Saturday, January 07, 2006 

Cannabis: massively increased potency is a myth.



As almost any casual smoker of cannabis could have told you, the drug has not been getting stronger. Only a small percentage has noticeably increased in potency - mainly varieties home-grown by hydroponics or in illicit huge warehouses or lofts - while the more common and cheaper hashish blocks have certainly not increased in potency.

Paul Griffiths at the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Portugal said: "Some of the figures quoted are just nonsensical."

He co-authored a report in 2004 which reviewed data on potency. It found that the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the effective potency of cannabis, in Britain has stayed at around 6% for the past 30 years. Strong varieties make up only 15% of the market.

The only country in Europe where potency is increasing is the Netherlands where intensively-grown cannabis has more than 50% of the market.

He argues that concentrating on potency is a red herring. " Do people who drink whisky take in more alcohol than people who drink beer?" he asked. More important is how often people smoke, how early they started and how much they put in a joint.


All this is of special importance, as the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs is due to report on whether they believe cannabis should re-classified as a Class B drug, only 2 years after the former Home Secretary David Blunkett, in one of his few sane policies moved the drug down from Class B to Class C. Ever since, the tabloids have been running scare campaigns claiming that such a move undermines drug policy as a whole - even if cannabis isn't turning our youths into schizophrenics, it leads to the use of harder drugs, which is again in general another myth. Much like alcohol, many smoke cannabis sociably. The likes of the Daily Mail though regard it as an assault on their mythical moral society, and have seemed to have some influence on Charles Clarke.

Thankfully, it appears as though that influence will not lead to the drug being reclassified. According to a letter in the Guardian, it's an open secret that the advisory committee is not going to recommend its reclassification. Police hours have been freed up by not having to deal with the pointlessness to both the courts and themselves of arresting and charging someone with an eighth, instead confiscating the drug and issuing warnings, which was the position of some forces even before the reclassification. Hopefully, within a few years and when a whole nation of young people don't end up in mental health wards as a result of their casual use, the authorities will come even more to their senses and finally legalise a drug which is certainly no more dangerous than alcohol.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Friday, January 06, 2006 

George Galloway: a step too far.



Just what is George Galloway hoping to achieve or gain by going on Celebrity Big Brother? You might recall that last year he missed a vote on which he could have helped defeat the government, as he was at the time taking part in another piece of egotism, an audience with himself. This time though even he seems to have gone too far.

To start with, he's abandoned his constituents yet again, this time for possibly 3 weeks. He's already one of the lowest-attending members of the house of parliament, thanks both to his laziness, audience with shows and his on-going battle with the US Senate. Secondly, the whole point of going on to a programme such as Celebrity Big Brother is to boost a flagging career or to convince the public that you're even more of an attention whore than they previously thought you were. Galloway's career isn't flagging, and there's few people who don't think him of as little less than a self-promoting vain man. Thirdly, what better way for others to expose your politics or at least let them try to than to give them the opportunity 24 hours a day? Fourthly, and let's not be snobbish here, but he hasn't he exactly gone into the house with any intellectual heavyweights. Big Brother must be thrilled to have got him; they're likely to use him as this year's opposite of John McCririck, or rather, make him look like him. Galloway will be able to discuss politics with Faria Alam, whose only claim to fame is to have slept with at least 2 directors of the FA, and also with Sven-Goran Eriksson. Should he feel so inclined he can discuss Iraq with the slapper's slapper, Jodie Marsh. Or maybe he'll get into discussion about the dissolution of the USSR with Michael Barrymore, and how it relates to how his own career fell apart.

There's no doubting that Galloway is an intelligent man, charismatic, and a great orator. But with those skills he also falls victim to the usual traits which those men also have: vanity and arrogance. He can be incredibly entertaining, as evidenced by his spat with Christopher Hitchens, but it shouldn't be at the expense of letting down those who he represents, and who in effect pay his wages. By going on Big Brother he seems to have let his "fame" go right to his head. He isn't going to convince anyone that Blair is a war criminal or that war in Iraq was wrong and illegal by doing so, nor is he going to clear his name over the oil for food scandal. The only reason I can come up with for his appearance is that he has lost touch with those who voted him into office, the poor and ethnic minorities of Bethnal Green and Bow, and that is a sad state of affairs.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

 

Sun-watch: "Yes, I'm a drunk."



