Autumn Of Strikes Edges Closer

Unions have moved closer to an autumn of strikes as the Government was warned it faces a huge campaign of civil disobedience over spending cuts and "attacks" on workers' rights.













Millions of public sector workers could be taking industrial action in protest at planned changes to their pensions, possibly on November 29, when the Government announces its autumn financial statement.

An announcement could made within days of widespread ballots for action, heralding the biggest outbreak of industrial unrest for decades.

Plans to co-ordinate industrial action will be discussed at the TUC on Wednesday, but sources said a large number of unions were now moving towards balloting for strikes.

At the conference on Monday, delegates agreed to consider a legal challenge against the coalition, alleging breaches of international labour law, and to campaign against "anti-union" legislation.

Officials lined up to attack the Government over its spending cuts and moves to strengthen laws against strikes and other forms of union action.

Paul Kenny, leader of the GMB union, said that if the Government brings in more laws, it would be in response to strikes against public sector pensions, which he warned looked set to be joined by millions of workers.

He said: "Bad laws have to be broken. Civil disobedience in protest at erosion of civil liberties and freedoms have a place in our history. Millions of people inside and outside of trade unions can and will fight. If going to prison is the price to pay for standing up to bad laws, then so be it.

"We will give politicians the biggest campaign of civil disobedience their tiny minds have ever seen."

Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, said unions should not "meekly accept" anti-union laws, adding: "If tax avoidance is lawful and unpunished, let's plan for anti-union law avoidance in the same spirit."

Ministers 'Could Get Powers To Overrule European Court Of Human Rights'

A commission set up by the government to examine ECHR reforms has floated the idea of allowing ministers to strike out court rulings.












Judges of the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 hearing a case relating to the Russian oil firm Yukos.

The European Court of Human Rights could have its powers downgraded by handing ministers across the continent the right to strike down rulings under plans being examined by the British government.

A commission set up by the government to examine reforms to the Strasbourg-based ECHR has floated the idea of handing ministers and parliamentarians on the Council of Europe the right to override rulings of the court.

The suggestion by the commission on a Bill of Rights, in a letter to Nick Clegg and Kenneth Clarke, was published as ministers made clear that the court needed to undergo wide-ranging reforms. Clarke, who is the most pro-European Tory member of the cabinet, told MPs on Wednesday there were "important decisions" to be made about the workings of the court.

Sir Leigh Lewis, the chair of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, showed the depth of thinking about the future of the court when he said that the 2010 Interlaken Declaration on the future of the ECHR raised the possibility that other institutions of the Council of Europe could qualify the European Convention on Human Rights. The 47-strong Council of Europe, which is separate from the EU, is the continent's human rights watchdog. Its European Court of Human Rights enforces the European Convention on Human Rights.

In his letter, Lewis wrote of the proposed change: "This could allow the effect of a court decision to be overridden if such was the will of the parliamentary assembly or committee of ministers, or perhaps of both acting collectively. A variant of this approach might be a power in the committee of ministers to determine that a court judgment should not be enforced if it considered that that course of action was desirable and justifiable in the light of a clear expression of opinion by the relevant member state's most senior democratic institution. Another variant could be a requirement in respect of proposed ground-breaking findings of violations for the court first to consult the other Council of Europe institutions and for the court to take a collective expression of opinion into account."

But Lewis, who said that one member of his commission had insisted that a proposal on guaranteeing the democratic legitimacy of the court must be included in the interim advice to ministers, warned that his proposal had not been yet fully considered. He also said there were critics.

"Those opposed to this concept argue that any possibility of override is fundamentally inconsistent with the rule of law inherent in the convention system and with the concept of the convention as a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. They ask how, if a right or freedom is fundamental, it can be right to allow any legislature, however democratic, to override it.

"They point, for example, to the fact that there are examples in history of discriminatory laws being passed by democratically elected assemblies. They note that the ECHR as a judicial body is an essential protection against majorities voting to discriminate against minorities."

Government Can't Rewrite Nature And Allow Gays To Wed - O'Brien

The leader of Scotland's Catholic community has warned that moves by MSPs to legalise gay marriage will be "strenuously opposed" by the Church.







Keith O'Brien said any attempt to redefine marriage would be ‘strenuously opposed'.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, in a strongly worded homily delivered at a mass for politicians in Edinburgh last night, claimed that allowing gay people to wed through a civil or religious ceremonies would be a "direct attack" on the institution of marriage.

