The Jubilee

The Queen has been on the job for 70 years. That's an unimaginably long time in one job for most of us. Unimpeded by the sort of reorganisations and reshuffles that affect many of us, she has devoted herself to her role. She has been a constant during 8 decades of change in the UK and the world. And even as she has changed and adapted, she has done so with grace, dedication, and an integrity that contrasts with many of our elected and other leaders.

The Jubilee, and celebration of the Queen's 70 year reign, remind us of just how far Her Majesty's Government has drifted from the values on which our society has been built.

Some will say that now is not the time to speak of such matters - but this Jubilee makes the contrast so start it cannot and should not be ignored. Others might say it's unpatriotic to tell uncomfortable truths about our country - especially on such an occasion. But I believe the real stain on our national life -  what is really dragging our public life through the mud - the actual negative - is not people who love their country but constructively criticise its faults, or those who lament the rising tide of evil, or call us to be our better selves. The fault lies with those who have let us all down, who have betrayed their office, and who by their venality, entitlement, incompetence, mean-spiritedness, and lack of integrity have made the country and its government an object of ridicule, and who (like rotten apples in a barrel) threaten to spread their rot through the whole of society.

The fish rots from the head, and our current head of government, the Prime Minister, has shown himself to be a morality-free zone. At every step of the partygate fiasco he has tried to lie or brazen his way out of it, or sacrifice more junior minions. In this affair, as always, he has organised a parade of ministers and ambitious but unprincipled backbenchers to lie for him - sometimes contradicting their lies the very next day. He lied about an oven-ready Brexit deal, lied as he signed it while promising to drop it later (we still don't know which promise, if any, he intends to keep). He told parliament at the time that the deal was in full compliance with the Good Friday Agreement, but now he expects us to believe that it's undermining it. He lied about how many new hospitals he was building, about how many doctors and nurses he would recruit. He lied about Brexit enabling the vaccine rollout (which began to build the country's immunity while we were bound by EU rules). He even lied to the Queen about why he was proroguing parliament. He was sacked from two previous jobs for lying, for goodness sake. And people have started to notice.

But it's not just the PM, and his own sense of entitlement to rule. It's not just one rule for them, and another rule for the rest of us.  It's not even the way he keeps changing the rules when he or his friends are accused of breaking them.

During the pandemic, his government oversaw a massively corrupt operation to channel taxpayers' money into the pockets of party donors and friends of government minsters and MPs, in exchange for pretending to deliver pretend PPE. Then they decided not to investigate the many frauds.

His Chancellor cut Universal Credit, then had the audacity to claim - when the cost of living started to bite - that he could only increase it once a year without updating his computers. He raised National Insurance on earned income, but left unearned income (like the capital gains his family lives off) and wealth (like his family has in eye-watering amounts) untouched. No conflict of interest there! He was eventually dragged, kicking and screaming, into a U-Turn on taxing the profiteering oil companies - he clearly felt it wasn't important enough to do without being forced into it.

Even while the Queen takes part in a video where a famous migrant has tea at the palace, and she shares a marmalade sandwhich with Paddington Bear, the secretary of state, Priti Patel, is about to breach our international moral and legal obligations to help genuine refugees, by sending them on a one-way trip to Rwanda (if they are found to be genuine refugees, they get to stay - in Rwanda). The civil service told her it's unworkable, illegal, and terrible value for money - but she insisted. To cap it all, she claims that there are no alternatives. After a few moments' thought, I came up with a few (and she has a whole Ministry, unless she's bullied them all into silence):

• Recruit enough people to process asylum claims in a reasonable time - so we don't need to support them on welfare while they wait for months or years to hear if they can stay.
• Don't waste the £30,000 or whatever it costs per refugee on routinely locking so many of them up in privatised prisons. Stop using prisons (whatever they pretend to call them) as a first resort in so many cases. At that cost, each of the detained refugees could have their own case handler, working full time - even with the recent Tory increase in National Insurance. The backlog would be cleared in no time.
  
• Allow refugees to work or volunteer, instead of expecting them to live in substandard hovels on £30 a week.
• If she's worried about refugees entering the country illegally, provide legal routes for them to claim asylum in the UK.
• Stop pretending we're swamped by refugees, when the UK is one of the least generous countries by number of refugees per capita.
• Stop pretending that most refugees are bogus.
• Get a grip on the system that denies asylum to so many genuine claimants - only for them to be allowed to stay on appeal. Why not get it right first time? Get the assessors to, you know, look at the evidence that has been submitted.
  

