BBC BLOGS - Newsnight: From the web team
« Previous | Main | Next »

Thursday 9 July 2009

Verity Murphy | 18:03 UK time, Thursday, 9 July 2009

Here's Gavin Esler with what is coming up on tonight's programme:

Hello,

Heard the one about the leader of the Conservative Party and the former editor of the newspaper affectionately known as "The News of the Screws"?

Well, as of writing this e-mail David Cameron is standing by his press adviser Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor linked today with allegations that reporters on his former newspaper may have been involved in a pattern of telephone bugging and "blagging" - in effect, lying - to obtain stories.

We'll be devoting most of the programme tonight to this bizarre tale.

Why did the police not alert all those whose phones were bugged? What was the Press Complaints Commission up to? And - whatever he is supposed to have done or not done - how exactly does the former editor of the News of the World fit into David Cameron's new Tory party?

And there was much made of the US-Russia talks this week aimed at reducing the two countries' nuclear stockpiles.

But despite all the hoopla in Moscow doesn't the real nuclear threat to world peace come from Iran?

We'll be speaking to the man President Obama calls his "nuclear guy", non-proliferation adviser Dr Gary Samore, about the harsh reality of post-cold war nuclear security.

Join us at 10.30pm on BBC Two.

Gavin

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    "But despite all the hoopla in Moscow doesn't the real nuclear threat to world peace come from Iran?"

    No, that's probably Israel you're thinking of. They let others believe that they have lots of nuclear weapons and they're not signed up to the Non Proliferation Treaty or the ICC either. She's a bit of a rogue state is Israel. This seems to upset her neighbours quite a bit, inspiring a few to defend themselves from pre-emptive strikes by starting up nuclear programmes all of their own, whilst looking for allies in the SCO.

    Perhaps you could have a quiet word with Israel about this?

  • Comment number 2.

    You Beeb guys are getting really desperate with your hysterical attacks on the Tories about this NOTW story. It is about time you realised that your beloved Labour party is doomed and there is nothing more you can do to help them.

  • Comment number 3.

    doesn't the real nuclear threat to world peace come from Iran? ...

    hardly. your neocon socks are showing. FO would be proud people think like that. it means the propaganda is working . where can iran get nuclear material from except kazakhstan? where the major powers are bending over. no regime change foaming about human rights there?

  • Comment number 4.

    ...the former News of the World (affectionately known as "The News of the Screws", dontchaknow) editor...
    ... linked today...
    [by whom? How?]*...
    ...with allegations... [from whom? Based on?]*
    .... that reporters on his former newspaper may* have been involved...

    Yes, with nowt else going on, on the strength of the above, I can see why....

    *We'll be devoting most of the programme tonight to this bizarre tale.

    And I can but imagine who will be invited on to share their opinions.

    However, as of writing this post, based on available facts, it seems reasonable that David Cameron is standing by his press adviser Andy Coulson for now.

    However, should it eventually transpire this person was complicit in something with even a hint of impropriety, I'd think it wise for a political leader to a) sort it pronto, and b) ponder the wisdom of hiring such folk.

    I fly no flag for Mr. Cameron any more than the rest of that deranged circus so many WUVIs like to wallow in, but I do hold out a slight hope for objective stories based on reporting from objective professionals finding out and substantiating for themselves before rushing to print, rather than conjecture based on what a bloke might have told another bloke you know.

    There may yet be a major story. Jumping the gun, and in such proposed epic style seems premature. Unless of course there will be new facts shared tonight that clarify, enhance or confirm. And that will be fair justification. If not, and all we get are the usual suspects chewing a mouldy old bone, it will merely be... predictable.

  • Comment number 5.

    "HE DRIVES US MAD"

    See... You really must have a word.

  • Comment number 6.

    LABOUR ARE TAKING ACTIONS- SURREPITITIOUSLY- TO HUGELY REDUCE THE UK's NUCLEAR DETERENT 'BEFORE THE US' AND BEFORE THE UK's RECENTLY ANNOUNCED DEFENCE REVIEW EVEN BEGINS:

    The present Royal Navy Vanguard submarine based UK nuclear deterent consists of 4 Vanguard submarines, with each submarine having 16 missile tubes- each missile tube capable of launching 1 Trident nuclear missile...

    In other words- IN THEORY*- the UK's total nuclear deterent today in 2009 is 64 submarine launched nuclear missiles...

    * IN THEORY because: of the RN's four Vanguard class Trident-nuclear missile submarines- on any given day as (for over 1/2 a decade) regularly as few as only one of these 4 integral-to-the-country's defence and 'world-profile' vessels is operational:

    "The Royal Navy is cannibalising parts from various ships and (Trident nuclear missile/Vanguard) submarines to keep other vessels afloat and operational it has emerged..."

    "... The revelation that the (present Trident/Vanguard submarine) nuclear deterrent is being gutted for parts is particularly worrisome. If there was a national or international emergency some of the Vanguard class submarines would most likely have to be left in the docks since they would most likely be missing parts crucial to the subs operations....":

    http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=7413

    The UK MoD has been openly saying for many months that they are 'OK with the RN's present 4 Vanguard nuclear missile carrying submarines being 'replaced' with 3 of the under-development SMALLER ones and their new Trident missiles'....

