A girl of 14 lives like a prisoner. Her crime? To be an asylum-seeker in Blunkett's Britain
By Sophie Goodchild, Home Affairs Correspondent

11 May 2003

Beriwan Ay shares a cramped room with her two younger sisters, her brother and mother. There are four single beds and a bunk bed but the walls are bare. Through a small window that opens only a fraction, all she can see is a high fence.
Beyond are steel gates and a perimeter wall topped with barbed wire. The guards at Dungavel detention centre near Glasgow allow her outside for two hours a day if they are in a good mood.
The 14-year-old has never committed a crime, but she is one of more than 50 children currently being held at detention centres for asylum-seekers in Britain. Thousands of children pass through such centres every year with some held for months at a time.

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, argues that children such as Beriwan, who come to Britain to seek asylum, must be locked up, otherwise they would escape and live illegally in this country. However, leading campaigners say there is no evidence to support this claim.

The Ay family, Kurds who fled persecution by military police in Turkey, have been locked up in removal centres for nearly 10 months, and the psychological impact is already taking its toll. The children are believed to be the longest-serving children in detention centres.
"I don't sleep properly, I feel very tired all the time and I'm behind on my schoolwork because the books we use are for primary school children," said Beriwan, who wants to train as a lawyer. "My little sister is depressed and her hair is falling out. This place feels like a prison."
The Ay family – Beriwan, sisters Newroz and Medya, brother Dilowan, mother Yurdurgal and father Salih – left Turkey in 1988. They lived in Germany for 11 years but came to Britain after the German authorities threatened to send them back to Turkey. This happened to the father, who was deported to Germany last year.
For three years, the children attended a school in Kent, where their teacher Jane Cummins describes them as an "exceptional" family.
"They were all that you would want your own children to be," said Ms Cummins, a language support teacher.

This week, a petition containing 20,000 signatures from people protesting over the detention of children in Dungavel will be presented to the House of Commons. The Ay family's case will also be heard in the High Court.
Beriwan said she is scared of going back to Germany. "We came to England because we thought it was a democratic country," she says. "I have done nothing wrong, so why do they treat us like this?"


11 May 2003 17:46

what with them re writing intelligence reports about iraq, pointing the blame at teachers for funding crisis, and threatning(going to ) to impose a deal in the fire brigade dispute with its imlpications for all other trade unions and workers rights .this is the most right wing government we`ve ever had and i am ashamed that i help vote them in

i'm afraid it was always going to be a right-of-centre labour government,or no labour govenment at all.

There's not a big enough majority of proper left-wing voters in britain to elect a 'real-labour' party....better the devil you know.

voters abandoning Labour in the next election,to vote liberal,will see only one outcome....a tory victory.

I feel Labours best hope of forming a true-Labour government in the future.....is to campain for voting reform, including easier postal voting,text/computer voting.......i feel left-wing parties will benifit more from that sort of voting than anyone else.

Quite agree.

The tories always won elections by making huge promises and going back on them once ensconsed in number ten.
Labours "mistake" if you will, was to actually say what they meant and intended to do, frightening off moderate voters in their droves.
I remember being harangued at a debate in school because I advocated a tory approach to election campaigning...Lie through your teeth and worry about it after the inevitable victory.

Die hard Labour supporters thought that their time had come back in 97.
Since then we have seen the party transformed into something none of us recognise as socilaist or left wing.
Much as I detest the woman I'd be interested to know what the Thatch thinks of new labour.
She must be wringing her hands with frustration that she was surrounded by what now appear to have been a bunch of spineless lefties in the cabinet. If only she'd had Blair, Blunkett, Brown and the rest of them at her side.

i have read somewhere that tony bliar is a massive fan of the mad harridan dosen`t really show does it

Blasted

A train especially kept and maintained for the benefit of the Queen is regarded by New Labour as an unwarranted burden upon the British taxpayer.

Her Maj can quite esasily be accomodated by the regular rail services just like anybody else at a fraction of the cost.

However...

The prime minister and the defence secretary should have a special plane to fly them around the world on official trips, say military chiefs.
The call for the new plane, which is already being dubbed "Blair Force One" and would especially be used in times of crisis, was made by Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon.
Mr Hoon told Parliament's influential Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) it was important to have an aircraft fitted with secure communications equipment for Tony Blair to keep in close touch with their officials at all times.

