Call for judge investigating torture claims to resign
What I did not know, when I commented positively on the appointment of a former judge, Sir Peter Gibson, to head the torture allegations inquiry, was that he had already heard evidence in secret.
The Independent reports: ” The former judge heading the inquiry into Britain’s complicity in torture faces calls for his resignation.In a letter copied to the Prime Minister, Reprieve has requested that Sir Peter Gibson step aside as his impartiality is fatally compromised.
As the Intelligence Services Commissioner (ISC), it has been Sir Peter’s job for more than four years to oversee the Security Services; he cannot now be the judge whether his own work was effective. Reprieve has identified a number of reasons that his recusal is required:
Firstly, David Miliband has stated publicly that Sir Peter has already conducted a secret inquiry, at the previous government’s request, into allegations of misconduct. Yet because it is secret, none of us may know what his conclusions were.
Secondly, Sir Peter has – in each of his three annual reports – opined that all members of the Security Services are “trustworthy, conscientious and dependable”, thereby entirely prejudging the issues before the inquiry. Contrast this to the criticisms levelled by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, in the case of Binyam Mohamed.
Thirdly, part of Sir Peter’s job, as ISC, was to oversee ministerial authorizations that would allow the Security Services to violate the law abroad, including sanctioning British involvement in abusive interrogations. Since evidence will be presented that such interrogations have continued during Sir Peter’s tenure, he either validated these actions, or he has been hoodwinked as ISC. Either way, he should be a witness at the inquiry.
Clive Stafford Smith said: “Welcome though the Torture Inquiry is, the current structure is a sham. Sir Peter Gibson was perhaps the least appropriate judge to evaluate the Security Services. The government must get serious about learning the mistakes of the past, rather than try to cover them up, or we are in for a long, hot summer.”
Oh dear. A small own goal here, it would seem. While members of our security services may well be entirely “trustworthy, conscientious and dependable”, it is perhaps better for the person heading the inquiry not to give that opinion three times before heading what is supposed to be an independent inquiry. Still, if these matters are secret and known only to a few, we can’t be criticised for accepting the idea that when our government sets up an independent inquiry it will be just that.
I am able to report that a squadron of pigs has just taken off from Westminster and is headed towards Guantanamo Bay.
Revealed: brutal guide to punishing jailed youths
• ‘Drive fingers into groin’, says prison service manual
• Disclosures follow parents’ freedom of information fight
Guardian
It is quite extraordinary that on the one hand we are setting up a torture inquiry, yet on the other hand government ministers seem to have approved a code which allows private run prisons, through their officers, to inflict pain on young children to control them. I found this Guardian report rather shocking. I appreciate that there may be occasions when offenders are violent and need to be physically restrained – but is this acceptable and reasonable force?
Prenuptial agreements on rise amongst younger men
Guardian: High earners are rejecting their fathers’ romantic view of marriage to protect assets
It is good to see that vested self interest is still alive and well in caring Britain and that young men are finally being sensible about the really important issue in life – money! I presume, given that young women are now coining it in in Coalition Britain that they, too, will ensure there are pre-nups in place before capturing their man?
I shall leave comment on this to family lawyers!
Minister says Burka ban would be ‘un-British’
The Independent reports: “Banning the wearing of burkas in public would be “rather un-British”, the Immigration Minister said today as he attacked efforts to make it illegal in this country.Damian Green said it would be “undesirable” for Parliament to try to pass such a law which would be at odds with the UK’s “tolerant and mutually respectful society”.
Fellow Tory MP Philip Hollobone introduced a private members’ bill which would make it illegal for people to cover their faces in public.
I could not care less about what people wear. If women wish to dress in burkas (as opposed to being forced to do so) that is fine by me. I would not enjoy having a conversation with a woman dressed in a burka quite so much as if she was unveiled – the physical cues of interaction would not be there. I would also not be that happy to be sitting on an a plane with a burka wearer who had not been fully screened by security – but I assume that our laws will cater for these security issues when the wearing of a burka could impact deleteriously on our rights?
I shall return to the issue of drug de-criminalisation later. I am reading a riposte to libertarian views and it is providing food for thought.
“It is good to see that vested self interest is still alive and well in caring Britain and that young men are finally being sensible about the really important issue in life – money!” – Excellent! I may use that…
John – of course!
This torture inquiry is interesting and REPRIEVE were critical of several aspects of it from the outset:
see
http://watchingthelaw.blogspot.com/2010/07/complicity-in-torture-inquiry-announced.html
Also, I have always found s.7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 to be very problematic in terms of just what a Minister can authorise when it is done abroad – seems like the proverbial “licence to kill” reputedly held by the fictitious James Bond.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/ukpga_19940013_en_1#pb3-l1g7
Personally, I find the criticism of Sir Peter Gibson’s involvement to be such that if he continues with the inquiry it will not be seen as impartial.
Of course, the general public probably considers the whole thing to be whitewash anyway. I hope that is not the case.
‘seems like the proverbial “licence to kill” reputedly held by the fictitious James Bond’
fictitious or pseudonymous?