    "UK MoD remains open to three-boat nuclear deterrent option":

    http://www.janes.com/news/security/capabilities/jni/jni070531_1_n.shtml

    http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9925 :

    "Some commanders may feel uneasy about (reducing Trident carrying subs from 4 to 3) given the fact that recently two of the (present Vanguard)submarines were out of service due to major repairs. In the future a similar scenario could leave Britain with one or zero active nuclear deterrent submarines..."

    Prime minister Brown recently 'decreed' that the UK's new Trident system submarines, when built, will each have only 12 missile tubes- instead of the Vanguard's 16- or the US Navy's Ohio class submarines' 24-

    "The UK's next-generation ballistic-missile submarines will have 12 missile tubes rather than the 16 aboard the existing Vanguard-class Trident-armed submarines"

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jmr/jmr090420_1_n.shtml

    3 new Vanguard-successor submarines X 12 missile tubes each= 36 missile tubes...

    64 missile tubes with the present 4 Vanguard submarines-based Trident system

    vs

    only 36 missile tubes with the apparent Labour & MoD toadies' preferred system: 3 Vanguard-successor submarines/& their new Trident missiles->>

    = almost a 50% reduction in the UK's nuclear deterent, and all without a parliamentary or public debate or public consultation/advisement...


    News of the US and Russia agreeing to- in the future- look at reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles will surely be welcomed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown who has reportedly expressed his own willingness to reduce Britain's nuclear stockpile....

    This big and far-reaching a decision should not be in the arbitrary hands of only one politician!!!

    And certainly should not be made without Parliament facilitating an extensive public consultation... AND NOT UNTILL AFTER A GENERAL ELECTION OCCURS!!!

    The UK govt using the always controversial nuclear disarmament topic to distract UK voters from Labour's egregious policy errors- & to simultaneously arbitrarily reduce the UK's relatively tiny nuclear deterent- rather than enabling an informed public discussion regarding the size and shape of the country's future nuclear forces is gross hypocrisy...

    It also ignores contemporary facts:

    1) "Red alert - China modernises its nuclear missile force"

    Beijing is now deploying or developing up to five intercontinental nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in what amounts to China's most ambitious increase in intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability since the late 1980s... :

    http://www.janes.com/news/security/capabilities/jir/jir090521_1_n.shtml

    2) Russia is rearming itself and selling masses of hardware/warships to countries like India, Brazil & China...

    Not to mention comparitively huge sales of advanced submarines, Frigates and similar vessels by France and Germany to many non-NATO nations... such as India, Singapore, Vietnam and many Persian Gulf countries...

    3) Russia is reactivating two of its retired Typhoon SSBNs:

    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090703.aspx

    4) Russia Might Complete Bulava Flight Tests in 2009:

    http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090618_6389.php

    5) Russia Set to Build New Nuclear-Armed Submarine:

    http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090626_8028.php

    6) Russia to build eight nuclear submarines:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3124166/Russia-to-build-eight-nuclear-submarines.html

    7) President Medvedev visited Sevmash, inspected Yury Dolgoruky:

    http://www.barentsobserver.com/president-medvedev-visited-sevmash-inspected-yury-dolgoruky.4612254-58932.html

    8) State-of-the-art nuclear submarines to the Russian Navy:

    http://www.barentsobserver.com/index.php?id=4608935

    9) Russia to lay down 2nd Graney class nuclear sub in July:

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090625/155349485.html

    "...Under the Russian State Arms Procurement Program for 2007-2015, the Navy will receive several dozen surface ships and submarines, including five Project 955 Borey nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines equipped with new Bulava ballistic missiles, two Project 885 Yasen nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines, six Project 677 Lada diesel-electric submarines, three Project 22350 frigates and five Project 20380 corvettes."

    10) Russia may export up to 40 diesel submarines by 2015 :
    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090624/155340341.html

    The ethnic cleansing and genocidal actions occuring in the Balkans during the 1990's- that required US and UK led intervention to stop- and which EU member countries refused to do anything about, untill the US/UK played hardball- don't support the willfully naive position that: 'the UK ought to be putting its faith and future resources into a more interwoven EU member-nation defense force, and abandoning its historic allignment across the Atlantic'...

    The UK's armed forces and its defense-related research and development industries need reasonable increases in long-term funding, not intellectually dishonest cop-outs...

    A UK general election is needed now, in part so that hugely long-reaching decisions- that would be very difficult to reverse- regarding the UK's future defence capabilities are not made by a govt- and a small subgroup of govt- whose priorities are its/their survival rather than the country's long-term interests...

    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada,

  • Comment number 7.

    YATES OF THE TWENTYNINE-AND-A-HALF INCHES.

    Will there be anything on Yates appearing to be mollifying Murdoch (by omission)? Hardly surprising he has been cut down to size, if he has hopes of higher office . . .

    I seem to remember 'New Dawn' Blair had to present his credentials (and get his orders) from Murdoch; and Brown entertained him on entering No 10. Yates' investigation of Tony's cash for honours (allegedly) never came to anything did it. Hmmmm.

    All this waltzing round Rupert - is his middle name Matilda?

    Surely the neutral, public service BBC are covering this?

  • Comment number 8.