Britain's intelligence chiefs are backing the call, saying that under present arrangements ministers can be out of touch for hours.

'Worth the money'

Ann Taylor, who chairs the ISC spy watchdog, has now given her support to the move.
In its annual report, which reveals Mr Hoon's appeal, the committee says: "We are persuaded that this expense can be justified."

Ministry of Defence sources said Ms Taylor's support was very helpful as in the past the government has been reluctant to order a purpose-built plane, which could cost up to £80 million and have presidential overtones.
There are now reports that the government is looking at converting a air-to-air refuelling jet for use by the prime minister and other ministers.
Such a conversion would cut down the costs considerably.

Custom built Figures released by Downing Street last July put the overall cost of ministers' foreign trips at £5.6m over a year which included Mr Blair's post-11 September shuttle diplomacy.
Sources close to Mr Hoon say that chartering planes from British Airways for long haul trips, as happens how, costs more than the new plane.

Under the plans, the plane would have the latest security and communications equipment, as well as removable suites, including an office, bedroom, dressing room and kitchens.
It would also be able to tackle threats from surface-to-air missiles.
Number Ten insists the plane would not be for the sole use of the prime minister.

(From the Beeb.)

Better get used to calling him President Blair I suppose.
Talk about power going to the head.
Can you imagine the outcry had the Thatch suggested the need for her own private 747?

Every day these arseholes manage to come up with something else that makes them unelectable for me.

It beggars belief.
That odious shit Blunkett is at it again.

How the racist creep can have the effrontery to call himself a socialist or left wing is beyond me.
I just rejoined the Labour party. I shall call for his expulsion.

Unbelievable!

Just when I thought politicians couldn't shock me with how right wing and downright bloody nasty they can get, Rummy, Bush, Blair, Blunkett etc ad infi bloody nitum...

Have you seen or heard what the tories are proposing for our health system and the refugee "problem".

May wanted us to believe that they were no longer the nasty party.
Enter Letwin with policies even more extremly right wing than anything even the Thatch came up with.

Just on the off chance that this lot might find themselves sitting on the government benches ( I know...in their dreams) I think I'll be voting for the new Nazis (labour) to make sure. Bit of a belt and braces approach to keeping some remote semblance of socialism alive in the UK.

You can read claptrap here.

Martyn.........John Lydon once sung ''Anger is an Energy''........I think you've enough energy to run a couple of marathons back-to-back.

Just for the record.......Politicians whose veiws arn't as radical or extreme as yours (ie..nearly all of them), are not nessesarily nazi's.....i think throwing that accusation around willy-nilly,could be offencive to people who really did suffer under real nazi regimes.

Blunkett believes the out-of-control asylum system,is having a detrimental effect on Britain,as a whole......He might be naive,and simplistic in his approach....but he's trying to address the concerns of a lot of people.....I know Blunkett's policies are totally at odds with your veiws....but i dissagree with your venom towards him.

Whilst I don't agree with Martyns over use of the term "N*zi" (too much "Young Ones" as an adolescent I suspect) I agree with his sentiments about David (don't tell him he's got a black guide dog) Blunkett.

He is a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

What does the KLF think about the latest Tory and Labour "policies" on asylum seekers and what does he / she think the chances are of discrimination getting "bertter or worse,as the immigrant population increases in the coming years."

I personally feel discrimination and resentment,will become worse.....as the percentage of non-british nationals increases in britain (especially in major cities).

I don't want it to,but i believe that's the reality.

My community in London has changed beyond all recognition,in the last 20 years,and as such it HAS effected my way of life.

My local shops, until recent times,had everything i required....a newsagent,electrical store,petrol garage,clothing store..etc........in fact it had a large range of choice serving the community.

As the local residents have gradually moved out,their place has been taken by large communities of foreign nationals......as such now,most of the shops are now fast food outlets,or all-night groceries.

So i can't shop locally anymore......most of my freinds have moved out of the area.....and i know feel intimidated to walk the streets of my own town at night......I would say yes,this countries aylum/immigration policy of the last 30 years has had a detrimental effect on my way of life.

That's bollocks, KLF. It's happened to local shops all over the Western world and has little to do with immigrants and an awful lot to do with the economics of greed.

I accept that local shops closing down,or turning into fast-foods outlets,is partly down to out-of-town retail centres,superstores etc......but as many locals are now living 'out-of-town,thats i'm afraid, is what happens.

