Unredacted Expenses To be Revealed in Daily Telegraph.

Snippets here.

Brown, Straw, Blears are named.

Wordle: http://www.wordle.net/

Majority 'want Iraq war inquiry'

The survey, conducted by ComRes for the BBC, found 72% of those questioned believe there should be an official inquiry into the UK's role in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. 
This figure increases to 81% in the 18-24 age group.

There were fresh calls for an inquiry last week after documents showed that intelligence chiefs were urged to make a key dossier on the Iraqi threat as "firm" as possible.

Last month, Justice Secretary Jack Straw vetoed the publication of minutes of cabinet meetings discussing the legality of the war in the run-up to the invasion.

Jack Straw is On Message But Out of Step With Reality

Yesterday, Jack "The Strawman" wrote an article on CiF

I occasionally ask the asylum seekers at my constituency surgeries why they made the very long journey to the United Kingdom rather than a much shorter one somewhere else. The answer is almost always the same: it is better here. People have more rights and greater protection.

What do you think they're going to say? Because the UK is a soft touch? You need our votes? You're fucking mad and we hate you? What would happen to them, would you let them stay in the country? How many have told you the truth and then been exited?

The climate in a post-9/11 world is much harder than anyone imagined, even in the immediate aftermath of that outrage. I do not pretend we've got everything right. We haven't. Take the data-sharing measures proposed in the coroner's and justice bill. Their aim is good, but parliamentary scrutiny has thrown up justifiable concerns that the powers provided could be misused. It's not our intention but I agree, so we are acting to get a much better balance between data protection and access to services.

Fucking Ditch if you're at all concerned  you worm. You proposed it in the present form because you know damn well no one in their right mind would think it was a good idea. So, now you offer to take a second look and hope we'll fall for the watered down version that, you originally intended for us.

And while the ends can never justify the means, our motives for seeking better protection for citizens from terrorism and crime are hardly ignoble. Those who cast myself and my colleagues as Orwellian drones engaged in some awful conspiracy planned in Whitehall basements not only overlook all this government's achievements, they cheapen the important debate about getting the balance right so that a very important freedom, that to live without fear in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, is nurtured and protected.

Have you been looking over my shoulder again? If you say it isn't a conspiracy, guess what the truth is you twat faced arse. That pic I did of you as Gollum came the closest to justice you'll ever see.

And there is of course an ultimate check on executive power - democracy. Talk of Britain sliding into a police state is daft scaremongering, but even were it true there is a mechanism to prevent it - democratic elections. People have the power to vote out administrations which they believe are heavyhanded.

You and your Glorious Leader have been offered the chance to prove that statement on numerous occasions. Why don't you see if you can get Gordy to accept the challenge?

When people come to assess the choices available at the next election, I will stand proudly on Labour's record, from the Lawrence inquiry, which reported 10 years ago this week, progressive legislation on race and gender, to devolution, the Human Rights Act, Freedom of Information and much more, and be ready to be judged on it. I hope that in the final reckoning even some of our harshest critics will concede that this Labour government has done more than any before it to extend liberties and to constrain government.

Here's a video for you Jack hope you get the message.

There were 512 comments posted in reply to your article. Did you read any of them? Did you get the feeling that you were out of step with reality? Somehow I doubt you were in the slightest bit swayed by any of the comments.

Today however, the voices got louder, didn't they? 

Still sitting in your basement, in the Palace of Injustice, with your fingers in you ears Jack?

Still stand by your track record on civil liberties? Want to know how bad it's going to get for you and Labour? Best keep your mouth shut and follow the example of Jacqui and David, They've learnt a bit of a lesson on how their employers now feel towards them............. 

And finally, an article by Philip Pullman. originally from the Times, but which has been pulled, now preserved via Prodicus  and  Longrider: Malevolent voices that despise our freedoms

Straw Decides To Veto FOI Act on Iraq.

Well done Jack. Your "Precious" is safe again. Now scurry on back down that deep, black hole and hide beneath your damp stone in the Ministry of Injustice and your Palace of Denial.

Your Full Weasel Statement to Parliament can be viewed by the people who pay your wages here

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on use of the ministerial veto under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act, in respect of minutes of two cabinet meetings in March 2003 relating to Iraq.