However, the intervention sparked criticism from MSPs, with the openly gay leader of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie, attacking the Cardinal's remarks as "absurd" and as an attempt to "suppress" the freedom of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

The row came after the SNP government launched a 14-week consultation on allowing gay marriage - a change to the law that currently allows same-sex couples to enter a civil partnership, but bans the ceremony from church or other religious premises.

However, Cardinal O'Brien suggested that supporters of gay marriage wanted to "rewrite human nature" as he appealed to MSPs to oppose the proposed reform.

He said: "The Church esteems the institution of marriage as the most stable building block upon which any family can rest.

"The view of the Church is clear, no government can rewrite human nature; the family and marriage existed before the State and are built on the union between a man and woman.

"Any attempt to redefine marriage is a direct attack on a foundational building block of society and will be strenuously opposed."

There was also a sharply worded statement issued by the Bishops' Conference of Scotland yesterday, which suggested that the Scottish Government's consultation was "an exercise for justifying the campaign demands" of the "vociferous" gay rights lobby.

But Green MSP Mr Harvie attacked the Catholic Church's stance on gay rights and highlighted a Scottish Social Attitudes survey which revealed 60 per cent believe same-sex couples should have the right to marry.

"It's absurd to suggest that one marriage can undermine other marriages," he said.

"Just as non-Catholics respect Catholic marriages, so it's time for the Cardinal to start respecting the right of every adult to love who they please.

"The Cardinal should also remember that he doesn't speak for all people of faith, or even all Christians.

"There are many faith groups who want to conduct same-sex marriages for their members, and the Catholic Church seems determined to try and suppress their freedom to do so."

SNP MSP John Mason, who faced criticism for lodging a parliamentary motion that said no-one should be "forced" to approve of same-sex marriage, said he wanted "to encourage churches" to get involved in the debate about the proposals.

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "Our consultation, published last week, sets out that the Scottish Government tends towards the initial view that same-sex marriage should be introduced in Scotland but that faith groups and their celebrants should not be obliged to solemnise same sex marriages."

Baha Mousa Inquiry: MoD's Guilt For Death Of Army's Iraqi Prisoner

Nineteen soldiers could face criminal charges for their role in the death of an innocent Iraqi man after a public inquiry found he was the victim of “appalling and cowardly” violence while in British custody.












Baha Mousa with his son.

Military and civilian prosecuting authorities are examining the findings of a three-year inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist who died after a 36-hour ordeal at the hands of British soldiers in Basra in September 2003. Nine other civilians were bound, hooded and subjected to “serious, gratuitous violence”.

The inquiry, chaired by Sir William Gage, a retired judge, found the Ministry of Defence guilty of a “corporate failure” to uphold basic standards by allowing rules to go “largely forgotten”. While clearing the soldiers’ unit, the 1st Bn Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, of having an “entrenched culture of violence”, he said it was clear the abuses were not a one-off.

Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, said the events described in the report were “deplorable, shocking and shameful” and instructed the head of the Army to take action against any serving personnel who were involved.

Three serving soldiers, including an officer, have already been suspended from duty as a result of the inquiry.

Dr Fox told the Commons: “Baha Mousa was not a casualty of war. His death occurred as a detainee in British custody – it was avoidable and preventable and there can be no excuses. There is no place in our Armed Forces for the mistreatment of detainees and there is no place for a perverted sense of loyalty that turns a blind eye to wrongdoing or erects a wall of silence to cover it up.”

The 1,400-page report details how the victims spent a day and a half with bags tied around their heads while being forced to stand in “stress positions” – practices banned under both domestic law and the Geneva Conventions.

Last night the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Peter Wall, said the incident “cast a dark shadow” over the reputation of the Army while David Cameron condemned the “truly shocking and appalling” abuse which he said should never be repeated.

The £13 million inquiry singled out 19 soldiers whom it concluded were directly involved in the abuse, including some who have already faced unsuccessful prosecution at court martial.

Lawyers for families of the victims said there was potentially the evidence to bring new prosecutions against all of them in the civilian courts. It emerged last night that three soldiers serving in the Army, including an officer, had been suspended from duties and MoD sources believed another 11 former servicemen could also face charges.

