour. Part of the counter-terrorism act allows us to stop and examine people if something happens that might be suspicious.”

From The Observer

Osama bin Laden’s achievement was not to mastermind the flying of jets into the Twin Towers, not to franchise his brand of terrorism to a lot of savage young men, not even to inspire the invasion of Iraq. No, it was to spook the West and to fill our minds with fear so that we let security oppress liberty and turn us away from the abuse and torture occurring in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

(more…)

Citing the “Prevention of Terrorism” act, British Police have arrested and interrogated three of the stars of the award-winning film “The Road to Guantanamo”, together with the three ex-Guantanomo detainees on whose story the film is based.

Acclaimed director Michael Winterbottom (“A Cock and Bull Story”, “24 Hour Party People”, “Welcome to Sarajevo”) had been showing the film at the Berlin Film Festival, where it has won a number of top awards.

“The Road to Guantanamo” traces the true story of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Ruhal Ahmed, three Muslim friends from Birmingham who were picked up as aliens in Afghanistan by US forces and ended up in Guantanamo for three years, where they suffered brutal and humiliating treatment.

Extensive interrogation established that they had no connection with al-Qaida, and despite their plight being ignored by British authorities, eventually they were returned home. The UK media covered live the return of these “Suspected terrorists” and the massive police convoy that brought them in to Ventral London for questioning. Their release after the UK police also found they had no connection with terrorism was, naturally, hardly mentioned.

Last week the three ex-detainees travelled to the Berlin Festival with the Winterbottom party, and were arrested on Friday under the Prevention of Terrorism Act as the party were returning. They were held by Special Branch and questioned for several hours about where they had been and who they had met. They were also questioned on Michael Winterbottom’s politics.

Even more worrying, the three actors who portrayed them in the film were also arrested and questioned. The actors have no particular political or religious affiliation and were also arrested apparently purely on the basis that they were Asian. None of the white members of the group were arrested.

Following legal intervention by Gareth Peirce, the group were eventually released. Special Branch claimed they had not been arrested, merely detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

On Saturday the party will be returning to Berlin again to accept the film’s awards. We wait to see what will happen when they come home this time.

“The Road to Guantanamo” will premiere on Channel 4 on 9 March.

If you are concerned about this latest abuse of “anti-terrorism” powers, please write to your MP free of charge via the website www.writetothem.com.

UPDATE – Craig Murray says:

Well, I was in Winterbottom’s office yesterday, and heard it first hand, from people who were there when it happened. Nowadays the real news isn’t in the mainstream media, I am afraid. Leave them to their celebrity stories, and if you want to know what’s important, come to the web.”

The House of Lords is once again left in the position of trying to defend us from the excesses of the lower house. Democracy? – but only as we know it. See:

Peers plan for Terror Bill fight

Be careful what you say!

Glorification, Abuse, and Bad Grammar

From Mathaba.net and Mustaqim – Musings of a flying Imam

The British government is having its way with ID cards as the opposition to the ludicrous scheme has died down, a leaked UN report on evidence of torture in Guantanamo Bay is hardly making waves, a video showing British soldiers in Iraq having fun with kicking young protesters senseless is not raising many eyebrows, and preparations for an attack on Iran are continuing unabated. Meanwhile, cartoons are all the rage.

Muslims, unfortunately, are still busy organising marches to protest the abuse of freedom of speech, and thereby providing the distraction and diversion desired by the perpetrators of the above-mentioned infinitely more serious abuses of people and their liberties. It is ironic that it was Danish Muslims who played into the hands of the provocateurs since they are not exactly known for being too meticulous about their Islamic duties. For many years Denmark exported stunned meat certified by Danish Muslim organisations as ‘halal’ to all corners of the world to complement their revenue from Danish bacon.

