Daily Archives: February 2, 2010

Tony Blair should be on trial for war crimes

On the basis of the evidence presented to date my opinion is that Tony Blair is a war criminal. Unless further evidence presented to the Iraq Inquiry can prove otherwise criminal charges should be brought against the former British Prime Minister.

The reasons presented to the House of Commons to invade Iraq by Britain and their masters the United States were fanciful and false. It was all about George W Bush finishing the job his Daddy started. It was all about America getting it’s hands on oil and to control the supply of oil from the region.

Shortly after the invasion American companies were awarded valuable contracts in the region and an American friendly administration were installed.

If anything the extremists who were behind the terrorist attacks in the United States would have viewed Saddam Hussein and his government to be moderate and liberal which is unlike their own political and religious beliefs.

I don’t deny that the Iraqi regime was evil and unstable but many lives have been lost in a war that has cost Billions of pounds and dollars. Young British and American soldiers have been dispatched to the warzone only to return in body bags. Their blood is on Mr Blairs hands.

I will follow this inquiry closely as events unfold.

Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair ‘lied’ and misled Parliament, claims Clare Short

Tony Blair ‘lied’ to his Cabinet and misled Parliament over the war in Iraq, Clare Short, the former international development secretary has said.

Miss Short claimed that Mr Blair broke the ministerial code by misleading Parliament, and accused Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general who gave the “green light” to war, of failing to tell the Cabinet the truth of his reservations about the legality of an invasion.

“I think he misled the Cabinet,” she said. “He certainly misled me. I think for the Attorney General to come and say there’s unequivocal legal authority to go war was misleading.”

When she tried to ask questions in Cabinet, Miss Short was “jeered” at, and Mr Blair told her to “be quiet”.

By then, Miss Short said, Cabinet government had broken down, and ministers were reduced to having “little chats.” She rejected a claim by the ex-prime minister, who gave evidence last week, that “substantive” discussions had taken place, or a formal Cabinet “endorsement” given for the war.

Miss Short disclosed that after deciding to quit in protest at the failure to secure UN support for the invasion, she had booked time with the Speaker of the House of Commons to deliver a resignation statement to Parliament.

But before she could resign, she was talked round by Mr Blair, who did not want her to quit on the same day as the late Robin Cook, the then-Leader of the House.

Two months later, she claimed, she realised that she had been “conned” by Mr Blair, who had assured her that he had persuaded United States President George W Bush to make progress on the Palestine issue, and involve the United Nations in post-conflict planning.

The left-wing MP eventually resigned in May 2003, two months after the invasion, in protest at a “feeble” UN resolution approving aid for Iraq secured by the British and Americans.

Nine months earlier, during a visit to Mozambique, Miss Short said that Mr Blair had “misled” her by denying that he had made preparations for war in Iraq. In fact, the inquiry has heard, he had already held talks with advisers in July of that year.

She said: “He told me in Mozambique ‘I haven’t had a presentation, I will come back to you, don’t worry.’ Clearly that was one of the many misleading things that were said.”

Later, once the decision had been taken to stop seeking a fresh UN mandate for the war, Miss Short said that the then-prime minister and his advisers put the word out that the French had been planning to veto any resolution.

She added: “That was in my view a lie, a deliberate lie. It was one of the big deceits.”

City speed restrictions another reason to shop, work and live in the suburbs

Dublin City Council have made a mockery of speed limits. As a result of their new 30 kilometre per hour speed limit in parts of Dublin City Council they have proved that elected councillors are no longer able to make rational decisions.

I have driven in Dublin yesterday and today. Cyclists passed me out as did pedestrians. I was a danger to myself as my car was going too slow. I think I fell asleep at one stage in my prolonged journey.

The great excuse is that lives will be saved. They won’t.

What will happen is that speeding fines will be issued left right and centre as cars exceed 19 miles per hour on roads capable of supporting twice this and more. This is crazy.

My advice is to avoid the city. Don’t bother coming in it will just cost you penalty points.

It is interesting to read a letter to Madam Editor in the Irish Times:

The reduced speed limit in Dublin

Madam, – I was driving to work on Monday morning observing the new (ridiculous) 30km/h speed limit. As I was trickling along I was overtaken by a senior citizen on a motorised cart. Surely the law applies to these type of vehicles as well? We all have to get to where we are going, but please could Dublin City Council or Minister for Environment John Gormley do something to put an overall restriction on all motorised vehicles and not just against the usual offenders: petrol and diesel. Just because there is no road tax necessary on other vehicles, doesn’t mean that they can’t cause harm. – Yours, etc,

GARRETT CONCANNON,

Woodview Heights,

Dunboyne, Co Meath.

Winter Olympic chiefs on hunt for cheats

I very good friend of mine has lost confidence in sport, he says that it will never be drug free and that sports people are one step ahead of the drug tests.

I have to disagree and say that while there are cheats in sport there are many others who don’t take performing enhancing substances, am I being naive?

