innerhippy

So, now the UN think that Guantanamo should be closed down immediately and have even had the balls to say so in public. What's more, they have done so not in diplomatic parlance but in good old plain English. For a nation like the US who likes to "spread democracy and freedom" all over the world (gee thanks guys), the concept of having a torture camp with absolutely no legal process is nothing but total, mind boggling hypocrisy. What's more, it's utterly counter-productive in their so called "war on terror".

Everyone with more than a couple of brain cells knows it should be closed down. Government minister Peter Hain admitted that it should be closed down (after being slightly cornered by Mr Dimbleby on Question Time last week) and said that he thought Blair shared his view.

Yesterday, when Blair was asked outright whether he thought it should be closed down, he refused to say so. Instead he wriggled out of the question by mumbling something about it being an 'anomaly' that 'should be resolved sooner or later', blah, blah, blah, bollocks.

To call this state sanctioned abuse on human right an 'anomaly' is repugnant and shows once more that Blair has had his spine replaced with a bag of insipid jelly. Does he really think that Guantanamo is ok? If he doesn't then for God's sake SAY SO! And he should have the guts to tell Bush straight. Let's all see just how 'special' our relationship really is.

The conversation could go like this:

Ring ring…

"Hello George, it's Tony"
"Erm, sorry, Tony….?"
"Yes Tony…..Tony Blair…."
"Oh yes, how's Florida?"
"No, from London….in England?"
"Yes yes yes, I know London's in England. Everyone knows that! Great to hear from you! How's tricks?"
"Umm, well there seems to be a problem about your little camp in Cuba"
"I didn't think I had a holiday camp in Cuba. I've got one in a place called David…"
"No, no, camp X-Ray…Guantanamo Bay?"
"Oh sorry, yes, yes, yes…the place where we put the bad guys".
"Well the problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's wrong and that it should be closed down"
"What people think this? Is it those moaning liberals again?"
"No, actually its the UN"
"The UN? Really? Now where've I head of them before…"
"And what's more George, I think it's wrong and it will actually undermine our efforts on our war. It kind of contradicts everything we stand for in a democracy"
"But where we gonna put the god-damn terrorists?"
"That's the point really, we don't know that they are terrorists"
"Sure we do – we caught them red handed! Of course they're terrorists! They had weapons ready to kill our brave soldiers. I said we'd smoke 'em out and we did!"
"I suspect they had weapons because they didn't like the fact that we were invading their country. Anyway, the consensus is that if we think they are terrorists then we should at least put them on trial….or let them go"
"We can't put them on trial, stupid – we have no evidence!"
"Mr President, you're nuts."
"Love you too Tony. Just remember who controls your military hardware. Anyway I gotta run now, Cheney's asked me to go hunting with him and I'm a little nervous…"
Click.

Well, that's a conversation that should happen, but probably won't because we have a weak apologist of a prime minister, untroubled by morality and social justice.

With all the furore concerning the cartoons that were published in a Danish newspaper (that first appeared in September!), can I find them on the interweb? Nope, I cannot. But certainly not for the lack of trying. I'm intrigued as to how a cartoon can be so offensive (I'm sure I'm not alone) and I would very much like to form my own opinion on them. If anyone knows where they are then please say!

The wider issue is a cultural one and slightly more serious. British culture has always used humour as a highly effective method of offering opinions, breaking taboos, stimulating debate, not to mention having a good ol' giggle. Humour is often used to exaggerate a sensitive issue that would otherwise cause offence and should not be taken at face value. That's the way we do things in this reserved country and not only is it very healthy for democracy, it is an essential tool of debate and freedom of speech. Satire is one of the most effective political tools that we have for stimulating debate and accountability – the brilliant The Thick Of It is a perfect example.

If you don't like it, then don't look at it. I wonder how many enraged fatwa'ing Muslims actually read The Satanic Verses? How did Christians react when The Life Of Brian was released? The sacking of the editor from the Danish newspaper after the cartoon's publication was a spineless mistake. It would be a good idea for all British newspapers to demonstrate a show of solidarity and simultaneously publish the cartoons.

Muslims should like it or lump it, but that's the way we do things in our culture. Respect is mutual understanding that may cause disagreement that should provoke only discussion. But instead we get the predictable burning of flags and attacks upon embassies. This shows a contemptuous lack of tolerance that perhaps speaks volumes of their own culture.

Two Thai fishermen were sentenced to death today after confessing to the rape and murder of the Brit Katherine Horton.

Horrific crimes like this can have a serious impact upon the tourism industry of any country, and would be especially catastrophic for Thailand that relies so heavily upon this trade. In an ideal world, the police would catch, try and sentence the perpetrators as quickly as possible in order to snuff out any doubt that future visitors may have over the safety of the country. And that's precisely what we got. Katherine disappeared on 1st January, the two men arrested on the 9th, tried on the 13th and sentenced to death on the 18th.

