...but the Guardian cheers me up

This is a much more balanced piece. Compare and contrast.

I hate to lay into the BBC again...

Actually that title meets official BBC standards of reporting. In fact I quite enjoy it.

Consider this headline on the BBC site this morning. In fact the apparent rise in violent crimes is almost certainly a statistical anomaly. You have to read to the end of the article to get a true picture. It misleads through the first paragraph as well, just to make sure 99% of viewers get the wrong impression (it's been shown that 90% of people only read the headline and of the 10% reading on 90% only read the first paragraph).

In fact:
- violent crime has not gone up, only recorded violent crime has ;
- a statistically valid survey of violent crime - not distorted by changes in recording criteria - shows a drop. This is reported in the same article.

Logically, either the BBC writers and editors are too stupid to appreciate this or they don't care or they are deliberately sensationalising and misleading the public. I'm sure many newspapers will report these figures in the same way, but my point is that the BBC as a supposedly unbiassed, state-owned broadcaster should be scrupulous in its reporting.

Is this Liberty?

Some days you wake up, switch on breakfast TV, scan the online news sites and everything pisses you off.

Take this development as reported by the BBC in the battle to make our streets safe. Liberty have managed to get a court to rule that child (that is under 16 and unaccompanied by an adult) curfew (that is, from 9pm) zones are illegal.

For starters Auntie's report is totally misleading (as usual). In fact, their own News 24 interview with a Liberty spokesman (I presume the Alex Gask referred to in the online report) revealed that Liberty - not the boy - initiated this case. Not only that, they found it difficult to find a suitable teenager to front it, so popular are these curfew orders. They've chosen one from an area where curfew orders are hardly used.

So we now live in a society where parents can be prosecuted up for going on holiday and leaving 15 year olds home alone, yet the same 15 year olds can wander the streets unaccompanied by an adult after 9pm. There is a political consensus that our streets are not as safe as we would like and we want to bring down the levels of petty crime, disorderly behaviour and the more serious incidents that result. This is only going to be done by giving the police some reasonable discretionary powers. Trying to solve the problem by after the fact investigation and prosecution is just not going to work.

Is this really the way Liberty wants to expend the capital that has been built up over the last few years, for example by the media profile of the admirable Shami Chakrabarti?

Iraq: this is what the media should be doing

This Independent leader (at least the first 2, free paras anyway) hits the spot. The study producing the 24,865 figure has a bizarre breakdown (and reeks of political motivation rather than objectivity), but at least establishes a number for discussion. The point is the conduct of the occupation has just not been good enough. Attitudes and behaviour have to change if this (misguided) global intifada is ever to be contained.

Iraq: come on, we're on the same side!

There's nothing more stifling of intelligent debate than oversimplifying an opposing position in argument in order to criticise it. This is exactly what is happening over the issue of the links between Iraq and the suicide bombings.

Gary Younge (or perhaps his sub-editor) writes in a piece titled "Blair's blowback" in the Guardian that "of course those who backed the Iraq war refute any link with the London bombs - they are in the deepest denial". A few people may hold these views, but don't tell the rest of us what we think, thanks.

The Guardian writes that "Straw rejects war link to bombings". No he doesn't. Nowhere in the article does Straw reject some kind of a link. And despite listening to dozens of news bulletins, I have yet to hear Blair deny a link. Or you can go to the BBC site to read that "Ministers reject Iraq terror link". No they don't. Read the article.

In fact, what Gary and those others harping on about "the link" are stating is blindingly obvious, as evidenced by the Guardian's opinion poll summarised online this morning. There is a link in that Iraq is used as a justification again and again by the perpetrators of these crimes and their apologists. There is a link in that one of their demands (such as we can determine them) is that we withdraw our troops from Iraq.

Rather than just telling us what we all know already, I'd like some intelligent debate from those privileged to have a voice in the mainstream media. There are several arguments that reveal simply asserting "the link" to be an oversimplification and totally unconstructive:

• if Britain wasn't trying to help create a better Iraq, wouldn't we just move the problem? Wouldn't the terrorists attack someone else or find another excuse to attack us? Since there were attacks before the invasion of Iraq the government argues that this exactly is what would happen.
  
