Defiant PM says: I'll face down Iraq protesters

War critics dismissed as 'urban intellectuals'. Most Britons want troops out, poll shows

By Andy McSmith, Raymond Whitaker and Francis Elliott - Published: 25 September 2005

Tony Blair will signal this week that Labour should abandon "urban intellectuals" who deserted it over the Iraq war. As the party's conference begins in Brighton today he is determined to face down growing pressure for a withdrawal of British troops. He believes Labour will lose if it seeks to win back middle-class voters who protested against the war at the last election and can rely instead on its heartland to remain in power.

Mr Blair's hardline stance comes as a poll released last night showed that a majority of Britons wanted UK troops to pull out. Senior military, diplomatic and intelligence figures added their voices to the protest last night. The Prime Minister's determination to ignore the issue was made clear yesterday when party managers stifled a proposed debate on Iraq. Mr Blair will make only a passing reference to the subject in his main conference speech on Tuesday, most of which will be about the importance of improving choice in health and education.

His strategy was made clear by one of his ministers last week who said that " urban intellectuals" accounted for just 4 per cent of the vote. Liam Byrne singled out Cambridge - lost to the Liberal Democrats on an anti-war vote - as he argued that Labour must stick to economic issues. "If we win back Cambridge but lose seats such as Crawley, we will be out of power."

The spectre of the conflict loomed over the eve of the gathering, however, as senior military and diplomatic figures added their voices to calls for an exit strategy. The former top mandarin at the Ministry of Defence, Sir Michael Quinlan, told The Independent on Sunday: "Perhaps we shall soon be - if we are not already - doing more harm by staying as perceived occupiers than by departing."

Meanwhile a YouGov poll for Five News last night showed that 57 per cent of those asked said yes to the question "should British troops pull out of Iraq?" while 27 per cent said no.

Labour's conference managers ruled that there should be no discussion of a resolution backed by two dozen constituency parties, which praised the late Robin Cook's commitment to "a world order governed by rules" - fearing that it would be used as an opening to attack the decision to go to war with Iraq without full UN backing. Instead of a debate, the conference will hear speeches in praise of Cook and of James Callaghan and Mo Mowlam, who also died this year, led by the former Labour leader Neil Kinnock.

Gordon Brown last night appeared to accept Mr Blair's terms for an " orderly transition" of power. In a newspaper interview, he said: " The programme of reform and modernisation will continue when Tony steps down. "

However, a less rosy picture of the relationship was provided in a new book on John Prescott. When the Deputy Prime Minister sought to persuade Mr Brown to return to help Mr Blair win a third term this year, the Chancellor is said to have snapped: "He's ratted on me and he will rat on you." - independent.co.uk

Over 600 held under terror act at Labour conference

RAYMOND HAINEY - Mon 3 Oct 2005

MORE than 600 people were detained under the Terrorism Act during the Labour party conference, it was reported yesterday.

Anti-Iraq war protesters, anti-Blairite OAPs and conference delegates were all detained by police under legislation that was designed to combat violent fanatics and bombers - even though none of them was suspected of terrorist links. None of those detained under Section 44 stop-and-search rules in the 2000 Terrorism Act was arrested and no-one was charged under the terrorism laws.

Walter Wolfgang, an 82-year-old Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, was thrown out of the conference hall by Labour heavies after heckling the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. When he tried to get back in, he was detained under Section 44 and questioned by police. The party later apologised. But the Home Office has refused to apologise for heavy-handed tactics used at this year's conference.

A spokesman insisted: "Stop and search under Section 44 is an important tool in the on-going fight against terrorism. "The powers help to deter terrorist activity by creating a hostile environment for terrorists." He added that the justification for authorising the use of the powers was "intelligence-led and based on an assessment of the threat against the UK."