First things first: it's nice to actually see politics on the front page of the Sun, because it sure doesn't happen very often. Sadly though, it's because of a sycophantic interview with Blair and mainly as a cheap shot against Charles Kennedy, who was incredibly brave in going public with his alcoholism, whether he was forced to or not.

Their rather crude manipulation of Kennedy's statement last night though reminds me of a certain incident which happened last year. This was when an editor of a national tabloid newspaper was arrested for seeming to have beaten up her husband following a night of drinking. You might also remember that afterwards the explanation given for the husband having a cut lip was that he'd suffered it while filming. This editor, and the lie? Rebekah Wade, and the lie was printed in her newspaper in the tiny amount of coverage it gave to the story.

On to the Blair interview then, which even for the Sun is incredibly ass-kissing. Consider the following paragraph:

Mr Blair spoke to me amid the wood-panelled splendour of his rural retreat Chequers in Buckinghamshire.

Around him in the grandeur were photographs of his family, wife Cherie, sons Euan, Nicky and Leo and daughter Kathryn.

He looked tanned and fit after a week-long break in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheikh.

He sported an open-necked, light blue shirt with the sleeves rolled up, a pair of black moleskin chinos — and, fittingly with his laidback mood, no watch.

But he was in determined mood when it came to his campaign on hooligans.


I had no idea that not wearing a watch was a sign that you were laidback -- I'll have to try that one when I next visit my psychiatrist. Probably of more interest to us than what he was wearing those is his rather deluded thoughts of what the public expect of him:

Defiant Tony Blair last night vowed to carry on as Prime Minister for the bulk of this Parliament - saying he owed it to the people. The PM insisted it was his duty to voters to stay in power because that is what they demanded at last May's election. Declaring he would not flinch in the face of Labour rebels, he said: "I'm not going anywhere. I'm here and I'm going to see the whole programme through."


This would be the same public of which only 22% voted for Labour. Labour only won 36% of the vote - a humiliatingly low amount. Blair has suffered negative personal approval ratings since the time of the Iraq war, even if Labour voters still mostly approve of him. Blair had already also said at the time that he would not stand for a 4th election, and the whispered but not publicly stated campaign slogan was "vote Blair, get Brown". Blair even stated at the time of the election that he recognised he would have to listen, and that the public wanted Labour as the government with a reduced majority. So why has he not listened, and why has he acted as if he still has that huge majority? The Sun sure didn't ask him that question. They do sure care about "yobs" though, the majority of which probably read the Sun.

NEIGHBOURS from hell are to be EVICTED and left to fend for themselves in a crackdown on yobs planned by Tony Blair.

The worst offenders will have their houses boarded up for at least three months — even if they are homeowners.

The PM unveiled the most controversial part of his Respect agenda by talking exclusively to The Sun in his first public interview of the New Year.

Mr Blair spoke of his “real anger” at the unacceptable yobbery rampant in some inner cities.

And he vowed he wants to end it FOR GOOD.

He said: “People have to know that if they are making life hell for others, they are going to pay the price.

“There’s a duty to respect the rights of those who live around you.

“People who come in at two or three in the morning, playing music in a destructive way, abusing anyone who dares to take them on — that is just not acceptable. They must learn to behave properly to other people.

“I recognise this is controversial but if we are going to restore respect in the community we have to make sure the civil liberties of people to live free from fear comes first.”


If we're going to evict people and board up their houses, where are they going to go? Do we just let them live on the streets and beg? No, I suppose we'll then use the anti-begging laws and Asbos which have been handed out to beggars to stop them. One breach of that contract and they end up thrown up in prison. This is being tough on crime, but it certainly isn't being tough on the causes of the crime. And then we have the so-called "on the spot" justice:

He explained: “I can’t physically come on to your street and stop the anti-social behaviour. But I can give the police the powers to do it. They know who the troublemakers are.”


Oh yes, they probably do. And if someone's been unruly once or twice, they're incredibly likely to just to dish out what they think is necessary if the same is reported again, whether that person was involved or not. Summary justice is bad justice, as vigilantism has shown time and again over the years. Nowhere does the prime minister in the article mention that crime has been falling now for ten years (according to both Home Office figures and the British Crime Survey), as he well knows. Nor does he mention that the main fuel of violent crime, alcohol, has just been made available 24 hours by his government in many areas of the country. That wouldn't fit in with his tough persona which he shows every now and then to get support from the Sun, all too happy to bash the "lefties" it refers to in the article.