• would it be in our interests in the long-run to give in to the terrorists' demands? Or rather, should we let our foreign policy be influenced by the fear of terrorist events like 7/7? The government argues that we can't: we have to choose a foreign policy and pursue it consistently. The alternative is some kind of "I'm all right Jack" non-involvement, but where do you draw the line? We may be attacked because our trade policy supports a regime the terrorists object to. Do we change our policy then? Or maybe we're attacked just for being part of the "West". In today's interconnected world we have a duty to help resolve international problems. (The lack of consensus on the Iraq problem ahead of the invasion in 2003 was a disaster, for which the US must take much of the blame, but what exactly was the position of France? That there wasn't a problem? When the sanctions were killing thousands of Iraqis as well as being a corrupting influence, with no end in sight? Should we have normalised relations with Saddam, perhaps? Is that the sort of world we want to live in?).
  
• what exactly are we going to do about it? Let's say the government says you're right, fair cop, it was our fault (not those nice boys from Leeds or their al Qaeda mentors, no, we made them do it). Are we going to pull out of Iraq tomorrow and leave the Americans to try to stop a civil war? In any case it is already our policy to pull out as soon as we can (which perhaps the government should stress more), but we've now taken on a moral obligation to only hand over to Iraqi security forces when they are able to maintain order.

Instead, let's move beyond arguing that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, and focus on issues that something can be done about now. The energy and column inches that are being wasted on the "you were wrong to invade" arguments could be much better spent. For example, is the behaviour of the coalition soldiers in Iraq the best it could be? I hate to pick on Gary Younge again, but in his article he repeats as fact that "100,000 people" ... "have been killed in Iraq." This comes from a Lancet paper of October 2004 and is significantly higher than other estimates such as that of 24,865 (civilians only included) published today (see BBC story). Now, I don't know whether the real figure is nearer 100,000 or 24,865, but what bothers me is that the 100,000 figure is rhetoric - used for effect - and not analysis of the problem. But the figure of 24,865, based on media reports, can be discussed sensibly. It has increased since last October, for example, which the 100,000 figure seemingly hasn't. We can agree that one civilian death is too many, each is a personal tragedy and makes it more difficult to win "hearts and minds" - and, yes, exacerbates the problems we face with "insurgents" and terrorists.

Moreover, quoting "100,000" repeatedly does the Iraqis themselves a disservice. Looking at each incident allows the causes to be explored. Are there problems with the culture or training of the US and other forces in Iraq? Are the occupying forces unjustifiably using weapons (such as cluster-bombs) and tactics that take a heavy toll on civilians? How many civilians have been killed in cases of mistaken-identity (or bombing the wrong house)? Should procedures at road-blocks be changed?

Look, the invasion was 2 years ago, we've just had a General Election where Iraq was a major issue (and, in my opinion, undemocratically given undue prominence by a set of institutions, including the BBC, who are there to mediate between the public and the politicians, not set the agenda). We are where we are. It's time to start to discuss the issues we face now, not a decision that was taken over 2 years ago. It seems to me that voices of the left have more to gain by participating in a constructive debate, not a destructive one. Many on the left - who, with their concern for civil liberty, should have a lot to offer in these difficult times - are excluding themselves from this debate, by fighting an old battle. Guys, we're on the same side!

Mr Akram's helpful comments

The Guardian (and others) write that Pakistan's UN ambassador, Mr Akram, has said that the bombings in London are due solely to problems with Britain's foreign policy and British society. Mr Akram is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start. But I'll try!

The whole point about al Qaeda is that it is an international network.

It's ambitions are global. To start to say the bombings were carried out purely for local reasons is ludicrous. There are reasons, such as Britain's involvement in Iraq, why London was specifically targeted (more on this later), reasons, such as poor community integration in some areas of the UK, why British bombers could be found, but these do not provide the whole explanation.

The only way we're going to counter an international network is by international cooperation. Weaknesses inherent in a world order of competing nation states are being savagely exposed by the terrorists. As the diplomats say, in this context Mr Akram's comments are "extremely unhelpful".

Perhaps Mr Akram has spoken out for domestic political reasons or for reasons of UN politics. After all, as the article goes on to say, there have already been a number of arrests in Pakistan. Nevertheless, why is he saying anything at all? All Mr Akram and, I should also note, the Egyptian interior minister, should be saying is that they are doing everything they can to help with the investigation.

On a common-sense level: we don't know who else was behind the bombings so it might be best not to jump to conclusions. I trust the Brits won't turn round in a few months and say (in public anyway) that see, the "mastermind" did live in Pakistan.

