Posted by JLW on Monday Jun 13, 11:23
We have received an email about the petition that the doctors signed:
"I have just used the 'Freedom of Information Act' for the first time. This new law means that any member of the public can obtain a copy of any document that is held by a public body. [As long as this does not effect another person's confidentiality, for example medical records].
It is an excellent way to find out the truth.
The Christie Hospital 'petition of 60 doctors' reported by MEN does not exist. A statement was circulated among the Medical Staff Committee. It did not mention closure or potential closure of the hospital. It has not been signed by any doctors and handed in to any member of the Christie senior staff or the Strategic Health Authority. The Trust have confirmed that there are no signed copies.
Under the terms of the 'Freedom of Information Act' you do not have to know which filing cabinet a document might be in - if there were any signed copies of this anywhere within the Trust I would have been given them under my request.
The Corporate Affairs Director at Christie's, Lyn Evans, was very helpful and responded very promptly to my request. Ian Roads from the Strategic Health Authority, also confirmed that they had not received any signed copies.
The statement that was circulated very rightly discusses how important it is not to dislocate some services, such as critical care, to get the best patient outcomes. The Christie is getting a new critical care unit for £7million which will mean that patients who become critically ill when they are being treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy will not have to be moved to other hospitals.
The Freedom of Information Act is brilliant. The truth is available to all."
You can download the statement circulated to the doctors here: Christie reivew staff statement - Word Document.
+ tags coming soon
( 105 Comments )
Zoe Sharma
Saturday Jun 11, 01:16
Thank-you 'John Leech Watch' for publishing my email.(I don't want the winge brigade saying it's anonymous). In case people want to see the Unsigned statement - I will email it to the administrator, and maybe you could put a link on the bottom of the story?
Freedom of Information never had it so good.
Mark Colburn
Monday Jun 13, 05:04
What no ribald Libdem reply to this posting? I was so looking forward to reading their response to this, oh well.
Thomas Graham
Monday Jun 13, 16:19
It appears that John is still waiting for the response from Neil Goodwin and in the meantime they are keeping quiet on the issue.
Steve
Friday Jun 17, 20:19
Does this mean that no one has actually seen a copy of the petition, or does it mean that it doesn't exist? I'm confused - John Leech told us that he'd seen a petition from 60 Doctors.
Alan
Saturday Jun 18, 08:53
By the looks of it the petition doesn't exist!
Zoe Sharma
Saturday Jun 18, 20:15
It means that no-one in the trust has got any signed copies. No managers were handed any no member of the Trust Board. The Medical Staff Committeee are part of the trust structure, so they do not have any. The Corporate Service Manager has stated that "the trust does not hold any signed copies" in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act. It means it does not exist as a petition, only as a statement that was circulated.
Emily
Monday Jun 20, 11:15
Will the Lib Dem apologists for Leech who regularly post at this site tell us whether John Leech can produce a " petition" "signed by 60 doctors" or not!! YES or NO!?
Thomas Graham
Monday Jun 20, 13:22
I can tell you the answer to that one, in John's own words:
"We were not presented with an MEN petition, but people from Christie
Hospital took some from us."
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jun 29, 18:14
Will the Labour aplogists for Blair who regularly post at this site tell us whther Tory Blair can produce WMD in Iraq or not!! YES or NO!?
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jun 29, 18:18
Which is the bigger lie? One that has upset a few hundred, at a push a few thousand voters, that they felt misled/lied to over the fate of a hospital.
Or the lie/misleading information to hundreds of thousand voters over why we have killed tens of thousands of civillian people in Iraq, cost this country millions of pounds, cost the life of many service men and women from this country (and that of others)!?
Tim
Wednesday Jun 29, 22:25
John Leech did not lie about the petition, as will become clear. It does exist. I expect that Zoe and John Leech Watch will then apologise for the character assasination that has been going on here.
Alan
Thursday Jun 30, 01:28
Dave, you seem to be a man of many figures, I'd love to know where you are getting them from!
Tim, what are you upto at the moment then, very hastily running round as many doctors as you can find asking them to sign a pre dated petition?
If the petition did exist then why can the MEN not provide us with a copy? Why can Christie Hospital or MR Leech not provide us with a copy, NOW?? Because there isn't one! That's why!
Dave Wilson
Thursday Jun 30, 14:19
Alan,
I admit that these figures are "off the top of my head guessed" figures. But you give me a more factual figure if you are so unsure about mine?
Alan
Thursday Jun 30, 18:53
I'm on the case Dave!
Dave Wilson
Thursday Jun 30, 19:28
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14253417&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=the-real-cost-of-the-iraq-war-name_page.html
Alan I was wrong about the cost of the Iraq War. I thought it cost "millions of pounds". As of May 2004 the cost was £2.75 Billion. Yes BILLIONS not millions, and that was the total so far a YEAR ago!!!! Who knows how much it is now! So that is one figure for you, I am working on the other figures. I am not liking what I see so far! Are you Alan? Money well spent by Labour?
Dave Wilson
Thursday Jun 30, 19:36
http://www.mfaw.org.uk/04art10342web.pdf
The above link is an article from the Lancet regarding deaths of civillians in Iraq. Again I got the figures wrong, so I apologise to you Alan, I feel foolish. It wasn't tens of thousands like I thought, it was over a 100,000! I really must get my facts right before sprouting off! Again, please except my apologies! After all I helped get Labour in during the 1997 election and the one after that. I won't make that mistake again. I learnt my lesson, and voted in John Leech, I know it didn't get Labour out, but it was a start!
