Category: UK

  • Bike Riding Manual,93 pages,issued byBritish Police.

    This is what British bureaucracy is about.
    Story:

    BRITISH police chiefs have come under fire for a 93-page guide telling officers how to ride their bikes, including how to brake and how to balance to avoid falling off.

    The Police Cycle Training Doctrine also warns policemen not to try to tackle suspected criminals while still “engaged with the cycle” – on the bike – and gives a diagram on “deployment into a junction” – turning left or right.

    The guide was produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which insisted it had not been fully approved for publication after the document was reported in the Sun newspaper.

    Other advice includes to wear padded shorts for “in-saddle comfort,” while officers must always remember to “rear-scan” – look over their shoulders.

    Undercover police are advised that they may have to cycle without a protective helmet to avoid being found out.

    But, underlining the importance of sometimes-criticised health and safely laws, it warned: “This lack of protection must be noted and a full risk assessment of the required role … be undertaken.”

    The Sun – which noted that the original US constitution ran to only four pages, and the Bible takes less than a page to recount God’s creation of the universe – said the guide had cost thousands of pounds.

    Critics said it was a waste of money.

    “I am sure it is of great value… but I think you can do this kind of thing much, much more cheaply,” said London mayor Boris Johnson, a keen cyclist who has sought to boost bike use since taking office last year.

    “This is an absurd waste of police time and thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money,” added Mark Wallace, head of the Taxpayers’ Alliance lobby group which campaigns against misuse of public money.

    But Dave Holladay of the National Cycling Organisation rejected the charge that the guide was too long, and defended its contents.

    “I would quite expect a manual on police cycling to tell police officers how to turn corners correctly,” he said, adding: “The advice of getting off the bike is actually included in most police bike training.”

    “Police cyclists have to be exemplars,” he told the BBC.
    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26343385-5013016,00.html

  • HBOS and RBS received secret bank rescue loans-BBC.

    Atrocious.Whose money is this for politicians to dole out without debate and arrange it secretly?
    How much more money has been paid or being to whom?What has the Treasury auditor’s doing?
    Banks are operated for share holders for profits?Why should public money be paid to them for their mess?They know how to blackmail , stating that ‘investor confidence shall melt?’
    The Mafia of Banks and politicians is far more dangerous than Drug cartels.
    Incidentally which party and politician has received how much?

    The Bank of England has revealed for the first time that it lent Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and HBOS £61.6bn in emergency funding last autumn.
    Bank governor Mervyn King told a committee of MPs it “was to prevent a loss of confidence spreading through the financial system as a whole”.
    The money was repaid in full by January this year, he added.
    A spokesman for the prime minister said it was “a powerful reminder” of how the banking system had nearly collapsed.

    It was also revealed that Chancellor Alistair Darling had agreed to underwrite any losses which the Bank may have made on the loans.
    The Liberal Democrats have called on Mr Darling to explain to the House of Commons why the Treasury guarantees were kept secret.
    Vince Cable, the party’s Treasury spokesman, called it a “shocking cover-up”.
    Shadow Chancellor George Osborne said the revelations about the secret loans showed the need to reform the system of banking regulation.
    “The scale of these loans raises the question of how Labour’s tripartite regulatory structure allowed these banks to come so close to collapse in the first place, and underlines the need for fundamental reform to put the Bank of England back in charge,” he said.
    Secrecy
    It is the first time that the central bank has detailed this support for the two institutions.

    We may feel numbed these days when there is talk of the hundreds of billions of pounds in taxpayer support to the banks.
    Even so, the revelation of these secret emergency loans to RBS and HBOS a year ago is breath-taking.
    The Bank of England only felt it was safe to reveal this covert support now, once the ink was dry on longer-term bailout deals agreed with the banks a couple of weeks ago.
    Lloyds shareholders were being asked to approve the takeover of HBOS. Yet they were not told about a Northern Rock-style cash bailout of HBOS.
    The authorities argue that disclosing the loans would have caused greater disturbance to the whole system. But bank shareholders might well see it differently.
    Mervyn King said the Bank was acting in its capacity as the lender of last resort.
    The loans, which were given in October and November of 2008, were in addition to other financial support measures extended to the banks by the government.
    The chairman of the Treasury Committee, John McFall, said that when he saw the amount there had been “a little bit of an intake of breath thinking how many universities, how many colleges, how many jobs you could support with this”.
    The Bank of England said it had carefully considered the public interest case for disclosure but decided that the assistance should only be revealed “once the Bank considers that the need for secrecy has ceased”.
    RBS has since signed up for the government’s Asset Protection Scheme while Lloyds Banking Group – which took over HBOS – has announced plans to raise capital from its shareholders.
    The BBC’s chief economics correspondent Hugh Pym said that the £62bn of emergency loans were agreed just as shareholders were being asked to approve the takeover of HBOS. He suggested that shareholders might be unhappy at not being told earlier.
    Profound challenges

    In his parliamentary testimony Mr King also discussed the wider UK economy, reiterating his view that the recovery was still in the early stages.
    He told the Treasury Committee that the economy still faced “profound challenges”.
    Regarding the Bank’s policy of quantitative easing – pumping money into the economy to try to boost lending by the commercial banks – Adam Posen, one of Mr King’s colleagues on the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), said he hoped the initiative was “coming to an end”.
    Last month, the MPC voted to increase its quantitative easing programme by a further £25bn to £200bn.
    However, minutes released subsequently showed a three-way split on the decision, with seven of the nine MPC members voting for it, one wanting a larger increase in the scheme, and one calling for no additional spending.
    Mr King also told MPs that he did not think there was any “immediate risk” of the UK having a credit downgrade.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8375969.stm

  • Iraq inquiry told of ‘clear’ threat from Saddam Hussein-BBC.