The shadow home secretary, David Davis, said: "Laws that are designed to fight terrorism should only be used against terrorism." - Scotsman

Day after day, night after night, season upon season, [Brian Haw] remains a beacon, illuminating the great crime of Iraq and the cowardice of the House of Commons. As we talked, two women brought him a Christmas meal and mulled wine. They thanked him, shook his hand, and hurried on. He had never seen them before. "That's typical of the public," he said. A man in a pinstriped suit and tie emerged from the fog, carrying a small wreath. ""I intend to place this at the Cenotaph and read out the names of the dead in Iraq," he said to Brian, who cautioned him: "You'll spend the night in cells, mate." We watched him stride off and lay his wreath. His head bowed, he appeared to be whispering. Thirty years ago, I watched dissidents do something similar outside the walls of the Kremlin. - John Pilger

Blair's Britain 2005 - where peaceful protest can be costly

London Independent | December 10 2005

Arrested over demonstration at arms fair

The cases of Pennie Quinton and Kevin Gillan are due before the House of Lords next month as civil rights campaigners attempt to show that anti-terrorism laws to stop and search are being used unlawfully. Mr Gillan, 28, a postgraduate student from Sheffield, and Ms Quinton, 34, a freelance photo-journalist, were among about 140 people arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 at an arms fair at the Excel Centre in east London in 2003. Lawyers for Liberty argued that the "draconian" powers were being used in a way that was never intended by Parliament and that they had unlawfully deterred members of the public from demonstrating peacefully. The Court of Appeal gave the police the benefit of the doubt.

Convicted over anti-corporate stunt

The self-styled George Fox Six burst into a lecture theatre at Lancaster University in September last year to protest at a corporate conference. They picked a conference attended by executives from BAE Systems, DuPont, GlaxoSmithKline and Shell to highlight what they believed were malign relationships between academic research and business.

In response to the protest, their own university insisted on pressing charges for aggravated trespass.

In October the six - two undergraduates, two postgraduates, a former student and a student from an affiliated college - were found guilty at Lancaster magistrates' court. A district judge gave each a conditional discharge and ordered them to pay £300 costs.

Detained for throwing a tea party

It started as a joke for Mark Barrett, a tour guide, and a few other protesters. Angered at the planned exclusion zone for unauthorised demonstrations around Parlia- ment Square, he went to aprotest in August.

He said: "There were various people there with placards. I said, 'Let's go and throw tea into the Thames as they did at the Boston Tea Party.' We had a bit of a laugh. Now we have a tea party protest every Sunday."

Thus was born the People of the Commons Picknickers, angered by Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Mr Barrett, 36, and 20 other activists were arrested. He is due in court next month. "The law is about the attempt to marginalise people's points of view," he said. "It is anti-democratic and an abuse of power."

Apprehended for 'offensive' T-shirt

John Catt, an 80-year-old peace campaigner, was stopped by police officers as a terrorist suspect in Brighton in September - for wearing a T-shirt with anti-Blair and Bush slogans. Mr Catt, who served in the RAF during the Second World War, was stopped, searched by police and made to sign a form confirming he had been interviewed under the 2000 Terrorism Act. The official record of the encounter confirms that the "purpose" of the search was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic).

Mr Catt was offered a caution by police, but refused and plans to plead not guilty at a trial due to start in January. He had travelled into Brighton from his home in Withdean, on the outskirts of the city. "I said I was going to voice my opposition to the Iraq War. He [the policeman] said: 'We're going to give you a copy of this form.'"People should have the right to protest non-violently. The anti-terrorism laws should not be used to stop people doing that."

Threatened with jail for Iraq protest

Douglas Barker has adopted a new approach to resistance to the war, by withholding 10 per cent of his income tax in protest at Britain's involvement.

The former RAF serviceman, who is 72, owns a 200-acre estate in Wiltshire and describes himself as a lifelong socialist who was a firm supporter of Tony Blair until the war. On Wednesday, he was threatened with jail if he continued to refuse to pay the £1,142.58 the Inland Revenue says he owes. When completing his tax return for the second half of this year, Mr Barker, 72, estimated that 10 per cent of all government expenditure went on the military. He said: "I came to the conclusion that by paying this, I was violating my conscience, because I felt it would have been used illegally to kill people in a sovereign state.

"If I have to go to jail, I will go to jail."

Held for shouting 'nonsense' at Jack Straw

Walter Wolfgang, 82, a Labour party member for 57 years, became a cause célèbre after he was bundled out of the Labour Party conference hall in Brighton in September. His offence was to shout "nonsense" as Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, defended Britain's role in Iraq. He was later stopped under anti-terrorist powers as he tried to re-enter the hall. The heavy-handed treatment of Mr Wolfgang revived criticism of the "control freakery" associated with Labour.