    (RE-SUBMITTED, WITHOUT HTML)

    LABOUR ARE TAKING ACTIONS- SURREPTITIOUSLY- TO HUGELY REDUCE THE UK's NUCLEAR DETERRENT 'BEFORE THE US' AND BEFORE THE UK's RECENTLY ANNOUNCED DEFENCE REVIEW EVEN BEGINS:

    The present Royal Navy Vanguard submarine based UK nuclear deterrent consists of 4 Vanguard submarines, with each submarine having 16 missile tubes- each missile tube capable of launching 1 Trident nuclear missile...

    In other words- IN THEORY*- the UK's total nuclear deterrent today in 2009 is 64 submarine launched nuclear missiles...

    * IN THEORY because: of the RN's four Vanguard class Trident-nuclear missile submarines- on any given day as (for over 1/2 a decade) regularly as few as only one of these 4 integral-to-the-country's defence and 'world-profile' vessels is operational:

    "The Royal Navy is cannibalizing parts from various ships and (Trident nuclear missile/Vanguard) submarines to keep other vessels afloat and operational it has emerged..."

    "... The revelation that the (present Trident/Vanguard submarine) nuclear deterrent is being gutted for parts is particularly worrisome. If there was a national or international emergency some of the Vanguard class submarines would most likely have to be left in the docks since they would most likely be missing parts crucial to the subs operations....":

    http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=7413

    The UK MoD has been openly saying for many months that they are 'OK with the RN's present 4 Vanguard nuclear missile carrying submarines being 'replaced' with 3 of the under-development SMALLER ones and their new Trident missiles'....

    "UK MoD remains open to three-boat nuclear deterrent option":

    http://www.janes.com/news/security/capabilities/jni/jni070531_1_n.shtml

    http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9925 :

    "Some commanders may feel uneasy about (reducing Trident carrying subs from 4 to 3) given the fact that recently two of the (present Vanguard)submarines were out of service due to major repairs. In the future a similar scenario could leave Britain with one or zero active nuclear deterrent submarines..."

    Prime minister Brown recently 'decreed' that the UK's new Trident system submarines, when built, will each have only 12 missile tubes- instead of the Vanguard's 16- or the US Navy's Ohio class submarines' 24-

    "The UK's next-generation ballistic-missile submarines will have 12 missile tubes rather than the 16 aboard the existing Vanguard-class Trident-armed submarines"

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jmr/jmr090420_1_n.shtml

    3 new Vanguard-successor submarines X 12 missile tubes each= 36 missile tubes...

    64 missile tubes with the present 4 Vanguard submarines-based Trident system

    vs

    only 36 missile tubes with the apparent Labour & MoD toadies' preferred system: 3 Vanguard-successor submarines/& their new Trident missiles->>

    = almost a 50% reduction in the UK's nuclear deterent, and all without a parliamentary or public debate or public consultation/advisement...


    News of the US and Russia agreeing to- in the future- look at reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles will surely be welcomed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown who has reportedly expressed his own willingness to reduce Britain's nuclear stockpile....

    This big and far-reaching a decision should not be in the arbitrary hands of only one politician!!!

    And certainly should not be made without Parliament facilitating an extensive public consultation... AND NOT UNTILL AFTER A GENERAL ELECTION OCCURS!!!

    The UK govt using the always controversial nuclear disarmament topic to distract UK voters from Labour's egregious policy errors- & to simultaneously arbitrarily reduce the UK's relatively tiny nuclear deterent- rather than enabling an informed public discussion regarding the size and shape of the country's future nuclear forces is gross hypocrisy...

    It also ignores contemporary facts:

    1) "Red alert - China modernises its nuclear missile force"

    Beijing is now deploying or developing up to five intercontinental nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in what amounts to China's most ambitious increase in intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability since the late 1980s... :

    http://www.janes.com/news/security/capabilities/jir/jir090521_1_n.shtml

    2) Russia is rearming itself and selling masses of hardware/warships to countries like India, Brazil & China...

    Not to mention comparitively huge sales of advanced submarines, Frigates and similar vessels by France and Germany to many non-NATO nations... such as India, Singapore, Vietnam and many Persian Gulf countries...

    3) Russia is reactivating two of its retired Typhoon SSBNs:

    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090703.aspx

    4) Russia Might Complete Bulava Flight Tests in 2009:

    http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090618_6389.php

    5) Russia Set to Build New Nuclear-Armed Submarine:

    http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090626_8028.php

    6) Russia to build eight nuclear submarines:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3124166/Russia-to-build-eight-nuclear-submarines.html

    7) President Medvedev visited Sevmash, inspected Yury Dolgoruky:

    http://www.barentsobserver.com/president-medvedev-visited-sevmash-inspected-yury-dolgoruky.4612254-58932.html

    8) State-of-the-art nuclear submarines to the Russian Navy:

    http://www.barentsobserver.com/index.php?id=4608935

    9) Russia to lay down 2nd Graney class nuclear sub in July:

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090625/155349485.html

    "...Under the Russian State Arms Procurement Program for 2007-2015, the Navy will receive several dozen surface ships and submarines, including five Project 955 Borey nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines equipped with new Bulava ballistic missiles, two Project 885 Yasen nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines, six Project 677 Lada diesel-electric submarines, three Project 22350 frigates and five Project 20380 corvettes."

    10) Russia may export up to 40 diesel submarines by 2015 :
    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090624/155340341.html

    The ethnic cleansing and genocidal actions occuring in the Balkans during the 1990's- that required US and UK led intervention to stop- and which EU member countries refused to do anything about, untill the US/UK played hardball- don't support the willfully naive position that: 'the UK ought to be putting its faith and future resources into a more interwoven EU member-nation defense force, and abandoning its historic allignment across the Atlantic'...