I need first to set out some necessary background.

The FoI Act has profoundly changed the relationship between citizens, and their elected representatives and the media on the one hand, and the government and public authorities on the other.

Too Right it has, we can see you for what you and your comrades are now.

It has, as intended, made the executive far more open and accountable.

Apparently not after today.

The act provides a regime for freedom of information which is one of the most open and rigorous in the world.

Was "the most", but it now isn't.

It was the subject of almost three years [of] intensive debate, by which the original scheme was much improved and strengthened.

As initially proposed, decisions of the information commissioner would in law have been heavily persuasive, but not binding on ministers.

This reflected the regimes in other countries, such as in Canada. However, that scheme was replaced by a much tougher one.

There was, however, a key balancing measure written into the Act, and accepted by parliament. This was to provide – in section 53 — that in specific circumstances ministers (and certain others) could override a decision of the commissioner or tribunal requiring the release of information if they believed on reasonable grounds that the decision to withhold the information was in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

At the time of the passage of the bill, ministers in both houses provided reassurance about the use of this veto. It would not be commonplace.

It's about to become far more common than it was yesterday though.

Undertakings were also given that, although section 53 required a certificate by a single cabinet minister or law officer, any use of the veto would be subject to prior cabinet consideration.

The act came into force on 1 January 2005. From then until September 2008 in approximately 78,000 cases where the requested information was held by government departments, it has been released in full. Before the act, some of it would not have been released for 30 years.

Since 2006, the information commissioner has dealt with more than 1,500 cases involving government departments and the information tribunal has dealt with more than 50 such cases. But no section 53 veto has been used to date.

Bet you  start using  section 53 more often, now you think you can get away with it though?

Mr Speaker, in December 2006, the Cabinet Office received a freedom of information request for cabinet minutes and records relating to meetings it held between 7 and 17 March 2003 where the attorney general's legal advice concerning military action against Iraq was considered and discussed.

There were two meetings of cabinet within that period – 13 and 17 March.

Cabinet Office refused the request, citing the Act's exemptions for information relating to policy development and ministerial communications [(sections 35(1)(a) and (b))].

In keeping with its statutory obligations, the Cabinet Office had considered the public interest in releasing the information, but have found twice, on balance, that there was greater public interest in withholding it.

Possibly because it made the Cabinet look like spineless cowards and lapdogs?

The applicant duly exercised his right to ask the information commissioner to investigate the handling of his request.

In February 2008, the commissioner reasoned, for the first time, that cabinet minutes – these ones – should be released. The Cabinet Office appealed the commissioner's decision to the information tribunal.

Toys flew out of pram and at least one Nokia left an imprint  in someone's forehead?

On 27 January 2009, the tribunal published its decision. The tribunal was unanimous in deciding that the informal notes of the meetings should be withheld.

do you think they've stopped laughing at you yet?

But, by a majority of two to one, it decided that the public interest balance fell in favour of release of the minutes. It therefore upheld the decision of the information commissioner ordering information to be disclosed, subject to some minor redactions.

Following that decision, and having taken the view of cabinet, I have today issued a certificate under section 53 of the Act in an appropriate form and consistent with the Act, the effect of which is that these cabinet minutes will not now be disclosed.

The conclusion I have reached rests on the assessment of the public interest in disclosure and non-disclosure.

No, it rests on your decision that you would all look like complete and utter brown nosing fucktards and that the public, your masters, will point at you and piss themselves laughing. (IMHO)

I have laid a copy of that certificate, and a detailed statement of the reasons for my decision in the libraries of both houses. My decision was made in accordance with the government's policy critera, which is annexed to my statement of reasons.

Copies of these documents have been sent to the requester and are available in the vote office.

Mr Speaker, to permit the commissioner's and tribunal's view of the public interest to prevail would in my judgement risk serious damage to cabinet government; an essential principle of British parliamentary democracy. That eventuality is not in the public interest.

It isn't in the interests of your self esteem more likely.

There's more on the Grauniad website at the links above. I couldn't be asked to read any more of his drivelling statement.