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since the days of the Rushdie affair. Labour, with Muslim support, came to power in Britain and re-kindled the colonial adventure. In return for their unwavering blind support the Labour government turned Muslims into the outcast threat and danger from within. Muslim organisations latched on to a few popular causes like the demonstrations organised by the anti-war movement in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and supporting Galloway’s break-away party when he was thrown out of Labour. But on the whole they have learnt little and hardly left a mark of their own.

When in 1989 the Islamic Party of Britain was set up out of a realisation for the need of Muslim political involvement and in the hope that the post-immigrant generation of Muslims in Britain would be mature enough to provide political leadership for a country increasingly without direction those hopes were soon dashed when the Muslims of Bradford elected the very first Mormon MP into parliament for Labour in preference over his Islamic Party rival. The party gradually downscaled from a potential movement to a think tank, and British Muslims are still paying the price of this failure to turn things around.

When it comes to standing up for one’s convictions and fighting for the rights of others the situation remains that enlightened and principled non-Muslims will stick their necks out to defend Muslim causes, whereas opportunistic and na’ve Muslims continue to hope for favours and hand-outs. The former British ambassador Craig Murray is one such brave man standing up to the steamrolling power of the establishment: He is defying state censorship to exercise his freedom of speech by publishing his book ‘Murder in Samarkand’ about British and American collusion in abhorrent human rights abuses against Muslims in Uzbekistan. I doubt whether British Muslims are going to get excited about problems so far away ‘ there is another demo about cartoons being planned for next weekend.

From the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain

Commenting on the over-reaction of Muslims over the anti-Islamic cartoons published by the Danish newspaper, Jyllands Posten, Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim Parliament and Director of the Muslim Institute, London, has said Muslims are now having to pay the price of a knowledge-deficit that exists in all Muslim societies.

He asked them to pursue a culture of excellence and come out as a confident people who embrace ‘freedom of speech’. This, he feels, will help them change their fortunes. In their hey-days Muslims pursued diversity of thought and freedom of speech which inspired the Renaissance in Europe. It is pity that today’s Muslims show such a negative attitude towards ‘freedom of speech’. Without realising that by embracing ‘freedom of speech’ they have nothing to lose except their isolation. They do not appear to realise what they are missing in life as a result. All Muslim societies today are oppressive. They can only liberate themselves from oppression and obscurantism through debate and dialogue and becoming part of civil societies. ‘Join the club and engage with the civil society in defining the rules of the game. Staying outside and throwing stones until the rules are changed is not the option’, he said.

Dr Siddiqui called the cartoons abusive and designed to create hatred against Muslims. He said that, Muslims were right to express their abhorrence over their publication because of Europe’s history of turning on its minorities. It was through such cartoons, in Nazi Germany during the 1930’s, a climate of hate against the Jews was created leading up to the Holocaust in which over six million Jews and others died. Dr Siddiqui said that these cartoons also provided oxygen to extremist groups on both sides. Fascist groups within the Muslim community, who were marginalized after 7/7, have found a cause on which to make a come back.

The West should learn to respect the sensitivity of others. This is the logic of living in a globalised world. Muslims on the other hand should begin an open debate about the dangers of salafism and jihadism spreading within their midst.

‘Salafism and jihadism, originating from Saudi Arabia, was globalised and militarised in Afghanistan, in the wake of the Soviet invasion of the country, is now engulfing Muslim societies. When the Saudis become involved with any Islamic project I get worried. With salafist taking lead over the anti-Islamic cartoons we need to make sure we are not moving towards Huntington’s prophecy of ‘Clash of Civilisation’, fulfilling neocons dream of ‘full spectrum dominance’.

It is also noteworthy that while Muslims highlight double-standards of other societies, they have never protested against the destruction of Prophet Muhammed’s history in Saudi Arabia which has gone on during the last several decades.

The UK Defense Secretary was on BBC radio this morning making some comments on the future of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and involvement of British forces. Was his call for the use of implacable force and the apparent toleration of questionable British tactics justified? Comment and a link to the interview can be found here.

