February 2009


As Sheffield Anarchists, we're here today to support Residents Against
Station Closure and their fight against East Midlands Trains closing off
access to our station. We support RASC because the arguments they make are
true: this will make access much harder for disabled people and those with
young children, as well as closing off a vital route for local residents and
workers. But as anarchists, we also think that this is a bigger issue than
just ticket barriers.

Over the last few years, we've seen public spaces in Sheffield grow more and
more closed off and regulated. As the old city centre is torn down to make
way for new glossy corporate investments, any hint of individuality has to
be driven out. The eviction of the Matilda Social Centre, and other, more
short-lived attempts to set up social centres, are just one example of this.
We've also seen an increase in CCTV, in “community support officers” who
harass bored teenagers in an attempt to distract attention from the fact
that they don't actually have any real powers to fight crime, and other
similar forms of control. And this isn't just a local issue: the
government's plans for ID cards and national databases show the kind of
total power over our lives they hope to get – if we'll let them.

This certainly isn't just a government problem – as these tickets barriers
show, big companies are equally keen to crack down on our freedom of
movement and access to public space, especially if there's a chance they'll
make a bit of money out of it. Sheffield Anarchist Federation want to help
win the fight against ticket barriers, but we also want to see it as the
start of a much wider campaign for free spaces and freedom of movement.

If you'd like to get involved and discuss how we can take the fight for free
space forward, contact:
sheffield@af-north.org http://www.yorks-afed.org/
For the official campaign against station closures, see: rasc2008@live.com
http://rasc-sheffield.com/

Suggest to the ordinary “man in the street” the notion that this country’s well along the path to becoming a police state and likely as not he’ll laugh at you.

Ask the ordinary “man in the street” what role he believes the police play in society and likely as not he’ll answer something along the lines of “maintaining law and order”.

Put to him the notion that this country’s well along the path to becoming a police state and likely as not he’ll laugh at the suggestion.

The following’s a fairly standard definition of a police state:
“a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures”
- from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

Or perhaps you’d prefer this one, from Wikipedia:
“The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic.”

Well, obviously we don’t move from being a relatively free and unrestricted society into a regime of repressive controls overnight. Its a process of transition, and a gradual one at that.
So where would we be likely to observe this process occurring first? Most likely over the “freedom to express or communicate political or other views”.
Why? Because it seems to me that would be the most obvious and necessary first step in the development of a politically repressive regime.

The full aritcal by Mike Langridge is rather long read it here are we in Britain 2009 in a Police State?

Have we not told you before we are not going towards a police state,

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea…644201,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main…portaltop.html

Here what is planned in the next few months

National Identity Card Act
http://www.no2id.net/

Requirements to report changes of address, handing over biometric details, system of fines for non-compliance and incorrect data. Holding an ID card or registering onto the National ID register could be made a requirement of obtaining any other document.

Even more anti-terror bollocks

http://projectsheffield.wordpress.co…ew-terror-law/

Potential Ban on Photography under new Terrorism Legislation (police will interpret whether people have good reason, so expect widespread abuse. Snatch film and camera now ask questions later). So much for a free press providing a watchful eye on the police.

Borders Citizenship and Immigration Bill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf…es-immigration
New Customs and Exercises officials with powers of arrest and search etc., reporting directly to the Home Office and Secretary of state (politically controlled police force) Citizens

Coroners and Justice Bill

http://www.no2id.net/news/pressRelea…_Bill_to_build

Data Sharing Orders created under clause 152 allowing government departments to circumnavigate data protection act and request any data about you from any other governmental department for any purpose. E.g. medical records sent to benefits offices to check up on people claiming incapacity.

Communications Bill

http://www.politics.co.uk/legislation/legal-and-constitutional/communications-data-bill-$1245133.htm

Plans to retain all our communications data as part of the Interception Modernization Program (IMP)Never even mind the Criminal Justice Act, Serious Organized Crime Act, and all the existing Anti-Terror legislation.

11997 – 2006 – 3000 new criminal offences introduced.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…ame-power.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk…ce-412072.html

From the Indie:

Quote:
The 3,000-plus offences have been driven on to the statute book by an administration that has faced repeated charges of meddling in the everyday lives of citizens, from restricting freedom of speech to planning to issue identity cards to all adults.

In total, the Government has brought in 3,023 offences since May 1997. They comprise 1,169 introduced by primary legislation – debated in Parliament – and 1,854 by secondary legislation such as statutory instruments and orders in council.