And if you don't like something the government is doing, they have restricted your right to protest. A protest can be banned if it's too "annoying" or too "loud". Better hope you like everything else they have planned for us.

And don't depend on the courts to protect your rights, since they plan to cut back on that. They don't like the prospect of accountability - for them, at least.

The media won't be clamouring to tell us what they are doing wrong. Channel 4 tried that, and now Nadine Dorries, our hapless Culture Secretary, is about to sell them off to a multi-millionaire media baron or mulitnational. Clearly the new owner will understand the struggles that ordinary people are facing, and hold the rich and powerful to account.

And as for voting them out, they thought of that. They are gerrymandering the constituencies, based on the size of the electoral roll, rather than the normal practice of using the Census. This has the cunning benefit (if you're unprincipled and right wing) of under-counting poor people. And in case that doesn't work, they plan to remove the independence of the Electoral Comission.

So the problem is not just the PM - it's the ministers and back benchers who fave facilitated his dishonesty, corruption, and attacks on the weak for so long.

Farage - the new Trump?

The poisoning of politics continues apace, as Nigel Farage plumbs new depths. Following on his "there will be riots" speech, with its echoes of Enoch Powell, now he seems to be channelling Donald Trump, who earlier called Mexicans criminals and rapists. Farage in his turn seems to be characterising migrants - or maybe just Turks en masse - as molesters of women.

At least we have the English Channel, so Farage won't need to repeat Trump's demand for a wall. Would he have had it built by refugees, and funded by Turkey, I wonder?

What next - Rivers of Blood?

The EU debate is becoming toxic. Nigel Farage seems to be channelling Enoch Powell, in his very own "rivers of blood" moment. He claims to foresee violence on the streets if immigration is not controlled. He says it is difficult to contemplate, but nothing is impossible.

Of course, by talking up the difficulties and ignoring the benefits of immigration, by stoking fears - not least by raising the spectre of violence - he can only increase the chances of mistrust, resentment, and inter-communal strife!

Christ said, "Blessed are the Peacemakers."

Or as my spellchecker put it, "needed are the Peacemakers!"

Things I don't understand about executive pay

rather apt image from clipartbest.com

Mark price, ex head of Waitrose, decided last year to look for a better job (or, more accurately, another job to add to the list of jobs he already manages to do at once). A week ago, it came out that this somehow entitles him to £1.9 million compensation. If the rest of us decided to look for a job we liked better, I'm pretty sure our employers would not be rushing to pay us for NOT working for them. And if he was so bad that they needed to get rid of him, why was he not just sacked - like less privileged people would be?

In case you're confused about any of this, Waitrose have explained it: The timing of Mr Price's exit was agreed "in the best interests of the partnership", and this had "private contractual implications, hence the payment announced today". Aren't you glad it's all clear now?

If this absurd payment really is a contractual requirement that can't be avoided (and it seems implausible that anyone would offer such a contract), shouldn't the staff, who own Waitrose, be looking for compensation from the crazily generous individual who negotiated such a ridiculously costly deal with their money?

Who is the war criminal when a military robot starts killing civilians?

First autonomous flying "drones", then driverless cars, and now it seems autonomous killer robots are being planned. If it's possible, and military planners seem to think it may be, just think of the problems.

In real life Asimov's "three laws of robotics" which prevent harm to humans do not exist. Such a law, which would work reliably, is not even possible. So if machines are built which are intended to kill people without any human control, they will inevitably kill "innocent civilians".

I know that war is messy and great evil happens in current wars with current weapons. But at least that evil is the direct result of a human action, and humans can be held to account - at least in principle.

photo: Get t y images

This is not possible with autonomous killing machines. Who would be guilty? The programming team? The software designers? The builders? The person who fitted the weapons or loaded the ammunition? The commander who ordered the deployment? The politician who authorised the purchase or the deployment in the field? Or maybe the voters who said nothing, and allowed these weapons to be deployed in their name?

This is why such weapons must not be allowed.

The UN is discussing the Inhumane Weapons Convention in a session which opens on 13th April. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is lobbying to have autonomous killing machines pre-emptively added to the list.

During this election campaign, when our politicians are at least pretending to listen to us, is a good time to challenge them about this issue.

Human Rights Watch has a detailed report on the dangers.

And the Guardian has a rather shorter article.