KLF - let's look carefully at what you are saying. Would you prefer to have a local electrical store that is open 9 to 5 Mon-Fri, or a grocery that is open 7am to 10pm 7 days per week ? What's the real reason your friends have moved away ? MAybe it's that their incomes have enabled them to move to a more desirable area ? And putting it on a larger scale, who are the biggest bunch of migrants in the world ? My guess is the British - they're everywhere ! They are certainly the largest migrant group in Australia and in annual figures they are always on top. But who do the locals bitch about ? The muslims, the Asians, and anybody else who doesn't look like them or has a different culture.

Let me try to explain it better.

My local electrical store,was ideal for me....It stocked a wide range of hi-fi and computer cables,and i visited it,on a regular basis.......Fair enough,the shop didn't get a huge ammount of customers,but as the rent was fairly low,the owners(a family business,of over35 years) made a good living.

That all changed four years ago,when a turkish grocer enquired about the lease on the shop.......straight way, the electrical store owner was informed that rent for the following year would trebble.

Obviously they could'nt a afford it......and the shop was taken over by a 24 hour grocers....which seems to turn into a some sort of private club after 9pm ,with bouncers on the door...would you beleive.

Let me be clear......i lay no blame at those who came to this country,and who are serving their own community(ie....the grocer)..........If i moved to another country,and lived in a large English community,i would probably open a shop to serve their needs as well.

But as such.....I must now go to one of Braggtopia's dreaded out-of-town superstores,to buy my electrical goods.

KLF - your problem seems to be entirely with capitalism and actually has nothing to do with immigrants. It would be really convenient if there was a hardware store I could walk to in my lunch break but the huge out-of-town one is really good and stays open late. What I would seriously miss is the local Indian and Vietnamese groceries.

I know. The Nazi thing started when I'd been at the JD but I'm not backing down even if it is a little over the top.

What is Naziism (sp?) anyway? National Socialism.
We have a socialist party in power which was once far left and is now far right.
Policies are in place or are to be introduced or proposed which are designed to ensure the well being and prosperity of white middles class ex tory voters at the expense of non white, poor, often illiterate, non christian minorities.
I might have forgiven Blunkett his "swamping" speech had he not followed it up later with crap like ...immigrant children should only be spoken to in english in the home or summat.
The mans barking mad! Worse, he's espousing blatant racism.
Childrens brains are like little sponges soaking up a billion and one concepts like nobody's business. English and French at school, Bengali at home...tri lingual by 16.
Maria's mum learned Armenian as a child. It was the predominant language in the home in Portland, Oregon, USA. She's fluent in English and Armenian. If Blunkett had his way she'd have had to try and learn it at night school years later after the adult brain hardwires itself into a certain state. A point at which learning becomes a chore as opposed to something that just happens.

Where was I? Oh yes National Socialsm...so we exclude johnny foreigner and keep England for the English. Hurrah and Huzzah!
Rubbish? Well all the signs at Heathrow informing arriving passengers that should they require asylum they must inform an official right away...are in English. Very helpful.

And as for upsetting people who suffered under the Nazis, cobblers.
Hitler came to power by building fancy roads, getting the trains to run on time and making sure that Germany was for primarily for the Germans. As his odious plans for lesser beings gathered pace ordinary Germans either ignored them or supported them.
Before long the camps were operating at full capacity and Europe had been plunged into another nightmare.

Pointing out what these people are is our duty. Their potential victims demand that we shout out loudly when Blunkett trots out his bullshit.
Calling them Nazis probably does detract somewhat from the argument. It is without doubt inflamatory and arguably unjustified but right now, with the NHS being privatised by stealth, every concievable effort being put into making access to the UK to anybody with dark skin all but impossible and the prosecution of a wholly unjustifiable war against the Islamic world...if the cap fits.

They might not be Nazis. They most emphatically are liars.

Gosh, I had no idea that immigrants were responsible for the current upleasant state of western civilization. THe same economic changes have happened where I live (as they have all over the country) and the only real immigrants there were from Mexico and central America, and they sure as hell didn't own shops, let alone much of anything else.
Not to mention the same thing has happened all over the midwest, which has not a non-white person in sight (except for, in some places, the native americans, who I don't think can be held responsible for it as they are even poorer than the hispanics in most places.)
Is Wal-Mart owned by immigrants or asylum seekers? B/c they are responsible for this change as are similar companies.

