Locked Away

‘YOU would never catch David Beckham smoking a cigarette or, for that matter, his wife, Posh.

Gulag is the new Gucci

They know that if you want to get ahead in the celebrity jungle you need a couple of kiddies, and you can’t get them if you’re impotent.

Next in order of importance to a celebrity couple blessed with childish accessories is a head of luscious, shiny hair.

And if you can’t get any of your own, you can buy some. The Times says that the place to shop for a new barnet is in Russia’s prisons.

Such is the clamour for shiny hair extensions that Russian prisoners are having their heads forcibly shaved and the locks dispatched to hair salons throughout the West.

Indeed, La Posh’s hair is from Russia, although her hairdresser, Felenby Georghiou, is sure as sure can be that the hair is not from prisoners.

It is most likely from a hair farm, in which volunteers eager to get near La Posh and, by association, her husband, willingly live while their hair grows.

They are then given a signed photo of their heroine and baldy sent on their way…’

Posted: 12th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Coffee & Wafers

‘COULD a French boy legally wear to school the T-shirt from Mel Gibson’s new biopic based on the last days of Jesus Christ’s life?

‘I love Catholics’

Chances are not, because, as the Independent says, the lower house of the French parliament has overwhelmingly voted to ban all obvious religious symbols from school.

But being a schoolboy and so an impish rapscallion, young Pierre could test the waters.

By way of defence, he could quote from the Telegraph, which has seen the movie of the best-selling New Testament books and notes how ‘for Christians, it is a challenge to re-examine the most problematic aspects of their faith’.

And even if M Professor is unimpressed, our young rule breaker can score points with his friends because, if the film is any guide, the T-shirt will be dripping with gore and blood, soaked in the excrement of torment and suffering.

Pierre might also like to try his luck with another religious-themed T-shirt, this one inspired by the latest outburst from that man of rhetoric, Ian Paisley.

‘I love Roman Catholics,’ the Times hears Dr Paisley say, the leader of the Democratic Unionist party declaring his view during an interview on an Irish current affairs TV programme.

He did then qualify his message with a quick ‘but I detest the system of the popery’.

But the slogan is now on record, and it cannot be long until T-shirt sellers on the Falls Road have a new No.1 to replace those old favourites: ‘I love the Pope, the Pope smokes dope’; ‘I went to Dublin and all I got was this lousy Molotov cocktail’; and ‘They shot JR’.

And very soon such desperately fashionable items could be adorning the backs of Church of England vicars, who, says the Times, are thinking of radical new ways to keep step with changing times.

Rounding up this religious bulletin is the tale of how the General Synod, meeting at Westminster, is looking for alternatives to the traditional Sunday rituals.

A report called Mission-Shaped Church, penned by a group headed by the Bishop of Maidstone, urges the uptake of ‘café congregations’, where ‘seekers’ are encouraged to meet and talk about God in youth clubs and community centres.

Churches will be encouraged to sell off underused areas of their estates (pretty much everywhere beyond the cemetery) to coffee shops, bars and even nightclubs.

And what about a cinema too, in which shrouded by the protective cloak of darkness, French schoolchildren on exchange trips can watch Mel Gibson in the latest nail-’em-up action thriller while dressed in head-to-toe monks’ habits.

And with a free sip of Kia Ora and a bite of a communal Frankie’s hot dog for every one, Catholics can even get loved up with their Protestant brothers.

The kids will be banging down the doors…’

Posted: 11th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Tories On The Move

‘LIKE the Church, politicians are always keen to woo the youth vote.

Howard’s End?

If it’s not Tony breeding more yoofs to vote for him, it’s plans to make exams really easy and to decriminalise soft drugs.

It is about embracing change. And no party is doing more to appear to be changing than the Conservatives, who, the Times says, will pledge to spend more on health than the Labour party, should they get into power.

The message is that the NHS is safe in the Tory party’s warm, healing hands.

Of course, you’ll have to find them first. The Tories are on the move, and are making ready to vacate their offices at 32 Smith Square in favour of pastures new.

Iraq has been touted a possible site of their relocation, as have Siberia and a tiny caravan park off the A34.

But even the new-look Tories never listen all the time, and so they are eyeing a suite of new ‘ultra-modern Millbank-style’ offices at 25 Victoria Street, London.

By way of a clincher, the property is situated above a Starbucks coffee house, in which Tory politicos can chat over espressos about the perils of drugs and God’s role in the modern Church of England.

No wonder there is excitement among Tory ranks. One unnamed senior Tory tells the Times: ‘Smith Square is tainted by failure and the view that gossip flourishes there.