Jan 2006 – 100 people a day stopped under anti-Terrorism legislation
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk…ws-524447.html

Feb 2008 – From parliament:

Quote:
Surveillance
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were under surveillance by criminal justice agencies in the UK at the most recent date for which figures are available. [186913]

Mr. McNulty: Figures in relation to surveillance are published in the annual report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, a copy of which is in the House Library. Law enforcement agencies were granted
19 Feb 2008 : Column 588W
some 16,651 directed surveillance and 350 intrusive authorisations during the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007, the most recent period for which figures are available. Figures for intelligence agency use of these powers are not published in the interests of national security.


11th feb 2009 – 180,000 people stopped under Terrorism legislation:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti….html?ITO=1490

http://www.petertatchell.net/civil-l…iterrolaws.htm

From the government website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/securit…m-and-the-law/

So this preservation and conservation of 1,172 listed structures around the city of Sheffield, 75 are at risk, compared with 88 identified in survey in 2005, Reading the Headlines, and then the report it fails to talk about Leah’s Yard, a 19th century cutlery works in Sheffield Centre, That is suffering fire damage and decay, along with Sheffield City Councils unwillingness to take any enforcement action on the owners.

The largest group of at-risk sites are metals trades buildings, 23 of which require repairs. These include Milton Works, Egerton Lane, Lion Works, Spital Hill, Cornish Works, Cornish Lane, and Don Works, Doncaster Street.

As we have seen regards Wharncliffe Works, 86 and 88 Green Lane, Kelham Island.

The building was first placed upon the Listed Buildings at Risk Register in June 1993 and the then owner’s agent was also written to, informing him of the powers the Local Planning Authority has to execute urgent or necessary repairs under sections 54 and 48 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and requiring certain works to be undertaken.

At the end of 2008, a cheap tin of blue paint, and some superficial boarding of Wharncliffe Works is all the work that has been undertaken, and despite his protestations live on Radio Sheffield over his concern for George Barnsley and Sons Ltd, the same superficial works has been done there.

In recent weeks The former Sheffield Crown Courts, old Town Hall has been in the news. Concerns for the building, with its distinctive clock tower, have been raised by the Victorian Society following the recent snow. It wants the council to serve an urgent works notice on the owner.

“If something isn’t done soon to secure the site then there is a real danger that the structural integrity of the building, and its Victorian court fittings, could be irreparably damaged,” said Alex Baldwin, the society’s conservation adviser.
On wed 18.2.09, we visited The Old Crown Court on Waingate, our access made easy by the lack of concern, or any real security on the building, it was self evident where this had left the building: a playground for people with drug related problems.

Following on from past explorations, the sad state of Sheffield Crown Court where some of the insides had been smashed and part removed, indeed in one room lay all the old signs ready for possible removing.

As much as the owners are accountable for the state of this building where it has become at risk, so are Sheffield City Council. Instead of polite conversation with the owners perhaps they might like to consider further action, but we know we are only dreaming when we ask this, we only need to look at how much in the pocket they are with property developers and speculators.

It comes as no real surprise that the Future of 75 historic city buildings are ‘at risk’, Action proposed includes surveying vacant sites and preparing a short strategy for each, and approaching owners of occupied buildings offering advice. Where it is difficult to persuade owners to restore them, the council could issue Repairs Notices ordering work or even buy buildings under Compulsory Purchase Orders.

As we have seen in the past such action, polite conversation is not dealing with this problem, all this report highlights is the will fill neglect, an unwillingness for Sheffield City Council to act on the preservation and conservation of our shared heritage, if the public did see what we do through our urban explorations then there might be more concern, as it stands all we can do is once again slam Sheffield for there crass disregard for it,s past, it might been fine to celebrate it, but action also needs to be taken in it,s preservation, and conservation, of which we see very little of.

All right day 3 of of our holidays, part 2 of our day out, following on from others we thought we go take a look, due to some of us desiring to live to an old age and being mindful of the asbestos, it was a short one, which pissed some of us off as we did not get time to get images we would like i.e. long exposure on a tripod shots, but we never give up and we are going back, as there is much more we need to see oh what a strange vibe this one is, I loved it more than any other place we have done in our visit to asylums, it had bollocks to it, and the sheer arrogance of the place oh it reminded me of myself any how enough said, other than we ended the day with gun shouts ringing round us, the sun did set as we expected and if we had got our last objective it would have more than made up for not getting round St Johns, but we drove past Rampton and none us got booked in, erm close shave I feel.

