From national treasure to convicted sex offender

30 June 2014

Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall. All guilty. It is simply inconceivable that managers and colleagues at the BBC did not know what was happening. It is a depressing endightment of their status and of the prevalent culture of the time that no one took any action while these entertainers used their status to sexually abuse people..

So now decades later it is let to the courts to try to exact some justice for girls who were abused decades ago by these predators.

Rolf Harris was today found guilty of indecently assaulting four victims. Harris thought his celebrity status placed him above the law, police said today. "Rolf Harris has habitually denied any wrong doing forcing his victims to recount their ordeal in public," Detective Chief Inspector Michael Orchard said outside court.

The jury at Southwark crown court convicted Harris of 12 counts of indecent assault, from 12 initial charges dating over nearly two decades from 1968.

•One of the alleged victims was a childhood friend of his daughter, Bindi. Another was aged seven or eight.

•The court heard evidence from 10 different women about alleged assaults by Harris, none of whom knew each other aside from a mother and daughter who claimed they were groped together. Many of the women described similar experiences.

Once seen by a UK audience as a national treasure, Harris became one of the biggest names in the high profile sex crime investigation Operation Yewtree. Dozens more alleged victims have come forward during the trial, including several in Australia, and Scotland Yard has been in touch with their counterparts in the Australian police, but it is not yet clear whether they are pursuing any investigation in Harris's home country.

The NSPCC said it has received 28 calls relating to Harris to date, involving 13 people who claim they fell prey to the performer.

Equally depressing Harris used his fame and money to try to stop the story of his crimes becoming public; he  was first questioned by police in November 2012 but not named by the media until April 2013. His lawyers tried to stop his name coming out aggressively citing Leveson and threatening the media.

Harris was known as the ‘Octopus’ within sections of the entertainment industry; but no one did or said anything to stop him.

More: Rolf Harris: A very ordinary tale of a bleak abuse of male power over young girls
 

Two Older Planes That Airlines Won't Let Fade Away

28 June 2014 Bloomberg Business Week

Sometimes aerospace engineers just nail it: Size, range, and operating cost all come together in an airplane that fits a market need like a leather glove. Boeing’s 757 medium-range airplane has that type of cozy feel for the U.S. carriers that fly it to Europe. And Airbus has a similarly well-suited product with its widebody A330, which has won a devoted market among international airlines.

Airbus and Boeing have focused their recent efforts on advanced composite airplanes that are lighter and burn less fuel. But both manufacturers have found a vocal group of airline customers keen to see updated versions of those two classics instead. Exotic technology might be wonderful for future cost savings, but it’s also expensive. Sometimes it’s wiser for an airline to squeeze marginal financial improvements from a plane that is known, liked, and cost-effective.

Boeing and Airbus, of course, need to weigh the sales potential of their newer products against the design costs—and likely lower profit margins—of older models in need of a tweak. Airbus has decided to proceed with a new-engine version of the A330, Reuters reported on Friday, in a nod to the model’s popularity on trans-Atlantic routes; an announcement of the A330neo could come as soon as the Farnborough Air Show next month. But there is also the risk that updating an old plane could damage sales of its new A350 family. “There is no decision yet,” Airbus spokesman Martin Fendt said in an e-mail.

At Boeing, meanwhile, an update to the venerable 757 could fill the product gap between its largest 737 and the smallest 787 Dreamliner, says Scott Hamilton, an aerospace analyst with Leeham. That gap is large and one reason Boeing has heard calls from customers to launch a 757 replacement. The latest came on Thursday when the president of Kazakhstan-based Air Astana told Bloomberg News that Boeing would “soon” announce a new aircraft with the 757′s profile to fill its product gap.

Boeing stopped building the 757 a decade ago, but it’s hardly a distant memory: Delta, American, and United all still fly large numbers of 757s, which have become a mainstay on many European routes from the East Coast. (Carriers also love the plane’s cockpit similarities to the larger 767—pilots trained on either airplane can fly both.) Airlines are replacing the plane on domestic routes with new, far more fuel-efficient versions of the Airbus A321 and Boeing’s 737 MAX. But neither of those planes has the range to replace the 757 across the Atlantic. “There is still life left in the younger 757s so there isn’t a burning need” for Boeing to rush a decision, Hamilton wrote on Friday in an e-mail.
 