Alan
Thursday Jun 30, 23:08
Alright Dave, give me a chance, I've been at work all day. Before I go rushing off to check your figures I would like to point out that in that £2 billion or so that has been spent on the 'Iraq conflict' you should take into account the amount paid to the armed forces. For example, in that figure will be the costes of operating Royal Naval ships and submarines in the area, the deployment of special forces and general infantry in addition to the logistical support required. All of which we would be paying anyway because whether at war or not that funding still has to be provided for.
To deploy such units as armoured divisions, infantry units or elements of the RAF cost the taxpayer enormous amounts of money wherever they go be it Iraq or Cyprus.
please lets bear these sort of things in mind when we throw figures around.
Alan
Friday Jul 01, 00:26
"All 33 randomly selected locations were visited and 988 households were chosen between Sept 8 and 20,
2004. These households contained 7868 residents on the
date of interview. Of these residents, 237 (3%) were
younger than 1 year, 1004 (13%) were younger than
5 years, and 3084 (39%) were younger than 15 years. Of
the 4453 (57%) residents age 1559 years, 2220 were men. Of the 331 (4%) residents age 60 years or older, 152 were men"
Thats like saying we interviewed 1,000 people who lived in Surrey and from the information we received, we predict a land slide Tory win at the General Election.
You are basing your figure of 100,000 'innocent' dead on a guy who interviewed under 10,000 people, many of whom were under the age of 15 and estimated a figure from that.
Anyway Dave, this is the second thread where we have diverted to the issue of Iraq!
Dave Wilson
Friday Jul 01, 14:37
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
Alan, may be we need a forum of our own? It is great that we can have this debate, but I understand that it might not be to everyones taste, and that some people here get fed up with me and you diverting it back to Iraq, but at the end of the day, there is no denying that many of the votes for John Leech were protest votes against Tory Blair over his handling of Iraq.
By the way, are you saying that the Lancet, (one of the most respected medical journals in the world) has published poor research? If that is so, I will get on the case to find you some acurate research?
However, I thought you might be interested in the amount of coalition forces that have died during the war? 89 of whom were British.
Dave Wilson
Friday Jul 01, 14:42
By the way Alan, you are yet to show me some published/referenced figures for your side of our debate/disussion. Is that because, my guessed figures were not far of the truth!?
Alan
Friday Jul 01, 16:42
No it's because I'm at work Dave but don't worry the weekend is looming and you'll have facts and figures coming out of your ears
Dave Wilson
Friday Jul 01, 17:04
Alan, I look forward to it! (That just made me sound like a right geek - should of been a statistician). Likewise, I shall try and find the facts and figures for the numbers that I spewed out. I do hope you can prove me wrong!
Dave Wilson
Friday Jul 01, 17:40
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
The Lancet seemed to have exaggerated Alan! I found the above link seems to have a better way of collecting the date on Iraqi civillians killed as part of the war. They do still show that my estimated figure was fairly acurate, at around 20,000 to 25,000. Seems the Labour voters, and the Labour party can justify it now, I mean 20,000 deaths is hardly here nor there. Damn me for voting Lib Dems who lied over the one hospital closing, and that I gave up on Labour. Will all Labour voters on this site please forgive me. I am sorry I didn't get my priorities right!
Alan
Friday Jul 01, 19:55
What has this site turned into now Dave - sarcasm.com??
On my work break at the moment, more amusing comments and some hard facts coming soon!
Dave Wilson
Friday Jul 01, 21:03
Alan, sorry, I did lower the tone! Sarcasm aside, what did you think to my comments?
peter h
Saturday Jul 02, 05:24
Dave
As I'm sure you know perfectly well, nobody knows how many Iraqis have been killed, because the Coalition Forces don't collect such statisics.
Which leaves two equally appalling possibilities (a) they don't regard the figure as important (b) they do in fact keep the stastistic but daren't publish it.
Whatever, apparently Withington Labour Party think it was a price worth paying because Sadam was an indirect threat to them.
Not, of course, that they had to pay the price.
20 000 Iraqis did that for them.
No doubt they were glad to lay down their lives so that Allan and his colleagues can sleep soundly in their beds tonight untroubled by the possibility of wild-eyed men with bushy black moustaches invading Copson Street and destroying Somerfields with their WMD. Pity really. A few well placed WMDs might liven Withington up a bit.
Alan
Saturday Jul 02, 14:29
Peter,
Again you seem to be taking what I say and using it as a press release for the Manchester Withington Labour Party! I am not a spokes person for the Labour Party and my comments on this site derive from my own personal beliefs.
There is no way that I will post on this site and attempt to justify the deaths of 20,000 people... I wouldn't post on this site and try to justify the death of 5 people. The fact is, like you have said Peter, no one knows the exact figure but the figure doesn't matter; just one innocent death is a death too many.
There are many rights and wrongs about the current conflict and believe it or not I'm not an advocate of charging around the world 'spreading freedom and democracy' to these ' troubled countries'. What I am an advocate of is ensuring that the national security of our country isn't compromised and that one dictator with a few long range weapons doesn't provoke wide scale conflict throughout the middle east.