‘It is just no longer suitable for today’s purposes: we need somewhere smaller that looks as if it can bring people together instead of being split up on all floors’.

Sounds like the flat above Number 10 Downing Street would be ideal, although the current tenant shows little signs of moving, and it also might be too big to accommodate the party’s MPs.

But since the Tories are moving, what about them setting up shop in the backseat of a highly mobile Mini? Or if they do really well at the next General Election, a Renault Laguna?’

Posted: 11th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Blast Those Horns!

‘HAS anyone else noticed how annoying that woman announcer at Paddington station is?

‘The train now arriving on Platform 14 and part of Platform 15…’

At 7:45am, the last thing you need is someone with a voice from central casting perforating your eardrums with her round-up of the day’s rail disasters.

And can her colleagues kindly desist from slamming the train doors? Please. Trap you finger in the door if you have to, so long as they don’t slam and you don’t scream.

And can the drivers not use the horns on those sparkling new trains? We don’t care if they serve to keep you awake, they are annoying.

It is not just us – the Telegraph reports that people living close to railway tracks have complained about broken sleep and regular disturbances brought about whenever drivers blast their horns.

The Noise Abatement Society (NAS) has received many letters in which people complain about excess rail nose.

A spokesman for NAS says that the noise is so loud (it can reach 120 decibels), it’s leaving people ‘disorientated and traumatised’.

So letting everyone who doesn’t travel by train know what it is to do so.’

kittychesterz

Posted: 11th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Soca Training

‘THE public’s fear of organised crime is often out of proportion with the threat it poses.

J Edgar Hoover had problems remembering his alphabet

But ever one to play on our fears, Tony Blair yesterday outlined his plan to capture and disarm so-called ‘Mr Bigs’ who run their shadowy gangs.

The Times leads with this story, hearing Tony say: ‘I think people would accept that within certain categories of case, provided it’s big enough, you don’t take the normal burden’.

What he means in non-legalese is that the burden of proof, the tenet of the legal system that calls for guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, should be somewhat relaxed.

This is a rather unsettling notion, and one that Barry Hugill, spokesman for Liberty, labels ‘justice lite’.

He asks: ‘How long before it [the change in the burden of proof] becomes a general rule?’

Not very long at all, really. And if Mr Hugill casts his gaze towards the Middle East he might like to consider how a pilot scheme has treated that Mr Big of world repute, Saddam Hussein.

‘No evidence – no worries’, as they say on the hotline between the White House and Number 10.

Indeed, the Anglo-American legal casebook has been swapping some other notes, and Tony’s comments on organised crime came amid the launch of what the Independent calls Britain’s new ‘FBI-style crime unit to bring gangland bosses to justice’.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) will have sweeping powers to tackle gangland bosses, to wage an offensive against smugglers of guns, people, booze, tobacco and perhaps even drugs.

Yes, drugs, of the type once taken by the current Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ken MacDonald QC, who (the Independent reports) was fined £75 in 1971 for sending 0.1g of cannabis through the post.

But let us not be too hasty to judge and condemn, since Mr MacDonald is something of an expert in legal maters and when he says, ‘People have to be given a chance to redeem themselves’, we should listen.

A second chance is a fine thing, although it is hard to make much of it when the dossiers have been written, the weapons of war are primed and the heavily-armed Allies are knocking on your door…’

Posted: 10th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Total Recall

‘IN America the second chance is billed as the sequel. After George Bush I tried and failed to topple Saddam Hussein, it was left to George Bush II to finish the job.

‘It’s a bit late for clemency now, Arnie’

One other US politician who knows all about sequels is Arnold ‘I’ll be back’ Schwarzenegger, the governor of California.

The Independent says that the Austrian-born Terminator has failed to live up to his billing and decided to grant a late reprieve to Kevin Copper, who was due to be put away by lethal injection.

He might yet be executed, but only after a federal appeals court has heard his testimony, rechecked the evidence, looked for possible links to al-Qaeda and solicited the opinions of the Hollywood stars who brought pressure to bear on Arnie to exercise his powers of clemency.

If one thing can be guaranteed to influence American opinion it is an endorsement from a Hollywood star.

(You can’t help but think that Saddam Hussein would be better advised to employ less a defence lawyer and more Justin Timberlake to plead his case.)

As it is, the stars are coming out in support of John Kerry, the favourite to get the Democratic Party’s nod to do battle with the pretzel-munching Bush.

Since few outside the States have herd of Kerry, the Guardian briefly profiles the man who has won 10 of the 12 states contested so far and is heading polls in Virginia and Tennessee ahead of tonight’s primaries.

The paper notes that Kerry is the man Democrats see as the person most likely to unseat Bush.