I can understand where my friend is coming from. We all remember how world records were broken and we were amazed only then to find out that the competitors had failed drug tests. Such events have taken the spectator edge off many sports as more and more people become cynical of our former heros and their motives.

But lets put this another way. Would you take a pill that would make you the best at your job, would help you climb the corporate ladder quicker and make you wealthy and successful beyond belief? I think many of us if answering this honestly would say yes we would consider it.

Now I’m not suggesting that we should all take performing enhancing pills to make us better at our jobs – and I certainly won’t partake in such – but human nature being as it is means that many of us would.

Then look at it another way, what happens if you are in the minority, you are one of the few not taking performing enhancing drugs in the workplace. Your colleagues have a competitive advantage over you and will rise to the top quicker and will deny you promotion. What do you do?

Again I am not defending cheating but examining the argument for legalising such performance enhancers. Can’t say I like the idea.

But will sports bodies ever prevent performance enhancing drugs from being in sport, will sport ever become 100 per cent clean?

The Boston Globe reports on the hunt for drug cheats in advance of the Winter Olympics.

 

Olympian duel over drugs already underway
Scientists chasing ever-inventive cheats

Kay Lazar – Boston Globe

The Olympic drug police are preparing just as hard as the skiers, boarders, and skaters for the Vancouver Olympic Games, armed with more methods than ever to catch cheaters who try to inject or ingest their way to a gold medal.

But just as quickly as scientists develop sophisticated tests, athletes driven to win discover ways around them.

Antidoping authorities readily admit that cheating probably will occur, and that they won’t be able to detect it in all cases. Some of the most promising technologies for discerning banned performance-enhancement activities won’t be ready or in wide use for these Games, which begin next week.

The drug police face a plethora of performance-enhancing drugs and injection techniques. There are pharmaceuticals to boost red blood cells, steroids to pump up muscles, stimulants to enhance speed, and beta-blockers to reduce tremors in finesse sports, such as shooting in the biathlon.

They are also concerned about gene transfer, a method of manipulation that is not even out of research labs yet, in which human genes are injected to build muscles and power. Some specialists believe it is already being explored by athletes.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in these Games will be nabbing athletes who resort to blood doping – boosting their number of oxygen-rich red blood cells to enhance endurance. Some athletes do it by taking medication that is normally used by anemic cancer and kidney disease patients. The drugs are a synthetic version of a substance naturally produced by the body. Others remove some of their blood, store it, then inject it before competition, a technique that specialists say is nearly impossible to catch.

“You raise the bar with more testing, better tests, and you keep driving nails into the whole process so there is not many more ways a doper can move,’’ said Dr. Don Catlin, who founded the first antidoping lab in the United States in 1982. “But I am amazed at their ingenuity.’’

In December, the World Anti-Doping Agency, an independent body that oversees research and regulations for international sports, released long-awaited guidelines for a radically new approach against blood doping. Called the biological passport, it’s a way to catch cheats by establishing each athlete’s normal levels of various blood components and monitoring for suspicious changes over time.

This kind of testing is voluntary for now, however, and there are logistical challenges to using it widely. “How do you get a blood sample from someone who is training in Argentina atop a 14,000-foot mountain? How do you get blood samples from those folks unannounced?’’ said US Anti-Doping Agency chief science officer Larry Bowers.

The biological passport’s potential was demonstrated in November when the international Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld a two-year ban on competition for German speedskater Claudia Pechstein, a five-time Olympic gold medalist who was sanctioned because of abnormal blood levels detected by blood profiling. Pechstein did not fail traditional tests and has denied doping.

In January, the World Anti-Doping Agency acted to limit the use of platelet-rich plasma, a substance some football players and other professional athletes – reportedly including golfer Tiger Woods – have begun injecting to speed healing. The agency banned its use in muscles, but not in joints and tendons, and the agency’s science director, Olivier Rabin, acknowledged there is no way to distinguish between the uses.

Another kind of blood doping test, for detecting athletes who inject themselves with other people’s blood, is being developed by a Maine scientist, Dr. Bruce Davis, but he said it won’t be ready until 2012.

Precisely how many athletes resort to cheating is an open and gnawing question.

The US Anti-Doping Agency reports that fewer than 1 percent of the 8,532 athlete drug tests conducted in 2008, the most recent year available, were potential doping violations. The 2007 results were similar.

But Catlin believes the true numbers are significantly higher. Catlin directed the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory for 25 years before opening his antidoping research center two years ago.

“For every [cheater] that I found, there were probably five that got away,’’ he said, noting that testing methods have to be conservative to ensure athletes are not falsely accused. That means some cheaters may not get caught.

“I had to watch cases go by me every day where I knew it was positive but something was not perfect and I had to call it a negative and that was very frustrating,’’ Catlin said.

Richard Pound, a member of the International Olympic Committee and the first chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said regulators have for years been a step behind.