Blair can't face up to the fact he is now a lame duck. The Sun itself already passed notice earlier this week that it has been very impressed with David Cameron. It will no doubt soon side with the Tories in smearing Gordon Brown for being a left wing throwback when he is nothing of sort. Even when one politician goes out of his way to show how the culture of Westminster is finally starting to change, the likes of the Sun and Blair show just how far it still has to go.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, January 05, 2006 

Moss dross: Back with a vengeance.

Did you miss it? I know I did:



On a day in which a world leader was struck down by a massive stroke (albeit a little late for the first editions, I realise) and in a more Sun-friendly story a 3-year-old girl was abducted from her home and raped before being found in a crashed car by police, the Sun wisely chooses to go with a story about everyone's favourite waif. Also of note is that Daily Mail also used the same picture of Moss on their front page in a smaller column, but in which she looks substantially better than in the Sun's:


Do you think that *shock* the Sun might have altered the photo to make her look worse?!

Still, maybe Kate Moss can count herself lucky that's she not Nikki Sanderson, who's been splashed across the front page of the Daily Spurt (Sport) topless, caught by a paparazzo (possible sic) (To judge by the front page of the Daily Star they are also in there). Then again, seeing as the Daily Mirror also featured Kate topless a few weeks ago while she was on a beach and also while receiving a massage, then had the audacity to print a story saying she was being stalked by a sex pest, perhaps it should be Nikki who's thankful.

Correction to the above: Nikki Sanderson was not topless, it was a typical bit of Sport fakery on the front page which made me think that. Apologies.

Also of note today in the media world is that several newspapers have rather unkindly printed images of a woman in London jumping to her death (I can't claim to have seen them so can only go by this article), which seems rather ghoulish and morbid, to say the least:

The London Evening Standard and the Times have been accused by Samaritans of breaching guidelines on reporting suicide by publishing photographs of a woman leaping to her death from a London hotel.

Samaritans, the charity that supports suicidally depressed people, said it was "appalled" by the coverage of the incident.

The photographs, which included an image of the woman falling to her death, were first published last night in the London Evening Standard's final edition and used today by The Times and the Sun.

The Daily Express avoided using the most horrific image but printed a picture of the woman standing on a ledge outside her bedroom window.

"Samaritans is appalled by newspaper media coverage of a 52-year-old woman who fell to her death in an apparent suicide in South Kensington," the charity said in a statement.

"Samaritans has a long-standing media guidelines policy on factual reporting and these guidelines have been seriously breached.

"The guidelines - drawn up with the help of media professionals - state that press coverage of a suicide should be 'discreet and sensitive'. Reports should also avoid explicit details of method and should in particular 'avoid the use of dramatic photographs or images related to suicide'."



Strange how one of the newspapers (the Sun) which campaigned so heavily for the 90-days detention without trial for terrorist suspects, supposedly so that outrages such as the suicide bombings of July the 7th would not happen again, finds it perfectly OK to feature pictures of a woman jumping to her death. Still, maybe she was an asylum seeking gipsy.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, January 04, 2006 

To publish or not to publish, that is the question.


The Guardian today carries more info on the alleged torture of a group of Pakistani men arrested in Greece following the July 7th attacks in London. What is puzzling though is the continuing suppression of the name of the MI6 chief in Brussels, which is freely available on the internet, and is today also published in Private Eye.

A group of Pakistani men detained in Greece after the London bombings yesterday told of alleged beatings, threats and psychological torture they had suffered.

Supporters of the detained men allege that agents from MI6, Britain's overseas intelligence service, were present at the interrogations of some of the men, believed to have been conducted by Greek counterterrorism officials.

British diplomatic and intelligence sources yesterday strongly denied suggestions that UK officials were present at the interrogations.

"Allegations that there was a UK presence are false," said a British official. "There was no UK official present at any of the interviews."

The Pakistanis say they were beaten, blindfolded, kept in solitary confinement and that the Greek agents threatened to kill them if they told of their ordeal.