As Larry Sabato, director of the centre for politics at the University of Virginia, puts it: ‘Electability has become the alpha and omega of our politics’.

Everyone wants to be seen to be backing the winner. It’s just amazing when the winner happens to be George Bush…’

Posted: 10th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

We Three Queens Of Orient Are

‘LOOKING at the current crop of alpha males out there, you’d be hard pressed to find three wise men.

‘Magi, Magi, Magi, Out, Out, Out!’

If Jesus were born today, he’d most likely be met by Gareth Gates, John Prescott and Jeb Bush.

But it was always so, and the Times has news that the original three wise men, who followed a star to a barn in Bethlehem, were, possibly, neither men nor wise.

According to the Church of England’s General Synod, whose views have been picked up on by the Times, the three wise men of legend could have been three women.

From now on the sagacious trio will be known for all time as The Unisex Magi.

The Synod’s revision committee has seen the Bible and the surrounding texts and concluded that ‘the visitors were not necessarily wise and not necessarily men’.

What’s more, the gifts the Magi brought are now rumoured to have been a signed photo of Brad Pitt, the complete collection of Sex And the City on DVD and a small yet nippy Renault Megane.

Oh, and Jesus was an angry young man called Tony…’

Posted: 10th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Pre-emptive Strike

‘THE doctrine of pre-emption under which America and Britain invaded Iraq has also been extended to cover matters domestic as well.

George was shocked that not everyone had been taught to read by Dan Quayle

And last week Home Secretary David Blunkett announced an extension of his plans to lock up indefinitely anyone he suspects of being a terrorist.

But if the failures of the intelligence service (on whose “evidence” these detentions will rely) weren’t enough to undermine the whole plan, we read in this morning’s Guardian how a group of Customs officers systematically committed perjury and lied to judges in secret hearings.

A document seen by the paper says officers deliberately withheld information from judges and defence teams, failing to admit, for instance, that a prosecution witness in more than 200 cases was a Customs informant.

Meanwhile, President Bush has been forced on the defensive by critics of the war in Iraq, even submitting himself at the weekend to his first interview on network TV since he took office.

In it, he ratcheted up the doctrine of pre-emption still further, arguing that it did not matter whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction.

“He had the capacity to have a weapon…and we thought he had weapons,” Bush told NBC’s Meet The Press.

“The international community thought he had weapons, but he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network.”

In other words, no longer do we need evidence that a country is actively engaged in procuring or developing weapons of mass destruction to launch a pre-emptive strike.

It is enough to think that they might and to know that they can – a standard by which just about every country in the world is vulnerable.

We wonder if Bush used a similar standard of proof with the 152 people he was responsible for executing as governor of Texas.’

Posted: 9th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Bird Brain

‘ONE swallow does not a President make although, to be fair to George Bush, his mastication has improved markedly since that run-in with a pretzel early in his tenure.

‘I think – therefore I am confused’

These days, Dubya is confident of his ability to remain conscious while tackling a wide range of salty snacks.

He is even taking tentative steps to his goal of being able to eat said snacks and watch TV at the same time, but that could be for a second term.

If one swallow doesn’t make a President, it does not make a summer either.

The Telegraph reports that the first swallow of the year, which typically arrives in March or April, was spotted yesterday in Somerset after migrating from southern Spain.

“Even more surprising,” it says, “has been the appearance along the south coast of several house martins, which normally arrive after the swallow.”

The birds are in for a nasty shock, however, as last week’s unseasonably warm temperatures are replaced by more wintry conditions.

They are also likely to get a bit of a surprise when they find that Home Office officials can’t find southern Spain on a map and deny that they have bullfighting there.’

Posted: 9th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Johnny Rotten Foreigner

‘THERE is an old political maxim that the Government treats foreigners how it would treat its own citizens if it could get away with it.

The new seekers

In which case, the people of Britain should be afraid, very afraid.

New figures published in the Independent suggest that the Home Office is getting one on five asylum applications wrong. For applicants from some countries, the figure is almost two in five.

For instance, Amnesty International research suggests that between July and September of last year, 39% of initial asylum applications from Somalia and 29% from Zimbabwe were rejected, only to be overturned on appeal.

And the human rights group accused the department of a “staggering lack of accurate information about the situations asylum seekers are fleeing from”.

“Getting an asylum decision wrong is not like a clerical error on a tax bill,” says Kate Allen, UK director of Amnesty.

“Wrongly refusing someone’s claim could mean returning them to face torture or execution.”

For instance, an Algerian who claimed to have been raped and tortured with soapy rags stuffed in her mouth was told that this was not evidence of persecution.