Might I point out one of the most basic principles of research--That is "correlation does not equal causations." To rephrase, just because two things occur at the same time does not mean that one causes the other. Its a very common, very easy, and very, very erroneous assumption.

If this was a correct assumption one could say the following:

The use of hair dye has increased signficantly in the last five years.
At the same time the ownership rate of SUVs has increased enormously over the last 5 years in the US.
Therefore, using hair dye must cause many people to go out and buy SUVs.

Klf, you are spouting racist garbage and should be ashamed.
Have you ever thought to thank god, or the universe, or whatever, to have been born in a relatively safe, stable country where you know you can get medical care, get a job (with safe working conditions), get enough food, shelter, and are free from fear of arrest, torture or death just for expressing your opinions? Or that you dont' have to spend your days and nights wondering when the next bombing raid will come or when the soldiers/guerrillas/men with guns will come through your town next, taking what they want, raping and killing as they wish.

I'm sick of the ridiculous, ignorant arguments against immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. They are always couched in a (very thin) veil of social concern, but they are based in ignorance and racism and I'm disgusted with it.

Maria.......when reasonable people raise concerns about the level of immigration and asylum,they are shouted down and accussed of rasism.......by doing this, you are 1. hindering you own cause....and 2. making sure you don't have to discuss the finer points of the arguments.....shouting sound-bites and shutting your ears ,is a lot easier.

so your saying that if anyone could improve their way of life,or escape intimidation,by moving to a better country,they should be allowed.

well if we apply that argument to people houses,say.......Your saying,we should allow someone to move into our house,if it would improve their way of life.(because our house is better and safer than theirs).

If i had a large 10 bed room house.......should 50 people be allowed to move in with me,because my way of living is better than theirs......Don't you think my life would be effected as a result of that...........a sensible balance must be sort.........and if people like you won't allow debate on the subject.....It could allow extremist ellements into the political arena......and none of us want that.

Well, if there was some bastard outside threatening to batter them to pieces or torture their kids because they don't believe in the same things as them or their skin is a different colour, they belong to the 'wrong' ethnic group etc. then yes, they could stay with me till as long as they weren't in danger anymore. As usual KLF you have shot yourself in the foot.

I wasn't saying it, but I don't have a problem with economic migration. I'm an economic migrant, for god's sake, and this country is better off for it. You need the skills of people like me. And other immigrants.

But are you seriously saying that you don't believe that people faced with torture and/or death because of their political beliefs deserve asylum?
If so, I marvel at the arrogance of it.

And yes, I hear SO much outcry in favor of immigrants and against racism. I'm sure you are deafened by the outries in your reasoned attempts at dialog.

I'm disgusted that the Labour Party, which is supposed to be the advocates of the vulnerable, is treating people like scum because they have the audacity to be born in a war zone, in an oppressive dictatorship, a woman in Pakistan or one fleeing female genital mutilation, or slavery. The nerve.

If you want to cut down on the number of asylum seekers then you'd better be doing your dammdest to stop war, political persecution, sexism, and other forms of oppression. Not to mention poverty and exploitation by the first world of third world people for further enrichment of the already rich. Then people won't need to leave their home countries.
Which the vast majority of people don't want to do anyway. They do it because they want to live. Free of torture, persectution, and with their families safe as well.

I think that's perfectly reasonable. And a human right.

Of course we should welcome people,who are in geniune danger, and in fear for their lives.............But when someone travel's through 7/8/9 safe countries,to get to Britain......I believe they stop being an asylum seeker,and become an economic migrant.

But when someone travel's through 7/8/9 safe countries,to get to Britain......I believe they stop being an asylum seeker,and become an economic migrant.

Your definition is a bit iffy, just my opinion, but an asylum seeker can travel through many safe countries to get here just as well as an economic migrant but I think I get your drift ...

Asylum seekers ok, Economic migrants not ok.

Who exactly are economic migrants? Australian Bar Staff? all those US management gurus? Irish doctors? All those people with American accents who work in the media? South American cleaners? Nepalese soldiers? Nigerian nurses? Madonna? All the thousands of catering staff in all our takeaways? Arab surgeons? All those poor bastards working as domestic slaves in middle class houses? All those migrant farm labourers? Postmen? A bunch of Zimbabwe farmers on their UK passports?