We must stop this!

Democracy in action

It seems the EU Commission is in secret negotiations with the US and Canada on rules to harm consumers and governments and benefit US & Multinational corporations. Secret as in they refused for a long time to tell the public what they were doing - even when the EU Parliament demanded to know, earlier in the process. And now that they have been rumbled, they are emitting clouds of spin, managed by specially recruited corporate lobbyists.

Here are some articles from the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html and the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/ttip-trade-deal-transatlantic-trade-investment-treaty. And the Guardian has an article here about the similar Trans-Pacific treaty:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/trans-pacific-partnership-a-guide-to-the-most-contentious-issues

Some details have leaked. Things like:- give multinationals the right to sue if consumer protection or public health laws cost them money - set up special courts for multinationals, run by corporate lawyers - make it harder for states to regulate things like fracking or genetic modification - weaken financial regulation - (And in the Trans-Pacific treaty, also unknown new rules on tobacco, requested by industry - export subsidies only to be allowed for USA producers - reduced protection for users and consumers from copyright and patent law, and criminalisation of even accidental, non-commercial infringement).

I don't think it is healthy, in a democracy, for laws to come out of secret negotiations with the corporate sector. Negotiations from which anyone who represents civil society, or anyone who advocates the common good, is barred.

Petition on the Stop TTIP site, here:
https://stop-ttip.org/

For UK folk, a link to write to your MP, MEPs, MLAs here:
https://www.writetothem.com/

But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe the finance sector has become suddenly honest and public-spirited. Maybe corporations are now putting other people first. Maybe the US government is trying to help the rest of the world, and its own people, rather than those who fund its re-election campaigns.

Tell me what you think...

Just when you think it can't get much worse

It's not like everything is rosy, here in the Coalition-powered UK. But somehow I've not been able to summon the energy to write about it.

Then something happens that seems too incredible, too wrong-headed, too cynically dishonest to let pass. And sometimes - like buses - more than one comes along at the same time. Like now, in fact!

First two fanatics decide to kill a soldier on the streets of Britain. Islam, apparently, demanded it. Or not - more mainstream Islamic voices quickly disowned and condemned the action. So far so bad.

Then "the voices" started. If only we knew who everyone was emailing, phoning and texting, we could have stopped the murder. The police, said the voices, need more powers. Bring back the snoopers' charter, or Interception "modernisation" Programme, or (better make it sound harmless) Communications Data Bill! It seems that not every communication on the Internet is being monitored by the authorities. And it seems this is a bad thing.

The Tories tried to expand the already huge amount of surveillance back in 2008 and 2009, but after a backlash, the Lib Dems forced them to ditch the plan. Now, the plans are back. And the whole project is still as unnecessary as it ever was. The main problem in tracking down terror plots and terrorists on the internet seem to be too information to sift through. And adding more will hardly make the job easier. We'll just have more stories like "they should have known" and "the authorities were told" and "they ignored the evidence". And, as a side effect, privacy will be more and more eroded.

The dishonesty of pretending that the two misguided muslims could have been stopped if only the department of pre-crime had access to every communication in the UK is staggering. It's just not very surprising any more.

But just when you thought you'd seen it all, another sorry story leaks out, seeping from the heart of government...

Who else should be shot while we're at it?

It seems that Jeremy Clarkson has said that the Public Sector strikers should be shot. Cue waves of outrage from people who don't watch Clarkson, and didn't hear what he said.

"Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?"

The Beeb is clearly nervous: the One Show episode seems to be blocked on iPlayer, but you should be able to find it on You Tube - I did.

Of course, anyone who watches Top Gear will know better than to take what he says seriously. But really, you don't have to be a fan of Top Gear to realise that the rent-a-rant brigade have escaped the orbit of Planet Perspective.

The curly one had just been saying how great the strike was:

Presenter: Do you think the strikes have been a good idea?
Top Bloke: I think they have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty... Airports, people streaming through with no problems at all. And it's also like being back in the 70s. It makes me feel at home somehow.

Remember when we didn't have to cope with useless security theatre every plane journey? How much safer are we really because our shoes and belts are x-rayed instead of going through a metal detector?

And then, in a gentle reference to the BBC's tendency to indulge in a slightly spurious balance on any issue, he continued:

Clarkson: ...But we have to balance this though, because this is
the BBC.
Prestenter: Yes, exactly.
Clarkson: Frankly, I'd have them all shot...