And a Syrian’s claim was rejected because the Home Office wrongly denied the existence of an opposition group.

Meanwhile, Prince Charles is in Iran to show Britain’s solidarity with a regime that has just banned thousands of reformist candidates from standing in next month’s general election.

“Why has he come now, just as our democracy has come under attack?” one shopkeeper asked in the Times. “He should have stayed away to show his support.”

Another was disappointed with the identity of the visitor, saying: “I came over because I heard Tony Blair had come. What power does Prince Charles have?”

Not enough, sadly, even to squeeze his own toothpaste out of the tube.’

Posted: 9th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Nukes R Us

‘THE days when the only reason you went to the likes of Tesco, Sainsbury’s or Asda was to buy your weekly groceries have long passed.

Winston advertises the great 2-for-1 deal

These days, the supermarket giants sell more CDs and DVDs than HMV, more pairs of jeans than Levi’s and more nuclear secrets than a Pakistani scientist.

If you wondered where this gradual takeover of the High Street was going to end, the Telegraph supplies the answer in its front-page headline this morning: “The Nuclear Supermarket.”

Up to now, shoppers wanting to buy weapons-grade plutonium, centrifuges and all the other paraphernalia needed to make a nuclear bomb have had to go through a long and laborious process involving several different retail outlets.

No longer. The opening of the world’s first nuclear supermarket means dictators like Kim Jong Il and Colonel Gadaffi can pick up an H Bomb at the same time as getting the Sunday roast.

In fact, you can pick up a basic bomb design and parts for just $5m – and you don’t need us to tell you how many nectar points you can earn for that kind of outlay.

Moreover, for a short time only, the supermarket is running a ‘Buy 2, Get 1 Free’ offer on its intercontinental ballistic missile nuclear range.

But hurry – the Telegraph reports that intelligence agencies and nuclear inspectors are racing to shut it down.

Run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, the supermarket has apparently been supplying Iran, Libya, North Korea “and perhaps several other countries” for more than a decade.

And it is described by Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as “the most dangerous phenomenon in proliferation for many years”.

“A lot of people were involved,” he said. “Items were made in one country, assembled in others and shipped on false certificates.”

All of which leads the Guardian to ask why this “nukes-for-cash racket” was not exposed beforehand.

“Where were those political leaders who, since 9/11, have endlessly warned that WMD proliferation, linked to terrorism, is the main global security threat?” it asks.

“The answer is they only had eyes for Iraq. Even as this shocking scam flourished unchecked, George Bush and Tony Blair were simply looking the wrong way.

“Mr Bush’s role model, Winston Churchill, would be distinctly unimpressed.”

Although he would appreciate the free box of Havana cigars thrown in with every purchase over $10m.’

Posted: 6th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

A Con Job

‘IF President Bush and Tony Blair have only had eyes for Iraq (and each other), then the same could just as easily be said of the papers.

‘The greatest British swordsman never to have won an Olympic gold’ – J. Archer

As the Independent once again devotes its front page to a forensic analysis of “what we were told, what we know now and the unresolved issues”, we at Anorak Towers have had enough.

The simple truth is that the country (and the rest of the world) divides into those who supported the war with Iraq and those who didn’t.

And never the twain shall meet, other than to pour opprobrium onto each other. It is the original dialogue of the deaf.

Even the Guardian seems bored of picking over the bones of the Government’s pre-war dossiers, relegating to third lead the latest row over whether Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon informed the Prime Minister that the 45-minute claim referred only to battlefield weapons or not.

It prefers to illustrate its front page with a picture of Jonathan Aitken, that crusader in the cause of truth, that expert swordsman (in more than one sense of the word), that sturdy champion of British fair play.

The former Tory cabinet minister, who not only lied himself under oath but got his daughter to lie for him, is apparently planning a political comeback.

The paper, which brought about his most spectacular fall from grace, reports that 200 local activists are urging him to stand again for Parliament.

After all, if British public life has one pressing need at the moment it is for more shady crooks (sorry, God-fearing servants of the common good) like Aitken.’

Posted: 6th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Odds Against

‘THE chances of being killed in a road accident in the UK are one in 6,000, the chances of being murdered this year on a British street are one in 80,000 and the chances of being dealt a royal flush in a game of poker are one in 650,000.

‘I had thought there was more chance of them finding WMDs than me winning the Lottery’

We mention this only by way of introduction to the launch yesterday of a new European lottery – another way to separate the people of Britain (and France and Spain) from their hard-earned cash.

The Times has calculated that the chance of winning the £50m jackpot on the new game, which launches next week, is one in 76,279,630.

In other words, you are more than five times less likely to win strike it rich in this new European lottery than you are on the current national lottery.