We need a much clearer definition of what an economic migrant is before we start worrying about whether we should impose punitive punishments on them.

I heard a sickening simpering excuse of a government spokeswoman the other day, defending the situation where pregnant women were seeking shelter in telephone boxes and bus shelters. It was because they were migrants who hadn't declared they were Asylum seekers on the day they arrived in the UK

(Incidentally, welcoming everybody who is in genuine danger and in fear of their lives would have half of Iraq on our doorsteps!)

Quite right and well put Al.

The buffoon you listened to was most likely Beverly Hughes who is running almost neck and neck with TB for the politician with the least amount of compassion for his/her fellow human beings.

She said something along the lines of..."we're removing over 1500 of them a week and plan to do better and rightly so..." etc etc in a similar vein. I too was barely able to hold down my brekky.
She went on about these people as though they were some kind of disease.
It was absolutely astonishing.

Martyn........ 60,000 people who entered Britain illegally and who were refused asylum,were this week told they would be allowed to stay anyway.

Blunkets Britain.....eh

Does that sound like the work of a Nazi to you

Ummm, I think that could be classed as "Extermination Speak" ...

It sounds like the work of an accomplished politician.

In the seventies Carter gave Mao a hard time over the human rights of ordinary Chinese. You won't let them have freedom of speech, you won't allow them to travel etc etc... The Chairman sighed and finally gave in... "OK, OK...How many do you want in the US...a million?...2 million?"

It's got nothing to do with beneficence and everything to do with deliberately antagonising the very people who think any kind of immigration should be banned thus stoking up the fires of prejudice and hatred and ensuring that any policies he puts in place to combat immigration of any kind will be welcomed by the narrow minded, short sighted, frightened (by him) majority.

I look at it this way... who's going to empty my bed pan in the old peoples home when I'm on my last legs or, more to the point, not able to be on my legs at all?
The birth rate in the UK is plummeting whilst more of us are living longer.
I really don't care how bad their english is, a basic grasp will do me, so long as they are willing to work.

Of that sixty thousand the strong liklihood is that most of them who were already working clandestinely and probably being exploited into the bargain, can now work legitimately, enjoy employment law and protection and contribute to the welfare of the nation through taxation and productivity.

So it's win win for Blunkers. The lefties are delighted cus he's such a generous top hole bod and the far right are outraged because he's caved in to pressure from the tidal wave of scroungers assailing our beaches.

Politics...it's a funny old game.

So the 'majority' of British people are short-sighted and narrow minded.

I believe British people are ammounst the most tolerant/passive people in the world.

Of course questions will be asked as to whether the current rate of immigration is sustainable.


For Example: In my local London paper this week,a (leaked) official government report revealed that:

In 2001 . 69% of school children in my area had English as a first language.

In 2002 . 61%

In 2003 . 47%.........With a diversity of 52 languages being recorded in local schools.


Such quick changes of population movement is bound to raise concerns among local communities.....and stiffling their concerns with cries of 'Racism' will achieve very little.

Is that supposed to be a compliment?

I think any parent will of course be concerned about sending their kids to a school where already overstretched teachers have to cope with the extra demands teaching 0ver half of their students whose first language is not English (assuming those figures are reliable). But my concerns with that aren't so much that such a challenge exists but more that I don't trust this government to put in the resources to tackle the issue (extra, specialist teachers, support services etc.) so that it doesn't adversely affect the education of the students whose first language is English. Thus creating a convenient excuse for all the middle-class parents to put their kids into the private system and some of those who can't afford that questionable option to bemoan, with the help of a largely compliant media, the amount of immigrants instead of addressing the real issues.

Sorry - I'm a bit confused as to how you're quoting figures from 2004 .

Well spotted......should read 2003....i've just edited it.

On the question of immigration? No. I got that wrong. Having given the matter a little more thought I'd say that the majority couldn't give a flying fuck but are prepared to go along with what the Daily Mail and the Telegraph trot out, especially around election time.

As if I needed further proof that the current government is immoral and evil:

(from today's Observer)



I've had an excruciating headache for the last three days so I don't have the energy to comment on this much but I have to say that this is one of the most evil things I have heard in a long time. Taking peoples' children away, not because they are bad parents, but because they are immigrants? I guess this is more important than developing a competent and effective child protection system so further deaths like those of Victoria Climbie can be avoided.
Nice priorities.