    Cover up and buck passing begins.
    The UK government “distanced itself” from talk of removing Saddam Hussein in early 2001 despite concerns about his threat, the Iraq inquiry has been told.
    Sir Peter Ricketts, a top intelligence official at the time, said it was assumed it was not “our policy” despite growing talk in the US about the move.
    Senior diplomats have finished their evidence on the war’s origins on the first day of public hearings.
    The inquiry chairman has said he hopes to conclude his report in late 2010.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8375439.stm

  • Iraq report: Secret papers reveal blunders and concealment.Telegraph,UK.

    Exposes UK’s blind toeing of US.The sordid drama includes outright lying,corruption,poor planning,lack of Intelligence(pun intended).Please read on.
    Story:
    The “appalling” errors that contributed to Britain’s failure in Iraq are disclosed in the most detailed and damning set of leaks to emerge on the conflict.

    On the eve of the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained hundreds of pages of secret Government reports on “lessons learnt” which shed new light on “significant shortcomings” at all levels.
    They include full transcripts of extraordinarily frank classified interviews in which British Army commanders vent their frustration and anger with ministers and Whitehall officials.

    The reports disclose that:
    Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.

    The need to conceal this from Parliament and all but “very small numbers” of officials “constrained” the planning process. The result was a “rushed”operation “lacking in coherence and resources” which caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the post-war period.

    Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security.

    Commanders reported that the Army’s main radio system “tended to drop out at around noon each day because of the heat”. One described the supply chain as “absolutely appalling”, saying: “I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert.”

    The Foreign Office unit to plan for postwar Iraq was set up only in late February, 2003, three weeks before the war started.

    The plans “contained no detail once Baghdad had fallen”, causing a “notable loss of momentum” which was exploited by insurgents. Field commanders raged at Whitehall’s “appalling” and “horrifying” lack of support for reconstruction, with one top officer saying that the Government “missed a golden opportunity” to win Iraqi support. Another commander said: “It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves.”

    The documents emerge two days before public hearings begin in the Iraq Inquiry, the tribunal appointed under Sir John Chilcot, a former Whitehall civil servant, to “identify lessons that can be learnt from the Iraq conflict”.

    Senior military officers and relatives of the dead have warned Sir John against a “whitewash”.

    The documents consist of dozens of “post-operational reports” written by commanders at all levels, plus two sharply-worded “overall lessons learnt” papers – on the war phase and on the occupation – compiled by the Army centrally.

    The analysis of the war phase describes it as a “significant military success” but one achieved against a “third-rate army”. It identifies a long list of “significant” weaknesses and notes: “A more capable enemy would probably have punished these shortcomings severely.”

    The analysis of the occupation describes British reconstruction plans as “nugatory” and “hopelessly optimistic”.

    It says that coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation, which turned out to be “the defining stage of the campaign”. It condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians.

    The leaked documents bring into question statements that Mr Blair made to Parliament in the build up to the invasion. On July 16 2002, amid growing media speculation about Britain’s future role in Iraq, Mr Blair was asked: “Are we then preparing for possible military action in Iraq?” He replied: “No.”

    Introducing the now notorious dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, on Sept 24, 2002, Mr Blair told MPs: “In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important — should we get to that point — that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”
    In fact, according to the documents, “formation-level planning for a [British] deployment [to Iraq] took place from February 2002”.
    The documents also quote Maj Gen Graeme Lamb, the director of special forces during the Iraq war, as saying: “I had been working the war up since early 2002.”
    The leaked material also includes sheaves of classified verbatim transcripts of one-to-one interviews with commanders recently returned from Iraq – many critical of the Whitehall failings that were becoming clear. At least four commanders use the same word – “appalling” – to describe the performance of the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.
    Documents describe the “inability to restore security early during the occupation” as the “critical failure” of the deployment and attack the “absence of UK political direction” after the war ended.
    One quotes a senior British officer as saying: “The UK Government, which spent millions of pounds on resourcing the security line of operations, spent virtually none on the economic one, on which security depended.”
    Many of the documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph deal with key questions for Sir John Chilcot and his committee, such as whether planning was adequate, troops properly equipped and the occupation mishandled, and will almost certainly be seen by the inquiry.
    However, it is not clear whether they will be published by it.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6625415/Iraq-report-Secret-papers-reveal-blunders-and-concealment.html

  • Karzai ‘would fall in weeks’ if Nato pulls out-Guardian UK.

    First shore up your government.Illusions of setting Right the world has landed the world into a messier situations.
    Story:
    The Afghan government could fall within weeks if Nato pulled out troops now, David Miliband warned today as he urged British opponents of the war to give the fight to rebuild the country more time.

    In an interview with the Guardian at the end of a visit to Kabul for the presidential inauguration of Hamid Karzai, the foreign secretary said: “If international forces leave, you can choose a time – five minutes, 24 hours or seven days – but the insurgent forces will overrun those forces that are prepared to put up resistance and we would be back to square one.”

    At the end of a day spent visiting British troops and officials at the headquarters of the international military effort, Miliband said that Afghans were “sad that they need anyone, but they are passionate that my goodness they do – because if we weren’t here their country would be rolled over”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/20/miliband-warns-karzai-fail-nato