From The Guardian

The government is considering weakening laws designed to capture alleged war criminals and torturers who enter Britain, after pressure from the Israeli government, the Guardian has learned.

The changes would bar individuals from seeking international warrants for the arrest of people suspected of serious human rights abuses. The government has confirmed that Israeli officials have lobbied for changes in the law, which has kept some of their military officials away from Britain in case there should be an attempt to arrest them.

The proposals follow Israeli anger after an attempt was made to arrest one of their senior retired generals, Doron Almog, at Heathrow last September. He was tipped off that police were waiting to arrest him for alleged war crimes in Gaza. He stayed on the El Al plane and flew back to Israel. The warrant was issued by Bow Street magistrates, central London, after an application from lawyers representing Palestinians who say they suffered because of the Israeli general’s alleged illegal orders.

(more…)

Having spent so much time expressing concern over issues which impact, not only but primarily, on Muslims, both in Uzbekistan and the West, I should like to give a few thoughts about the recent controversy over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

First, I will start by saying that I am myself a monotheist. I believe in God, and have never understood why the three great monotheistic religions spend their time arguing over detail. I was brought up myself in a Christian tradition, and I believe that it taught me many excellent ethical values and gave useful insights into life. I believe that the majority of Jews and Muslims gain equally valid insights from teachings that are more similar than is generally commented upon. I have never given much value to the more magical, or as the Church would say mysterious, elements in the story telling of the faith. They are metaphors. Many of them are shared with Judaism and Islam, and each has some uniquely its own.

I have also felt personally most comfortable with those who emphasise a close personal relationship with God, be they Quakers or Methodists, or from the Sufi tradition in Uzbekistan. I believe that faith should be respected, and that you should not lightly belittle somebody’s faith or belief.

But faith is a personal thing, and if someone finds your belief laughable or threatening, they should be completely entitled to express that. I would not myself draw a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, or write the last scene of ‘Jerry Springer the Opera’, because I would not like to cause unnecessary offence. But I would not in any way prevent others from doing so if they want.

Muslims have every right to believe that nobody should caricature Mohammed, and presumably Muslims don’t do such things. However they have no right to stop anyone else from producing cartoons, commenting on the age of Mohammed’s wives (whatever his relationship with them), or saying whatever else they wish on the subject. You cannot enforce the strictures of your faith on non-believers. The World is not a religiously ordered society. That may come when you die, or not, we’ll find out soon enough.

Religions need to be caricatured. God and faith may be perfect, but men are not, and throughout history religious structures have been used to exert social control, give power to a hierarchy, and to make money from the gullible. Religion has always been distorted to justify both war and repression of people’s rights, and still is today, by Osama Bin Laden, George W Bush, and others. The dangers of protecting religion from ridicule are obvious.

So I don’t agree with the protestors who have sparked such concern, and I think they are very foolish indeed to appear to be threatening violence. In general, it is dangerous to prosecute people for what they write or say, but there does seem to me a case that some may have had an intent to incite violence, which can be dealt with without any new illiberal anti-terrorist laws. But a real sense of proportion is needed here, and we have to aim off for those used to a political culture where extreme language is more acceptable but not literally meant. It seems to me the use of police cautions might be sensible at this stage.

It is particularly important that this is not used to build up steam behind Tony Blair’s ridiculous proposal to ban Hizb-ut-Tehrir. That organisation remains key in that it has the most fundamentalist Islamic views, many of which I personally dislike, but actively preach non-violence at that end of the religious spectrum.

Unfortunately, voices of tolerance on all sides are going to be in short supply in the mainstream punditry in the next few days. Religion still can be manipulated to bring out the worst in people, but we should not forget that it operates more effectively in doing precisely the opposite.

Craig Murray

…but judges will have the authority to approve a ban on any site they consider “related to terrorism”.

From BBC Online

The defeat came as peers continue to debate the third and final stage of the controversial Terrorism Bill.