To put that further into perspective, you are more than ten times more likely to be hit by a meteor, eight times more likely to be hit by lightning and almost twice as likely to see a Tory Prime Minister again in your lifetime.’

Posted: 6th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

A Sorry State Of Affairs

‘SORRY, said Elton John (with a little help from Blue), is the hardest word to say – but, once out of your mouth, it is hard to get it back in.

An apology of a BBC chairman

It may have taken the BBC months (and the jobs of its chairman and director-general) before it could issue an apology to the Government for Andrew Gilligan’s infamous Today broadcast.

But these days, apologies are two a penny at Broadcasting House.

And yesterday the corporation apologised to Humberside chief constable David Westwood for misleading editing of a Newsnight interview, which appeared to show him storming out of the studio.

The piece showed Westwood unplug his earpiece and get up from his desk after being questioned by Jeremy Paxman over policing errors that allowed Soham murderer Ian Huntley to get a job as a school caretaker.

‘The editing contrived to produce the impression I was being evasive and defensive and walked off the Newsnight set rather than answer difficult questions,’ he told the Guardian.

‘That was quite untrue.’

But if the Guardian says that the apology has added to fears within the BBC that it is becoming overcautious in the wake of the Hutton report, they will be pleased to know that the police are also in apologetic mood this morning.

The Metropolitan police apologised, and shelled out £80,000 in compensation, after effectively kidnapping 23 bemused anti-monarchist protesters during the Queen’s Golden Jubilee and taking them on an enforced bus tour of the capital.

The Guardian says that the protesters had retired to the Goodman’s Field pub for a lunchtime pint after a thirsty morning’s protesting in June 2002.

But police burst into the pub and arrested 19 of them (as well as four loitering with intent to protest nearby), commandeered a passing bus and effectively used it as a prison.

A Scotland Yard spokeswoman explained that the officers were using their ingenuity, but needless to say the protesters didn’t see it like that.

And yesterday, the Met settled the matter out of court.

‘I am writing to apologise on behalf of the Metropolitan police for the fact that you were arrested and detained for some hours,’ the letter from the Met said.

‘It is accepted that there was insufficient evidence to justify your arrest on this occasion and you should not have been arrested and detained.’

We particularly like the threatening nature of the phrase ‘on this occasion’ in the letter.

But the good news for police is that they may be right – in future, if David Blunkett’s piece-by-piece dismantling of the criminal justice system carries on apace, they can just brand the protesters terrorists and bang ’em up for as long as they like.’

Posted: 5th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Passage To India

‘WE may have given India their railways and their trains a century and a half ago, but the Indians could soon be giving us our train times.

India’s biggest call centre houses 150,000 operators at any one time

National Rail Enquiries is just the latest company to announce that it is switching to call centres in Bangalore and Bombay with the loss of 600 jobs here in the UK.

The company receives 50 million calls a year, according to the Times, half of which will in future be routed to overseas.

NRE boss Chris Scoggins explained that the whole process should become a more pleasant experience for customers.

‘There is a higher level of politeness in India,’ he said, ‘and a greater desire to help.’

It also helps that Indian call centre staff are paid a fraction of what British staff are paid, but we imagine that that played only a very small part in NRE’s decision.

Of course, none of this helps if you don’t know the number for NRE.

In that case, we advise you to phone up one of the many new directory inquiry services and ask the operator there to put you through.

You’ll either have to pay for a call to India to be routed back to the UK to bounce straight back out to India or the operator will just hand the phone to the bloke sitting next to him…’

Posted: 5th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

War Games

‘THERE is something pretty wrong with any country that chooses its leader on the basis of their record in a war that finished nearly 30 years ago.

‘Can we hurry up with the photo? The bar’s open already’

But Vietnam has such a strong hold on the American psyche that November’s presidential election is likely to be about in part the respective military careers of President Bush and the likely Democratic challenger John Kerry.

At least, it will be if Kerry has anything to do with it.

Bill Clinton may have become president in spite of allegations of draft dodging, but George Dubya Bush’s record is not exactly unblemished.

And, says the Independent, the Democrats are turning up the heat on the present incumbent of the White House.

Terry McAuliffe, the party chairman, suggested that Bush went AWOL after service in the Texas National Guard to help a political campaign in Alabama.

A White House spokesman described the suggestion as ‘outrageous and baseless’.

But with nine months to go before polling day, the slights on Bush’s spotless character and unimpeachable record are likely to become more and more deperate.

Next they’ll be accusing the President of manipulating election results or prosecuting a war on evidence that was at best selective and at worst known to be false.’