Has our culture of political correctness gone a bit too far? Even the PM
has had to say this was a silly remark. But really, all he needed to say was
that it wasn't government policy.

I'm not sure that the semi-hysterical cries in the media for sackings and apologies are really necessary. Get over it.

Enough ranting from me. I'm sure there are people who, even more than the strikers, should be rounded up and shot. Any ideas?

#superinjunction

Indignation in the mainstream media, and gloating by the twitterati - that's pretty much how the superinjunction story has run so far. The press are indignant that they cannot publish what the twitterer on the street seems to know about #ctb and Imogen someone-or-other. And the idea that the courts can apply sweeping injunctions to silence discussion of the peccadillos of the rich strikes the press where it hurts - in their pride, and their pockets!

Injunctions are bad enough, the story goes, but superinjunctions are a step too far in a free society. Are they, though? What is actually going on? Is this really one law for the rich and famous, and another for the rest of us?

Actually, not so much. We normal people expect that the press won't print details of our personal lives - we rarely have to deal with more than gossip from those we know. The press, by and large, go along with this. They even extend this courtesy (or legal protection) to the children of the rich or famous.

And then something strange happens... The tabloids have somehow convinced us that the freedom of the press is at stake if they cannot write freely about people's private lives where that will sell more papers. People in whom people are interested, it seems, no longer have any privacy. But do they - and should they?

In France there is a different approach. The press turns a blind eye when the rich and famous have extra-marital flings. That, they consider, is their own... affair. Public figures, like the rest of us, can have a private life. But this can go too far - apparently allegations of rape, like those against M. Strauss-Kahn in the US, are often also brushed aside.

Private individuals do not have a right to privacy in such cases - but it seems to me that the same standard should apply to "public figures" (whatever that means). They should not expect impunity for criminal behaviour.

On the other hand, why does a person's right to privacy vanish just because the tabloids can make money by selling us the details?

Does speaking to the press on any issue whatsoever strip you of the right to a private life?

Can any accomplishment or achievement whatsoever really give the media carte-blanche to air all the details of your private life?

And where would that take us as a society? What sort of shallow narcissism are we demanding of our public figures, politicians, sportsmen, that they must agree to such intrusion, as the price for exercising their skills and abilities in the public sphere?

A free press is in the public interest, and the public interest demands that criminal activity be brought to light, that conflicts of interest by our leaders be exposed, that blatant hypocrisy by our moral guardians (in the press and outside) be shown up.

But the public interest is not the same as what the public might like to know. There is a difference between news and gossip, and our press has lost sight of this.

Bloke colours vs Girlie Colours

We've "known" for ages that Girls can name colours that we men are quite certain are actually animals, plants, or basically almost anything but colours. But is it true?

The Doghouse Diary recently posted a cartoon to show how this works.

But XKCD have gone one further, with a survey that investigates this phenomenon.

And is it real?

For full details, you'll need to check their blog - but in a word (or two (or three)) Yes... and No....

So there we have it. Women know slightly more colours - and they can apparently spell better as well.

What's going wrong with the Police?

As M3 and I were returning to the UK a few weeks ago, we saw two Metropolitan Police officers behaving in an aggressive and intimidating manner to a young Spanish visitor - fortunately, after about half an hour of throwing their weight around and abusing their authority (and snapping at any members of the public who, they felt, were standing too close, or looking to see what the fuss was about), they let her go.

Most of the police officers I've met have been civil and helpful. But there seems to be an increasing number of uniformed thugs who enjoy throwing their weight around. And it's not just jumpy airport police either.

Soon afterwards I read on the Granuiad Online about police officers harassing ordinary members of the public who were taking photographs in public. The Register has been covering this issue for a while.

And then there was the would-be airline passenger who, annoyed by the way Doncaster Airport collapses under the UK's meagre snowfall, and fearing he would not be able to fly the following week, posted the following irate nonsense to his friends and "followers" on twitter:

"Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

Twitter is a network that people use to update their friends and acquaintances on what flavour of coffee they are drinking, or whether they are cycling to work, or taking the train. You can "follow" your friends, and receive a stream of conciousness from their daily life. It's not where you'd normally expect to find secret plots to destroy western civilisation.

Paul Chambers was clearly venting. This was not the act of any sort of credible terrorist - and certainly not a public threat calculated to strike fear into the heart of anyone with the slightest amount of common sense. So what do you imagine the defenders of our free society made of it?

