It’s like watching a slow-motion car crash in a movie. Or maybe one of those movies where the suspect changes his story as each new piece of evidence is revealed by the oh-so-clever detective.
And this is before we get into the bit where Yates Mawer of the Yard starts picking at apparent discrepancies between various witness statements.
Absolutely riveting.
At the time of the recent state visit by Saudi leader king Abdullah, Foreign Office minister Kim Howells said that the UK and Saudi Arabia could unite around their ’shared values’.
Perhaps he’d like to comment on the case of a nineteen-year-old woman who was raped by a group of seven men. She — the victim, remember — was sentenced in October 2006 to 90 lashes; when she appealed, her original sentence was more than doubled to 200 lashes and six months in prison, apparently because she spoke to the media about the case. (source: CNN)
I have no idea whether there is any prospect of success but this definitely goes into the ‘wouldn’t it be nice’ column:
An initiative to try ex president of the Spanish Government Jose Maria Aznar for his role in the invasion of Iraq will be promoted through assemblies in several Spanish cities … by a so-called Platform for a Trial against Aznar, which has been supported so far by over 1,500 important figures from Spain and abroad. (source)
The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and the Corner House have won permission to bring a high court challenge over the UK government’s decision to end the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in arms deals with Saudi Arabia.
They argued that the decision was unlawful under the OECD’s anti-bribery convention, which obliges the UK to ‘ensure that the investigation and prosecution of bribery of foreign public officials shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another state or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.’
Lord Justice Moses said ‘matters of concern and public importance’ had been raised and the case ‘cries out for a hearing’. (source)
It’s only the first step in a long road, but I agree with Symon Hill of CAAT that the decision was great news ’for everyone who cares about justice in Britain’.
I was amazed at sir Ian Blair’s performance before the London Assembly: a real masterclass in how to win friends and influence people:
This conversation doesn’t take us any further. I have stated my position. If you have the power to remove me, go on. (source)
These were the elected representatives of the people he is meant to serve, and he treated them with arrogance and hubris. Having dared the assembly members to do their worst, I hope he is happy with the resulting vote of no confidence.
When an organisation is found guilty of committing a series of ’shocking and catastrophic blunders‘ (prosecutor), caused by ‘corporate failure’ (judge), which result in the public being ‘needlessly put at risk’ (prosecutor) and the death of an innocent man, there is only one honourable response from the man at the top.
Hint: it is not to say ‘that this was an isolated breach of law in quite extraordinary circumstances… This case thus provides no evidence at all of systematic failure.’