Some Background then: (from what ive dug up on the old google)

St. Johns Asylum was designed by John R Hamilton of Gloucester assisted by Thomas Percy, Surveyor to the County of Kesteven , the Asylum was also called “Bracebridge Heath Asylum,” but its formal name was the long and cumbersome: “Lindsey and Holland Counties and Lincoln and Grimsby District Lunatic Asylum.

It also operated under the name: “Lincolnshire County Pauper Lunatic Asylum and was built in 1852 on a slight rise in Bracebridge parish, Originally built to house 250 inmates, it was enlarged in 1859, 1866, 1881 and 1902.

The asylum grounds covered 120 acres.

The asylum finally closed in 1989 and was bought by a property developer a few years later who has converted half of the site into houses but the main asylum buildings are Grade II listed buildings and cant be demolished.

1852-1893 Lincolnshire County Lunatic Asylum or Lincolnshire County Pauper Lunatic Asylum
1894-1915 Lincolnshire Lunatic Asylum
1897-1898 Lindsey, Holland, Lincoln and Grimsby District Pauper Lunatic Asylum
1903-1920 Lincolnshire Asylum
1898-1902 Bracebridge Pauper Lunatic Asylum
1902-1919 Bracebridge District Lunatic Asylum
1919-1948 Bracebridge Mental Hospital
1930-1938 Lincolnshire Mental Hospital
1939-1960 Bracebridge Heath Hospital
1961-1989 St John’s Hospital, Bracebridge Heath

The grounds were cultivated by the inmates to provide vegetables and sewage was disposed of by irrigation over 10 acres of land about a half mile from the asylum.

St. Johns also had a cemetery of one and half acres on the grounds, with its own mortuary chapel.

Day Three of our week on holiday, we visit what is left of High Marnham Power Station, see a rather cool report here, alright it would have been something to add to the stories we tell our grand children, but here we are in these giants and it was for us better than Thorpe Marsh that is more post society, here they stood in silence on their own and if you love cooling towers, dislike men in yellow coats and up for easy access then this has to be done. now if you like it all a little bit more urban industrial then we guess a no go, bucolic with an edge then your in..

High Marnham Power Station is a former coal-fired power station, currently undergoing demolition. It is located in Nottinghamshire, to the west of the River Trent, just south of the village of Dunham. It was the most southerly of three power stations which lined the River Trent, the others being West Burton and Cottam. The station was opened in 1959 and had a generating capacity on 945 megawatts (MW).

The station closed in 2003 after nearly 45 years in operation, with a loss of 119 jobs. The station’s chimneys were demolished on 15 December 2004.[3] The station’s 150 feet (46 m) high boiler house was demolished on 5 October 2006.[4] The station’s five cooling towers still stand.

References

We did however find what seems to be an old Station in the grounds, old platform, paths and the houses looked like old rail houses, was there a station there in 1959?

Onto some Images then:

The BBC are running this article about how certain elements (who could they be?) will be trying to agitate those who are disillusioned and impoverished by the economic downturn (which is most of us). The angriest photo they could find to illustrate the point was this…

bbc-summer-of-rage

Which does look more ’slightly miffed’ than ‘outraged’. Unfortunately it’s not a bad illustration for the state of organised protest in Britain. Don’t get us wrong. I’m sure we’ll all have lots of fun venting our spleens this summer, but come Autumn will anything have changed?

The truth is that we have the all the resources, skills and technology we need to completely do away with bureaucracy, hierarchy and class division that are in place to ensure that the rich get ever richer whilst the vast majority of people on the planet struggle to survive.  Riots might be good for getting peoples attention, but the real work that “known activists” need to focus on is deliverying the right message when the time comes.

Britain faces summer of rage – police Middle-class anger at economic crisis could erupt into violence on streets

You would be forgiven for thinking we are about to take to the streets and RIOT THROUGH SUBERBIA, if only this was true, all we are talking about here are a bunch of lefty’s and petty bourgeois anarchist, having another bun fight with the police, oh how hard you lot are, no better than the scum of the far right, neither offer a solution for the working class, just more middle class utopian dreaming, coming over the dystopia of the everyday life of the working class, how really Wevolutionary of you all.