A week later, the South Yorkshire Police arrested the unfortunate Mr Chambers under the Terrorism Act and questioned him for nearly 7 hours. It seems he actually had to explain to the officers interrogating him what Twitter was. You'd think if the police were investigating Internet bomb threats they'd have someone who actually knew something about, you know, the Interwebs, and, like, computer stuff. But that might be perilously close to doing their job, and protecting society from actual real threats.

After he was released on bail, he was suspended from work pending an internal investigation, and he has, it seems, been banned from the Doncaster airport for life. So no sense of perspective at the Airport either (if you're curious about their thought processes or reasoning in this case, the airport's contact page is online here).

The Independent reports that the South Yorkshire Police went so far as to charge Mr Chambers with "sending by a public communications network a message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003."

For goodness sake!

It's a shame that the police are wasting their time and abusing their powers by harassing innocent people - whether photographers, visitors to the UK, or twitterers - instead of serving society, and protecting our freedoms.

Microsoft Alderaan Slammed in Race Row

The Register reports that outrage was sparked when the website of Microsoft's outpost in Alderaan was clumsily photoshopped, allegedly to conform to local racial demographics.

Two humans were crudely pasted into the picture to make the all-Wookie board of Microsoft Empire seem more acceptable to potential customers in the influential and wealthy Alderaan mobile, droid and deathstar O/S market.

However the subsequent furore may have hampered the chances of the up and coming Microsoft, as it tries to compete for market share with the dominant BSD2 and 3-CP/M systems deployed in most clone armies.

Jabba Gates and Steve "chair" Bal'cca of Microsoft Alderaan were unavailable for comment.

And you thought it belonged to you: Why DRM is such a bad idea

Last night I noticed a very funny thing. Amazon had "un-booked" some books they had sold. Their customers woke up to find that their copies of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm had been taken back, and the cost refunded. Ironic as anything, but how could it possibly happen?

They had not bought a physical copy - they had paid for a licence to read an electronic copy on Amazon's eBook machine - a "Kindle". And that electronic copy was weighed down by DRM - Digital Rights Management (or Digitally Restricted Media) - so that the people who control it are not the buyers, but the sellers. So when Amazon felt they needed to revoke people's eBooks, they could.

You buy it - but they own it!

It turns out that Amazon, surprised by their customers' outrage or embarrassed by the irony of retrospectively un-selling 1984 -- who knows -- have said they won't do it again.

But they can - and that's the problem with DRM. You don't own what you have bought. "They" can stop you lending it to people. They can prevent you from electronically quoting snippets. They can invisibly edit or change what you have bought - or add new advertising. Or they can take it away altogether. And, often, if the publisher goes bust or even decides to stop selling it, what you bought just stops working. Forever. And it's illegal to try to get it back (in America, it's a felony).

And that is why DRM matters, and why the laws that pander to it matter even more.

And the more media becomes digital and is delivered electronically, the worse this will get.

Maybe not today; maybe not tomorrow; but soon - and for the rest of your media.

Links: NY Times, NY Times Blog, Slashdot discussion.

On not being involved in a land war in asia?

It seems that the war is over in Sri Lanka, and that Sri Lankans are all one nation now - at least that is the official story. Certainly I've seen lots of flags and public celebration in the streets of Colombo. People are delighted that the brutal and ruthless LTTE (the Tamil Tigers) no longer hold territory in Sri Lanka.


Not so much public concern though for the hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankan refugees being held in internment camps in their own country, without adequate shelter, food, clothes, health care, communications, or access of any kind to the outside world. Private concern, to be sure. From some at any rate. But not so much in the local press. I even saw one article that claimed the West, egged on by the Christian Church, had been training Tamil suicide bombers. But back to reality.

Now that the war is over, it might be a good time to allow international relief workers back in, reunite families that have been divided, and take care of those Tamil menbers of the one nation of Sri Lanka who are enduring such terrible conditions.

If you're interested in the crisis there, a site with more voices and more information than the mainstream media are able to provide is Ground Views: a Sri Lankan citizen journalism initiative, as it calls itself. Check it out!

Aristophanes would have been proud

2400 years ago, Aristophanes wrote his play Lysistrata, in which the women of Greece tried to force their husbands to end a war by withholding their affections. No sex, basically. On strike.