Mr Wolfgang fled Nazi Germany as a teenager for Britain. He said: "I shouted out 'nonsense'. That's all I said. Then these two toughies came round and wanted to manhandle me out ... Physically, I am not too well, so I said I would follow them."

The over-reaction by conference stewards backfired and turned into a public relations disaster for the party. The anti-terror law used to stop Mr Wolfgang was Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is supposed to be deployed against suspected terrorists, not protesters.

Convicted for reading the names of 97 war dead

Maya Evans, 25, this week became the first person to be convicted under the new laws banning demonstrations near Parliament. She was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 in costs after being found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Her "serious" crime was to stand by the Cenotaph, close to Downing Street, reading aloud the names of the 97 British soldiers who have died in Iraq. Ms Evans, a part-time vegan chef from Hastings, east Sussex, was considered such a threat that two police sergeants and 12 constables in two minibuses were sent to arrest her.

Following her conviction, which saddles her with a criminal record, she said: "I just think it's a shame that you cannot voice your freedom of speech. It sends out a message that you will be arrested for remembering the dead." - independent

Impeach Blair over Iraq: UK general

From correspondents in London - January 08, 2006

A LEADING British Army officer believes Prime Minister Tony Blair should be impeached for his role in the war in Iraq, the Mail on Sunday reported.

General Sir Michael Rose, a former UN commander in Bosnia, was quoted by the right-of-centre Mail on Sunday as saying: "I think the politicians should be held to account ... my view is that Blair should be impeached.

"That would prevent the politicians treating quite so carelessly the subject of taking a country into war."

A high-profile resignation of a senior armed forces officer before the start of the March 2003 conflict may also have made the British Government think twice before sending troops to the Gulf, he added.

"I would not have gone to war on such flimsy grounds," he said.

The newspaper said the comments were made during a television documentary to be aired on Channel Four television on Friday.

Martin Bell, BBC television's former war correspondent who made the film - Iraq: The Failure of War - appeared to back the general, writing in the Mail on Sunday that it was "reasonable" to blame the politicians.

"Ordering the armed forces to war is the most serious decision any government takes. On Iraq it was taken with a degree of nonchalance bordering on negligence," said Bell, who is a former independent member of Parliament.

Rose's opinion revives a call made in November 2004 when 23 MPs filed a motion to impeach Blair on charges of "gross misconduct" over the US-led invasion.

Although it fell by the wayside despite attempts by Welsh and Scottish nationalists to revive it during the general election last May, it was the first such bid to impeach a prime minister in 198 years. the australian

Police stop and search 100 people a day under new anti-terror laws

London Independent / Ben Russell | January 25 2006

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, is facing an onslaught over the Government's anti-terror laws after figures showed nearly 36,000 people were stopped and searched under the emergency powers last year. The number of people stopped and searched each year has soared since the Act came into force in 2001, when 10,200 people were stopped. It rose to 33,800 in 2003-04.

Campaigners will mount a legal challenge in the House of Lords today, as they attempt to limit the laws giving police sweeping powers to stop people even if they have no grounds to suspect them of a crime.

The Home Office revealed that people were being stopped at the rate of nearly 100 a day under the powers used to detain a peace campaigner, Walter Wolfgang, at last year's Labour Party conference.

Figures in a Home Office report showed that 35,776 searches of vehicles and people were recorded under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which was passed six years ago. Despite the high number of people stopped, only 455 were arrested. The newest statistics, which cover the 2004-05 financial year and do not include the aftermath of the July bomb attacks on London, represent a record use of the powers since the Act came into force.

The Home Office insisted the powers were essential to disrupt terrorist activity.

But campaigners warned that the law opened the door to discrimination and could be used to suppress legitimate demonstrations. A detailed breakdown of people stopped under the Act in 2003-04 found that more than one in five of those stopped were black or Asian, while reports suggest a huge increase in the number of black and Asian people being stopped since the London bomb attacks.

Lawyers acting for the civil rights pressure group Liberty will launch a test case in the House of Lords today, claiming the law breaches fundamental human rights.

They will press the case of Pennie Quinton and Kevin Gillan, who were among about 140 people arrested under the Terrorism Act at an international arms fair in east London in 2003.

Ministers also face opposition in the House of Lords next week when Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers will attempt to tighten the law to limit the power of police to authorise blanket stop-and-search operations.