Is this going to be like the poll tax riot then? – Looking at the list of sponsoring organisations it looks more like a replay of the Edinburgh G7 protest in July 2005. Doesn’t look particularly Anarchist or radical to me. Looks a bit liberal / Oxfam. So, this will either receive a tokenistic patronising mention on the news, or it will be ignored. Then again, if the CIRCA clowns turn up, this will be the media focus and it will look rather silly, or then again, if the Black Bloc turn up, the cameras will point at the violence. So in my opinion, it doesn’t look productive, just at this present minute, it seems rather boxed in from all directions, rather like those barriers in Oxford Street during one of the early noughties Mayday protests.

In February 2003, millions of people protested against the forthcoming Iraq war. No effect, underclass rising do not desire to sounding cynical here. Of course we need to look. Beyond our own weary cynicism (more than understandable given years, nay decades of defeats and disillusionment in British radical politics) is a world where more people than for years – decades even – are going to becoming receptive to alternative viewpoints and strategies. The state knows this – look at the headlines on the Police gearing up for a summer of discontent. The bureaucrats and time-servers know this – hence their attempts to get in there and define the opposition.

If we, and by this I mean those who are opposed to neoliberalism, but also to soggy social democracy that the bureaucrats and time-servers want to put forward as an alternative, if we stand aloof from the mobilisations then other forces will jump in. It is the same as the recent disputes – all credit to the Socialist Party for being there and arguing the case against the petty nationalists and bureaucrats, rather than as some of the left did, standing back, arms folded, and whining about the slogans that the media chose to highlight.

We would be sooner the people setting our agenda, how really Wevolutionary of you all to march from fucking point a to point b, in ever deceasing circles you dissapear up your own backsides, along with the bullshit you lot speak and to be frank, we have herd the same slogan time after fucking time just as we have no time for the far right, we neither have time for lefty’s and petty bourgeois anarchist, for our class to be free we need to Make The Middle Class History no there is one banner, and placards we more than happy to march under with Class Pride Class Unity..

The Washington Post broke the news on Friday that Binyam Mohamed, British resident, Guantánamo prisoner, victim of “extraordinary rendition” and torture, and the subject of high-profile court cases on both sides of the Atlantic, will be returning to the UK “early next week,” according to “a source involved in the process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on the subject.”

Binyam has heard these rumors before — since December, in fact, when he told his lawyers, “It has come to my attention through several reliable sources that my release from Guantánamo to the UK had been ordered several weeks ago” — but there now seems little reason to doubt that the rumors are true. Although the story of Binyam’s rendition and torture (for 18 months in Morocco, from July 2002 to January 2004, and then at the CIA’s “Dark Prison” in Afghanistan) has been in the public domain for three and a half years — and it has long been established that the plot to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” in New York, in which he was allegedly involved, was not a plot at all, and that he had only confessed to having a role in it because of the torture to which he was subjected — the Bush administration only reluctantly abandoned its claims last October, when a US judge demanded to see the evidence.

In the UK, Binyam’s case has been even more significant. Last August, two High Court judges condemned Britain’s intelligence services for their role in his rendition and torture. The judges were disturbed to discover that MI5 had sent agents to interrogate him in May 2002, five weeks after he was seized at Karachi airport, because it should have been clear that he was being held illegally in Pakistan, and they also criticized the intelligence services for providing and receiving intelligence about him from July 2002 until February 2003, when they knew that he was being held incommunicado, and should not have been involved without receiving cast-iron assurances about his welfare. The relationship of the United Kingdom to the United States, the judges stated, “went far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing.”

The US State Department v. David Miliband

The judges also indicated that they thought that information contained in 42 documents in the possession of the British government, which related to Binyam’s rendition and torture, should be made available to the public. However, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, responded by invoking issues of national security to prevent disclosure of the documents, and also produced a letter from the US State Department’s senior legal adviser, John Bellinger, which indicated that disclosure would damage the relationship between the British and American intelligence agencies. “We want to affirm in the clearest terms,” the letter stated, “that the public disclosure of these documents or of the information contained therein is likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence-sharing arrangements.”

Despite the foreign secretary’s most fervent wishes, however, questions about Binyam’s treatment — and about British complicity in his rendition and torture — have not gone away. Just last weekend, the focus on the British government’s role sharpened considerably when, after David Miliband denied that the US had made a specific threat, and attempted to explain that the issue was only one of the “fundamental principle” of confidentiality between one country and another, a “former senior State Department official” told the Observer that the letter that mentioned possible “harm” to the intelligence-sharing relationship between the US and the UK had been solicited directly by the Foreign Office.