Fast forward to Kenya, 2009. The BBC reports that the Women's Development Organisation, backed by the Prime Minister's wife, called for a similar boycot, to last for a week. They want to force Kenya's political leaders to break the current deadlock and work together. There has been a troubled and ineffectual coalition government since the 2007-2008 election violence.

Will it work? I've no idea - but one Mr Kimondo is not happy. He is suing the organisers of the boycott, claiming it has "interfered with his happy marriage".

Freedom of speech, or the right not to be offended?

The United Nations' Human Rights Council (the indistinguishable and undistinguished successor to the discredited Human Rights Commission) has excelled itself [see this article]. That august body of the UN approved a resolution which calls for limits on what they called "defamation" of religions, especially Islam. To illustrate the sort of defamation they had in mind, the resolution mentions associations with terrorism or human rights abuses, which it describes as unfair.

It may be argued that such linkages are unfair - correlation does not necessarily imply causation, after all, and human rights abuses and terrorism are not uniquely Islamic. But to seek to ban such discussions would be to play into the hands of two dangerous,yet opposed, groups. It would give comfort to extremists within Islam who believe precisely that their faith requires militant terrorism; they would now have the spurious authority of the UN when they label any critique of their ideas a defamation of Islam. And it would make martyrs of those who see every Muslim as a Bin Laden in waiting.

Worse, this proposal rests on an utterly misguided notion - that organisations and belief systems have "human rights" which trump the rights of actual people. They do not.

Fortunately or unfortunately (you decide) it's about the tenth time the UN has done something like this, so it's not likely to become law any time soon - except perhaps in states where human rights are already pretty much a lost cause.

Taking the... Mickey?

What is Ryanair's Michael O'Leary smoking these days? His latest wheeze seems to be putting coin slots on the toilets in his planes - at least that's what the BBC says he is considering. The service, already scraping the bottom of the barrel, looks set to plumb new depths.

And how come it's OK to charge anyone booking one of his flights a credit card fee for each passenger and each leg of the journey? How can that legitimately be described as a "credit card" fee? The credit card company don't charge Ryanair extra if more people are included in a single transaction, or if more than one flight is involved in a transaction. Time the Trading Standards Office started taking an interest, perhaps?

Aieeeeee!

Two steps forward, and one step back.

Just as the house was getting tidier and most of the rooms were functional, the shelves in my study collapsed. As I sat at my desk.

Suddenly I was almost buried in an avalanche of folders, CDs, books and papers.

Sorry, no pictures. It's just too traumatic - and I need a coffee.

Speeches and Writing

I've been reading a few powerful and thought provoking speeches and other writings recently - this one, by the assassinated Lasantha Wickramatunga stands out. He wrote it shortly before his murder, and it was published in the Newspaper he edited in Sri Lanka shortly afterwards. Some of the names and incidents may be unfamiliar - but you should get the gist:

No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces and, in Sri Lanka, journalism. In the course of the past few years, the independent media have increasingly come under attack. Electronic and print-media institutions have been burnt, bombed, sealed and coerced. Countless journalists have been harassed, threatened and killed. It has been my honour to belong to all those categories and now especially the last.

I have been in the business of journalism a good long time. Indeed, 2009 will be The Sunday Leader's 15th year. Many things have changed in Sri Lanka during that time, and it does not need me to tell you that the greater part of that change has been for the worse. We find ourselves in the midst of a civil war ruthlessly prosecuted by protagonists whose bloodlust knows no bounds. Terror, whether perpetrated by terrorists or the state, has become the order of the day. Indeed, murder has become the primary tool whereby the state seeks to control the organs of liberty. Today it is the journalists, tomorrow it will be the judges. For neither group have the risks ever been higher or the stakes lower.

Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood. Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in Sri Lanka, have offered me safe passage and the right of residence in their countries. Whatever else I may have been stuck for, I have not been stuck for choice.

But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience.

The Sunday Leader has been a controversial newspaper because we say it like we see it: whether it be a spade, a thief or a murderer, we call it by that name. We do not hide behind euphemism. The investigative articles we print are supported by documentary evidence thanks to the public-spiritedness of citizens who at great risk to themselves pass on this material to us. We have exposed scandal after scandal, and never once in these 15 years has anyone proved us wrong or successfully prosecuted us.

The free media serve as a mirror in which the public can see itself sans mascara and styling gel. From us you learn the state of your nation, and especially its management by the people you elected to give your children a better future. Sometimes the image you see in that mirror is not a pleasant one. But while you may grumble in the privacy of your armchair, the journalists who hold the mirror up to you do so publicly and at great risk to themselves. That is our calling, and we do not shirk it.