The suspended officer, Maj Mike Peebles of the Intelligence Corps, would face a second court martial if Army prosecutors believed there was sufficient new evidence. He was originally acquitted of negligently performing a duty during a court martial in 2007 when he was among six soldiers to walk free after the effective collapse of a £20 million case.

Only Cpl Donald Payne, named as committing some of the worst abuses, was convicted at the original court martial after pleading guilty to inhumane treatment. He was cleared of manslaughter but jailed for a year. Six others, including the regiment’s former commanding officer, Col Jorge Mendonça, were cleared of charges.

Yesterday both he and Maj Peebles were singled out as bearing “heavy responsibility” for what happened. Several soldiers who were not involved in the original court martial are among those who could now face prosecution.

This could include a large number of men who have left the Forces.

Dr Fox said efforts were already under way to determine whether “more can be done to bring those responsible to justice”. He told MPs that the MoD’s Iraq Historic Allegations Team had found evidence of “some concern” and cases would be passed to the Director of Service Prosecutions where there was “sufficient” evidence. Any eventual cases would be likely to be brought by the Crown Prosecution Service as most of the men were now civilians. Sapna Malik, a lawyer representing the Iraqi families, said they “expect” both military and civilian prosecuting authorities to act.

Despite the criticism, Dr Fox rejected a key recommendation in the report for a blanket ban on so-called “harsh” questioning methods, warning that lives could be put at risk unless the Forces could deploy all “necessary” techniques.

Shopkeeper Florist Raid Case: Ministers Plan Overhaul Of Self Defence Laws

Pressure is mounting on the government to speed up new legislation on self defence clarifying the law on self-defence in England in the wake of cases such as those of shopkeeper Cecil Coley












72-year-old shopkeeper Cecil Coley.












Police officers guard a house in Salford after a suspected burglar was stabbed to death during a break-in.












Police officers at the murder scene on Ethel Avenue in Salford.

Ministers are planning to clarify the law on self-defence in England, after a string of cases where home owners have faced prosecution for defending their property.

The arrest of Mr Coley, 72, on suspicion of murder following the death of Gary Mullings, 30, who had broken into his shop in Old Trafford placed the issue back in the national media spotlight.

Last month’s stabbing came just days after the Crown Prosecution Service decided no charges should be brought against householder Peter Flanagan, 59, who was arrested on suspicion of murder after the fatal stabbing of a burglar.

John Bennell, 27, was attacked after he broke into his home in, Pendlebury, Salford, in June.

The incident occurred just a few miles from Mr Coley's store in Old Trafford, Manchester.

The incidents led to calls for the Government to speed up new legislation clarifying the law on self-defence in England.

Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, had earlier said that householders who used “whatever force necessary” against intruders would not be committing a criminal offence .

David Cameron has also promised that the new Justice Bill would "put beyond doubt that home owners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted".

Under the current law, home owners who use “reasonable force” – which is no more than is absolutely necessary – to protect themselves against intruders should not be prosecuted.

In late June Mr Clarke spelt out the sort of action that would be permitted under the new regime.

He made clear that it would remain illegal to pursue intruders to attack them or to shoot them as they fled.

Speaking about a person’s right to self-defence in their homes, Mr Clarke said there was "constant doubt" about the issue and the proposed legislation would make this "much clearer".

The Justice Secretary said: "It's quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes.

"If an old lady finds she has got an 18 year-old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him, she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear.

“We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so."

He added: “We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force.

"Nobody should prosecute and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes those steps."

Labour said the law was "already clear" and the remarks were a "smokescreen" to hide confusion over sentencing changes.

Two-Thirds Of Schools Ignore Legal Requirement To Provide Daily Act Of Worship

Most schools ignore the legal requirement to hold a daily act of worship for their pupils, a new study has found.

Almost two-thirds of parents told a survey that their children do not attend a daily act of collective worship at school.

And a majority of people thinks that the law on daily worship on schools should be no longer be enforced.















Assembly: But two-thirds of schooldchildren do not attend a daily act of worship.

A Church of England spokesman pointed out that the BBC Local Radio poll did not differentiate between primary and secondary schools, and argued that most primary schools do have collective worship or a daily period of reflection.

'The law states that all maintained schools must provide a daily act of collective worship, with the exception of those withdrawn by their parents,' he said.


















Praying: The Church of England says that collective worship promotes pupils' 'spiritual, moral, social and cultural development'.