Your comments Peter are unhelpful, I do not look upon the deaths of so many innocent people in Iraq as justified, just as I don't look on the death of thousands of innocent office workers in the WTC as justified.
John
Saturday Jul 02, 16:02
Let's be clear about all this
John Leech won fair and square and Labour lost.
Webmaster - get over it and get a life.
Then in six months to a years time - do the decent thing and produce a website with Labour colours (as you are essentially a Labour supporter) call it scrutinisingjohnleech or something and start from there.
Nobody minds MPs being scrutinised - they don't like it being done unfairly.
If you're smart you'll do these things - if not then you're just wasting your own money.
Alan
Saturday Jul 02, 16:25
John,
How is Mr Leech being unfairly scrutinised? This site is not a Labour members only site!!
Furthermore, why wait 6 months to scrutinise him when there is so much to scrutinise him on already!
The way you talk anyone would think you were his agent!
Dave Wilson
Sunday Jul 03, 02:30
Alan, I am still waiting for your figures?
Alan
Sunday Jul 03, 03:48
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
And here they are Dave...
The Christian Science Monitor suggests that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of the Declaration of War in 2003. These figures have been taken from hospital reports and from morgues in Iraq.
LA Times reports that between 1,700 and 2,700 civilians were killed in and around Baghdad.
The Washington Post claims that around 12,000 civilians have been killed since the conflict began and this is confirmed by the Iraq Interior Ministry who arrive at the same figure.
Both the Washington Post and the Iraqi Interior Ministry point out that many of those killed were a direct result of insurgents and suicide bombers as opposed to coalition forces.
"...In Baghdad, gunmen opened fire on a market area crowded with civilians, killing nine..."
Washington Post
On reflection the US Department of Defense report that since the outbreak of war Coalition fatalities are:
Great Britain 90
United States 1745
Other 99
And as of 10th June 2005 there have been 12,855 coalition wounded.
(www.icasualties.org)
On reflection you might want to take a look at the link I have provided you with, taking you to a site detailing the day known in Iraq as "Bloody Friday" where 5,000 innocent Kurdish civilians (75% of whom were women and children) were massacred in a mass launch of chemical weapons in Halbja, March 1988. This act carried out under the express orders of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime.
Furthermore, Human Rights Watch reports that over two decades 290,000 innocent civilians were executed or 'dissapeared' (in lamens terms tortured) by Saddam.
I am not trying to justify the death of anyone Dave. What I am trying to say is lets not get caught up in the media hype and anti- war web sites ( this is not a suggestion by the way that you are!!) and lets try to look at the facts and that is that in the long term Iraq will be better off without Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial regime.
Dave Wilson
Sunday Jul 03, 05:21
But how long will it take for Iraq to be "better off"? At this rate more Iraqi's will die as a result of the invasion by post-colonial/imperialist USA than during Saddam's time.
But my original estimate figures of the voters in this ward still haven't been proved right or wrong, either way, I guess the fate (be it truthful or a lie) of one British hospital, seemed far more important, than that of many hospitals, schools, men, women, and children, to many voters who use this site. I don't quite undertand some people's priorities (and Alan, I am not meaning you by this, as I am unsure who you voted for in the last election, and what your motives were for choosing a candidate!)
Dave Wilson
Sunday Jul 03, 05:37
"On 15 February 2003 the largest demonstration in history took place across Europe, Asia, Australasia and the American continents. Many millions of people became engaged for the first time in their lives, supported by many millions more who had already formed the movement for global justice.
Even where war was prosecuted most vigorously, by the 'Anglo Saxon' governments of the US, Britain and Australia, majorities or large minorities opposed it. In Spain 90 per cent of the population had no wish to be included with their government in the 'coalition of the willing'. In Germany and France, unpopular governments discovered to their surprise that they increased their popular support by opposing the war.
It is arguable that the resistance has already had some effect, restraining the US military and reducing the bloodshed in Iraq. It will certainly be harder for the warlords of 'the American Century' to launch the next phase of their military campaign, wherever that may turn out to be.
The US military may, for the time being, win its wars. But the resistance can still win the argument. There never was a consistent or coherent case to be made for the invasion of Iraq. So now will Saddam's fabled 'weapons of mass destruction' turn out to have existed at all? Will the conquest of Iraq bring liberation or occupation or the chaos of civil war? Will an 'independent' and 'democratic' Iraq be free say to oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestine? Will Iraqi oil unlike anywhere else bring shared prosperity to the Iraqi people, or the further enrichment of the oil business that runs the White House and chokes the planet? Or will the issue of oil pale as the country descends into internal conflict, tearing itself apart along ethnic and religious lines, serving as a magnet for extremists and fundamentalists?
As the US administration looks beyond the borders of Iraq to other rogues that need sorting out, the choice we continue to face is between reasoned argument and brute force between working to create a democratic peace and war without end. If it is to be brute force, then terrorism will claim its vindication and flourish into the indefinite future. If it is to be democratic peace, then there can be no avoiding the legitimacy that only the UN can confer and the task of making it effective becomes more urgent still.
The invasion of Iraq cost the US and its allies cost $78 billion just $1.8 billion would have fed Africa for a year. This is more than scandalous, it is criminal. There can be no peace, and certainly no justice, until the world resolves never again to privilege pointless death and destruction at the expense of human welfare.