    The UK's armed forces and its defense-related research and development industries need reasonable increases in long-term funding, not intellectually dishonest cop-outs...

    A UK general election is needed now, in part so that hugely long-reaching decisions- that would be very difficult to reverse- regarding the UK's future defence capabilities are not made by a govt- and a small subgroup of govt- whose priorities are its/their survival rather than the country's long-term interests...

    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

  • Comment number 9.

    (RE-SUBMITTED, THIS TIME WITHOUT HTML)


    LABOUR ARE TAKING ACTIONS- SURREPTITIOUSLY- TO HUGELY REDUCE THE UK's NUCLEAR DETERRENT 'BEFORE THE US' AND BEFORE THE UK's RECENTLY ANNOUNCED DEFENCE REVIEW EVEN BEGINS:

    The present Royal Navy Vanguard submarine based UK nuclear deterrent consists of 4 Vanguard submarines, with each submarine having 16 missile tubes- each missile tube capable of launching 1 Trident nuclear missile...

    In other words- IN THEORY*- the UK's total nuclear deterrent today in 2009 is 64 submarine launched nuclear missiles...

    * IN THEORY because: of the RN's four Vanguard class Trident-nuclear missile submarines- on any given day as (for over 1/2 a decade) regularly as few as only one of these 4 integral-to-the-country's defence and 'world-profile' vessels is operational:

    "The Royal Navy is cannibalizing parts from various ships and (Trident nuclear missile/Vanguard) submarines to keep other vessels afloat and operational it has emerged..."

    "... The revelation that the (present Trident/Vanguard submarine) nuclear deterrent is being gutted for parts is particularly worrisome. If there was a national or international emergency some of the Vanguard class submarines would most likely have to be left in the docks since they would most likely be missing parts crucial to the subs operations....":

    http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=7413

    The UK MoD has been openly saying for many months that they are 'OK with the RN's present 4 Vanguard nuclear missile carrying submarines being 'replaced' with 3 of the under-development SMALLER ones and their new Trident missiles'....

    "UK MoD remains open to three-boat nuclear deterrent option":

    http://www.janes.com/news/security/capabilities/jni/jni070531_1_n.shtml

    http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9925 :

    "Some commanders may feel uneasy about (reducing Trident carrying subs from 4 to 3) given the fact that recently two of the (present Vanguard)submarines were out of service due to major repairs. In the future a similar scenario could leave Britain with one or zero active nuclear deterrent submarines..."

    Prime minister Brown recently 'decreed' that the UK's new Trident system submarines, when built, will each have only 12 missile tubes- instead of the Vanguard's 16- or the US Navy's Ohio class submarines' 24-

    "The UK's next-generation ballistic-missile submarines will have 12 missile tubes rather than the 16 aboard the existing Vanguard-class Trident-armed submarines"

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jmr/jmr090420_1_n.shtml

    3 new Vanguard-successor submarines X 12 missile tubes each= 36 missile tubes...

    64 missile tubes with the present 4 Vanguard submarines-based Trident system

    vs

    only 36 missile tubes with the apparent Labour & MoD toadies' preferred system: 3 Vanguard-successor submarines/& their new Trident missiles->>

    = almost a 50% reduction in the UK's nuclear deterent, and all without a parliamentary or public debate or public consultation/advisement...

    News of the US and Russia agreeing to- in the future- look at reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles will surely be welcomed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown who has reportedly expressed his own willingness to reduce Britain's nuclear stockpile....

    This big and far-reaching a decision should not be in the arbitrary hands of only one politician!!!

    And certainly should not be made without Parliament facilitating an extensive public consultation... AND NOT UNTILL AFTER A GENERAL ELECTION OCCURS!!!

    The UK govt using the always controversial nuclear disarmament topic to distract UK voters from Labour's egregious policy errors- & to simultaneously arbitrarily reduce the UK's relatively tiny nuclear deterent- rather than enabling an informed public discussion regarding the size and shape of the country's future nuclear forces is gross hypocrisy...

    It also ignores contemporary facts:

    1) "Red alert - China modernises its nuclear missile force"

    Beijing is now deploying or developing up to five intercontinental nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in what amounts to China's most ambitious increase in intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability since the late 1980s... :

    http://www.janes.com/news/security/capabilities/jir/jir090521_1_n.shtml

    2) Russia is rearming itself and selling masses of hardware/warships to countries like India, Brazil & China...

    Not to mention comparitively huge sales of advanced submarines, Frigates and similar vessels by France and Germany to many non-NATO nations... such as India, Singapore, Vietnam and many Persian Gulf countries...