'The Church of England strongly supports this - although it is not its job to enforce it - as it provides an important chance for the school to focus on promoting the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of its pupils.

'Collective worship is when pupils of all faiths and none come together to reflect - it should not be confused with corporate worship when everyone is of the same belief.'

However, 60 per cent of the public do not support enforcing the law which prescribes a daily act of worship in all state schools, with older people more favourable towards the law than the young.

A small majority (51 per cent) of those aged 65 or over believe it should be enforced, but only 29 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds agree.

Following the release of these findings, National Secular Society executive Keith Porteous Wood called for the law on collective daily worship to be repealed, saying it infringed pupils' human rights.

'As the BBC survey confirms, the law requiring daily collective worship is being widely flouted, and because the law should not be brought into disrepute in this way, it should be repealed,' he said.

'England is the only country in the western world to enforce participation in daily worship in community schools.

'To do so goes beyond the legitimate function of the state and is an abuse of children’s human rights, especially those who are old enough to make decisions for themselves.'

The survey was carried out by telephone in July and interviewed over 1,700 adults, including 500 parents with children at school in England.

New Libya May Refuse To Extradite Yvonne Fletcher Murder Suspect

Diplomat suspected of killing police officer in 1984 at London embassy could escape extradition, but might be tried in Libya.












Police officers try to revive PC Yvonne Fletcher after she was shot outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984 during an anti-Gaddafi protest. Libyan officials say the suspect might not be extradited.

The justice minister of the Libyan rebels' National Transitional Council (NTC) said on Friday a post-Gaddafi government would "not give any Libyan citizen to the west", in an apparent blow to British hopes of putting on trial the suspected killer of Yvonne Fletcher, the police officer shot dead 27 years ago outside the Libyan embassy.

Mohammed al-Alagi also ruled out the return to the UK of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing but released in 2009 on compassionate grounds.

"Al-Megrahi has already been judged once and he will not be judged again," he told journalists in Tripoli. "We do not hand over Libyan citizens, [Muammar] Gaddafi does."

Alagi added: "We will not give any Libyan citizen to the west," a comment that appeared to rule out the extradition of the man suspected of shooting Fletcher in 1984.

Earlier on Sunday, the foreign secretary, William Hague, played down suggestions that the NTC would not work with British officials in their the hunt for her killer. He said: "When chairman [Mustafa Abdel] Jalil … was with us in London in May he committed himself and the council to co-operating fully with the British government on this issue."

Hague was responding to a report in the Sunday Times that quoted two NTC officials saying nobody would be sent to the UK to face trial for Fletcher's killing.

"Libya has never extradited or handed over its citizens to a foreign country. We shall continue with this principle," said Hassan al-Sagheer, a member of the NTC.

Another NTC member, Fawzi al-Ali, was quoted as saying: "According to our laws, no one can be handed over unless there are special agreements to do so."

A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office said that, at present, Libyan law prohibits the extradition of its own citizens. It does, however, allow for its nationals to be tried in Libya for crimes committed overseas.

Guma el-Gamaty, the NTC's UK co-ordinator, took part in the anti-Gaddafi protest that Fletcher was policing when she was shot.

He distanced himself from the views expressed by Sagheer and others, insisting on Sunday that it was too early to draw any conclusions. "Nobody can rule out anything at the moment; the possibility [of a British trial] is there," he said. "But first of all investigations need to be concluded. Somebody has to be identified as the killer … Obviously everyone wants justice; it's just a matter of when and how and whether the actual killer has been identified."

Gamaty added that, as with the Fletcher case, the issue of an eventual return to Scottish jail for Megrahi was "a decision for a future Libyan government". The whereabouts of Megrahi, who was given a hero's welcome when he returned to Libya two years ago, are unknown.

No one has ever been charged for killing Fletcher, who was 25 when officials inside the Libyan embassy opened fire on the anti-Gaddafi protesters outside.

Embassy staff were subsequently allowed to leave Britain, but diplomatic ties with Libya were severed.

Those seeking justice for Fletcher, however, were given a boost on Friday when it emerged that the Crown Prosecution Service had heard a witness account that identified a junior diplomat, Abdulmagid Salah Ameri, as the possible gunman.

On Saturday, the international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, said the emergence of a new suspect would be raised with the NTC. The government would, he said, be pursuing the case "in every way we can".