- From the NI Co-operative"
How can we impose a democracy on another country when we haven't got it right here?
Dave Wilson
Sunday Jul 03, 05:48
http://www.zmag.org/shalomquizi.htm
admittedly, the figures on the death toll have increased! But Alan, can you justify the other facts on the above link?
Thomas Graham
Sunday Jul 03, 12:53
Which ward are you talking about Dave? And what number of people are you talking about?
Thomas
Sunday Jul 03, 12:58
(The average number of voters in a ward, and by voters I mean on the electoral register, is around 9,500 - Chorlton is the smallest with just over 8000 and Withington is the largest with nearly 10,000. There are just over 66,000 voters in the constituency)
Alan
Sunday Jul 03, 13:12
It was very interesting in the link you have given to read:
"...Before the war, the Bush administration warned that Iraq might have 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, and upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. So far, these estimates have fallen short by exactly 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents..."
It basically claims that Saddam Hussein posessed none of these agents?? Perhaps if you look at the link I provided earlier you will see why!! (http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html)
In relation to who I voted for, I voted Labour and I did so due to the fact that I believe what they have done for this country since coming to power is phenomenal!
I think that it is unfair to suggest that all people who are posting to this site are concerned about is Christie Hospital. The way in which Mr Leech used it for his own political gain annoyed the hell out of me and I see it as an issue to be addressed. That doesn't mean that I think the issue of Iraq pales into insignificance in light of this.
All of your facts and figures seem to be American based and I have never claimed myself to be a big fan of Republican America. I don't stand behind the flag of the United States as you think that all Labour supporters do. I happen to think that our governments involvement in Iraq has been the right course of action, however, although at present I feel the UN to be inefectual, I would have preferred to wait for the second resolution before declaring war.
You mention in your posting how the French and German governments refused to back the war. How noble of them!! Perhaps what is not so noble is their attempts to gain a 'piece of the pie' now that the fighting is done. As usual they are fighting for a place at the table in Iraq because they want to benefit from the lucrative business possibilities that have opened up now Saddam Hussein has gone.
No suprise there then, always the same with the French they give up the second someone points a gun at them and then when the figting has been done for them they are back at the table asking what can I have? Current discussions in Europe are another prime example of that where curently a French cow is given more in subsidy per day than a starving child in Africa could ever dream of having
So lets not put our fellow Europeans on a pedestal as they are just as invloved with Iraq as we are, they just didn't want to get their hands dirty.
Dave Wilson
Sunday Jul 03, 20:20
I never mentioned all Labour supporters standing behind the Stars and Stripes (I admire Tony Benn the other night on Newsnight!, and I would imagine he would be the last person to stand anywhere near the USA flag if he could help it).
And the French didn't give up when some one pointed a gun at them (well not this time round) as Iraq didn't have any WMD to point at them! How big a threat was Iraq to France before the invasion? Minimal. How much of a threat to world peace has Britain and the USA and the "coalition" caused since the invasion? Huge!
Dave Wilson
Sunday Jul 03, 20:24
Thomas, thanks for the figures. How many, actually voted? and for Whom? I would be genuinely interested to know, how many people voted a) soley on the Christie issue or b) partly to do with Christie issue or c) wasn't a factor for them? I doubt we will ever know for sure
Alan
Sunday Jul 03, 20:30
The only threat to France was to it's lucrative business deals that it struck with dictator Saddam Hussein!!!
That's why they didn't get involved, not because of some moral high ground that they had climbed too.
They sat back to see what would happen; then they were straight back in there asking whats in this mess for me!!
Please expalain how Britain has been a threat to world peace!!
peter h
Sunday Jul 03, 22:21
There's as joke current in New York at the moment. "We know that Sadam had WMD and Chemical weapons . We still have the receipts".
Point is that USA, UK, and indeed France and most of the world traded with Sadam. And Alan is right about France to the extent that Chirac is a crook. Ask any Frenchman. They'll vote him out next time round.
His earlier comments about the French however are juvenile and border on the racist. Disgusting. Change French to "black" and you'd be breaking the law.
One of the things that filled me with short-lived hope when Labour was elected in 1997 was Robin Cook saying that he would introduce a "moral dimension" into Britain's dealings with the rest of the world.
And we all know what happened to Robin.
When it comes to trade, money, all the countries piss in the same pot. Right this minute sonmebody in Burma, or Indonesia, or some place in Africa will be getting their innocent head blown off by munitions from the West, or Russia, or China, by butchers being transported in Land Rovers, or Jeeps, or Saviems, or Merc. If its French, it will be because they offered bigger bribes than us, and some kid will be dying of starvation whilst you eat your burgers, and some woman will be dying in childbirth because the doctors have all conme to Europe to get a job.
Governments - ALL governments - will only be as moral as you force them to be.
Thomas Graham
Monday Jul 04, 00:01
Can I refer you to: http://www.johnleech.org.uk/?show=comments&id=2
But the top four were:
John Leech (LD) 15,872
Keith Bradley (Lab) 15,205
Karen Bradley (C) 3,919
Brian Candeland (Green) 1,595
Electorate 67,781
Turnout 37,458
As you say, it would be impossible to explain why people voted the way they did - though a properly sampled questionnaire of the constituency would probably give a good idea why people voted the way they did.
