Sim-O

I tried posting some pictures I took whilst on a secret mission at the weekend.

Due to technical issues, it’s all gone wrong and I can’t be arsed now. Maybe later.

But thanx to Tim, D-Notice and Davide for a good afternoon. Most enjoyable.

Proper posts about it from Tim, and Davide.

Documentally:

On more than one occasion, while out and about taking photographs, (mainly in London) I’ve been stopped for having a camera round my neck and looking like I might be about to take a picture.

Yup, that’s all it seems to take now-a-days to raise the suspicions of some underpaid private security guard. Just be out and about minding your own photographic business, perhaps dangerously close to the threshold of some crappy shopping centre and as quick as it takes for a CCTV camera to rotate.. There they are, trying to enforce some imaginary law.

Patrick Cockburn, The Independent:

George Bush is willing to modify some of the demands so the Iraqi government can declare “a significant climbdown” by the American side allowing Baghdad to sign the treaty by 31 July.

But the US currently only maintains about 30 large bases in Iraq [originally the agreement wanted 58 bases], some the size of small cities; the rest are “forward operating bases”.

The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, denied The Independent’s report that the US wanted permanent bases in Iraq. But the reality of the US plan is that Iraqi authority would be purely nominal with a few Iraqi soldiers stationed outside the bases.

BBC:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has narrowly won a House of Commons vote on extending the maximum time police can hold terror suspects to 42 days.

Oh! The irony of it all…
DK:

Our beloved government would not have been able to secure the passage of legislation designed to restrict the activities of one group of religious extremists (Muslim terrorists) without the help of another group of religious extremists (the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland).

I may not be man enough to square up to Mrs -O, but I can still be subversive in my own little way.
So in a not-ripped-off-from-Sunny-at-all way, I give you LOL-Bush!

It’s, er, just the one at the moment, I’ll update if I do some more, or you let me know of yours.

And another mention for Stop The War, 15 June.

I’m not much of a fan of Chimpy McFlightsuit* and so I was pleased to get an invite to join Operation Manticore.

But after reading in their forum where it was heading, I’ll be following avidly, but not participating.

I’m all for a bit of gentle civil dis-obedience, but my bollocks aren’t as big as they once were and more frighteningly, Mrs -O would kill me.

Best of luck guys, and your secret’s safe with me.

I suppose I’d better take my Operation Manticore banner down now.

Oh, don’t forget to tell your mates:

Protest at Bush Visit – 5pm, 15 June, Parliament Square

*blatantly ripped from bloggerheads

Ten Percent: The rape of Iraq: Bribed with it’s own money

via Bloggerheads

The Daily Mash:

“The prime minister keeps saying there are 2000 active terrorists in the UK, engaged in 30 active plots.
“But the thing I don’t quite get is, if the government knows for a fact there are 2000 terrorists and 30 plots, then how come there aren’t 2000 terrorists in prison and no plots?”
…if you can count them then – surely to Christ – you can arrest them?”

The Independent:

…US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law…

So, is this like, “New, improved! Iraq 2.0, with integrated Americans”?

Via Manic

The Guardian

[Jacqui] Smith tabled a series of concessions yesterday which ministers were keen to portray as significant without appearing politically weak.

The amendments were intended to improve parliamentary scrutiny by requiring the home secretary to report to parliament within a week of taking the power to detain beyond 28 days. The power is also to be up for renewal every 30 days instead of every 60.

In the most contested amendment, to go beyond 28 days the home secretary would be required to have received independent legal advice that the country faced an event or situation that amounted to “a grave exceptional terrorist threat”.

The home secretary would also have to tell MPs that such a threat had occurred or was occurring.

The Home Office claimed this significantly raised the threshold and was equivalent to the phraseology in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 on emergencies.

If the threat is that serious, then why not use the Civil Contingncies Act 2004? Because frankly, the ‘Trust me, I’m a Home Secretary’ concession doesn’t wash.