Hello.

I'm Tory Blair and I'm addressing this message to all those of you who very kindly switched from voting nasty Conservative to Cuddly New Labour at the last two elections.

I've spent around nine years convincing the dyed in the wool lefties of my party that I'm a socialist and a good man to boot.

So far it's been working but now that the tories have elected one of Mrs Thatchers bully boys I might be in a bit of a pickle at the next election.

Naturally I'm keen to hang on to the reins of power so I have an idea.

Kidnapping children and holding them hostage has been such a great idea that I thought we might try something else.
In the next Queens speech my party wil bring forward plans to round up all the mentally retarded people, all the amputees, especially the quadraplegics that can't do anything and all the gypsies who make such a mess of our lovely English countryside and pop them into gas chambers.

The savings for the country will be enormous and I'll be in a position to give you nice rich people huge tax cuts for a good few years ahead.

Don't worry about objections. I'm already planning on branding objectors as anti- British so that they can be rounded up and imprisoned, without trial, until they die, as supporters of Al-Quaeda.

Thank you for your support.

Tony.

Quite!




Preferably with hot-irons, Tony. That'll teach those looney-lefty, asylum seeker-loving rogues!

If New Labour goes through with these outrageous plans or inculdes them in their manifesto I simply couldn't vote for the party. It would be the final nail in the coffin of my - admittedly already tenuous - support for the party. The Greens will probably gain my vote in that case.

Imagine how I feel!

I wrestled, albeit in a rather rather limp way, with my conscience before rejoining a couple of months back. This I justified to myself by saying that I might as a member be able to influence party policy. That the views of supporters and members would be given more shrift than those of detractors from the outside.
What a waste of time.
Writing to head office merely results in FAQ's being sent to me in "personal" emails.

Now a government for which I voted, made up from members of a party of which I am a member is actually proposing to take peoples children away from them unless they leave the country.
If I had come up with this in some spoof letter from Blair to wavering tory voters I'd have had the likes of the KLF calling me ridiculous and reactionary.

Dickie, whilst agreeing with my sentiments vis-a-vis some of what Blunkett and Blair had been up to was reluctant to share my view that they were behaving like Nazis and indeed I looked down at the floor, shuffled about in an embarrassed fashion and had to admit that I'd come up with the theme for the thread whilst under the 'fluence of the JD.

I'm stone cold sober at the minute. I have loads of stuff going on in my personal life that requires attention just like everybody else on the forum. But I can't get away from the fact that I now find myself financially supporting a government with my membership of the Labour party that can in all seriousness put forward a form of ethnic cleansing or a manifestly illegal act as a policy. And its worrying the hell out of me. I'd go so far as to say that for the first time in my life I'm scared.
Remember, the Jews were a bit of a problem for one Adolf Hitler. Pretty well everybody sat back and let it all happen thinking as I did, do (oh I don't know) that it couldn't possible get any worse.
So if they get away with abducting and imprisoning children, using them in exactly the way crimnals use the children of the rich to extract money from the parents, what next?

Brings to mind Nicky Wires lyrics..."If you tolerate this etc etc..."

To make matters worse we're once again being bombarded with the ludicrous outpourings of the conspiracy theorists who are still chuntering on about who killed JFK.
Get a grip, you wankers. Put your energy into exposing the madness of actual government policy rather than some imagined plot that was hatched and executed 40 years ago. Forget Roswell, JFK and Marilyn Monroe.
There is actual nasty stuff going on right under our noses right now and we should be bothered about it.

Not to mention (but I will) this...

(I have highlighted in bold a tiny significant section of which conspiracy theorists should take note)

The Bubble

by MARIA MARGARONIS

[posted online on November 21, 2003]

The explosions in Istanbul during George W. Bush's state visit to Britain lit up the unbridgeable gulf between the government officials sealed in their security bubble and the mass of protesters who filled London's streets for the fourth time in a year--a gulf made of deep disagreements about the roots of terrorism, ends and means, the requirements of good faith. On the day of the first Al Qaeda attacks on British targets, Bush and Blair continued to insist that they are winning the "war on terror" and that violence must be curbed with violence. In Trafalgar Square a young woman held up her answer on a placard: "War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength."