Posted: 5th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Ifs And Buts

‘PRESIDENT Bush has an election coming up this November, which is why the American inquiry into the accuracy of the intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is not expected to report until next year.

‘I’d like to phone a friend. He’s called Tony’

Tony Blair, on the other hand, wants to hold an election next year, which is why the British inquiry into the accuracy of the intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction has been told to report by the summer.

One war, two inquiries, two different timetables.

And just in case anyone was under any illusion that yesterday’s announcement of what the Times says is the fourth, and probably last, inquiry into the war was not politically motivated, then Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy was quick to dispel that notion by refusing to take part.

‘An inquiry which excludes politicians from scrutiny is unlikely to command public confidence,’ he said. ‘Politicians should always be willing to answer for their judgement and their competence to the public.’

The Guardian is equally unimpressed by the narrow remit of what will soon be known as the Butler inquiry.

‘The better and braver course for the Government,’ it suggests, ‘would have been to swallow its pride and to remit the whole lead-up to the war to Lord Butler and his team.’

And that way Charlie Kennedy would not have thrown his teddy out of the pram and could have got to play politics with the big boys for once.

Meanwhile, the Independent is holding an inquiry of its own and it appears from this morning’s front page that the Government are guilty on all counts.

It takes evidence from Brian Jones, the former leading expert on WMD in the MoD, who claims that not a single defence expert backed Blair’s most contentious claims on Iraqi weapons.

And he says it would be a travesty if the DIS (Defence Intelligence Staff), for whom he worked, were criticised over the affair.

Dr Jones at least had the wit to put his reservations about some of the wording of the September 2002 dossier on record at the time.

But others, like US Secretary Of State Colin Powell, are busy covering their back after the event.

The Telegraph reports that Powell has suggested that he might not have backed the war had he been told there were no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

Hindsight, however, is a wonderful thing. Had Hitler known of his eventual defeat, he might not have invaded Poland. Had JFK known what he was getting his country into, he would almost certainly not have sent military advisers to Vietnam.

And if Colin Powell’s aunt had balls, she’d be his uncle.’

Posted: 4th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

On The Wrong Track

‘IT is amazing to think that Britain once led the world in the field of railway engineering – James Watt, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, George Stephenson, Charles Vignoles, Joseph Locke etc.

Lord Brocket gets ready to test his Rocket

But these days we are more interested in Lord Brocket’s rocket than Stephenson’s Rocket – and the results are predictable.

The Times reports this morning that a whole generation of new, supposedly sophisticated, trains introduced at a cost of some £4bn since 1997 are badly designed and frequently break down.

A report by the National Audit Office says that 20% of the 2,020 new trains have experienced mechanical failure, more than 15% had problems with the onboard computer system, 8% had air conditioning failures and 4% have power supply problems.

Not exactly the kind of figures that you will find in a glossy brochure advertising Britain’s engineering prowess, but maybe tolerable if passengers liked the new trains.

Needless to say they don’t.

The Times says passengers (or customers, as they are now called) have complained that new designs with their compulsory lavatories for the disabled and crumple zones at the end of carriages, were ‘poorly laid out and too cramped’.

Not only that but 300 of the new trains may have to be mothballed – at a potential cost of some £7m – because power supplies on the network are inadequate.

It is just as well that the Victorians invented the likes of the railway because one can just imagine the cock-up we would make of it today.

We’d have the wrong kind of water in the boiler, the council would spend months drawing up an environmental impact assessment on the coal used to heat the boiler and the train would certainly be of a different gauge to the track.

We’re getting there. Like hell.’

Posted: 4th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment (1)

Distaff Party

‘ANORAK has mysteriously been left off the guest list for what the Times describes as “the first ever women-only event at Buckingham Palace”.

‘Long may I reign over you’

We are sure that Prince Andrew is chuckling to himself over his bowl of Frosties this morning and remembering some of the many women-only events he has held in his quarters at the palace.

But this is the first official event of its type and it is a lunch for 200 working women and mothers who, like the Queen, have triumphed over adversity.

Among those breaking bread with Elizabeth Windsor (in our absence) will be Cherie Blair, “who has retained her legal career despite four children and marriage to the Prime Minister”.

Also there will be JK Rowling, “who created Harry Potter while she was a struggling single mother”, Hannah Dadds, “who in 1978 became the first women driver on the London Underground” and Heather Mills McCartney, “who lost a leg in a road accident”.

But the guest of honour will undoubtedly be Her Majesty, whose achievements include being born before her sister Margaret, giving the world her four children and, er, reigning a lot.’

Posted: 4th, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Lord Butler Did It

”IRAQ? Oh, we thought you meant Iran.’

‘Does a crossbow count, sarge?’