Alan
Monday Jul 04, 00:52
Peter,
"..His earlier comments about the French however are juvenile and border on the racist. Disgusting. Change French to "black" and you'd be breaking the law..."
Why are my earlier comments racist and why would I be breaking the law if I changed 'French' to 'Black'?
I'd like an explanation please!!
peter h
Monday Jul 04, 03:58
Alan
quote from you:
" always the same with the French they give up the second someone points a gun at them and then when the figting has been done for them they are back at the table asking what can I have?"
Try substituting "jew" or "black" or "muslim" for the word French. Then read it through.
Dave Wilson
Monday Jul 04, 14:43
Alan, I feel that Britain has damaged world peace, by giving extremists more reasons to join terrorist groups. Also Britain is becoming more like a Police State all the time (you now can't protest outside of Parliment? How much of a democracy is that?). A police state as we know from history, tends to erode more and more on civil liberties, until major unrest.
peter h
Monday Jul 04, 17:20
Well said Dave. We did exactly what Osama Bin Laden wanted us to do. We over-reacted and hit out at innocent people who now hate our guts.
Alan
Tuesday Jul 05, 00:39
You two are as bad as one another. What a ridiculous claim; Britain is not a police state. I was however unaware that people are now unable to protest outside of Parliament but I should imagine that is due to security implications as opposed to trying to silence the voice of the people. Having made several regular visits to the House of Commons recently it is clear to see that security is, and should be, a high priority!
I would also be very interested to hear how Peter would resolve the current problem of terrorism in light of all his intense criticisms... and I don't want a history lesson Peter, I would like to know how you would deal with the Al-Quaida/ Osama Bin Laden threat!
peter
Tuesday Jul 05, 01:37
Alan
You don't want a history lesson? Well you're going to bloody get one.
Ever heard of Resolution 242? United Nations, November 22nd 1967?
Never actioned because for 40 years USA has vetoed it?
You talk about UN being ineffective. As far as Arabs are concerned, it is ineffective because USA prevents it from being effective.To them this proves that Americans are not interested in justice. You want to conquer terrorism in Middle East? Start here. These are the precise words of that resolution (and, believe me, these are some of the most important words in the Middle East):
"November 22 1967 The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." end of quote
THat's your answer
Alan
Tuesday Jul 05, 01:47
So if Israel withdraws from the occupied territories, acknowledges the territorial integrity an political independence of Palestine, then that will be an end to the problem of terrorism in the Middle East.
Or are you suggesting that the state of Israel should be 'dissapeared'?
On another note,apologies for my ignorant comment with regards history lessons earlier!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 02:22
Alan I didn't say Britain "IS" a police state, I said it was "becoming" one. Our civil liberties are being eroded all the time. We have more CCTV per head of population that any other country in the world!!! Yet, the government still feels the need to ban people from peaceful spontaneous protest in and with (one and half-miles of) Parliment! Yet why would Britain be in need of doing this? Is it we don't like Democracy? Is it we have increased the risk of terrorist attack now that we have invaded Iraq?
Even Margaret Thatcher, having narrowly survived a terrorist attck at the Grand Hotel didn't bring in Anti-terror laws like we have seen since Sept 11th!
Alan
Tuesday Jul 05, 02:53
The IRA don't have suicide bombers last I heard, furthermore they don't take over airplanes and crash them into prominent buildings.
The security risk is wholly different today than it was under Margaret Thatcher.
I think you will find that most countries have implemented the same necessary security measures!
peter h
Tuesday Jul 05, 03:42
Alan
It won't be the end , but it will be the beginning of the end of terrorism, because it will remove the single thing which most inflames ordinary Arabs.
And Palestinians will most certainly accept the state of Israel as long as they feel they are getting a fair deal.
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 03:50
No instead Alan, they got past security, and placed a bomb inside a room a few days before the Tory conference. That could of been prevented with better security. However, I very much doubt suicide bombers could be stopped very easily, whether they use semtex strapped to themselves or use aeroplanes. So what is the point in taking away our right to a fair trail? Our right to protest? Our right to democracy, you know the system that Bush and Blair bleat on about all the time?
Alan
Tuesday Jul 05, 12:52
To ensure that one of the protesters in the crowd doesn't have a bomb strapped to his chest thats why Dave!
If anyone ever offers you the job as head of the DPG then please decline it!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 14:33
Pardon my ignorance, what is the DPG? I doubt I would want it anyway if it is to do with our National Security!
Well, I guess if we are not allowed to protest, we might as well have Blair as a Facist Dictator.... ooops to late, he already is!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 14:33
Soon we won't even be allowed to protest at the price of fish if you have your way Alan?!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 14:39
The Diplomatic Protection Force, found it on the net. No I wouldn't want to work for them anyway. And if they offered me the job, then we are in the Sh*t aren't we, as a) I have never worked for the police, b) I douibt I would pass the fitness test, and c) I wouldn't sign my alligiance to the Queen, are just three of many reasons why they wouldn't offer it to me. I am sure someone like the DPG don't just hand out jobs to!
peter h
Tuesday Jul 05, 16:56
If UK had a moral foreign policy that actually sided with the poor and oppressed, then its leaders wouldn't be potential terrorist targets in the first place.
And like Dave said, committed terrorists will get through any way. If one target's blocked, they'll pick another. All MPs do is shift the danger from themselves to us.