Under conventional law, you can be stopped and searched by police if they have any suspicion you have committed a crime.

But the Terrorism Act, when sanctioned by a senior officer, allows police to stop and search people even without suspicion - something that campaigners say is a throwback to the notorious "sus" laws of the 1970s. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: "This is almost worse than the sus laws. The police have the power to change the law of the land in whole parts of the country.''

Dominic Grieve, the shadow Attorney General, said: "These figures speak for themselves. The powers are being used as a blunt instrument and it is far from clear if those arrested are being done so for terrorism. "While we accept such powers may be necessary to protect the public from terrorism, it is vital these powers are not abused."

A spokeswoman for the Home Office insisted the legislation was needed to disrupt potential terrorist attacks. She said: "Stop and search under Section 44 is an important tool in the fight against terrorism. As part of a structured strategy, it aims to create a hostile environment for would-be terrorists to operate in."

John Catt, retired builder: 'It is very menacing when this happens'

John Catt, 81, an anti-war campaigner, has been stopped twice under the Terrorism Act. On the first occasion, the retired builder was stopped in east London and police searched the van he was driving. He said: "I was stopped in Shoreditch when I was pinned in by two police cars. They asked ridiculous questions like where was I going and why, how old I was and where I had been. They searched the back of the van and gave me a receipt to say why I had been stopped."

On the second occasion, he was questioned as he walked through Brighton wearing an anti-Blair T-shirt. He had been making his way to an anti-war demonstration at the seafront, outside the Labour Party conference in the city.

He said: "I was walking down Middle Street in Brighton towards a protest against the war and so on. I had a T-shirt on and had a plastic bag with some felt pens and some board because I draw." He said he was stopped and asked questions, before continuing to the demonstration. He said: "It is very menacing when you see this happening. Our civilisation is on the line."

Kevin Gillan, Student: 'They went through all my stuff'

The police stopped and searched Kevin Gillan as he cycled to an arms trade demonstration in London three years ago. He will challenge the Terrorism Act in the House of Lords today, claiming that it is a breach of human rights. His case, and that of the photographer Pennie Quinton, is backed by the civil liberties pressure group Liberty.

Mr Gillan, 28, a PhD student from Sheffield who has been researching political protests, was among 140 people arrested under the Terrorism Act outside an international arms fair in 2003 in London's Docklands.

Mr Gillan said: "I was within sight of the Excel Centre when the police stopped me. They asked to search me and said it was under the Terrorism Act. A police officer went through my stuff and confiscated some bits of paper with details of other demonstrations. It took about 20 minutes. "I was pretty amazed that they were using anti-terror legislation against protesters. The law is giving an incredible amount of power to the police. It is an exceptionally strong law. These are supposed to be extraordinary powers, not used all the time." - independent.co.uk

"This has the potential to be either the most draconian blasphemy law the western world has seen or the most mild and ineffectual, dependent on the will of the Attorney General."

Race abuse ruled legal as long as the victim doesn't hear

By Marco Giannangeli (Filed: 24/06/2005)

People who use offensive epithets such as "wog", "pakis" or "black bastard" are not breaking the law, as long as no one from an ethnic minority hears them, according to a High Court ruling yesterday.

The decision followed an unsuccessful attempt by the Director of Public Prosecutions to overturn a verdict in which magistrates in Leicestershire cleared a constituent who left a series of messages on his MP's answerphone. The messages, in which Leslie Collins, of Leicester, aired grievances about social, political and financial matters, were left between 2002 and 2004 at the constituency office of the Labour MP David Taylor. Mr Collins was arrested and unsuccessfully prosecuted for leaving messages that were grossly offensive or of an obscene or menacing character under the 1984 Telecommunications Act.

While they acknowledged that the terms were clearly "offensive", Lord Justice Sedley, sitting with Mr Justice Mitting, agreed with the magistrates' ruling that they did not merit criminalisation.

Lord Justice Sedley said: "One only has to visualise having to explain and justify the making of the material distinction to a black person or to one of Asian origin in order to appreciate its invidiousness. ''But for the same reason, I can understand the dilemma in which the justices found themselves."

He said it would have been "extraordinary" if the magistrates had done other than to find the messages offensive, but added that they had to balance the right to respect for private life with the right of free expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. Although one person in the offices found the language upsetting, and another depressing, neither belonged to an ethnic minority.