    3) Russia is reactivating two of its retired Typhoon SSBNs:

    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090703.aspx

    4) Russia Might Complete Bulava Flight Tests in 2009:

    http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090618_6389.php

    5) Russia Set to Build New Nuclear-Armed Submarine:

    http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090626_8028.php

    6) Russia to build eight nuclear submarines:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3124166/Russia-to-build-eight-nuclear-submarines.html

    7) President Medvedev visited Sevmash, inspected Yury Dolgoruky:

    http://www.barentsobserver.com/president-medvedev-visited-sevmash-inspected-yury-dolgoruky.4612254-58932.html

    8) State-of-the-art nuclear submarines to the Russian Navy:

    http://www.barentsobserver.com/index.php?id=4608935

    9) Russia to lay down 2nd Graney class nuclear sub in July:

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090625/155349485.html

    "...Under the Russian State Arms Procurement Program for 2007-2015, the Navy will receive several dozen surface ships and submarines, including five Project 955 Borey nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines equipped with new Bulava ballistic missiles, two Project 885 Yasen nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines, six Project 677 Lada diesel-electric submarines, three Project 22350 frigates and five Project 20380 corvettes."

    10) Russia may export up to 40 diesel submarines by 2015 :
    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090624/155340341.html

    The ethnic cleansing and genocidal actions occuring in the Balkans during the 1990's- that required US and UK led intervention to stop- and which EU member countries refused to do anything about, untill the US/UK played hardball- don't support the willfully naive position that: 'the UK ought to be putting its faith and future resources into a more interwoven EU member-nation defense force, and abandoning its historic allignment across the Atlantic'...

    The UK's armed forces and its defense-related research and development industries need reasonable increases in long-term funding, not intellectually dishonest cop-outs...

    A UK general election is needed now, in part so that hugely long-reaching decisions- that would be very difficult to reverse- regarding the UK's future defence capabilities are not made by a govt- and a small subgroup of govt- whose priorities are its/their survival rather than the country's long-term interests...

    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

  • Comment number 10.

    If The Guardian hope to increase their circulation by means of this scurrilous story I believe they will be sorely disappointed. It is precisely because of their monotonous coverage of New Labour spin and smear that their circulation has plummetted to a mere 350,000.

  • Comment number 11.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 12.

    That's a very American way of spelling 'defence' Mr Louis.

    "The UK's armed forces and its defense-related research and development industries need reasonable increases in long-term funding, not intellectually dishonest cop-outs... "

    Those of us born, brought up and educated in Britain spell some things differently.

    Celtic Lion

  • Comment number 13.

    "But despite all the hoopla in Moscow doesn't the real nuclear threat to world peace come from Iran?"

    Well, no, since they don't have any, unlike Russia, UK, US, CHINA, FRANCE, INDIA, PAKISTAN, North Korea, and of course Israel. Perhaps we need an analogy. Who is the real threat, the group of men waving their guns around with the constant threat they may be used, or the man these same gunmen accuse of wanting to acquire a gun at some point in the future?

    The truth is, if Iran was a US ally, there would be no media fuss over their civilian nuclear program at all. It's all about who the official enemy is, rather than anything else. Journalists who see this are largely excluded from the mainstream media. e.g. John Pilger.

  • Comment number 14.

    SO THAT'S ALRIGHT THEN.

    2 degrees C. Sorted.

  • Comment number 15.

    #7 Barrie

    Just a Few Inches Out?

    What if a newspaper was paying police officers to obtain information by accessing the PNC, vehicle checks etc etc?

    Would that police force want to have an investigation into related phone taps?

  • Comment number 16.

  • Comment number 17.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 18.

    LABOUR ARE TAKING ACTIONS- SURREPTITIOUSLY- TO HUGELY REDUCE THE UK's NUCLEAR DETERRENT 'BEFORE THE US' AND BEFORE THE UK's RECENTLY ANNOUNCED DEFENCE REVIEW EVEN BEGINS:

    PART #2:

    The missile compartments used in Royal Navy Vanguard Trident-missile submarines and in the US Navy's Ohio class Trident-missile carrying submarines are, in effect, modular, coming in '6-pack' (6-Trident-missile-tube modules).

    These '6-pack Trident-missile-type modules' are easily swappable with tactical-weapons/versatile modules that, rather than dedicated to only launching ICBM (Trident) nuclear missiles can instead be used to launch conventional, tactical weapons- such as Tomahawk cruise missiles...

    These tactical-weapons/versatile modules can also be used for launching unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV's), unmanned air vehicles (UAV's), special forces units such as Special Boat Service; US Navy Seals, etc...

    The US Navy's Ohio class successor submarines- when built- are intended to use similar tactical-weapons/versatile modules...

    Why is this relevant to Gordon Brown's recent apparent unilateral decision to substantially under-size the design of the Royal Navy's Vanguard submarine replacements?

    Because if these new vessels are constructed- as the PM has recently decreed- at only 1/2 the size of the US Navy's current Trident carrying Ohio class submarines- they will be needlessly and counterproductively greatly limited in the types of future roles/missions they can be assigned...

    In other words, rather than having the UK's Vanguard successor submarines limited to only being assignable to carrying nuclear missiles- because with their 12 missile tubes each- and consequently very limited on-board space for hardware, armaments, etc- they are only able to be assigned to carrying Trident missiles.... wouldn't it make more sense to have these vessels built large enough to each vessel had space for 24 missile tubes each- and, if circumstances allowed or demanded- use 1/2 (12) for Trident missiles, and the other 1/2 (12) for conventional weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles, UUV's, UAV's, delivery of special forces to missions overseas, etc??

    The UK public deserve considered, open & properly-informed debate among their MP's and representatives regarding the form, capabilities and levels of the country's future nuclear deterrent and its related hardware/subsystems, etc...

    A general election is needed now- before Labour arbitrarily sacrifice the country's future to their apparent self-interest motivated re-election objectives...