Mohammad Munir, 35, said he was repeatedly beaten and now lives in fear. He claims 10 Greek agents came into his house, and that he was taken into a room where he was repeatedly punched: "They handcuffed me, made me face the wall and started to beat me. They hit me over the body and I fell down, hit the table and cut my lip, and blood came." The claim was backed by Azhar Mehmood, 35, also in the flat when the agents arrived: "I saw Munir with blood dripping from his mouth and handcuffed." Mr Munir said the traditional Pakistani shirt he was wearing was pulled over his head so he could not see, and he was driven away to be interrogated more.

Mr Munir said he denied any knowledge of the London bombings or any support for terrorism and after six days was released with a chilling threat: "When they let us go they told us not to talk. They said that if we did they would slit our throats." The arrests in Athens happened on July 16 and 17 and Mr Munir explained why it had taken him so long to come forward: "I was very frightened. I could not even talk to my father about this."

A Greek magazine has named a British intelligence officer it claims was present at some of the interrogations. The government has asked editors not to publish the name of the MI6 chief in Athens, identified in Proto Thema.


This is where it all starts to get confusing. The BBC have claimed that the UK government has forbidden the media from naming the man. According to the Guardian story above, the government has only "asked" editors not to name him. Private Eye however maintains that just a DA-Notice has been issued, short for defence advisory, and that such notices are only recommendations and are in no way legal binding. Private Eye goes on to point out that this man's cover was blown years ago, as he appears on a "famous Internet list of spooks". I assume this refers to a list that appeared on the Executive Intelligence Review website for two days in 1999. The list is still available on Cryptome, with accompanying articles here and here. As Private Eye also states, his name is of real interest to the Princess Diana conspiracy theorists, as he was apparently in Paris at the time of her death.

The man, in case you can't guess from the above, is Nicholas John Andrew Langman. (Cryptome has jpgs of the original articles and other information here.) Private Eye's story seems in conflict with the above Guardian article on whether he was present at the interrogations of the Pakistani men or not. The Eye claims that the Foreign Office has admitted he was there but took no part in the interrogations, while in the Guardian a British "official" states that there was no British presence.

Either way, Nick Langham has been recalled to London, whether he took part in the interrogations or was there when they happened or not. His cover has been entirely blown, and it's unlikely that he will now return to service anywhere in Europe. As Private Eye also comments, why has his name been hushed up? All it does is inspire people to believe that the allegations are true. We do not know yet whether they are or not, but if they are, his name would come out more so than it already has. Why is this Labour government so obsessed with secrecy, and our newspapers and media so inclined to carry out their non-binding orders in not naming the suspects? Apparently Nick Langham is entitled to his privacy, although the police and media freely name those who are wanted for offences, and occasionally "name and shame" others. In this supposed age of freedom of information, it seems odd that the British media is still prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt, despite the fallout from the Hutton inquiry. Thank goodness that we do have the internet, as shown by the release of the Craig Murray documents last week, unpublished by the media apart from the tiny-circulation communist Morning Star, and magazines such as Private Eye that are prepared to take risks and defy government "advice".

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tuesday, January 03, 2006 

Replies to Murray's release of documents on Uzbekistan.

Craig Murray has had to endure stereotypical responses from the boneheads, but has also had a number of coherent and well-thought out challenges to his own philosophy. He replies here.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

 

See a Brazilian wearing a suspiciously thin coat? Report him!



It's been all of a week since the last scaremongering measure, so it's obviously time for another exercise. This one involves telling the public to report anything or anyone suspicious: (which usually results in numerous calls about "darkies", as even the police admit)

Scotland Yard has urged the public to remain vigilant to the threat of terrorism, with a new campaign that highlights the risk of further attacks.

The campaign's message is: "Terrorists won't succeed if someone reports suspicious activity."

Almost six months since the London bombings, it urges people to report suspicious bags, vehicles or behaviour.

The Metropolitan Police said it was not in response to a specific threat but "we cannot afford to be complacent."

The head of Scotland Yard's Anti-Terrorist Branch, DAC Peter Clarke, said: "Everyone who lives in London, or visits the city for work or pleasure, has a role to play in making it as difficult as we can for terrorists to operate here.

Another poster encourages retail and bank staff to be aware of fraudulent transactions that may be linked to terrorist fundraising and a fifth focuses on the need for vigilance within the river and marine environment.

The campaign was developed with British Transport Police, City of London Police, Transport for London and the Mayor's Office.


River and marine environment? I guess we can assume that terrorists have acquired the equipment necessary to breathe underwater for long periods, where they are busy concoting huge amounts of ricin to smear on doorknobs all across London.