There's no mistaking the message of Bush's London holiday. From the moment his armored helicopter touched down under cover of darkness behind Buckingham Palace, London became a fortress for his protection. Thousands of police officers in Day-Glo jackets filled the city center while snipers kept watch from rooftops under a sky empty of planes. Roads and squares were sealed off; some MPs were shut out of the House of Commons, where crucial votes on National Health Service reform were taking place. Papers here reported that the White House had demanded diplomatic immunity for American special agents in case they shot protesters, the installation of bullet-proof windows in Buckingham Palace, the right to patrol London's airspace with US fighter jets and helicopter gunships, and a guarantee from Scotland Yard that protesters would be kept out of camera shot of the President. There was no walkabout à la Bill Clinton, no ride with the Queen in the traditional open carriage. Instead, Bush was driven from the back of the palace to the front in his own armored Cadillac for the official welcoming ceremony--a made-for-TV election commercial that no one could get close enough to watch. This was the new empire condescending to the old while borrowing a little of its glitter-and-paste glamour.

Far from an affirmation of friendship, the visit felt to Londoners--even to many who did not oppose the war--like an assertion of absolute, arrogant power. It was as if, after months of putting the case for sticking with America to a skeptical population, Blair had decided to end the conversation with incontrovertible evidence of our subservience, now a fait accompli. Bush's performance did nothing to reassure those who think he has no understanding of the world beyond Washington. Like a house guest who brings his own coffee in case yours is the wrong brand, he spent the visit locked in his own portable world and his own weary rhetoric. His big speech before an invited audience of foreign policy specialists set out his "three pillars of peace and security" in terms tailored to appeal to a European audience, with nods to the importance of international institutions and the need for concessions by Israel. But the real message was that America will stop at nothing to impose its will on the world: "We have...a power that cannot be resisted--and that is the appeal of freedom to all mankind." Meanwhile, less than a mile away, Pentagon hawk Richard Perle was deviating from the official London-Washington line by acknowledging that the invasion of Iraq was indeed illegal: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

For Blair, the Bush visit had the makings of a political nightmare. No previous British leader has gone so deeply against the grain of his own party's views and risked so much for the "special relationship"; no previous US President has been so open, for all the rhetoric of friendship and solidarity, about America's determination to follow its own interests at any cost. It turned out to be a bad week for the Prime Minister, whose party came closer to defeat in a House of Commons vote on NHS reform than it ever has before. His "friend" did not even think it necessary to throw him a scrap on two pressing issues of domestic British concern: US steel tariffs, which have been declared illegal by the European Union, and the fate of the British citizens who've been detained without trial for two years in Guantánamo Bay. Blair's closeness to Bush will only become more of a liability as the US election approaches. The only real hope of healing the rift between Europe and the United States lies in a Democratic victory in 2004; Blair has just handed Bush a prize set of snapshots for his election campaign. As Colin Powell told a BBC interviewer, "We wanted this visit."

Meanwhile, more than 110,000 people came out to protest against Bush on a Thursday afternoon (the organizers' figure is 200,000)--a demonstration second in size only to the February one that drew over a million. As the movement has grown, the Stop the War marches have come to feel like reunions: the same crisp placards in black, white and red, the same feeling of moral necessity, the same sense of a surprising variety of people. This one was led by Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic, who had been guest of honor the previous day at a peace party hosted by Mayor Ken Livingstone. Vanessa Redgrave, unfussed about security, threaded her way through the crowd handing out leaflets for a symposium about what the war on terrorism is doing to human rights (www.peaceandprogress.org). Someone had poured red ink into the Trafalgar Square fountains so that the water looked like blood; a giant papier-mâché statue of George Bush with a tiny Blair in his pocket was raised and then pulled down at the foot of Nelson's Column. There were costumes and painted faces and plenty of Americans; a young man in a suit carried a placard that read "Business Against Bush"; someone had written "Bush Go Home" in pretzels. The carnival feeling contrasted comfortingly with the stiffness of the state visit, as if we were reclaiming London for ourselves. There was also sorrow, not only for the dead and damaged but for our growing sense of disenfranchisement in Britain. Most of the slogans were aimed at Bush, whom we did not elect and have no means to overthrow--and to whom our elected leaders have conceded enormous power over our lives.

Talking about conceeding enormous power to people we did not elect and have no means of overthrowing:

Did you see this week that auditors failed to ratify the accounts of the EU for the NINTH year running. apparently last year only 10%(yes 10%) of the £65 Billion spent, could be certified and accounted for.