Had the office contained a member of an ethnic minority, "it might well have been impossible, however stoically the hearer might have brushed it aside, to avoid the conclusion that the message was grossly offensive".

Reacting to the decision, a bemused Mr Taylor said that he had not yet had time to study the ruling but was surprised.

* A watchdog has said that the British National Party could not object to being called "Nazis".

The BNP complained after a Liberal Democrat councillor, Gavin Stollar, told a newspaper: "We don't want Nazis in our town" over plans for a BNP conference in Brentwood, Essex.

The Standards Board for England disagreed that the remark was "offensive and confrontational".

It said: "Mr Stollar expressed his view on a rival party within the normal and acceptable limits of political debate." telegraph.co.uk

Update: Ministers amend religious hatred bill [or do they?]

27/01/2006 - The government has introduced changes to its racial and religious hatred bill to ensure comedians are not open to prosecution for ridiculing religion. Critics of the bill, which would make it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words intended to stir up racial or religious hatred, had argued it would stifle free speech.

But new amendments put by the Home Office would now specifically protect anyone speaking in a religious debate, ridiculing religion or attempting to convert another person to a religious cause from prosecution. These people would only be open to prosecution if they were "reckless" about the effect their statements could have in stirring up religious hatred - previously they could be found guilty if their comments were found to be "likely" to stir up hatred.

In addition, the amendments would create separate legislation for religious hatred - previously, existing protection for racial groups included in the Public Order Act 1986 was simply being extended to religious groups such as Christians, Muslims and atheists.

Home Office minister Paul Goggins said the changes showed the government's commitment to reaching parliamentary agreement over this legislation - which the Lords overwhelmingly rejected last year.

"There is a wide range of support for the government's efforts to protect our vulnerable communities from extremists who stir up hatred," he said.

"The government has recognised the concerns that have been expressed about the impact the legislation might have on freedom of speech.

"The amendments that we have tabled today address these concerns but also ensure a viable and effective offence of incitement to religious hatred. We believe the amendments will attract widespread support both inside and outside parliament."

Hanne Stinson, executive director of the British Humanist Association (BHA), which was one of the most vocal critics of the legislation, said she "very much welcomed" the changes, which differentiated between criticising individuals and criticising beliefs.

"It will protect people from incitement towards them was people but allow very robust criticism [of institutions and beliefs]," she told politics.co.uk.

"We also warmly welcome the replacement of the likelihood of incitement with recklessness - someone now has to really to be aware that there is a real danger of inciting hatred." - dehavilland.co.uk

ID protester stopped and filmed under terror law will have police record for life

By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor (Filed: 31/01/2006)

A campaigner against ID cards who was stopped under counter-terror laws while collecting signatures for a petition has been told by police that his details will be kept on file indefinitely.

Mark Wallace was outside the Labour Party conference in Brighton last autumn when he was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The measure gives officers wide powers to stop anyone in a designated area, whether or not they are acting suspiciously. Mr Wallace, who is campaign manager for the Freedom Association, said he had subsequently asked Sussex police what they proposed to do with the record of the encounter and was told the written version would be permanently retained. A video of his detention would be held for seven years, even though he had done nothing wrong.

"One minute I was peacefully collecting signatures, and the next I had five policemen around me, one with a video camera recording my every move and another taking my personal details, address and so on," Mr Wallace said. "It was bad enough that I was subjected to this unjustly, but why am I now registered for life as linked to anti-terrorist investigations, despite my innocence?" Mr Wallace added: "It worries me that this could damage future travel plans or even attract suspicion in future cases, when all I have done is to use my freedom of speech. The fact that peaceful protest and petitioning is subject to police investigation is itself worrying, but a policy of keeping details of the innocent on file forever is an utter disgrace."

Christopher Gill, chairman of the Freedom Association, said: "These laws are terrifyingly wide ranging, and fail even to demand suspicion in order to stop someone and thus list them for life. "They are being over-used, and innocent people are having their records marked as a result. The police are supposed to protect the innocent from the guilty, not smear their records arbitrarily."