    Roderick V. Louis
    Vancouver, BC, Canada,

  • Comment number 19.

    LABOUR ARE TAKING ACTIONS- SURREPTITIOUSLY- TO HUGELY REDUCE THE UK's NUCLEAR DETERRENT 'BEFORE THE US' AND BEFORE THE UK's RECENTLY ANNOUNCED DEFENCE REVIEW EVEN BEGINS:

    PART #3- correction:

    The above paragraph in 'PART 2' that reads:

    "The missile compartments used in Royal Navy Vanguard Trident-missile submarines and in the US Navy's Ohio class Trident-missile carrying submarines are, in effect, modular, coming in '6-pack' (6-Trident-missile-tube modules)...."

    was in error...

    It ought to read:

    "The missile compartments used in the US Navy's Ohio class Trident-missile carrying submarines are, in effect, modular, coming in '6-pack' (6-Trident-missile-tube modules)...."

    Not a big error, but an important one as the US Navy has- during the last 10-years- converted more than half a dozen of their Trident nuclear missile submarines into tactical Tomahawk cruise missile/special forces insertion type submarines...

    The UK has not done this, and, due to the design of Vanguard's, their comparatively small size and since the UK only has 4 Vanguards- and no other methods of delivering nuclear warheads to adversaries- does not have this as an easily facilitateable option...


    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

  • Comment number 20.

    THE TENDENCY TO CORRUPT ABSOLUTELY #16

    Because the default state of Homo Sapiens is 'immature yet clever' - lacking wisdom and philosophy - we are inexorably corrupted by our own being.

    Add to this the paradoxical tendency to aberrance in the rich/powerful of our 'culture', and the die is cast.

    Conditions prevailing in pre-history, evidently, isolated groups whose characteristics diverged. The immature and powerful have seen fit to facilitate/allow/invite a sudden breakdown of nature's boundaries, with no understanding of consequences.

    I am acutely aware of differences in appearance, speech and cultural trappings; I put this down to my early 'isolation' in UK; I suspect I am inherently 'differencist' (especially when fearful or ill). Who will cast the first stone?

    Let's pop a few 'holier-than-thou' multi-culturalist in the all-seeing scanner, and expose what their brains are REALLY perceiving of difference, before they overlay it with hypocrisy, fear or or opportunism, for presentation to barmy Britain.

  • Comment number 21.

    THE CAMPBELLS KEEP COMING - HURRAH!

    Why all the fuss about Prime Ministers with 'unsuitable' close aides? I thought it was de rigeuer in modern Britain?

  • Comment number 22.

    ecolizzy (#16) It's pretty much what's been posted to this blog over the years is it not? Sadly, pointing out the problem and why it's happening (the de-nazification Collective Guilt Campaign which serves one white minority group's economic and hegemonic interests, see yesterday's blog) it doesn't have any impact because people feel ....well... err....guilty about talking about it, no doubt fearing the wrath of blogdog here and there who responds to anonymous posters complaining about a post - now whose interests might that serve....? ;-)

  • Comment number 23.

    The BBC's agenda for today is touting for business on behalf of the sleaziest lawyers on the planet and slandering the police as well as the Tories. Can you sink any lower?

  • Comment number 24.

    barrie (#20) Don't you just love commercial book writers and their odious mates ? ;-)

  • Comment number 25.

    AND THEN THE BLOGDOG PEES ON IT (#22)

    "It's pretty much what's been posted to this blog over the years is it not?"

    That is almost word-for-word what I first thought to post JJ. Then I thought I would dig out an old sermon, and hide it under the 'bushel' that is the NN blog - as a service to the lesser eliminatory function of Blogdog. (:o)

  • Comment number 26.

    WHY NAZIS ARE THE BAD GUYS

    National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the ecopnomically weak...and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system."

    Gregor Strasser (1927)

    The German communist party at that time was Trotskyite (essentially Jewish like the original revolution in Russia, see Hansard links elsewhere, you have Churchill saying so). The German SPD on the other hand (much like New Labour today) was soon to be described by Stalin and the Russian (i.e non-Trotskyite) National Bolsheviks (Socialism in OPne Country like The Fabian's Labour Party - see Webb) as 'social fascists'. This, I suggest, is why there was, in the late 1930s an alliance between the USSR and Germany, i.e. they were BOTH taking on the Jewish Communist International which had been used as anarchists at the end of the First World War to topple the Tsarist state, i.e. to get Russia off Germany's Eastern front .

    Conclusion: something very Machiavellian happened in June 1941 and afterwards and we are still enduring the consequences.

  • Comment number 27.

    well done crick and NN for putting public service before career and breaking the pax romana that journalists don't report on other journalists. It is a worthwhile thing to demonstrate how some in the media, so eager for blood elsewhere, do not follow this story of potential mass criminality up.


    given the power they have i have been amazed at how anonymous many media editors are. how they are allowed to hide in the shadows.

    should the journalists be named? if they were anyone else would there be such a doubt? would they not be dripped out a name a day for the next 20 days?

    its seems the country is going through some kind of purification with each sector [who took a hand in Tony's wars] in turn being exposed? Hundreds of thousands went to their death because of these neocon wars and now their request for justice from the graves is having an effect? which is why it seems unstoppable?

  • Comment number 28.

    YOU HAVE ALL GOT ME PUZZLED POSTERS.