To be serious and not flippant for a moment, obviously there is a degree of threat to London, as there is to any major city in Britain and indeed most countries around the world. What should be also pointed out however is that while 56 people died on July the 7th, at least 35 people were stabbed across London on New Year's Eve. Maybe if we stopped constantly looking for the masked individual who isn't there for half an hour, we might start looking at ourselves and our problems with drink and violent crime, and realise it is a much more endemic problem than Islamic terrorism is.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Monday, January 02, 2006 

David Cameron: An idiot who's probably going to win the next election.



Cameron's pledge to bring an end to "Punch and Judy" politics has lasted all of a month.

It was accompanied, however, by a personal attack on Gordon Brown, the man he is expected to challenge in 2009 or 2010, which is seemingly at odds with his promise to avoid "Punch and Judy" politics.

Mr Cameron used a trio of Conservative inclined Sunday newspapers, the Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday, to woo potential Tory voters by saying he would govern for "the least well-off in society, not the rich" and insisting he will not be "the prisoner of an ideological past".


Well, of course. Seeing as all Cameron has done so far done is copy Blair, and Blair has never let any ideology (well, the only ideology he believes in is modernisation aka privatisation) get in the way of his policies, it's not much of a surprise that the only thing inside Cameron's head is a vacuum.

In a personal attack on the chancellor, Mr Cameron described him as sounding like a "speak your weight machine". He denounced Mr Brown for an "extreme" approach to the economy, which he said had seen the chancellor "take the proceeds of growth, borrow even more, spend massively, waste a lot ... leaving a massive debt hangover".

"He's a creature of the past to me, really, and by the next election he'll have been in office for 12 years and parliament for 27," said Mr Cameron, who has been an MP for four years. On the next election, he said: "This is going to be the choice people are going to make between a rather old-style 1980s approach to politics ... and a new approach I have.

"Gordon Brown is the old-style thump-thump-thump, and I think that's exactly what turns people off. I find [him] awful because it's just like listening to a speak your weight machine on propaganda."

He urged the prime minister to step aside and let his battle with Mr Brown commence: "It would be good for the country, now Blair has said he's going, that he got on and left."


So, uh, an extreme approach to the economy is to plow tax revenues of the taxpayers back into the national health service which benefits..... taxpayers. I guess compared to Thatcher that is rather extreme. Brown has also taxed the oil and gas companies, who have been making huge profits in order to fill the so-called blackhole in the government's finances. Mr Cameron would rather that they keep the money and stack up their pension pots further. If Gordon Brown is a creature of the past, then what is Tony Blair, who Cameron is so clearly modelling himself on? The Dear Leader entered politics at.... the 1983 election, coincedentally the same time as the chancellor. What seems to frighten Cameron so much is the possibility that his opponent might actually have some convictions. Cameron has been quick to dump all of his, such as the lead weight which was last year's Conservative party manifesto.

The whole media love-in with Cameron is sickening. While he perhaps deserved the benefit of the doubt to start with, he has already become exactly what many in the Conservative party actually probably feared: a Blair clone. What really matters now is whether the Tories are prepaped to throw off their ideological shackles and unite behind a man that already seems to have stolen Blair's previously Teflon coating. He's already broken his promise to get rid of punch and judy politics with this attack on Brown, while his smear merchants had already attacked John Prescott for daring to stand up for working class kids everywhere.

All of this though is pointless. Gordon Brown has already dropped all his past convictions. He won't deliver another speech like the one he did to the Labour party conference a couple of years ago, promising Real Labour. When he ended it with "at our best when we are Labour!" it almost felt like the disappointments and wars of the past few years might be worth it for a Brown premiership that was prepared to truly take the fight against inequality and not to pussy-foot around redistribution of wealth. All that has now vanished with the appearance of Cameron. While with Howard there was still a chance of the above, when Brown finally takes office he will be stuck dead in the centre with a Tory party that thinks it can win again. The Guardian today ran a leader praising the fact that there is now a real political choice for the first time in a generation. The absolute opposite is the truth. Labour and the Tories may as well now be the same party, with the Lib Dems fighting about whether they should be slightly to the left or slightly to the right of them. It seems that the new way is to have a vacuum where what you believe in should be. And one of those vacuums is already destined to be the next prime minister.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

About me

  • I'm septicisle
  • From United Kingdom
My profile

Links

Archives

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates