Watch Chilcot closely

As more details of the Iraq Inquiry are announced, Comment is Free has a strong piece from Richard Norton-Taylor aimed at strengthening its spine:

Do not underestimate the ability of ministers and officials – former and serving – and the mandarin classes to dodge questions and, if they cannot avoid pointing to mistakes, blame the system rather than individuals.

He lists some of the evidence that has come into the public domain through leaks and concludes:

Will Chilcot question the participants about the extraordinary material in these documents? Or will he succumb to Whitehall's practice of not commenting on leaks – or asking others to comment on them? Maybe I am doing Chilcot a disservice. He will have to be watched closely.

It had not occurred to me that the excuse of not commenting on leaks will get in the way. These documents should come into Chilcot's hands through official channels, indeed, he saw them during the Butler Review, which largely avoided commenting on them on the grounds that their contents were outside its remit. There is no doubt that they are within Chilcot's remit.

Don't bother

On the front page of the Telegraph website is the headline "50p tax to stifle economy", which carries the explanation:

New 50p tax rate to stifle economy and increase unemployment.

When you click on the link, the story itself, which is about consumer/personal finance instead of economics, suddenly uses inverted commas and the sub-headline reveals that it is based on a "study" by the Taxpayers Alliance.

No need to read any further.

Spin and the weather

The Met Office is downgrading its forecast for the summer. The BBC's Roger Harrabin is giving it something of a hard time for predicting a "barbecue summer". The Met Office says that it added a probability (65%) to its forecast and:

explains that it coined the phrase "barbecue summer" to help journalists' headlines.

Harrabin comments:

But this has come back to bite the organisation because many people do not feel like they have been enjoying a "good" summer, especially compared with previous searing years.

Some now ask if the Met Office risks its reputation by attempting to popularise its work this way.

And he's right:

Independent meteorologist Philip Eden told BBC News that Met Office forecasts were "generally fairly accurate".

Instead, he blamed "spinners" in the Met Office press office for exaggerating the certainty of forecasts.

Kingsnorth fallout

Last week Kent Police published both the original report into the policing of last summer's Kingsnorth climate camp and a second report by South Yorkshire police. They had told me that they were only publishing the second report. Both reports are critical of the controversial police tactics at the camp.

Indymedia has an update on the judicial review of the police's use of stop and search under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and a suggestion that anyone who was unlawfully searched should consider suing Kent Police.

Climate Camp say that the judicial review is "progressing really well", which is something of an understatement. The case against Kent Police has been strengthened by the release of the second report, carried out by South Yorkshire Police. "This is clear evidence that most section 1 PACE searches had no lawful basis. " The initial report, by the National Policing Improvement Agency also gives the game away. Both make clear that, whatever the official claims that each and every search was based on individual circumstances, the "post event reality" shows that being searched was "a near condition of entry" to the camp and that police officers on the ground thought they were to search everyone.

The advice to people who were searched is to hold on to your search form, even if it is illegible.

Those who were searched unlawfully under section 1 of PACE will have the basis for legal claims against Kent Police.

It has been agreed that claims can be made up to three months after the conclusion of the judicial review.

What are they talking about

So today we learn that the official assessment of the terrorist threat to the UK has been downgraded, from "severe" to "substantial". According to MI5, severe means that "an attack is highly likely" while substantial means that "an attack is a strong possibility".

But what does this mean? What timeframe are they talking about? Without a timeframe it is meaningless. I would say that it remains "highly likely" that there will be a terrorist attack at some point in the future, even if the perpetrators have not even thought about it yet. Surely the threat level must reflect a combination of probability and immediacy.

Bizarrely, the highest level, "critical", means that "an attack is expected imminently". Has the assessment of probability ("expected") changed from "highly likely", or is it the immediacy that changes.

I heard one reporter on BBC describe the previous level (severe) as meaning that it was highly likely that an attack would take place in the near future. This isn't what the system says. But it does perhaps explain why the level has been downgraded. You can't go on forever saying that it is likely that an attack will happen soon.

Fair Game

In a fascinating piece that uncovers the unseemly side of spin, the Telegraph reports that

"Labour ministers are threatening to launch a concerted effort to tarnish the reputation of British Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt."

The story is a bit hard to follow, not least because of the omission of the word "that" at a vital point:

Relations between the Chief of the General Staff and the Government hit a new low after senior Labour sources warned the general will be “fair game” for political attacks when he leaves his post at the end of August.

You have to read this very carefully to realise that no-one "warned the general" about anything but warned that he would be fair game. The basis for this assertion is a quote from a minister:

“Once he’s gone, we can have a go at him. He can write his book and talk all he wants, but he’ll be fair game then.”

The idea that a concerted effort is planned is backed up by the fact that they are already at it:

A Labour source accused the general of “building up his own reputation at the expense of the Army” and added: “The man’s a hypocrite. He’s sat in these meetings and approved these things, and then he comes out in public and complains about them.”

Pretty gutless really. And pretty inept, given the Telegraph's loyalty to the military. It turned the story round and it looks like backfiring.

Free to tell the truth?

Index on Censorship has posted online a petition to Iran's justice minister, calling for the release of journalist Maziar Bahari, who has been held without charge in an Iranian jail for over three weeks.

Meanwhile, as the BBC and Guardian report,

A group of soldiers who took part in Israel's assault in Gaza say widespread abuses were committed against civilians under "permissive" rules of engagement.

The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has dismissed the report as hearsay as the soldiers were anonymous:

"The IDF expects every soldier to turn to the appropriate authorities with any allegation,"

There would of course be no repercussions...