“Far from being a threat,” the former official stated, “it was solicited [by the Foreign Office]. The Foreign Office asked for it in writing. They said: ‘Give us something in writing so that we can put it on the record.’ If you give us a letter explaining you are opposed to this, then we can provide that to the court.”

As the Observer reported, the Foreign Office immediately tried to play down the significance of its role, confirming that it had requested the letter from the State Department, but claiming that it was merely “sensible and proper” to require a US statement as part of the legal proceedings. Others were not convinced, however, and Tory MP David Davis accused the foreign secretary of acting to “prevent his own government’s embarrassment.”

Pakistani torture as “part of a deliberate British policy”

If Sunday’s news was troubling enough for the government, its credibility declined still further during the week, after the Guardian examined testimony made last summer, during Binyam’s judicial review, by an MI5 agent identified only as Witness B, who was responsible for questioning Binyam in Pakistan, prior to his rendition to Morocco. As the Guardian explained, the testimony of Witness B indicated that the circumstances of Binyam’s interrogation in Pakistan were part of a deliberate British policy, devised by legal advisers to the security services and the government.

The statements came towards the end of the following exchange, in which Witness B was questioned by Dinah Rose QC, who began by reading out the following extract from the agent’s notes of his interview with Binyam in May 2002: “I told Mohamed he had an opportunity to help us and help himself. The US authorities will be deciding what to do with him and this will depend to a very large degree on his degree of cooperation.”

Q. Why did you say to him that the US authorities would be deciding what to do with him?
A. Because I expected the Pakistani authorities to transfer him to the US authorities.
Q. Why did you expect that to happen?
A. Because that had happened in previous cases of which I was aware and also at some point I may have been told that that was the intention of the US authorities.
Q. Did you speak to any Americans before you interviewed Mr. Mohamed?
A. I am not sure whether I can give a full answer to that in open session.
Q. I am content to leave that for Mr. De La Mare to pursue [the Special Advocate appointed to represent Binyam in closed sessions, in which secret evidence was discussed]. Was it your understanding that it was lawful for Mr. Mohamed to be transferred to the US authorities in this way?
A. I consider that to be a matter for the Security Service top management and for Government.
Q. Had anyone ever told you that it was or was not lawful?
A. I do not recall being told that at all, no.
Q. Did it concern you at all?
A. I was always, whenever conducting an interview, careful to make sure that I had the clearance of my management to proceed and I did so in this case. I was aware that the general question of interviewing detainees had been discussed at length by Security Service management legal advisers and Government and I acted in this case, as in others, under the strong impression that it was considered to be proper and lawful.

Opening a can of worms: other examples of torture

The Guardian also suggested that what it described as “an official interrogation policy” had led to the torture and abuse of other British prisoners, a can of worms that the British government has also been trying desperately to conceal. Last July, for example, the Guardian’s Ian Cobain first reported allegations that the British intelligence services had “outsourced” the torture of British citizens to Pakistan’s security services. Cobain’s article mentioned three particular cases:

A medical student, who did not wish to be identified, explained that he “was abducted at gunpoint in August 2005 and held for two months at the offices of Pakistan’s Intelligence Bureau opposite the British Deputy High Commission in Karachi,” where he was “whipped, beaten, deprived of sleep, threatened with execution and witnessed other inmates being tortured.” He added that he was questioned about the July 2005 terrorist attacks in London, and that “after being tortured by Pakistani agents he was questioned by British intelligence officers.” He is now working in a hospital in southern England, having qualified in 2007, but remains traumatized by what happened to him.

Tariq Mahmood, 35, a taxi driver from Sparkhill, Birmingham, was abducted in Rawalpindi in October 2003 and released without charge about five months later. His family explained that “he was tortured, and that MI5 officers and American intelligence officers had a hand in his mistreatment.”

Tahir Shah, an author from London, was seized in 2005 and held for 16 days. Also interrogated about the July 2005 bombings, he has stated that he was interrogated in “a fully-equipped torture chamber,” containing “mangles, whips and electrical equipment,” where “he was hooded and shackled for long periods and deprived of sleep.” According to the Guardian, “He [did] not allege that British officials were involved, but believe[d] it is unlikely they would not have been informed.”

In December 2008, two other examples came to light. In “The Testimony of Zeeshan Siddiqui” (PDF), published by Cageprisoners, the former engineering student explained how he had been abducted in May 2005 and tortured horribly for ten days. He was then held for another seven months. Although he had no knowledge that the British intelligence services were involved in any way with his treatment in Pakistan, it is clear that the British government subsequently acted on the basis of information that was obtained from him through the use of torture. After returning to the UK, he was placed under a control order, tagged and, essentially, subjected to a form of house arrest. “Eventually,” as Cageprisoners explained, “he took off the control order tag and absconded from the order. Siddiqui is still missing today.”

Even more shocking is the story of Rangzieb Ahmed, from Rochdale, who was convicted in a British court and sentenced to a minimum of ten years in prison for being a member of al-Qaeda and running a three-man terrorist cell. As the Guardian reported, the jury was not allowed to hear that three of Ahmed’s fingernails were removed with pliers during a year-long ordeal in Pakistan, from August 2006 to August 2007, at the hands of the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), Pakistan’s largest intelligence agency, nor that he was “beaten with sticks, whipped with electric cables, sexually humiliated and deprived of sleep.” The jury was also not informed that the British High Commission had not been told that he was being held until just before his release to the UK (where he was subsequently re-arrested), that “MI5 and Greater Manchester police passed questions to the ISI to be put to Ahmed during his interrogation,” and that MI5 officers also questioned him while he was in ISI custody.

Before the trial began, Ahmed’s barrister, Michael Topolski QC, tried unsuccessfully to have it halted, arguing, with some justification, that, “because of his treatment in Pakistan, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for his trial to go ahead.” Topolski pointed out that British agents, the security services and the police “condoned or connived in his torture by providing his torturers with questions,” and that proceeding with the trial “would put Britain under a clear breach of its obligations, under international law, to suppress and discourage torture.” For a detailed account of Ahmed’s experiences, and his explanation of how he was in Pakistan to assist in relief work, see “The Testimony of Rangzieb Ahmed” (PDF), published by Cageprisoners just after his conviction.

The full extent of the murky connections between MI5 and the Pakistani intelligence agencies has yet to be revealed, of course, but it is clearly an issue that needs a thorough investigation, especially as the Guardian stated last week that it had “learned from other sources that the interrogation policy was directed at a high level within Whitehall and that it has been further developed since [Binyam] Mohamed’s detention in Pakistan.” Fortunately, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by Andrew Dismore MP, is pursuing the matter, and, two weeks ago, stated that the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, would be called to give evidence. Dismore explained that he had come to believe “that the security services may be operating under a James Bond-style get-out clause.”

Some pragmatic reasons for Binyam’s return

As a result of all this activity, it is no surprise that Binyam Mohamed may be back in the UK by Monday. However, while the British government is to be congratulated for pushing for his release for the last 18 months — since first requesting his return to the UK in August 2007 — I hope I don’t sound overly cynical when I add that securing his return will also have the knock-on effect of reducing public discussion of his case to the bare minimum. Like the British residents returned in March and December 2007, Binyam will have no rights on his return, and, until the British government sorts out his residency status, will be unwilling to talk about his experiences, even if he should wish to do so. More significantly, perhaps, his supporters will also be obliged to remain quiet on his behalf.

This is not to say that the government is attempting to shirk all of its responsibilities for what happened to Binyam. As was made clear in October, when Jacqui Smith asked the attorney general, Baroness Scotland, to look into “possible criminal wrongdoing” on the part of MI5 and the CIA, the government has certainly opened up high-level channels to investigate Binyam’s case, and his supporters were, no doubt, pleased to hear on Wednesday that Baroness Scotland has now sought the advice of Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions.

As the Guardian reported, Baroness Scotland wrote a letter to Andrew Dismore, in which she explained that she had seen evidence that MI5 had given in secret to the High Court, and stated, “I am, with the advice of the DPP, considering the material in order to determine whether there is a basis for inviting the police to conduct a criminal investigation in relation to one or more individuals.”

Even so, it remains to be seen whether a full-blown investigation into Binyam’s case will be pursued, and, if so, what sort of timescale is envisaged. As the High Court judges pointed out two weeks ago, another avenue to the truth remains open, as the Intelligence Services Committee (ISC), an independent investigative committee that has already looked into Binyam’s case, in 2005 and 2007, has been given copies of the 42 documents whose disclosure the government has fought so hard to suppress, and will, in the judges’ words, be able to “ask searching and difficult questions” from witnesses in the intelligence services “on the very important issues raised.” However, I maintain, in spite of this, that Binyam’s imminent return to the UK is useful to the government on a number of different levels, not all of which involve the pursuit of justice.