What a surprise!
Viz 911 , or Arndale Centre Manchester a few years ago. Soft targets. Coming to a place near you soon folks.
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 17:02
Peter, it's okay though, because once we have ID cards, no terrorists will be able to attack the UK. We are saved!!! Bless the Labour Party for their wisdom! You and I can't wait to feel safe by carrying around a little piece of plastic, it will protect me from planes, bombs, guns, nerve gas, you name it, I will be immortal! And it is all down to those Labour voters! They are a clever lot you know!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 17:04
I guess we could save money by not having to pay for a DPG, by introducing those ID cards?
Alan
Tuesday Jul 05, 18:28
You two should get married!
No one has said that ID cards would protect us from someones slamming a plane into Manchester Town Hall (for an example)What they will do is provide a means by which the police can identify who should be in this country and who shouldn't. You talk about ID cards as if they are a major breach of civil liberties!! If that is the case then everytime we put our bank card into an ATM, walk past a cctv mast or get flashed by a speed camera on the motorway then according to you our civil liberties are being denied.
All these measures are being put in place so as to ensure our security as best the government can in the current climate.
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 19:09
I am already married, besides, this government won't allow same sex marriages! But that is another story.
I never said that ID cards as a breach of civil liberties, this government have been eroding them long before ID cards was even mentioned! So please do not assume too much about me, many thanks Alan.
These "measures" Alan, are quick fix elsto-plaster repairs. What we need is to look at the roots of terrorism. Most terrorist groups believe they have a just cause. Takeaway the cause, you take away the reasons to commit such horrendous crime. Let's tackle poverty, discrimination, oppression etc, then we might be getting somewhere!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 19:11
By the way Alan, are the police going to stop and search EVERY SINGLE person to check for an ID card?
Alan
Tuesday Jul 05, 22:10
I agree with you that poverty, discrimination and oppression should be tackled and that we should of course look at the root causes of terrorism.
I would argue the same principal in relation to crime, instead of just banging people up and calling it a solution, we should be tackling the social issues that cause people to commit the crime in the first place.
However, while we are looking at these social causes to crime and the roots of terrorism we still need to deal with the ever present problem of someone battering a pensioner for their pension money and a terrorist strapping bombs to his chest!
That is all I am trying to say and apologies if I seemed presumptuous.
peter h
Tuesday Jul 05, 22:28
Personally I think ID cards have all sorts of advantages and no serious disadvantages. BUt the idea that they'll stop terrorism is ridiculous. If the terrorist is British, he'll have the card. KIf he isnt, he'll have a passport with a visa if needed.
Theyre usueful in loads of normal boring circumstances - proving your 18 in a pub, instead of a passport in the EC, collecting parcels, medical records in an emergency - helping sort out identity fraud. All sorts of day-to-day things. But they won't stop terrorism and they won't ever be 100% secure
peter h
Tuesday Jul 05, 22:35
Alan
Exactly how many terrorists have strapped bombs to their chests in UK in the last 30 years?
If you think it is worth losing all our civil liberties just because some nutter might now and then blow himself up, then you're paranoid. We lived through 30 years of IRA without needing all of this. Terrorism is being used as a pretext for a semi-police state.
Which is a bit bizarre any way, since it's virtually impossible to find a copper in manchester except at football matches. Chief Constable Todd couldnt run a bath let alone a police state
Alan
Tuesday Jul 05, 22:45
Peter, that is not my experience of the police. I haven't ever driven through the streets of Manchester without passing at least three or four police vehicles. When I am out at night the street is teaming with them, you can't turn a corner without a copper being there. Perhaps if you are talking about 'bobby's on the beat'in the neighbourhood then I would agree with you, lots of vehicles and very few patrols.
With regards to ID cards I don't think that they are the 'solution' to terrorism. I think that they will be useful, obviously for what you have listed above, but also to verify citizenship which could go some way to tackle the issue of illegal immigrants. I just honestly don't see what the big issue is with ID cards, I can't see how they would limit civil liberties or freedoms. I think that a mass hysteria has been created over them with no solid foundation.
peter h
Wednesday Jul 06, 03:16
Oh dear. I agree with you about ID cards. Shit.
Except that I believe we are subject, not citizens...
Alan
Wednesday Jul 06, 12:49
That is worrying!!
peter h
Wednesday Jul 06, 14:10
no need to worry. It won't last beyond the demonstrations against G8, because you're about to support the police's restrained handling and I'm about to complain about 15 stone worth of copper beating the shit out of a ten stone teenager in Sterling being called restrained
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 15:10
Can someone explain to me why ID cards in Spain didn't prevent the Madrid bombings?
Alan
Wednesday Jul 06, 15:46
Dave, no one is saying it will stop terrorism!!!!!
Peter, the people I saw on the news this morning were not demonstrators, they were violent thugs. I don't advocate overzealous violence by our police forces nor to I advocate such people calling themselves 'protesters'. Everyone has a right to demonstrate peacefully and it is a shame that such violence is giving these 'legitimate' demonstrators a bad name.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 15:48
Alan, but under Labour people are loosing the "right to demonstrate" as you mention.
And if it won't stop terrorism, what is the point? Why not put the money into more policing?
What are your arguements for an ID card? Why not stick with exsiting forms of ID?