Labour Seeks Law Change To Stop News Corp Renewing BSkyB Bid

Fears that Rupert Murdoch could reopen bid prompts 'public interest test' motion by shadow culture secretary Ivan Lewis.












Labour's proposals would prevent Rupert Murdoch renewing his BSkyB bid until the outcome of the Leveson inquiry.

Labour is trying to secure cross-party support for an emergency change in the law to prevent News Corporation from renewing its bid to take full ownership of BSkyB.

In a move designed to capitalise on the embarrassment the phone-hacking scandal has heaped on the government, Labour said there was still a possibility that Rupert Murdoch could reopen his bid and the law should be changed to allow ministers to block it. Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, will introduce a negative motion when parliament returns next week, which – if approved by all parties – could go ahead without a vote.

He has written to the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and the Lib Dem culture spokesman, Don Foster, with his proposals. The aim would be to introduce a new public interest test applicable to media barons to rule people out based on their conduct.

Under Labour's proposed amendments to Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002, ministers would be given the necessary powers to ask regulators to apply a wide-ranging public interest test. Ministers would be also be able to intervene at any stage in the process if new information came to light.

Lewis said: "These measures are necessary to ensure that while we wait for the outcome of the Leveson inquiry, no changes in media ownership can occur which are not in the public interest.

"It is essential we learn lessons from the BSkyB fiasco so that media integrity is the top priority when considering future ownership and merger changes.

"Ultimately, there is a strong case for removing politicians from media ownership and merger decisions. But, in the meantime, we must act to address the legal ambiguities which allowed Jeremy Hunt to disregard growing public concern and damaged public trust in the credibility of the decision making process."

In his letter to Hunt, Lewis argued that ministers should be removed from the approval process in the long term, but that while the existing legislation was in place emergency moves were urgently needed to close the loophole that could allow Murdoch to simply bid again for control of BSkyB. The negative motion will be laid in both houses of parliament when they return on 5 September.

The Law Is 'Avin A Laugh – But The Joke Is On Britain

Europe's stand on human rights is too often a kick in the gut for the victims of crime.












Justice for all? Philip Lawrence (left) and his killer, Learco Chindamo.

'They drive me mad, too.” That’s what the Prime Minister told me in a more innocent time, before the riots. Back in April, I was sitting in Number 10, reading him a list of the human rights abuses that drive the public to despair. I don’t mean abuses under the Human Rights Act 1998. I mean abuses of the rights of humans whose children have been mown down by foreign drivers with no licence, humans whose husbands have been stabbed to death. Humans still astounded by grief who have to attend a British court and hear a judge tell them that the conscienceless wretch who extinguished their happiness cannot be deported post haste or hurled, preferably, over the white cliffs of Dover. No, the wretch must be allowed to remain in our country because they have the right to “a family life”.

I keep a shoebox stuffed with newspaper cuttings about such cases. They bring to mind the Ricky Gervais catchphrase, “Are you ’avin a laugh?” On Saturday, I added another surreal snippet to the pile. The Court of Appeal in its wisdom had just torn up powers that allowed judges to ban convicted paedophiles from unfettered access to their children. Apparently, the paedophile’s right to a family life must be taken into account, even if the kids in question fear Dad’s tread at the bedroom door. Are their honours ’avin a laugh?

Our judges’ ever-widening definition of what constitutes “family life” almost dislocated my jaw recently when a Bolivian immigrant escaped deportation because he owned a pet cat with his girlfriend. We cannot know the name of the moggy, let alone the Bolivian, but Judge Judith Gleeson joked that the cat “need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice”. Was she ’avin a laugh?

Here’s another. In a landmark ruling, Strasbourg judges decided that two Somali men, who had abused our hospitality by robbery, drug dealing and threats to kill, could not be deported because there was a possibility they might face “ill treatment” at home. Remember the case of Mustafa Jama who was was convicted for his part, along with two other Somalians, in the murder of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky in November 2005? Jama, who had previous convictions for robbery and burglary, had been considered for deportation shortly before that tragic shooting, but officials decided it was “too dangerous” for him to return to Somalia. After the cold-blooded killing of Sharon – mother to Samuel, Lydia and Paul – in a Bradford travel agency, Jama evaded capture for four years by fleeing to… guess where? Yup, Somalia. The very place his lawyers had claimed it was unsafe for him to return to. Were they ’avin a laugh? Sharon’s widower, Paul, certainly wasn’t. He said his wife would never have been murdered if “do-gooders” hadn’t kept her killer in Britain.