As written exclusively for Cageprisoners resposted with the permission of the author.

Sex jibe husband murders wife
Bomb blast victim fights for life
Girl thirteen attacked with knife

Princess Jade is wearing a new Wedding Dress

Jet airliner shot from sky
Famine horror, millions die
Earthquake terror figures rise

Princess Jade is wearing a new Wedding Dress

You cant change the world
But you can change the facts
And when you change the facts
You change points of view
If you change points of view
You may change a vote
And when you change a vote
You may change the world

In black townships fires blaze
Prospects better premier says
Within sight are golden days

Princess Jade is wearing a new Wedding Dress

You cant change the world
But you can change the facts
And when you change the facts
You change points of view
If you change points of view
You may change a vote
And when you change a vote
You may change the world

Re worked Depeche Mode:

Samuel Osborn became a town councillor (1869), Master Cutler (1873), alderman (1890) and Mayor (1891). Because of ill health he was only able to attend a few council meetings and became the first Mayor of Sheffield to die during his year of office.












His former home on Bungreave Road, a former Chidren’s Home now lies in ruins, no doubt its future is demolition, is this how Sheffield treats the preservation and conservation of our collective Heritage?

Samuel Osborn headed one of Sheffield’s great tool steelmaking families. He was born in Ecclesfield and began his career as a drapers apprentice but switched to manufacturing and set up his own file making business.

People like Mr Samuel Osborn and the grand buildings they built are treated, in our view, with utter contempt. Last year we had the privilege of going into the former George Barnsley and Sons Ltd. (founded 1836). They were in Cornish Place on the Don and specialised in forge filing and cutting tools for leather workers and shoe makers. One George Barnsley was Master Cutler in 1883.

It is currently owned by Mr. Gerald Duniec of Gerald Duniec & Company Chartered Surveyors whom have left this place to go to rack and ruin, just as he has done with Wharncliffe Works, 86 and 88 Green Lane, Kelham Island.

The building was first placed upon the Listed Buildings at Risk Register in June 1993 and the then owner’s agent was also written to, informing him of the powers the Local Planning Authority has to execute urgent or necessary repairs under sections 54 and 48 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and requiring certain works to be undertaken.

At the end of 2008, a cheap tin of blue paint, and some superficial boarding of Wharncliffe Works is all the work that has been undertaken, and despite his protestations live on Radio Sheffield over his concern for George Barnsley and Sons Ltd, the same superficial works has been done there.

In recent weeks The former Sheffield Crown Courts, old Town Hall has been in the news.
Concerns for the building, with its distinctive clock tower, have been raised by the Victorian Society following the recent snow. It wants the council to serve an urgent works notice on the owner.

“If something isn’t done soon to secure the site then there is a real danger that the structural integrity of the building, and its Victorian court fittings, could be irreparably damaged,” said Alex Baldwin, the society’s conservation adviser.
On wed 18.2.09, we visited The Old Crown Court on Waingate, our access made easy by the lack of concern, or any real security on the building, it was self evident where this had left the bulding: a playground for people with drug related problems.

Following on from past explorations, the sad state of Sheffield Crown Court where some of the insides had been smashed and part removed, indeed in one room lay all the old signs ready for possible removing.

As much as the owners are accountable for the state of this building where it has become at risk, so are Sheffield City Council. Instead of polite conversation with the owners perhaps they might like to consider further action, but we know we are only dreaming when we ask this, we only need to look at how much in the pocket they are with property developers and speculators.

The detriment being the conservation and preservation of our heritage, where we lose the former Trafalgar Works for a car park and in the near future we are going to lose more as they push ahead for the crass Sevenstone redevelopment. In this economic downturn it might be true what V. Bayliss said about the former Sheffield Crown Court:

“As long as it’s a use which respects the building inside and out and there are people using it I don’t really mind what it is. It would make offices, nightclub, restaurants, a cultural space for lectures and concerts, maybe even apartments – but you’d need a really good imaginative architect for that.

“The current economic climate [autumn 2008] might be the worst possible time to say a private developer or a local authority should spend money on this – but what happens if they don’t?…”

Just the same needs to be asked of Sheffield City Council and their continued failing to act to preserve what little is left of Sheffield’s Heritage.

Next Page »