Alan
Wednesday Jul 06, 17:57
Because it would be an effective means to combat illegal immigration. See my previous posting!
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 18:12
Back to Spain we go Alan. How many illegal immigrants do you think come over from North Africa to the south of Spain?
peter h
Wednesday Jul 06, 19:01
Alan
What I saw on TV were large numbers of policemen wading into small numbers of kids. The policemen were larger and more numerous than the kids. And they were armed with batons which they were lashing out expertly with at anyone within range.
Are these what you meant by vicious thugs?
Have you ever been on a demo that turned violent? I've been on several. And on every one, the police beat the crap out of the protesters.
Violent thugs my backside. A bunch of kids trying, not very well, to make a point.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 19:46
Peter, I think you will find that a few of the "kids" tend to be in their 20's and over, and are just as much (if not more) to blame as some of the police officers. And yes I have been to a fair few demo's in my time, some of which became very violent, and spoilt it for the vast majority!
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 20:29
Try and find some information Alan on the country of Jordan, which states how bad for the economy or internal security is, in relation to the fact that roughly one in four people in Jordan is an asylum seeker or an immigrant. Why do you fear immigrants (be they legal or illegally in this country?)
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 20:37
The odds of dying from a terrorist attack is about 88,000 to 1!
The odds of dying from from an car accident are 7000 to one! Which means I am 12.5 times more likely to die from a car accident than I am from the hands of a terrorist. Alan, why aren't you demanding we ban cars?
Alan
Wednesday Jul 06, 20:42
I don't know what you are talking about Peter but the scenes I saw were not kids. I agree that the police can sometimes be heavy handed and I do not condone that; neither do I condone violent demonstrations.
I would suggest that when a demo turns violent it is due to a minority who have no other intention than to cause violence. I do not believe, however, that the answer is to send the riot and mounted police in amongst a crowd that also contains peaceful protesters.
Everyone has a right to protest about whatever they like; there is no excuse for violence.
Alan
Wednesday Jul 06, 20:44
Dave, it's against the law to drive without a seat belt or to drive over the speed limit. It is against the law to drive after you have had a drink or are under the influence of drugs.
Soon it will be illegal to not carry and ID card.....where is your problem?
Alan
Wednesday Jul 06, 20:45
I do not fear immigrants and I resent your comment that I do. I welcome all legal immigrants and genuine asylum seekers to this country but there has to be controls and other countrys must also be responsible and open their borders to imigrants and asylum seekers.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 20:52
The odds of dying from a terrorist attack is about 88,000 to 1!
The odds of dying from from an car accident are 7000 to one! Which means I am 12.5 times more likely to die from a car accident than I am from the hands of a terrorist. Alan, why aren't you demanding we ban cars?
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 20:58
I don't have a problem. The government have a problem, they are not willing to put the money they intend to waste on ID cards into more bobbies on the beat!
Alan
Wednesday Jul 06, 22:56
And how are 'bobbies on the beat' going to help in the fight against illegal immigration, how are these new coppers going to validate a persons age so they can get into a club or buy alcohol over the counter?
You are just following the Lib Dem line of no ID cards more police but I don't see the relation between the two? It makes no sense, but then neither does most Lib Dem policy.
peter h
Wednesday Jul 06, 23:01
Dave
You missed out the odds of dying of boredom listening to a labour party manifesto on legs?
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 23:16
okay Alan, forget the bobby on the beat. What about better border control? Then, that way, we should get rid of illegal immigrants, and only have legal ones?
Alan
Wednesday Jul 06, 23:32
If I'm boring you Peter then stop asking me questions, this will avoid me boring you with the answers! Pathetic!
peter h
Thursday Jul 07, 00:48
now now Alan, temper temper....
stop confusing labout party policy with reality
Alan
Thursday Jul 07, 02:03
Dave, I have a horrible feeling that you feel I believe illegal immigrants and asylum seekers to be the same thing.
We are one of the richest countries in the world with an exceptionally strong economy and I believe that as a country we have a responsibility to aid those who are seeking genuine asylum from oppressive regime. Additionally I am more than happy to welcom to this country people from other countries and cultures who wish to make a living in the UK. After all this can only be good for our economy and diversity.
I feel that border control, like ID cards is not an absolute solution to the problem of illegal immigration and was infact it was a conservative policy to increase border security. I feel that if it is the amount of money being spent on ID cards that is your problem then I think that you will find effective border control/security would cost the tax payer far more.
peter h
Thursday Jul 07, 02:37
You cannot stop illegal immigration. It is a physical impossibility.
There are hundreds of thousands of sealed trucks and containers coming into UK every year; we hav thousands of miles of unguardable coastline.
So effective people smugglers will always get through.
So your only hope of getting on top of minimizing the problem is to trace them once they are here and then sort them out quickly.
Illegal immigrants come here to better themselves , which means working. As illegals, tthey can only get employment from employers willing to employ them illegally.
So you have to go after those employers. Treat them as criminals in the same way as you'd treat a robber - imprisonment, confiscation of assets.
Critically, many of those illegal employers will be in trades using large numbers of casual or unskilled labour, which in turn is often used in supplying services to large companies - major building sites, food industries and so on. It cannot be beyond the wit of a willing government to frame legislation to demand that certain industries require suppliers to produce evidence of only using legitimate employees.