As this type of crime carries a certain death penalty, why on earth would they admit to it? Would you trust the eager Thai police with your DNA sample? Did they actually have a defence lawyer?

The whole process seems just a little too convenient to me.

Ken Livingston became the first Mayor of London in May 2000 by a staggering margin (40% of first preference votes). It was generally hoped that such a maverick character would ensure the running of London would be non-partisan. After all, this was the guy that was kicked out of the Labour party when he decided to run as in independent candidate (after failing to convince Tony and chums that he was the best man for the job), so it was widely felt that he was in a prime position to serve the interests of the whole of London, and not just Whitehall.

5 years on, and I'm really struggling to see what's improved in London. He appointed Bob Kiley as the man to sort out the mess that's the tube. He was paid handsomely for doing this, a £2m four year contract with a nice little £2m Belgravia pad thrown in. But unfortunately, Bob was too busy fighting the PPP (public private partnership), a fight that he spectacularly lost that cost yet more dosh in exorbitant legal fees. But as it also sapped all of his time and energy, he didn't actually get round to managing the tube system at all. So, poor old Bob decided last month that enough was enough and resigned from his position. Well, as it transpires, not quite. His indispensable services are still to be used in the form of a consultancy, at a meager £1m per year. Oh and he gets to keep his Belgravia townhouse, all in all not bad for a 70 year old.

As for the tube. I can only speak from experience and I have to say that the improvement has been quite staggering. Staggeringly invisible. Try getting on the central line on a Sunday and you're greeted by locked stations and an hour wait for a "replacement bus service". Sometimes, just for the hell of it, they also close the Piccadilly line so that if you live in west London you are utterly stuffed. And that's without mentioning the joke that's the District line. The Hornby train set I had when I four years old was considerably more reliable and a damn sight faster than the District line is today. How about a name change from District Line to "Hope-you're-not-in-a-rush-because-this-pathetic-excuse-for-a-train-will-stop-every-
-30-seconds-for-no-apparent-reason" Line? Or perhaps something a bit snapper, like "Shit" line. And when these lines do manage to re-open (late on Monday morning), do we get improved stations, cleaner tubes, more punctual service? Nope. It just the same as ever. The Jubilee line, the youngest of all of them, is hardly ever open at weekends because of engineering works – they forgot to build the platforms long enough!

Of course, them good ol' RMT boys have decided to go out on strike over new year – ruining 1000's of people's celebrations. Complete miserable sods. The one thing Ken could do with the tube is (somehow) get rid of Bob Crow – the militant moron leader of the RMT union, who's only mission in life is to find ever more pathetic excuses for his lazy arsed workers not to go to work. I mean really, have you ever seen what a central line tube "driver" actually does? Because the trains are pretty much fully automated, they don't actually have to DO anything! (with the exception of counting their vast pay packet – they get paid considerably more than nurses, teachers, firemen etc etc…the usual list).

Ken proudly announces an improved bus service across London. Yes, we've got more buses – far too many of the damn things! The amount of traffic they cause clogging up the roads whilst queuing behind yet another bus at a bus stop is legendary. The roads in London simply are not designed to take that many buses. Especially now that conductors have been banished (why?) and with the introduction of those demented bendy buses. Which genius decided that these ridiculous contraptions would work on London roads? I strongly suspect that whoever it was never actually make it to London, and certainly never rode a bike near one of those death machines. A year or so ago, these bendy buses were spontaneously catching fire whilst on the road. This was assumed to be mechanical failure, but it wasn't at all, it was suicide. They might just work with a few modifications. Say, cut the thing in two, shove one half on top of the other and staple the two halves together with a staircase. Voilà. Hang on a minute…

Congestion charge. Another money spinning idea, dreamt up by a team of academic sprouts. The charge zone is going to be extended towards west London, and will displace the traffic towards Hammersmith. Here's a top tip for anyone yet to drive around Hammersmith roundabout: take a picnic. A large one.

So where does this money go? It pays for CCTV on every single street in central London (yet more hideous street furniture to the already congested pavements) and a vast legion of clamping cars, spying vans and patrol cars. Yet more money squandered. What has happened to the streets in the zone? The vacuum has been filled with crappy white vans, knackered taxis and inappropriate buses, all pumping out more toxic diesel fumes than ever before. Why don't we have electric buses and taxis? Is it because they can't be taxed like a normal London motorist?

And finally, Ken has the audacity to publish a newspaper called "The Londoner" at our expense which is nothing but 100% pure and utter propaganda. It really is a publication from the Ministry of Truth (1984). Everything is apparently getting better, trains are faster and cheaper, crime is going down, stations are cleaner, buses are redder, everyone is happy, the sun shines more, cancer and poverty have disappeared and no doubt we're winning the war against Eurasia. Or is that Eastasia.

So, under Ken's rule, my bus fare has more than doubled, the tube fair increases are well above inflation year upon year and I there's an £8 daily tax to drive my car into town.

I would love to know where my money's gone. Ah yes, I remember, it's paying for Lord Bob of Belgravia.