Britain’s spooks are busy rehearsing their excuses after news that the Government will today announce an inquiry into the intelligence failure in the run-up to the war with Iraq.

Tony Blair may have no reverse gear, but he executed a pretty neat handbrake turn in bowing to pressure for the investigation into the continued failure to find Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

However, the Times says the formal announcement of the panel, to be chaired by former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler (a man of impeccable integrity and impartiality, at least until he produces a report that we don’t like), was delayed after failure to agree its terms of reference with opposition parties.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy wanted the inquiry to look at the political decisions leading up to war as well as the intelligence material – a demand likely to be rejected by the Government.

But the Guardian says the inquiry has the potential not only to embarrass the Prime Minister but also to provoke ‘a serious disagreement’ between the Government and the intelligence agencies.

‘They [the intelligence agencies] were obliged to construct and underwrite a public, politically driven case for war,’ the paper says, ‘which, if it turned out to be flawed (as it has) would, they suspected, inevitably rebound on them (as it is doing now).

‘Blaming only the spooks, like blaming only the BBC, is like beating the waiter over the head because the chef has overcooked the joint.’

Tony Blair’s reluctance to allow an inquiry was effectively undermined by President Bush’s decision to concede one to his critics, leading to headlines in the anti-war Indy and Guardian that he had caved in or that the inquiry had been forced upon him.

The pro-war Telegraph sees it differently, arguing that Blair is merely following Bush’s lead and insisting that any inquiry ‘must not be a proxy committee of inquiry into the rights and wrongs of the war itself’.

‘This has to be an inquiry into how politicians interact with spies,’ it says, ‘and the related matter of the culture of the intelligence services.’

And a test to see how many spooks can pick out Iraq on a blank map of the region.’

Posted: 3rd, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Degrees Of Importance

‘LET it never be said that A-Levels are easier than they used to be in the days when students were expected to be able to recite all 24 books of the Iliad from memory and write a short proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem.

The patron saint of English

Applicants to MI6 are expected to show more than a rudimentary knowledge of geography and be able to identify at least two of the three members of the axis of evil on a map.

Newcomers to the Treasury not only have to have a good grasp of maths, but also understand such concepts as double counting and treble counting and forgetting to count at all.

But there will always be graduates of the Fred Trueman School Of Things Were Better In My Day for whom A-levels are not the blue riband academic qualification of days of yore.

And that is why the Telegraph reports on how eight universities are demanding that applicants to study law take a special test on their understanding of English ‘because A-levels no longer provide a reliable test of ability’.

Why this test should only apply to potential law students we don’t know – no other profession prizes the ability to write gobbledegook more highly.

The two-hour paper, which will be introduced in November, will contain 40 multiple choice questions, testing students’ ability to analyse passages and make logical deductions.

An example might be: ‘If Mr A describes Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction as ‘active, detailed and growing’ only a year before it turns out that there are no weapons of mass destruction, what does that make Mr A?’

A) A liar

B) A fool

C) Prime Minister

D) A lawyer

Answers on a postcard (with large cheque) to Anorak University (Law Faculty) at the usual address. Send SAE if you want to receive your degree certificate.’

Posted: 3rd, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

A Right Tit

‘YOU don’t need a degree in media studies. Full stop.

The star of the show

But you certainly don’t need a degree in media studies to work out that the baring of Janet Jackson’s right breast at half-time during Sunday night’s Superbowl was not an accident.

After all, who wears a star on their nipple if it is not intended to see the light of day?

But surely only America could get itself in such a tizz about something as tame as a semi-exposed breast.

In olden days a glimpse of stocking may have been something shocking, but these days anything goes – as a glance through any teenage magazine will confirm.

Nevertheless, the Indy reports that a federal investigation has been launched into what Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, called ‘a classless, crass and deplorable stunt’.

Justin Timberlake, the man responsible for the brief flash of flesh, claimed it was not intentional and blamed ‘a wardrobe malfunction’.

In fact, the wardrobe functioned exactly as planned and Jackson got reams of free publicity just as she is about to launch a new album.

However, Jackson’s breast was not the only piece of flesh on show – Mark Roberts, Liverpool’s record-holding streaker, ran onto the pitch in just a jockstrap and danced around for 20 seconds before being tackled by a Patriots’ lineback.

But his stunt was ruined by the fact that he was sponsored by a gambling website whose web address he had painted on his body.

At the risk of sounding like Fred Trueman, we at Anorak get all misty-eyed as we mourn the passing of the amateur streaker. After all, would Erica Rowe be remembered as fondly today had she had Goodyear emblazoned across her gargantuan breasts?’