During the Labour conference, 426 people were stopped under section 44 and none was charged or convicted. Official figures show that nationally 119,000 people were stopped under the powers between 2001 and early 2005, and only 1,515 of these were arrested. Figures for 2005 are expected to be far higher after the London bombings last July. Section 44 bestows exceptional powers on the police to stop and search at random, once a particular geographical area has been designated by a chief officer as one that might be targeted by terrorists and authorised as such by the Home Secretary.

Sussex police confirmed that they held stop-and-search records indefinitely and videos for seven years. The Terrorism Act does not specify what should happen to the information.

While Labour was in Brighton, the whole of the city was a designated area. Unlike with normal stop-and-search powers, police are not required to have "reasonable suspicion" that an offence is being committed.

In his annual review of the Terrorism Act last year, Lord Carlile said the use of section 44 "could be cut by at least 50 per cent without significant risk to the public or detriment to policing".

During the 2005 general election, a group of train-spotters was detained and searched at Basingstoke station, which was on a list of possible terrorist targets drawn up by the Home Office.

Also at last year's Labour conference Walter Wolfgang, an octogenarian party member who was ejected from the main hall for heckling, was questioned under section 44. - telegraph.co.uk

UK considers curbing citizens' right to arrest alleged war criminals

The government is considering weakening laws designed to capture alleged war criminals and torturers who enter Britain, after pressure from the Israeli government, the Guardian has learned.

The changes would bar individuals from seeking international warrants for the arrest of people suspected of serious human rights abuses. The government has confirmed that Israeli officials have lobbied for changes in the law, which has kept some of their military officials away from Britain in case there should be an attempt to arrest them.

The proposals follow Israeli anger after an attempt was made to arrest one of their senior retired generals, Doron Almog, at Heathrow last September. He was tipped off that police were waiting to arrest him for alleged war crimes in Gaza. He stayed on the El Al plane and flew back to Israel. The warrant was issued by Bow Street magistrates, central London, after an application from lawyers representing Palestinians who say they suffered because of the Israeli general's alleged illegal orders.

Ministers are said to believe the law is too unpredictable and can risk jeopardising international relations. The warrant naming General Almog for war crimes is believed to be the first of its kind issued in Britain against an Israeli national over conduct in the Palestinian conflict. A British official confirmed that ministers were examining stopping private individuals applying to magistrates for prosecutions over war crimes, genocide and torture, which in turn leads to international arrest warrants being granted.

Under international law, Britain has a duty to arrest and prosecute alleged war crimes suspects if they arrive on its territory, even though the alleged offences occurred overseas.

Gen Almog is alleged to have ordered the destruction of 59 Palestinian civilian homes in revenge for the death of Israeli soldiers, in breach of the Geneva conventions.

Since last September, Israeli officials have met twice with Home Office officials and Foreign Office representatives regarding the attempted arrest. The government has denied claims that US officials want the British law changed, fearing their officials could be arrested for alleged human rights abuses.

Gen Almog said he was tipped off by the Israeli military attache in London, who boarded his plane at Heathrow. Police rejected demands to investigate who tipped off the general, saying in a letter seen by the Guardian from Peter Clarke, the national anti-terrorism coordinator, that they lacked the resources to do so.

Daniel Machover, the solicitor who brought the prosecution, has made an official complaint about the lack of an investigation and police "failure" to board Gen Almog's plane at Heathrow. Mr Machover said any change would weaken the government's claim to be resolute in fighting serious human rights abuses.

He said; "If the UK goes ahead and bends to Israeli pressure, while Israel continues its universally condemned illegal practices, this will sent the worst possible signal to the Israeli army. The British government is completely obsessed with controlling these processes."

Several Labour backbenchers have tabled questions, including Phyllis Starkey, MP for Milton Keynes South West, who said: "The obvious concern is the way in which the Israeli government in particular seems to be given quite favoured access to interfere in UK domestic policy."

The government says any change would be referred back to parliament. The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, apologised to his Israeli counterpart over the attempted arrest, and the warrant has been withdrawn.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "The government is carefully considering the implications of the General Almog case. The government is currently considering a range of matters relating to the issuing of arrest warrants in international cases, but has not yet concluded what changes, if any, are required. There have been two meetings by home officials with Israeli officials regarding this matter. The Home Office has not been in contact with US officials on this matter."

A spokeswoman for the Israeli embassy in London confirmed meetings with British officials and said: "We would like to find a solution to this unacceptable situation." She added that the right of individuals in Britain to obtain warrants in cases of alleged war crimes had been abused. "This has been used by people to promote their own agenda, and that's the worry we're expressing."