Big Four Sell Out Hong Kong

28 June 2014 Bloomberg

Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement better hope it never needs an accountant in Hong Kong because, as of this morning, the Big Four audit firms have gone on the record in opposition to it. Their fear and ire, expressed in a joint statement published in three of the city’s most prominent newspapers, was prompted by the possibility that Occupy Central, a pro-democracy group, will hold a protest in Central Hong Kong next month, thereby paralyzing at least part of the downtown (assuming anybody shows up). Notably, the event has yet to be scheduled and -- according to the organizers -- it may not happen.

So why, then, would Deloitte, PwC, Ernst & Young and KPMG bother to issue their letter now? For the past several months, Hong Kong’s political scene has been riled by a Chinese government proposal that would introduce universal suffrage into the semi-autonomous city in 2017 -- but only so long as the Chinese government gets to choose the candidate for election. In response, Occupy Central organized an unofficial referendum in which Hong Kong citizens can vote on three alternative proposals for selecting candidates for election -- all three of which involve public participation. Since the poll opened on July 20, more than 750,000 citizens have voted -- an astonishing turnout.

After the poll closes on July 29, Occupy will forward the winning suggestion to Hong Kong’s government and await a final election decision. If that proposal doesn’t meet what Occupy is calling an “international standard,” the protest will happen.

The audit firms, however, aren’t willing to wait for the Hong Kong government to reject the referendum. Instead, they issued their statement in the midst of the voting, leaving little doubt that they hope to influence it -- if only by helping to suppress the incredible turnout, which increases the poll’s legitimacy by the hour -- in a manner that better comports with the strong preferences of China’s ruling Communist Party. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the auditors raise the specter of social chaos and economic ruin that China’s state-run newspapers so like to invoke and highlight when democracy movements in places like Egypt fail. In this sense, Hong Kong’s accountants sound no better than propagandists:

"If Occupy Central happens, commercial institutions such as banks, exchanges and the stock market will inevitably be affected. We are worried that multinational corporations and investors will consider relocating their headquarters from Hong Kong or even withdrawing their businesses."

This is fear-mongering and hysteria, at best, and it completely glosses over just how necessary Hong Kong is to the global financial order, and to China’s business community. Needless to say, the Big Four know these on-the-ground facts well. None of them will uproot from one of the world’s global financial hubs as a result of a pro-democracy movement, and neither will the clients who pay them. They’re all in Hong Kong for the long-term, benefiting from its ever-greater economic integration with China.

Along the way, however, the Big Four are not above singing for favors from the authorities who control access to so much of China’s economy. In this, they’re not alone. Last month the Canadian Chamber of Commerce joined its Indian and Italian counterparts in condemning the unscheduled Occupy protests; the U.S. Chamber, to its credit, has remained silent.

A free Hong Kong gives institutions the right to protest against protests -– though one that they’re under no obligation to exercise. After all, U.S. and European corporations that operate in China and Hong Kong aren't known for being politically outspoken on Hong Kong or any other issue -- it’s not in their interests. That they would choose this delicate moment -- when Hong Kong’s democratic future is very much on the line -- to break that silence is shocking and shameful. Hopefully, it’s an act of cowardice that won’t soon be forgotten in Asia -- or in the democratic countries that these accounting firms still like to call home.
 

Reform poll hits 750,000 votes as accounting firms condemn Occupy Central
 

The new working class

26 June 2014 The Economist

It is one of the crueller ironies of politics that that few things as predictably increase the pressure on politicians to behave inauthentically as the perception that they are inauthentic. The response to Labour’s broadly disappointing results in the European and local elections of May 22nd bears out that old verity to a fault. Observing that the party did well in London and lost support to UKIP elsewhere, MPs and commentators of various hues have warned that it should, in effect, try to sound at least a little more like UKIP. They are completely wrong.

Emblematic of the genre is John Mann’s recent piece for Prospect. The MP for Bassetlaw warns that: “We cannot form a government without white working class Britain behind us”. Then he goes on to advocate a crackdown on (often exaggerated) abuses by foreigners in Britain designed to appeal to such UKIP-inclined voters. Luke Akehurst, a Labour councillor and normally astute commentator, echoes such sentiments in a recent post for LabourList. In it, he warns against “giving up on the white working class”. “Labour’s strength and resilience,” he argues, “has been because of the distinctive nature of the party as a party rooted in a class, the working class, and organisationally linked to it via the trade union link.”