    Isn't the power of Rupert Murdock at the bottom of this story? I mooted at #7 but 'no takers' it seems. Did I miss-hear the whole thing? If Murdock is in the frame, should we not be thinking of hinterland, allegiance, motivation etc?

    In simple terms: if Blair and Brown had to bend the knee, surely Cameron knows which hemisphere is bread is buttered on? He might even hear a 'voice' - it happens to PMs.

  • Comment number 29.

    MR MURDOCK

    Danny Finkelstein does a jolly good job for Mr Murdock and Newsnight's Political panel. On MEP election night, he didn't have very kind words to say about the BNP which made him very popular. Why was that?

    Discuss.

  • Comment number 30.

    #28 Barrie

    But it could be one of those crosswords with two or more sets of clues.

    This is from the Guardian article on Thursday

    "This included 23 illegal searches of the DVLA for the details behind car number plates; two illegal searches of police databases for criminal records;..."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-newspapers-phone-hacking

    So the Met police might not want an investigation if they are involved in supplying information to News International/Group. What does News I/G have on the police?

    Then of course there is the more obvious that politicians, MPs, Select Committes etc are reluctant to investigate News I/G.

    A right Gordian Knot of tangled webs weaved. So to speak.

    Celtic Lion

  • Comment number 31.

    'The UK and other Nato members should take a tougher approach to Russia, the Commons Defence Committee has urged. The MPs said that while co-operation was needed on many issues, it should not mean "accepting the legitimacy of a Russian sphere of influence." '

    Does the committee recognise a US sphere if influence and feel agreements with Venezuela are wrong?

    Did they think that an ally apparently launching an artillery barrage on civilians in Georgia was questionable?

    Was Lugavoi in cahoots with Litvinenko to provide a smidgeon of plutonium to Scaramella in Italy - to provide "evidence" of wrongdoing? Hence that would be why he went off and contaminated his wife and children, he was not trying to kill Litvinenko but was passing him the material?

    I am all for standing up to tyranny and standing by your allies but I am not for the slaughter of civilians or promoting double standards.

    The Russians still have lots of problems in their democracy - shooting journalists for instance - but they should be guardedly encouraged into frienship and not alienated for no clear benefit.

  • Comment number 32.

    'Two men have been jailed after becoming the first in Britain to be convicted of inciting racial hatred online.

    Simon Sheppard, 51, of Selby in North Yorkshire, received four years and 10 months, and Stephen Whittle, 42, of Preston, two years and four months. '

    I assume they are ex-BNP?

  • Comment number 33.

    On the bugging by NoW has there not always been an area of legal greyness that has been known to be exploited?

    I could be wrong but is it the case that somebody can point a parabolic dish at a window to hear the conversation but that is not "bugging" as they have not fixed a device or broken and entered?

    I believe that cordless telephones can be monitored by radio and that is not illegal.

    The Economic League successor (I forget its current incarnation) gets possibly inaccurate information from unknown sources and can use it against individuals - though that chap was arrested the other month but did the CPS proceed?

    It seems to me that possibly we have sleazy journalism due to sleazy politicians and Lords ensuring that privacy is sacrificed in favour of commercial industry interests.

  • Comment number 34.

    #29 Jaded_Jean

    "Danny Finkelstein does a jolly good job for Mr Murdock and Newsnight's Political panel. On MEP election night, he didn't have very kind words to say about the BNP which made him very popular. Why was that?"

    Most people hate the racist BNP thats why! Its a matter of shame that they have elected representatives anywhere.

    But what you are driving at is that he is a Jew. Hoorah I say to multiculturalism.

    You aren't the BNP but promote them every day.

    You are not " a Nazi" - but you would prefer all of the elements of National Socialism to democracy.

    You are not a Holocaust Denier you are agnostic and provide "evidence" for "not having a view" - that is unworthy of being forwarded to the Djemjanjuk trial.



  • Comment number 35.

    thegangofone (#34) "Most people hate the racist BNP thats why!"

    Do you have any evidence for that assertion? After all, two of them were democratically elected as MEPs and overall they polled something like 1 million votes did they not? Doe sthat mean those people who did not vote for them hated them? Do you think many people hate New Labour and the Conservative Party? What about the Monster Raving Loony Party?

    Do you also hate the Chinese Communist Party? Any other parties?

    You seem to have a lot of hatred. Do you look for opportunities to vent this?

  • Comment number 36.

    #26 Jaded_Jean

    'Conclusion: something very Machiavellian happened in June 1941 and afterwards and we are still enduring the consequences.'

    Some may say invading most of Western Europe was not benign and that slaughtering millions of civilians in the process was evil - as was the Holocaust.

    You make racial connections where it suits you. The German communists were "essentially Jewish" means what?

    All Jew were communists AND banking financiers? Then you will diverge to Trotskyism but then use a definition that would lump Tony Blair in with Leon Trotsky.

    The Jews pursue a secret agenda - yet anybody who knows Jews knows there is massive divergence of belief and opinion.

    Look at the number of political parties in Israel - due to a very broad cultural background and not due to PR as its opponents often say.

    Your views are almost identical to Von Bruun the American Friend of BNP who shot a security guard at a Holocaust Memorial in the US and who had a conviction for trying to kidnap a Fed Member - the Fed was part of the "Jewish conspiracy".