What a disgrace.....Lets start taking to task the free-loaders,chancers,and 'one for yourself' liggers that work for Brussels in their hideously expensive parliment buildings and appartments....starting with the Kinnocks.

It is much more likely that the huge discrepancies to be found in the accounts for the EU are more to do with incompetence and the absurd complexity of a financial monolith than criminality or corruption. I've no doubt that some goes on but the fact is that each European nation has the power to do something about what goes on in Brussels but absolutely no power over who sits in the seat of power in the oval office.

I am aware of no evidence that Neil or Glenys Kinnock are in any way corrupt.
It is however possible to show that the so called leader of the free world is a liar, a cheat and a coward.

Martyn......I wasn't trying to suggest corrupion as the sole reason for vast sums of EU money going missing.

I was highlighting the incompetence, the 'unaccountability' and wastfullness of the European parliment.

I also didn't suggest the Kinnocks were in any way guilty of corruption........I'm saying them,and many other 'Euro-merchants' are guilty of taking 'fat-cat' salaries from taxpayers coffers,running up obsene expences bills,and living and working in outlandish grandour(on our money).


If it was a right-wing or American parliment,you would have savaged the hideous excesses of such an institution....But as a 'European super-state' fits nicely into the 'Lefts' masterplan ,i didn't expect consistancy.

Some cultural perspective, KLF, for christ's sake! The "Left's masterplan" what the fuck is that when it's at home. It's a well-known fact that the left spends most of it's time tearing each other apart to have an actual masterplan. Anyway, here in Denmark it's the left who are against Europe (or the version that curerently exists) and which is most sceptical about DK joining the single currency. The right and the centre parties are genarally in favour of the kit and kabuddle, apart from the far-right Danish People's Party who are firmly against most things foreign. So think before you make such sweeping statements, please.

I was talking about the 'Left-wing' in MY country,and how a European super-state would suit their plans, regarding the degradation of 'Britishness'.

I think you're still wrong, KLF. The far-left seem much more sceptical about the whole EU project than is taken into account in the British media, ask Tony Benn. Obviously, some on the left like the idea of being in Eruope because they're desperate to get things like the social charter, human rights and environmental legislation etc. even though in comparison to what we already have in Denmark, it is not a step worward for Denmark. All of these gains seem so far away from the current state of play in British politics and some on the left are getting desperate. Remember though, that in terms of social and envrionmental policies the EU actually lowers Denmark's existing standards and raises the UK's. That's why a large part of the left (though not the Social Democrats) here have reservations about the EU as currently constituted.

FWIW, you were actually talking about the left-wing in OUR country. I'm British. I just live in DK.

degradation of Britishness?
what the fuck does that mean?!?

Good point, Maria. Care to answer that one, KLF?

Another day, another fucking discraceful policy from Blunkett! Can you believe this?

Blunkett aims to axe asylum legal aid

An unexpected and draconian attempt to "choke off" the flow of legal aid to asylum seekers is to be announced by the home secretary, David Blunkett, on Thursday as part of his new "tough as old boots"immigration bill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Refugees_in_Brit...1092435,00.html

I feel there is a mindset amongst radicals in this country,to dislike anything to do with British history/ British culture/The Establishment..In fact anything that represents 'White Middle-class England'.......and any policies or actions that dissolve or diminish that,get's their full support.

Care to back that up with any evidence?

I think you're out of your tree.

Wrong again, KLF. You really must stop making a habit of it! Asking what exactly constitutes British history or culture is not some lefty preoccupation but a necessary acknowledgement of the fact that it simply isn't very easy to define. Of course, people talk about this aspect of British history, or that aspect of British culture (and this may be necessary for practical, conversational short-hand) and they've been doing this for years. But the peoples of the UK and Great Britain are mixed bag of cultures and traditions (and that may be what defines us...) and always have been. Talking as though there is a single, clearly definable, stable entity called British culture/history makes about as much sense as trying to stop a river with your hands.

On the other hand, it may be possible to talk about threads through or links between the various cultural formations of the peoples of these islands that connect us in some ways but it is never unproblematic.

So, Maria's question was not only valid but necessary.

Though I suspect you will simply dismiss these points as the PC ravings of the looney left on this forum, of which you count me as a member.

BTW, when you say 'radicals', I take it your not referring to right-wing radicals (of which there are many) but rather left-wing radicals?