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding: sure, there's veiled criticism of the madrassas in Pakistan in the press here in the UK, but it's nothing compared to the hand-wringing that's going on about local problems. If I may try to summarize the British attitude: the madrassas are part of the problem, but not something we can directly change.

Perhaps a final word should be reserved for another politician who can't keep his mouth shut: the suave Mr Sarkozy. If he's the best France has to offer after the anachronistic Chirac we're in for at least another decade of cross-Channel sniping. By commenting on detail of the investigation - whether misinterpreted or leaked - he is saying subtly what Mr Akram is saying bluntly: these stupid Brits have brought this on themselves, we're so much smarter we can even tell you things about the investigation that they won't. Shut up, Sarkozy. Shut up, Mr Akram.

Suicide bombers? revisited again...

Well, the enquiry is moving apace. Pictures of the bus bomber show he at least was wearing a rucksack, not carrying a holdall. That'll teach me to believe anything I read in the Mail (see previous entry).

Nevertheless, the bomber in the photograph does have a bag that can be left rather than a bomb belt/jacket. An article "Was it Suicide?" in today's Mirror newspaper picks this up (and makes me feel less of a nut). I was wondering whether the bombers had bought return tickets! The Mirror article also notes (so I don't have to!) a few other points weighing against the simple suicide bomber hypothesis.

I'm warming to Ian Blair, the head of the Metropolitan Police - he's becoming London's Rudolph Guiliani (though Ken Livingstone has a lot of insight, too). Previously, he'd been a been a bit too outspoken, especially during the General Election campaign. He's emphasising "al Qaeda links" and that the bombers were "foot-soldiers" in this operation, and this has been picked up by the media (who hardly seem to be able to think for themselves this week - maybe the Sunday papers will have some intelligent articles in). We've heard much less of the "search for the 5th man" over the last 24 hours. It's generally sinking in that this was a complex operation. Some appreciation of the expertise and materials required to make the bomb would reinforce this. It may not just have been made with TATP ("Mother of Satan") as most sources seem to imply. It may also have contained C4, like the shoe-bomb, the TATP being used to detonate this. The Times here (last paragraph) seems best informed on this, but this article yesterday and this one from a few days ago are also interesting. This is not to mention any electrics which may have required a different technician.

Incidentally, I tried to find out how much of the shoe-bomber's support network had been rolled up, but didn't get too far. Anyone know where to look? This Time article gives some background.

Ian Blair has also appealed for information about the "missing 81 minutes" of the bus-bomber. Spot-on! The televised appeal made it clear (to anyone with a London A to Z, anyway) that the bus the bomber caught was travelling north, but had not yet reached King's Cross. So he either walked quite a way (seems unlikely to me, especially on a hot day with that rucksack) or, as I've said previously, caught a tube heading in a southerly direction before getting a bus back to King's Cross. Obviously there are lots of leads to follow up, but in terms of working out what exactly happened (and whether it was what all participants intended or thought was going to happen) this is key, as well as rebuilding the bombs to determine the detonation method, of course, though I expect that will take some weeks.

It's important that we understand that this attack was international terrorism, masquerading as home-grown terrorism. I suspect the chain of command planning this operation will lead to the centre of al Qaeda, for the particular reason that the use of British "mules" is so calculated to divide us (see here for an alarming development, for example). For a similar reason Saudis were used on the 9/11 planes. The idea (so the theory goes) was to undermine US support for the Saudi regime.

The "mastermind" of this operation has made sure that the homegrown aspect was obvious: the bombers' id has been found easily (the fact that one bomber's id was found at 2 sites is particularly suspicious!), the car in Luton contained explosives and bomb "factories" appear to have just been left (rather than dismantled) in Leeds. (These obvious leads might also be an attempt to distract the police from other lines of enquiry, that might lead to the "mastermind" himself, of course).

We must be careful in our response. The terrorists want to undermine integration and tolerance in modern Britain. This outrage happened here, yes, partly because we have many alienated young Moslems who are susceptible to the ideas of the extremists, but also because the reverse is true, we have many Moslems who are integrated into the broader community, and this is a threat to the extremists. So, whilst we've been mad to allow some of these fanatics to preach to impressionable young people, we must not lurch towards intolerance.

Suicide bombers? revisited...

I posted a couple of questions on this Guardian online debate. Awaiting interesting responses...