It was reported that shortly after the attempt to arrest Gen Almog, the matter was discussed by the Israeli and British prime ministers at a meeting of the UN in New York

guardian

Israel general 'avoids UK arrest'

UK police arrest stars of award-winning film
"The Road to Guantanomo" under the Prevention of Terrorism act

Acclaimed director Michael Winterbottom ("A Cock and Bull Story", "24 Hour Party People", "Welcome to Sarajevo") had been showing the film at the Berlin Film Festival, where it has won a number of top awards.

"The Road to Guantanomo" traces the true story of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Ruhal Ahmed, three Muslim friends from Birmingham who were picked up as aliens in Afghanistan by US forces and ended up in Guantanamo for three years, where they suffered brutal and humiliating treatment.

Extensive interrogation established that they had no connection with al-Qaida, and despite their plight being ignored by British authorities, eventually they were returned home. The UK media covered live the return of these "Suspected terrorists" and the massive police convoy that brought them in to Central London for questioning. Their release after the UK police also found they had no connection with terrorism was, naturally, hardly mentioned.

Last week the three ex-detainees travelled to the Berlin Festival with the Winterbottom party, and were arrested yesterday under the Prevention of Terrorism Act as they returned with the Winterbottom Party. They were held by Special Branch and questioned for several hours about where they had been and who they had met. They were also questioned on Michael Winterbottom's politics.

Even more worrying, the three actors who portrayed them in the film were also arrested and questioned. The actors have no particular political or religious affiliation and were also arrested apparently purely on the basis that they were Asian. None of the white members of the group were arrested.

Following legal intervention by Gareth Peirce, the group were eventually released. Special Branch claimed they had not been arrested, merely detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. - Indymedia.org

UPDATE:

The film's producers say four actors from the film, who all play terrorism suspects, were detained at Luton airport after flying back from Germany on an easyJet flight. They included Rizwan Ahmed and Farhad Harun, who were stopped along with Shafiq Rasul and Rhuhel Ahmed, the former Guantánamo inmates they play on screen.

In a statement, Rizwan Ahmed said police swore at him and asked if he had become an actor to further the Islamic cause. He said he was at first denied access to a lawyer and was questioned about his views on the Iraq war by a policewoman. "She asked me whether I intended to do more documentary films, specifically more political ones like The Road to Guantánamo. She asked 'Did you become an actor mainly to do films like this, to publicise the struggles of Muslims?'"

Mr Ahmed alleged that he had a telephone wrestled from his hand as he tried to contact a lawyer and was later abused. He claimed that one police officer had called him a "fucker".

Melissa Parmenter, co-producer of the film, described the detention and questioning as outrageous.

A spokeswoman for Bedfordshire police, which patrols Luton airport, said that none of the six men had been arrested. "The police officers wanted to ask them some questions under the counter-terrorism act," she said. "All were released within the hour. Part of the counter-terrorism act allows us to stop and examine people if something happens that might be suspicious."

Following legal intervention by Gareth Peirce, the group were eventually released. Special Branch claimed they had not been arrested, merely detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. - Niks Bijzonders via Indymedia.org

Blair Approval Rating Falls to 28% in Britain

February 27, 2006 (Angus Reid Global Scan) – Few adults in Britain are content with Tony Blair, according to a poll by Ipsos-MORI published in The Sun. 28 per cent of respondents are satisfied with their prime minister's performance, down nine points since November.

In May 2005, British voters renewed the House of Commons. The governing Labour party secured 356 seats, followed by the Conservatives with 197 and the Liberal Democrats with 62. Blair has served as prime minister since 1997.

In October 2004, Blair announced that he would retire at the end of his third term. Current chancellor of the exchequer Gordon Brown has been mentioned as a possible replacement for Blair.

Yesterday, Dennis Healey-a former chancellor of the exchequer considered as one of the Labour party's elder statesmen-suggested that Blair should step down soon, saying, "I think Tony's showing he is losing his grip, and the sooner Gordon takes over the better." 31 per cent of respondents are satisfied with the current government, down two points in three months.

The next election must be held on or before Jun. 3, 2010. Sitting prime ministers can dissolve Parliament and call an early ballot at their discretion.

Polling Data