Why are we powerless to send these frightening, violent individuals back to where they came from? Because, according to the European Court, it’s too frightening and violent. Anything I’m missing here, chaps? Are our learned friends in Strasbourg ’avin a laugh? If so, there is no longer a shred of doubt that the joke is on the British people. A nation that carried the torch of liberty with Magna Carta, parliamentary sovereignty, judicial independence, Press freedom, habeas corpus and trial by jury needs no lessons in justice from its pious neighbours, who loaded Jews, gipsies and homosexuals into cattle trucks. The waffly preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights speaks of “countries which have a common heritage of political traditions, ideas, freedom and the rule of law”. Well, we don’t have a common heritage or laws. As the distinguished QC Geoffrey Robertson has pointed out, torture was a prescribed part of the Continental legal process for centuries after it was abolished in England in 1641. It was Great Britain, not Europe, that taught the world how to right human wrongs.

The riots have made scrapping the Human Rights Act more urgent. More than 150 people born abroad have been arrested so far. Immigration minister Damian Green said: “We strongly believe that foreign national lawbreakers should be removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity.” Good luck with that, Damian. You do realise the poor darlings can’t possibly leave the country, don’t you? They’ve got pussy cats to look after and drug addicts to supply.

While judges increasingly warp Article 8 of the Convention in favour of villains, why do they never seem to consider the right to a family life of people like Frances Lawrence and the four children she had with headmaster Philip? In 2007, the Home Office failed to secure the deportation of Learco Chindamo, Mr Lawrence’s murderer. An Asylum and Immigration Tribunal insisted that to deport the Italian-Filipino would breach his human rights. Like Paul Beshenivsky, Frances Lawrence was aghast to discover that the needs of her spouse’s killer outweighed those of her bereft family.

Chindamo, who was cleared in court yesterday of a street robbery, is a cocky youth who, like so many, had been emboldened by the knowledge that wrongs, however grievous, will never prevent him having human rights on his side. He is one of thousands of foreign-born criminals who have humiliated the Home Office and who have shown with brutal clarity that the law of the land is not ours, for what Briton in their right mind would put the domestic comfort of a murderer before the safety of their fellow citizens?

This is what Cameron was getting at in his forceful speech following the riots. He noted how the “greed and thuggery” could not be separated from the “growing sense that individual rights come before anything else… I am determined we get a grip on the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights.”

Three cheers for those noble words, Prime Minister, but what the hell are you going to DO about it? In Opposition, Cameron pledged to scrap the Human Rights Act “so we can throw foreign terrorists and criminals out of our country”. When I asked him about it in April, he looked exasperated. “Obviously, this is something which is more difficult in Coalition. I won’t hide that from you. The Liberal Democrats have a different view on the Human Rights Act.” He assured me the Government was setting up a commission to look into a British Bill of Rights. What he omitted to tell me was that Nick Clegg would be in charge of it. I’m sorry, but allowing the Deputy Prime Minister to head a body to scrap the Human Rights Act is like appointing a vegan to the Texas Beef Council.

Tensions in the Coalition are said to be running high with senior Lib Dems warning the PM not to “water down” Britain’s commitment to human rights. Good. Let battle commence. Some things are worth fighting for. As a sop to his Coalition partners, Cameron permitted a referendum on the AV voting system, a notion commanding such widespread support that only Eddie Izzard and five blind jugglers in Camden voted for it. So why can’t we have a referendum on something the public feels passionate about? Like a British Bill of Rights.

The PM could do himself and the country a power of good by jettisoning a law that makes a mockery of the very justice it is intended to dispense. To stiffen his resolve, here are some sage words from a predecessor in Number 10. “We are with Europe but not of it; we are linked but not compromised. We are associated but not absorbed. If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.”

Winston Churchill’s words are as relevant as they were on May 11, 1953. The time for Strasbourg ’avin a laugh at our expense must end. The case for a British Bill of Rights is overwhelming. Human rights can be wrongs.