The Mail online also, I've noticed, says the bombers were carrying "holdalls" and not "rucksacks". This reinforces my suggestion that we should not dismiss the possibility that the bombers set out with a different scenario in mind to what actually happened. They could have been trying to converge somewhere (as suggested in my previous post) or even headed for other mainline stations (eg Paddington, Liverpool St., Waterloo and Victoria). Of course, the police could have evidence to the contrary...

Why does this matter, though? It seems to me that the "mastermind" was not just trying to shock us - perhaps into questioning our involvement in Iraq - but also trying to do this in a particular way. He wants us to believe there are bombers in our midst. He wants to create a backlash against the Muslim community in this country and, indeed throughout Europe and around the world. The fanatics are not going to wipe out the rest of us simply by blowing us up. One of their objectives is to recruit more fanatics, by provoking a reaction against Muslims, which itself radicalises more young people... The majority of us are reacting - perhaps instinctively - in the best way, by showing that the Muslim community in this country is part of a larger community. The last thing the fanatics want is a successful multicultural society. They want to encourage the extremist minority, such as in the BNP, who are already trying to capitalise on the 7/7 atrocity to increase their support.

So the mastermind deliberately used British citizens in this attack, to show us that there are terrorists living amongst us. He even made sure the bombers were easily traced, by ensuring id was found at the sites of the explosions. This was a risk on his part, as in terms of his safety and that of the rest of the network, the trail is less cold than it would have been otherwise. Our instinctive reaction is the right one, but it would perhaps be more effective if we had more awareness of the psychological warfare that is taking place, of the sort of reactions the terrorists are trying to provoke.

It would be even more effective if we could show that the mastermind had cut corners in his desire to send the message he did. The message - and perhaps even future recruitment by the fanatics - would be undermined if it turned out to be the case that the bombers (or even one of them) thought they were on a mission that was something other than a massacre of normal Londoners, ordinary people like them. That's why I think the investigation is still important, even if it doesn't directly help to catch the mastermind and other members of the network. If it turns out the dominant media story is correct then what have we lost? - that's what everyone thinks anyway.

Suicide bombers?

The previous post explains some of my long-term reasons for starting this blog. This post deals with the immediate cause, what prompted me to start it today.

Apart from being the early hours of Bastille Day (hoping the French have a good holiday... honest... really...), it's just a week since the world changed over here, on the other side of la Manche (that's the English Channel to the rest of you). It's starting to become clear what happened and a "story" is being put out in the media.

The media narrative (and this link to the Independent is just an example) is that 4 young men from Yorkshire, with outside assistance, armed themselves each with a bomb in a rucksack. They arrived at King's Cross at 8:30am last Thursday, 7/7, and 3 of them detonated their bombs within 50 seconds of each other at 8:50am, on separate tube trains heading south, east and west. The 4th bomber couldn't get on a train heading north, due to an unrelated problem on the (infamous) Northern Line. Instead he got on a number 30 bus headed north and detonated his bomb nearly an hour after the others.

There are many puzzling aspects of the story we have been given. Whilst I hope the police are keeping more of an open mind, my concern is that we have collectively jumped to a conclusion. We're not about to convict the wrong people, as we did after the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings 30 years ago, but could suffer all kinds of other consequences. The investigation may be affected, legislation and other government (and transport provider etc.) action may be misguided and, worst, the effects on community relations in the UK may be exacerbated.

The media account (the police themselves have been more cautious in their statements) may be correct. That is quite likely. I don't want to get grassy knoll about it, but the problem I have is that it implicitly rules out other possibilities. Broadly these are:

• the boys weren't suicide bombers at all, and the bombs were detonated by timer;
• the boys were suicide bombers but at least the first 3 of the bombs were detonated before they expected.
  

Clearly both scenarios rely on the bombs being detonated by a timing device. The BBC today has been saying (on News 24 and here, for example) that the police have not found timing devices. This contradicts earlier stories, here, for example. What is not clear is whether the police are saying there definitely were no timing devices or whether they could still find them. This is crucial.

Why do I think the bombs may have been detonated by timer? Two main reasons:

• the synchronicity and timing of the explosions.
  
• surely at least one of the 3 tube bombers would taken some time to compose themselves. Assuming they went through with it, who could hold them to account?
• in particular, the Piccadilly line bomber had only just got on the train. Would he have had the self-awareness to realise the prearranged time had arrived as soon as he'd got on? Wouldn't he in particular have needed to calm himself after (presumably, if this story is correct) having been worried about not being able to get on a train before the deadline? The bombers had been on the Circle line trains for 10 minutes, given the distance they had to travel. They had no way of knowing the other bomber had just got on a train. Why cut it so fine?
  