    But I thought you people had a new target in the Romany - hence some misguided youths beat up a Romany woman in Belfast with a five day old child?

    Machiavelli?

    Hitler is the gold standard of political evil.

    Newsnight readers endure you.

  • Comment number 37.

    thegangofone (#34) "Hoorah I say to multiculturalism"

    Look up the doctor-patient ratio for Africa and S Asia compared to Europe.

    If all groups had the same properties there wouldn't be a problem, but in fact, culture is a misnomer as cultural practices often relfect biological differences/preferences.

    Say you have two groups of different size where the first group is 200x larger than the second, but the second group has a 4x higher risk of a serious, costly to treat disease, than the first. Should each group contribute equally to fund the treatment of that disease?

    Do you see how it may suit the second group to deny group differences are real? In fact, can you see how they might invest in propaganda to persuade the first group that there are no biologically based group differences.

    In the end, medical treatment has to be paid for at point of delivery by the individual who's genotyped at birth for risk. Can you see how some groups with high risks would campaign against this?

    Like mates with quite-like - it's a genetically programmed thing. It has nothing to do with skin colour alone. It's multivariate aka complicated. See MHC on C6P21.

  • Comment number 38.

    thegangofone (#36) "Some may say invading most of Western Europe was not benign and that slaughtering millions of civilians in the process was evil"

    Germany is in Western Europe. When Germany invaded France, Belgium, Holland etc there wasn't much resistance. Vichy France joined them and not all in the other European countries were that opposed either. In fact, far less than a million allied troops lost their lives in Europe during WWII, and even that didn't begin to happen until after summer 1944 when they invaded Europe. You should try to see it from the German side. They really did think that they were saving Europe from evil. Looking at what's happening today, one ha sto ask, was Germany fighting a just war? Did we make a mistake in going to Poland's aid - it didn't benefit Poland in the end did it?

  • Comment number 39.

    thegangofone (#36) Here's another issue for you to ponder: looking at this breakdown of military, civilian and holocaust deaths in Europe during WWII, ask yourself why there are no memorials or museums for the greater number of non Jewish civilians who died as 'collateral damage', and ask how many Jews served in the armed forces or were moved into areas where there was more intensive fighting.

    Today, there's no excuse for affirmative action for any group on the basis of what happened two generations ago, but there are those who say otherwise, claiming they are still suffering because of what happened to a grandparent they never knew. That's just predatory opportunism.

  • Comment number 40.

    A LITTLE TOO MUCH BURDOCK WITH THE DANDELION (#28)

    I knew that spelling of 'Murdoch' looked a bit odd but was too idle to check. (:-( Sorry to mislead.

  • Comment number 41.

    MrRvLouis

    Thanks for your posts , our news rarely reports such things.

    I also liked your Aircraft Carrier and Type 45 posts, again we rarely get this information on our news.

    Your right about this current Government, if the polls are anything to go by , as soon as the electorate gets a chance to vote them out , they are OUT !

  • Comment number 42.

    barrie (#40) Baaa...happy to follow ;-)

  • Comment number 43.

    #16 ecolizzy and others.

    Thanks for giving attention to the link, though I wont buy the book as it will further inflame my indignation about what is being allowed (encouraged) to happen to our country.

    But I will continue to post here and elsewhere my anger and rebuke toward those political parties that have ignored the present and future consequences of mass immigration and multiculturalism. From this record (and my printed memoirs) my descendants, when they look back on how a great society destroyed itself, will at least know I did not concur.

    Many others, of course, refuse to be silenced by pc and taunts of racism; some have a greater knowledge of history and the science of genetics than I, and although I read and acknowledge the arguments they put forward (dysgenics, IQ and differences in TFR)the one small phrase in the link you supplied that stands out and sums up my feelings is "mass immigration and the formation of large ethnic bodies makes us unhappier as people". I had hoped to enjoy the pursuit of happiness in my retirement, not the massive overpopulation of our streets a services.

    I have worked on aid-funded project in several 3rd-world countries, lived happily with partners from some of them, and married one of them 15 years ago; and I have fought and won 3 Immigration Tribunal Appeals to bring in-laws here. So I am hardly a racist, neither am I against immigration based on sound sponsorship of known individuals by indigents. Like the Inner London boroughs job adverts 'I welcome diversity' but in its own countries - not the mass importation of diverse and often alien cultures that are wrecking our own. Incidentally, the 'foreigners' that I have sponsored are all Filipinas now working in, or studying for, the care industry, and bringing a cultural difference that is sadly no longer a strength of our society - looking after and caring for our older folk. Their IQs may be below the UK average and their TFRs may be higher, but they are contributing in a positive way to or society, respect our laws, speak English, and that's more than can be said for many of the unspnsored, uninvited hordes that continue to flood in. For the statisticians - athough I have increased the population of England by 3 children and 4 immigrants, my son, his wife and 3 grandchildren have wisely emigrated, and I will do likewise next year.

  • Comment number 44.

    Thank you Barrie JJ and Indignantindegene for your comments especially this one... "It's pretty much what's been posted to this blog over the years is it not?" which is right of course!

    I find it utterly depressing to see England disappearing before my very eyes, and a government not prepared to do anything about it.

    I don't suppose this will get past the mods....

    http://www.balancedmigration.com/newsdigest_view.php?file=digest%2Femail20090708.htm

 

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.