“Ginger Rogers was every bit as good as Fred Astaire and she had to do everything backwards. That’s what we face with sports doping,’’ Pound said. “We have to discover what they’re using and then develop a test to detect it.’’

Traditionally, testing has looked for direct evidence of prohibited drugs – an approach that has become especially difficult as sophisticated pharmaceutical products now more closely resemble substances already in the human body.

But sports federations continue to rely on traditional blood and urine testing.

For Tyler Jewell, a 32-year-old US Olympic team snowboarder from Sudbury, drug testing is a hugely inconvenient, but necessary, part of life. Under US Anti-Doping Agency rules, athletes must provide their whereabouts for one hour of every day, up to three months in advance, so unannounced drug testers can find them.

“I have been tested at least five times in the last six months,’’ Jewell said in late December.

“I have pleaded with them to just give me a GPS tracking device,’’ he said. “I was living in a tent one summer and I didn’t have an address. A lot of us live a different lifestyle. We’re snowboarders.’’

Still, Jewell said he understands the need for random testing to spot cheaters and “level the playing field,’’ though he said he doubted many snowboarders use performance-enhancing drugs.

Some athletes, however, are so eager to find an edge that they have called scientists who develop treatments for debilitating diseases by boosting muscle power or endurance, seeking information and offering themselves up as research subjects.

Among these scientists is Ronald Evans, a molecular physiologist at the Salk Institute in California, who pinpointed two compounds that dramatically boost endurance and increase fat-burning ability. Even before news of his findings was released in 2008, Evans worked with the World Anti-Doping Agency to develop a test that screens athletes’ blood and urine for the tiniest traces of the substances.

The compounds have not been released commercially – Evans has yet to test them in humans. Still, he routinely receives letters from athletes.

“Mostly it’s runners and cyclists,’’ Evans said in a recent phone interview. “Although I have had some college basketball players write letters being pretty direct: ‘If I take growth hormone and EPO [an anemia drug that boosts red blood cells], will your drug help on top of that?’ ’’

Banks are ripping off loyal customers

The Irish Banks need to realise that the people are angry. Mortgage holders are being punished for the sins of others but due to their own circumstances such as negative equity they have been placed in a difficult position.

Banks would rather have mortgage holders fall into arrears rather than deal with the costs of running their own businesses.

To put this very simply let’s just say that I have a sweet shop. Due to my lifestyle which includes my sports car, big house and exotic holidays I have had to increase the price of my products sold in the shop. With competition I will go bust but without competition I will get away with it.

In a real economy if the banks are losing money they cut their costs rather than increasing the cost of doing business with them because in a real economy the business will go elsewhere.

Banks need to address their costs. They need to look at their overheads such as salaries, premises and running costs. This is how real businesses are run.

The Irish Independent report:

Banks punish own mortgage customers for their loyalty

Charlie Weston – Irish Independent

SOME banks are charging their own customers far more for fixed-rate mortgages than new borrowers, the Irish Independent has learned.

A number of lenders were last night accused of discrimination after it emerged they were charging some of the highest rates for existing customers who wanted to lock in to a fixed-rate home loan.

But new customers are able to avail of rates that are up to an unprecedented 2pc cheaper.

Permanent TSB, Bank of Ireland and KBC Homeloans have been accused of punishing customers for being loyal because they charge higher fixed-rate mortgages to existing custo- mers.

Thousands of people want to lock in to fixed rates following the move by Permanent TSB (PTSB) to increase its standard variable rate by 0.5pc, with others expected to follow.

Some fixed rates are at historically low levels.

But mortgage brokers said some of the rates being offered to existing customers who wanted to fix were so high that it did not make fixing worthwhile.

PTSB offers a new customer the option of fixed for five years at 3.7pc, but an existing customer who wants to lock in to the five-year fixed rate will be charged 5.75pc.

There is a difference of €293 a month in the repayments on a €250,000 mortgage over 30 years between the two rates.

Consumer watchdogs said the higher rates being imposed on existing mortgage holders seeking to fix their mortgages was an attempt to stop people fixing their mortgage rate.

“People need to be aware that there is crazy mortgage pricing going on out there,” Consumers’ Association chief executive Dermott Jewell said.

He also accused the mortgage industry of confusing people by offering different rates depending on what percentage of the value of the home was being borrowed. The introduction of so-called tiered loan to value rates were hugely confusing for consumers.

The Irish Independent last week revealed that around 350,000 homeowners have standard variable-rate mortgages, on which banks are free to increase the rates whenever they want.

Switching mortgages is no longer an option for many homeowners as most of those who took out mortgages in the past few years are in negative equity. This is where they owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth.

A spokesman for PTSB said that it had always had discounted rates for new customers and denied it was punishing its existing customers now that it had raised its rates.

He stressed that the 3.7pc rate over five years was only available to new customers borrowing less than 50pc of the value of their home.

A spokeswoman for Bank of Ireland admitted it offered lower rates to new customers, but said this was done to help new buyers with the “additional costs which they incur” when they bought a first home.