• we're told the bombers arrived at King's Cross at 8:30 and the bombs went off 20 minutes later. This just doesn't feel right. Why the rush?
• the positioning of the bombs: we're told the bombs were on the floor of the tube trains.
  
• if you were going to blow yourself up would you put the bomb at your feet? No, of course not. You'd want to die instantly and would want the bomb at chest level.
  
• how did they detonate the bombs? Leaning over (if sitting) or bending down (if standing) seems awkward. How did they detonate the bombs if they were in rucksacks, anyway?
  

Perhaps the boys weren't even suicide bombers. We've not been told that (as is customary for suicide bombers in Israel at least) videos were made beforehand - though of course the police could be withholding this information. But again, what I find most puzzling is that they used bags, rather than body belts. They also left explosives behind in the car (and in Leeds). Why did they take explosive material they wouldn't need? To help the police investigation?

If the bombs did go off prematurely, this suggests the bombers were on their way somewhere. First, what is this idea that the bombers were going in all 4 directions of the compass? If you go north from King's Cross you leave central London. Not only would there be fewer victims (it was the morning rush-hour, remember - people are by and large travelling in to London to work), you are also lessening the impact of the bombing - who's heard of al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups for that matter carrying out their "spectacular" in a suburb? Second, why the 1 hour delay for the bus bomb? The theory is that the bus bomber tried to get on a north-bound Northern line train, but there was a problem with this line that morning. He then left the station and got on a bus and set off his device within 1/2 mile of King's Cross. This just wouldn't take that long. He had over an hour. Did he stop for breakfast as well? There are a number of possibilities. For example:

• it was always the plan to bomb a bus an hour after the tube trains, the bomber waited and the bomb was detonated manually. This is incompatible with the "4 directions" hypothesis.
  
• the bomber was trying to get somewhere. For example, he caught a tube train, but exited at a station (Warren Street perhaps) when the trains were stopped in response to the explosions. He then caught abus back towards King's Cross. His bomb then went off unexpectedly - perhaps his timer was defective.
  

I suggest, instead, that the bombers were all following different routes to the same place. If you follow the Circle line round from King's Cross in either direction (it's circular, that's why it's called the Circle line) you reach Westminster, for example. The Piccadilly line can also take you to Westminster, with one change. The Victoria line would be another option from King's Cross. (I'm not claiming Westminster was necessarily the destination - there are plenty of other landmarks they could have been headed for).

So the bombers could have been suicide bombers or on their way to plant the bombs. In either case their bombs may have exploded before they expected, the timer set by the bomb-maker.

Perhaps the alternatives are no more likely than the dominant media story and the true picture should come out in the investigation, anyway. Maybe I just don't understand the suicide bomber mentality and can't accept that as a regular user of London public transport I have so little control over my fate - I can at least be alert for packages left in trains and on buses. Nevertheless, it seems to me this could be a case of media effects distorting the picture presented to the public, with indeterminate, but potentially far-reaching consequences.

Why am I writing this blog?

What did you think of the Business Manifesto Labour launched during the recent UK General Election campaign? Nothing much, I should think. Most probably you're not really interested (though I am) and most probably it's not very interesting (maybe not even to me). But if you were interested you would probably still know nothing about it. It was launched by the Labour Party at a news conference a day or so after the leak to the media of the Attorney General's full legal advice on the legality of the UK going to war with Iraq. No questions were asked at that news conference about the Business Manifesto. Instead the same questions were asked over and over about the Attorney General's advice. I only know that it exists because I recognised someone in the audience at the news conference. A couple of weeks later I asked him why he had been there. He told me about the Business Manifesto, which was the first I'd heard of it - and I watched days worth of election coverage!

My point is that, if we are to have a democracy in this country (UK) or anywhere else for that matter we must respect the process. The campaign should be a time to leave the stage to the politicians, listen to what they all have to say and make our choice at the ballot box. Instead the media seem intent on controlling the agenda, and seem to be succeeding.

This is just one example: my reason for starting this blog is dissatisfaction with the mainstream media. I'll try to highlight issues where I think the news is being distorted by the interests of media organisations, their herd mentality and the groupthink that occurs within them. And I'm nothing if not ambitious: I want to get closer to the truth AND show why it is being distorted.

I can't say I spent a long time thinking up a blog title or my "handle", but they do have some rationale. I'll try to explain another time...