Every newspaper has its angle, and we do not hide the fact that we have ours. Our commitment is to see Sri Lanka as a transparent, secular, liberal democracy. Think about those words, for they each has profound meaning. Transparent because government must be openly accountable to the people and never abuse their trust. Secular because in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society such as ours, secularism offers the only common ground by which we might all be united. Liberal because we recognise that all human beings are created different, and we need to accept others for what they are and not what we would like them to be. And democratic... well, if you need me to explain why that is important, you'd best stop buying this paper.

The Sunday Leader has never sought safety by unquestioningly articulating the majority view. Let's face it, that is the way to sell newspapers. On the contrary, as our opinion pieces over the years amply demonstrate, we often voice ideas that many people find distasteful. For example, we have consistently espoused the view that while separatist terrorism must be eradicated, it is more important to address the root causes of terrorism, and urged government to view Sri Lanka's ethnic strife in the context of history and not through the telescope of terrorism. We have also agitated against state terrorism in the so-called war against terror, and made no secret of our horror that Sri Lanka is the only country in the world routinely to bomb its own citizens. For these views we have been labelled traitors, and if this be treachery, we wear that label proudly.

Many people suspect that The Sunday Leader has a political agenda: it does not. If we appear more critical of the government than of the opposition it is only because we believe that - pray excuse cricketing argot - there is no point in bowling to the fielding side. Remember that for the few years of our existence in which the UNP was in office, we proved to be the biggest thorn in its flesh, exposing excess and corruption wherever it occurred. Indeed, the steady stream of embarrassing expos‚s we published may well have served to precipitate the downfall of that government.

Neither should our distaste for the war be interpreted to mean that we support the Tigers. The LTTE are among the most ruthless and bloodthirsty organisations ever to have infested the planet. There is no gainsaying that it must be eradicated. But to do so by violating the rights of Tamil citizens, bombing and shooting them mercilessly, is not only wrong but shames the Sinhalese, whose claim to be custodians of the dhamma is forever called into question by this savagery, much of which is unknown to the public because of censorship.

What is more, a military occupation of the country's north and east will require the Tamil people of those regions to live eternally as second-class citizens, deprived of all self respect. Do not imagine that you can placate them by showering "development" and "reconstruction" on them in the post-war era. The wounds of war will scar them forever, and you will also have an even more bitter and hateful Diaspora to contend with. A problem amenable to a political solution will thus become a festering wound that will yield strife for all eternity. If I seem angry and frustrated, it is only because most of my countrymen - and all of the government - cannot see this writing so plainly on the wall.

It is well known that I was on two occasions brutally assaulted, while on another my house was sprayed with machine-gun fire. Despite the government's sanctimonious assurances, there was never a serious police inquiry into the perpetrators of these attacks, and the attackers were never apprehended. In all these cases, I have reason to believe the attacks were inspired by the government. When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me.

The irony in this is that, unknown to most of the public, Mahinda and I have been friends for more than a quarter century. Indeed, I suspect that I am one of the few people remaining who routinely addresses him by his first name and uses the familiar Sinhala address oya when talking to him. Although I do not attend the meetings he periodically holds for newspaper editors, hardly a month passes when we do not meet, privately or with a few close friends present, late at night at President's House. There we swap yarns, discuss politics and joke about the good old days. A few remarks to him would therefore be in order here.

Mahinda, when you finally fought your way to the SLFP presidential nomination in 2005, nowhere were you welcomed more warmly than in this column. Indeed, we broke with a decade of tradition by referring to you throughout by your first name. So well known were your commitments to human rights and liberal values that we ushered you in like a breath of fresh air. Then, through an act of folly, you got yourself involved in the Helping Hambantota scandal. It was after a lot of soul-searching that we broke the story, at the same time urging you to return the money. By the time you did so several weeks later, a great blow had been struck to your reputation. It is one you are still trying to live down.

You have told me yourself that you were not greedy for the presidency. You did not have to hanker after it: it fell into your lap. You have told me that your sons are your greatest joy, and that you love spending time with them, leaving your brothers to operate the machinery of state. Now, it is clear to all who will see that that machinery has operated so well that my sons and daughter do not themselves have a father.

