A big hole

British troops appear to have been dragged into the fighting in and around Basra after all. The Telegraph is reporting that:

British forces today became directly involved for the first time in the battle to stamp out militias from the Iraqi city of Basra, engaging suspected Mehdi Army positions with artillery.

The Times reports that:

The heavily armed 1 Scots Guards battle group, equipped with Challenger 2 tanks and Warrior armoured vehicles, was on alert and ready to leave its fortified airbase outside Basra as fighting spread to a string of cities across southern Iraq.

...

The intense fighting means that Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, is likely to tell the Commons next week that British troop levels will remain at about 4,100 for the next few months, abandoning plans to reduce numbers to 2,500 from the spring.

Hang on a second, wasn't the plan announced last October for the troop cut to take place in the spring?

The Times' Foreign Editor Richard Beeston certainly thinks so. If the Iraqis fail and British troops intervene:

any hope of the withdrawal promised by Gordon Brown last year of another 1,500 British troops this spring will have to be shelved until Basra can be stabilised.

Beeston argues that Britain is stuck in Iraq without enough troops to make any difference. But at least we can't have an inquiry while they're there. Or can we? The Independent says that:

Gordon Brown's claim that an inquiry into the war in Iraq would be a "distraction" for Britain's troops on the ground has been repudiated by some of the country's former defence chiefs.

Slight mistake

The Guardian has another gossipy story about the attempts of Gordon Brown's new spin doctor, Stephen Carter, to cheer up his image. It mentions that Brown made a slip of the tongue in refering to Nelson Mandela having been released from prison in our lunchtime. It then comments:

Brown is not renown for making mistakes in speeches.

No, but the Grauniad's mistakes are legendary.

Desperation at the Commons

The last minute decision by the House of Commons authorities to launch a high court challenge against the Information Tribunal order to release MPs expenses has surprised many people. The Times says that, with the information prepared for release, Commons speaker Michael Martin suddenly found a second lawyer who said that the case could be won.

It's about time

I've got a piece on Comment is Free today about the Information Commissioner accusing the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) of deliberate delay on Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. NOMS is part of the Ministry of Justice, which funds the Commissioner, as part of its overall responsibility for FOI.

Gordon breaks a promise

Speaking of things that turn out not to be true, it turns out that Gordon Brown's promise in October that UK troop numbers in Iraq will fall to 2,500 in 'the spring' will not be honoured.

The spin at the time was that this was part of a plan to get all the troops home by the end of this year.

On Monday the Telegraph suggested that military planners were against the cut. Yesterday, the Ministry of Defence indicated that it might not happen. Today, with the Defence Secretary quietly visiting Iraq and the budget dominating the news, the BBC was told that it probably wouldn't happen.

Will the media be more sceptical of such claims next time? As David McKie said (below):

newspapers print these speculative stories, partly because they believe there's a genuine chance it might happen, but partly because if the story proves to be wrong that's unlikely to be remembered for long.

Saving up for the budget

With the budget appearing to many people to be a bit of a yawn, David McKie on Comment is Free suggests that it's because so much of it has been spun in advance.

There may here and there be innocent folk who will say: excuse me, but exactly what is the difference between the new honest, decent, straight dealing, manipulation-free political environment promised by Gordon Brown when he became prime minister, and the now much-regretted spin-driven methods of the discredited Campbell, Mandelson and of course, Blair?

Mckie argues that an element of leaking has always gone on and points out that some of the apparent leaks have turned out not to be true.

Though well aware what politicians and their acolytes are up to, newspapers print these speculative stories, partly because they believe there's a genuine chance it might happen, but partly because if the story proves to be wrong that's unlikely to be remembered for long.

The depths of shallowness

An advert 'featuring lingerie-clad women praying for beautiful hair' has been banned after offending christians. The Guardian helpfully carries the ad on its website. It shows women uttering phrases like:

"May my new curls make her feel choked with jealousy"

The company whose products the ads promoted are unhappy, claiming to have 'a loyal following of women' and that the ads were 'produced by an all-female creative team', as if that makes any difference. I don't think advertisers can claim the same rights as everyone else to offend people in the name free speech. It's a shame that the main aim of adverts these days seems to be to promote a culture of utter shallowness.