In short, make it a serious criminal offfence to employ illegasl labour, and make it likely that such employers will get caught, and the trade in illegal immigrants will diminish drastically
Alan
Thursday Jul 07, 02:47
At the risk of boring you Peter, I completely agree with you!
peter h
Thursday Jul 07, 03:34
oh bugger.
peter h
Thursday Jul 07, 03:54
going back to demonstrations. There were some people, referred to by BBC as "anarchists", smashing vehicles with poles - not nice, not clever.
I was puzzled. The police looked oddly passive,unwilling to intervene which puzzles me.
It almost looked like a publicity stunt for the cameras. I genuinely don't see what wqas happening there and don't trust it.
But then it switched coverage to the perimeter fence of the G8 summit.
And what did we see? A bunch of demonstrators, all young, breaking through the perimeter fence,being vociferous but peaceful and showing no violence whatsoever.
Then came riot police ostentatiously arriving by Chinook helicopter like commandos, all in black, masked, body armour, riot shields, nightsticks, lashing out violently at these peaceful demonstrators.
Even the BBC commentator was moved to say that the police "walked a fine line between policing and depriving demonstratotrs of their civil liberties" - post David Kelly-speak for saying that the violence came from the police and not the demonstrators
They also referred to demonstrations being "permitted" and then the police "cancelling" the demonstration at short notice and blocking public roads.
This is supposed to be a free country. So where does the concept of protest being "allowed" come from?
What right does the state have to cancel people's right to protest?
Think about it.
By definition, if you protest about government policy you are protesting against the government, and if a demonstration is "cancelled", the government is stifling legitimate opposition to its policy, using in this case police violence to do it.
Alan, if you're still reading this, how would you react if you read about the North Korean or Chinese governments, for instance, using armed police to stifle protests - TIanamen Square, for instance?
Alan
Thursday Jul 07, 11:58
I saw the exact same footage; in relation to the scenes of violence against the police and the smashing up of civilian vehicles etc I agree the police did not, while the camera was on, move in. It was this small select group that I was talking about in my previous posting... like football matches there are always the select few who are just looking to cause trouble and act in a violent way. One of the main reasons that the police don't move in immediately is that they are often covertly filming them in an attempt to determine who the ring leaders are; my parents who were both in the armed forces, my mum transferring over to the MOD, say that this is usual tactics.
In relation to the breach of security on the perimeter fence I cannot help but approach it from two angles.
Yes, protesters have a right to do just that, protest. However, the police and security forces have a duty to protect the area surrounding the G8 summit where the heads of the richest nations in the world are residing.
I'm just not sure on that one, what I am sure of is that unecessary violence on behalf of the protester or the police is unacceptable.
I completely agree that the actions of the police in the sense of allowing a march and then cancelling it were unacceptable. Like you say people have a right to demonstrate/protest and I imagine the cancelling of the march cause an enormous amount of bad feeling between protester and police.
I reaffirm however that there is no excuse for violence and throwing things into the road/blocking them was a danger to motorists and I am quite sure that those sitting in the traffic jams resulting from such action were not endeared to the cause.
peter h
Thursday Jul 07, 14:15
As you say, there is no excuse for violence.
I look forward to seeing those police guilty of it being prosecuted.
Alan
Thursday Jul 07, 18:58
I look forward to seeing police guilty of unecessary violence prosecuted along with the violent trouble makers there under the guise of protesters.
peter h
Thursday Jul 07, 19:10
"I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return".
(WH Auden Sept 1st 1939)
Remember that tonight in your anger as you watch the news and wonder how people could do descend to such depths
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 13, 21:44
I wasn't angery, I was sad! And I didn't "wonder" - I have been up close and personal with extremists.
peter h
Thursday Jul 14, 01:15
Who were they, if I may ask, and what conclusion did you reach about them?
Dave Wilson
Thursday Jul 14, 14:27
Far right movement is all I am willing to really say here. I worked in an area where they "recruited" young, mainly male working class teenagers. At the time I was a Youth Worker.
peter h
Thursday Jul 14, 23:25
I remember somebody once saying the KKK in USA were poor whites at the bottom of the heap who joined KKK because they needed somebody kick, That's all the Far Right has to offer really.
Nasty people, but ultimately losers.
Racism is undefendable in open debate, because it's such a bloody stupid concept.
I've always felt that well-meant efforts to bar these guys from speaking remove our strongest weapon against them.
I'd even go so far as to wind certain people up by suggesting that PR would enable the Fsr Right to get seats in Parliament, and then they could show just how worthless their arguments are.
BNP councillors tend to get elected on some daft coloureds-out ticket, then get completely flummoxed when confronted with day-to-day politics about drains, public transport policies etc and make prats of themselves.
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 19, 20:19
They came second in a local by-election last week in London - using images of the bombed bus in the campgain material!
Tim
Sunday Jul 24, 21:23
Given the letter from Christies in the South Manchester Reporter, is it time to correc this thread and offer a public apology?
Alan
Tuesday Jul 26, 21:30
When Christies was asked if they would make the "petition" available they claimed they had no copies of it; the SHA the same so explain to me why this should be corrected!
These comments are owned by the person that posted them. They are not necessarily indicative of public opinion and their content has not been checked for accuracy. If you find a comment you think violates our Terms of Use please report it.
Sorry, posting on this entry is disabled to prevent comment spam.