Posted: 3rd, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Passing The Buck

‘NO sooner has Tony Blair emerged with halo intact from the Hutton inquiry, he is facing yet another test of his integrity and all-round good blokeness.

‘Sure it fires water now, but with modifications, it could fire peas and even bits of nuclear material’

The announcement by the Americans yesterday of a full-blown investigation into the failure to find Saddam Hussein’s fabled weapons of mass destruction has left the PM isolated.

And, says the Guardian, although Downing Street is rejecting calls for a similar inquiry over here, it is preparing to make an acknowledgement about the failure to locate WMD.

President Harry Truman famously had a sign on his desk that read: ‘The buck stops here.’

For President Bush and Tony Blair, the buck seems to stop anywhere but – and it appears that it is the intelligence services that will come in for greatest criticism.

David Kay, the head of the Iraq Survey Group who resigned last week, tells the Times that there was a sort of Chinese Whispers within the intelligence services with analysts’ reservations being dropped as data passed higher up the chain of command.

“There are caveats that clearly dropped out, dissenting opinions that clearly dropped out as you moved higher up and people read the headline summaries,” he said.

And in the Guardian, Leader Of The Commons Peter Hain says he saw unequivocal evidence that Iraq had WMD.

“That informed our decision to go and topple him,” he said. “I think we were right in doing so. But let’s wait and see what the jury finds in the end.”

Given that the Government is set against another inquiry, we are not quite sure what jury Mr Hain is referring to. But if it is the jury in the court of public opinion, the verdict may not prove to be to the Government’s liking.

While Blair prevaricates, President Bush’s tactic has been the not altogether difficult task of playing dumb, announcing on Friday: “I too want to know the facts.”

Perhaps something he might have concerned himself with prior to the invasion of Iraq.

However, the bigger question is where this seemingly massive failure of intelligence leaves the whole doctrine of pre-emptive action.

“Pristine intelligence is a fundamental benchstone [sic] for any sort of policy of pre-emption to be thought about,” Mr Kay told the Times.

And Mr Hain says the British Government is refusing to pre-empt the findings of the Iraq Survey Group by holding an inquiry before it has reported.

Given that its job is to find something that apparently isn’t there, its task is completely open-ended, meaning that an inquiry can be delayed indefinitely.

After all, if you were choosing your last meal as a condemned man, would you ask for your steak to be cooked rare or well-done?’

Posted: 2nd, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Kafka Courts

‘THE doctrine of pre-emption is not just confined to our foreign policy, but is already seeping into our criminal justice system.

CAMRA members deny being involved with suicide bombs

The Guardian says Home Secretary David Blunkett is planning a major extension of existing anti-terrorist legislation, which allows suspected terrorists to be detained without trial.

He “believes the nature of the new ‘global suicide terrorism’ means it may now be necessary to keep evidence in a terrorism case secret even from British defendants and their lawyers in order to protect intelligence sources”.

In other words, people can be held indefinitely without even knowing what their “crime” is and without access to proper legal representation.

It sounds remarkably similar to a British version of Camp Delta, the mockery that the US has made of justice and human rights at Guantanamo Bay.

The Guardian says, however, that one option under consideration is to introduce special courts, where defendants could be represented only by state-vetted counsel – much like the proposed military tribunals on the other side of the Atlantic.

Of course, these Kafka Courts might be rather more palatable if the intelligence on which the decisions were made was, in the word of David Kay, pristine.

But if intelligence services don’t know the difference between a chemical weapons refinery and a baby milk factory, how do we expect them to know the difference between a terrorist and a man with a long beard?’

Posted: 2nd, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment

Out With The Old

‘IMMIGRATION into Britain is at record levels and will account for almost two-thirds of Britain’s population growth over the next 25 years.

Gladys and Sid were happy to go to Albania so long as there was jelly and that nice Mr O’Connor on the telly

So says a think tank called Migrationwatch UK, which suggests that the population of this already overcrowded island will rise by at least seven million by 2031.

The Telegraph says that although the number of asylum seekers appears to be falling, that will be offset by a massive expansion of the work permit scheme.

“The Government,” it explains, “says more young migrant workers are needed because the indigenous population is not growing fast enough and is getting older.

“David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, says he sees ‘no obvious upper limit’ to the number of settlers allowed in.”

This is all very well, but as Migrationwatch UK points out, it has enormous implications for housing, health, education and infrastructure.

If we are importing all these millions of young workers, isn’t it about time we started exporting a similar number of pensioners?

So, buy your gran a one-way ticket somewhere nice this year – you’ll be doing everyone a favour.’

Posted: 2nd, February 2004 | In: Broadsheets | Comment