In the wake of my death I know you will make all the usual sanctimonious noises and call upon the police to hold a swift and thorough inquiry. But like all the inquiries you have ordered in the past, nothing will come of this one, too. For truth be told, we both know who will be behind my death, but dare not call his name. Not just my life, but yours too, depends on it.

Sadly, for all the dreams you had for our country in your younger days, in just three years you have reduced it to rubble. In the name of patriotism you have trampled on human rights, nurtured unbridled corruption and squandered public money like no other President before you. Indeed, your conduct has been like a small child suddenly let loose in a toyshop. That analogy is perhaps inapt because no child could have caused so much blood to be spilled on this land as you have, or trampled on the rights of its citizens as you do. Although you are now so drunk with power that you cannot see it, you will come to regret your sons having so rich an inheritance of blood. It can only bring tragedy. As for me, it is with a clear conscience that I go to meet my Maker. I wish, when your time finally comes, you could do the same. I wish.

As for me, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I walked tall and bowed to no man. And I have not travelled this journey alone. Fellow journalists in other branches of the media walked with me: most of them are now dead, imprisoned without trial or exiled in far-off lands. Others walk in the shadow of death that your Presidency has cast on the freedoms for which you once fought so hard. You will never be allowed to forget that my death took place under your watch. As anguished as I know you will be, I also know that you will have no choice but to protect my killers: you will see to it that the guilty one is never convicted. You have no choice. I feel sorry for you, and Shiranthi will have a long time to spend on her knees when next she goes for Confession for it is not just her owns sins which she must confess, but those of her extended family that keeps you in office.

As for the readers of The Sunday Leader, what can I say but Thank You for supporting our mission. We have espoused unpopular causes, stood up for those too feeble to stand up for themselves, locked horns with the high and mighty so swollen with power that they have forgotten their roots, exposed corruption and the waste of your hard-earned tax rupees, and made sure that whatever the propaganda of the day, you were allowed to hear a contrary view. For this I - and my family - have now paid the price that I have long known I will one day have to pay. I am - and have always been - ready for that. I have done nothing to prevent this outcome: no security, no precautions. I want my murderer to know that I am not a coward like he is, hiding behind human shields while condemning thousands of innocents to death. What am I among so many? It has long been written that my life would be taken, and by whom. All that remains to be written is when.

That The Sunday Leader will continue fighting the good fight, too, is written. For I did not fight this fight alone. Many more of us have to be - and will be - killed before The Leader is laid to rest. I hope my assassination will be seen not as a defeat of freedom but an inspiration for those who survive to step up their efforts. Indeed, I hope that it will help galvanise forces that will usher in a new era of human liberty in our beloved motherland. I also hope it will open the eyes of your President to the fact that however many are slaughtered in the name of patriotism, the human spirit will endure and flourish. Not all the Rajapakses combined can kill that.

People often ask me why I take such risks and tell me it is a matter of time before I am bumped off. Of course I know that: it is inevitable. But if we do not speak out now, there will be no one left to speak for those who cannot, whether they be ethnic minorities, the disadvantaged or the persecuted. An example that has inspired me throughout my career in journalism has been that of the German theologian, Martin Niem”ller. In his youth he was an anti-Semite and an admirer of Hitler. As Nazism took hold in Germany, however, he saw Nazism for what it was: it was not just the Jews Hitler sought to extirpate, it was just about anyone with an alternate point of view. Niem”ller spoke out, and for his trouble was incarcerated in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937 to 1945, and very nearly executed. While incarcerated, Niem”ller wrote a poem that, from the first time I read it in my teenage years, stuck hauntingly in my mind:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

If you remember nothing else, remember this: The Leader is there for you, be you Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, low-caste, homosexual, dissident or disabled. Its staff will fight on, unbowed and unafraid, with the courage to which you have become accustomed. Do not take that commitment for granted. Let there be no doubt that whatever sacrifices we journalists make, they are not made for our own glory or enrichment: they are made for you. Whether you deserve their sacrifice is another matter. As for me, God knows I tried.

- Lasantha Wickramatunga

It is worth remembering why we protest when liberties begin to be eroded, and the state starts to gather more power to itself. What might it allow?

What in the name of all landfills were Debenhams thinking?

These days it's apparently fashionable to be green. Which is why it's all the more shocking when you see something so incredibly environmentally hostile from a major UK company.

Here is what Debenhams used to pack six tiny plates.

And why did they all have to be packed separately? Are we the only ones to ever get more than one plate at a time?

At least some of the packaging was biodegradable.