When forgiveness goes a step too far

All together now, “Serm taymes it’s hurd to bay a wurman.” Tammy Wynette’s ballad of female loyalty, Stand By Your Man, was much mocked by feminists. Some thought Tammy was really singing, “Stabbed By Your Man” or the equally catchy “Let Me Be Your Doormat, You Cheating Bastard.” Wynette pointed out that the song was not actually about subservience, but rather advice to women to overlook their husband’s faults if they truly loved them. “Aftur ol, he’s jusst ur may-an.”

I have come to see the wisdom in Tammy’s approach. Forgiveness is good. Even so, the nauseating sight of French heiress and journalist Anne Sinclair standing by her man, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, sets a new low. The former IMF chief may have been acquitted of attempted rape against a hotel maid, but is there anyone who can look at that swaggering silverback primate without a shudder? Ugh.

In the unlovely phrase of Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers, the encounter with Nafissatou Diallo was “brief but consensual”. Whatever the truth, we can be sure that the man who planned to be France’s president rampaged out of the hotel bathroom with only a droit de seigneur to cover his Tour Eiffel. Applying the indulgent term “Lothario” or “libertarian lover” to a priapic bully won’t do any more.

Anne Sinclair is badly out of step with her fellow countrywomen. France is unlikely ever to be the same again post-DSK. There has been a big increase in reports of sexual harassment. Sylvie Kauffmann, the first female editor of Le Monde, says: “There is a tendency among men to pretend that nothing has happened. In the establishment mind, this issue is not very important. But I would bet that the average voter may feel differently.”

Let’s hope Frenchwomen treat DSK’s political ambitions with all the tender concern he showed the hotel maid. And shame on his indulgent wife. If Tracey Emin needed a tent to contain the names of all the people she had slept with, DSK needs a marquee.

News Of The World Police Corruption Scandal Arrests

Andy Coulson 43, former News of the World editor (NoW), and former aide to the Prime Minister David Cameron, was released on bail after being arrested in a Scotland Yard police officer bribery case and nine hours of interrogation.














Coulson was arrested by detectives of Operation Weeting, set up to investigate phone hacking and spying on the private lives and Voicemails of thousands of people.

Operation Weeting detectives are contacting all those whose personal details were found in documents connected with the NoW seized in 2006 in Operation Elveden that was investigating alleged police corruption and alleged payments to corrupt Scotland Yard police officers.

Rebekah BrooksRebekah Brooks who was ironically in charge of the NoW's own inquiry into the scandal has been replaced by Joel Klein a senior executive of News Corporation.

Mr David Cameron is trying to save face over employing Coulson said that new inquiries were going on into the scandal as to "why did the first police investigation fail so abysmally; what exactly was going on at the News of the World and what was going on at other newspapers" when the answer to this question is obvious. Corrupt police officers in 2006 wanted to avoid unearthing evidence of their own corruption!

Talking about his employment of Coulson as his personal aide the Prime Minister said: "I decided to give him a second chance but the second chance didn't work. The decision to hire him was mine and mine alone."

Labour leader Ed Miliband replying to the Prime Minister's excuse said: "His wholly unconvincing answers of what he knew and when he knew it about Mr Coulson's activities undermine his ability to lead the change that Britain needs."

Ofcom the broadcasting regulator has questioned the proposed takeover of satellite broadcaster BSkyB by Rupert MurdochRupert Murdoch's News Corporation, publisher of the NoW in a statement to the chairman of the Commons Culture Committee asking whether Murdoch is a "fit and proper" person to hold a broadcasting licence.

In America the coverage of the British phone hacking scandal is gathering momentum and Brett Pulley, media correspondent for the Bloomberg news agency in New York, said: “If the fall out were to continue, my goodness, if it were to impact, then we start to talk about it impacting News Corp’s succession plan, so that affects the company globally.”

As the scandal reverberated around the US, BSkyB’s share price dropped to 750p yesterday, down 7.6 per cent at a five-month low and wiping £1 billion off the value of the company.

So it is quite a possibility now that if the bankers get nervous then it may not only be the demise of the 168 year old NoW but Murdoch himself!

Despite Murdoch's plan to destroy the NoW and start a clone, Renault, which spent £266,000 advertising in the News of the World from January to May this year said that a ban on advertising with Murdoch will stay in place "until further notice" and other big advertisers are pulling out too...

Meanwhile in the UK there is a rumour emanating from Scotland Yard that Rupert Murdoch himself maybe arrested and charged.