Randomly Selected Article or Link

The BBC reports that in the US an ex-defence adviser attacks Bush:

[Richard] Perle says in hindsight he would not have backed invasion

It seems to me that this was one of those neo-cons specially brought in to sell the war against all the evidence. Three days before elections too! That's gratitude for you.

I pledge that, if stopped and questioned for no reason by an officer of the law without having invited him or her into a conversation with me, I will make it my business to make the whole business as long-winded and bogged down in paperwork and police time as possible.

I read this...

Blair says sorry to Cameron over terror plans:

Tory leader's anger as the phone tap initiative he outlined in private is adopted by Brown.

...and thought, hang on, where have I heard that before? Oh yes, I know, a more or less constant stream of Lib Dem press releases and ministerial statements on the various terrorism measures that have gone through parliament over the last few years.

Here's one going back to October 2003, specifically about the use of phone tap evidence:

IF USED CORRECTLY PHONE-TAPS CAN LEAD TO MORE TERROR CONVICTIONS - KEETCH
14 October 2003

Responding to reports that MI6 and GCHQ are mounting a last-ditch defence against Whitehall proposals to end the traditional British ban on phone-tap evidence being used in court, Paul Keetch MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, said:

"If used correctly, phone-tap evidence could lead to more convictions of terrorists and organised criminals.

"Many suspected terrorists are not brought to trial because of insufficient public evidence. Equally, suspects who are wrongly accused should be able to test the intelligence which brought them to court.

"In the campaign against terrorism, intelligence is one of the only weapons we have. Prosecutors should be able to use it to full effect."

I'm pretty sure I've heard our folk talk about questioning after charge too, which I see David David claims as his idea in the same article, but I can't be bothered to prove it. If the Tory leader is reduced to claiming credit for something the Lib Dems have been pressing for for at least three and a half years now, I don't see that his Home Office shadow crony is any more credible.

Dave, if you're going to complain about plagiarism, you ought to check out that you didn't nick the idea in the first place.

We are always told that the Olympics should not be political. Our government refused to mandate a boycott of Beijing because they have no control over the British Olympic Association. The Iraqi team last I saw was waiting to hear whether they could go because the Iraqi government recently sacked the entire national Olympic committee. We're not supposed to score political points over this "greatest show on earth" of "amateur" sporting prowess.

So why are so many politicians spending fortunes of our money falling over themselves to be in Beijing? Troughs...pigs...hmmm, spare ribs!