Even if such analyses were right about the problem, their solution stinks. They avow that the generally older, male voters most drawn to UKIP are concerned about bread-and-butter issues rather than immigration per se. As Mr Mann puts it: "These voters are rarely racist. Their concern is about security of employment, access to housing, quality of education." In that case, Labour should talk about these well-founded concerns and, whatever else it does, avoid corroborating the notion that the problems are fundamentally rooted in immigration rates (they are not). It should heed the work of George Lakoff, an American academic who warns politicians against adopting their opponents’ conceptual “frames”. By doing so, he argues, they only strengthen these, and thus their opponents. Yet Labourites like Yvette Cooper make precisely that mistake when they call on colleagues to “listen” to voters’ “concerns” about immigration when they (presumably) mean: "promote measures to boost the supply of housing and good jobs".

And if they insist on banging on about immigration, do they really think defectors to UKIP will take it seriously? Voters are sharper than such prescriptions allow. They look at Labour and see a party leagues ahead of its rivals in embodying the multi-coloured patchwork of British society in 2014. It is completely incredible to suggest that such a party will seriously address the “unsettling” effects of immigration (which, insofar as UKIP support entails susceptibility to such views, would amount not only to slamming the door but to encouraging immigrants already here to leave). And voters know that. In fact, inauthentically pandering to their views—however gingerly—will if anything accentuate support for UKIP, which thrives on the trope of venal politicians willing to say anything to get elected.

But these errors are as nothing compared with the basic misunderstanding of the market for social democratic politics in 21st-century Britain—one which wrongly conflates working-class identity with disaffected, anti-immigrant sentiment. The BBC’s 2013 study of the modern class system shows how outdated this conception is. The study defines the traditional working-class as: “the surviving rump of the working class”. But, it adds, “they now only comprise 14 per cent of the population, and are relatively old, with an average age of 65. To this extent, the traditional working class is fading from contemporary importance.” In fact, it continues, the old class definitions (upper, middle and lower) together account for only 39% of the population. The remaining 61% is accounted for by new categories—neither as blue-collar as the traditional working class nor as established as the traditional middle class—like ‘emergent service workers’, the ‘technical middle class’ and ‘new affluent workers’.

“The 'new affluent workers' and the 'emergent service workers' are an interesting focus. They seem, in many respects, to be the children of the 'traditional working class', and they might thus be said to exemplify the stark break in working-class culture which has been evident as a result of de-industrialisation, mass unemployment, immigration and the restructuring of urban space. They show high levels of engagement with 'emerging cultural capital' and have extensive social networks, so indicating that they are far from being disengaged in any conventional sense. To this extent, new social formations appear to be emerging out of the tendrils of the traditional working class.”

So the question of how a “working class” party should position itself on matters like Europe and immigration has more to do with age than traditional class boundaries. This is borne out by the latest YouGov poll of voter-defined “important issues”, which shows the difference in outlook between working- and middle-class voters to be consistently smaller than that between old (60+) and young (18-24) ones. On immigration, for example, the class gap is 12 points; the age one is 44 points. On housing, one point divides working and middle class; six points divides old and young. Support for UKIP follows a similar pattern.

Partly, age is itself explains the difference. Generation Y, the “Easyjet generation”, is more pro-business, internationalist and culturally unsentimental than its predecessors. “As the Pre War cohort shrinks as a proportion of the population, therefore, we can expect the balance of opinion in the population as a whole to move in a more liberal direction.” So concludes Generation Strains, a magisterial study into generational differences by Demos and Ipsos MORI.

But broader demographic shifts are at play too. Groups and areas traditionally regarded as middle-class are taking on political characteristics traditionally associated with urban working-class (and thus Labour-voting) groups. Thanks to globalisation and the rise of the service economy, they are more likely to be economically insecure (explored in depth in this indispensable Policy Network essay). Thanks to housing pressures in city centres, they are more likely to include younger voters. Thanks to the cross-generational evolution of immigrant groups, they are more ethnically diverse. As Richard Webber and Trevor Philips note: “There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that any emerging volatility amongst the UK's five million ethnic electors may turn out to be at least as significant as the three million who tell pollsters they might support UKIP in the forthcoming election.”

In short, the country (and particularly electorally decisive bits of it like the suburbs of big cities, the Midlands and new towns) is coming to look more like inner London. Indeed, for all the talk of Labour’s “metropolitan strongholds” in the capital, they party’s most-celebrated victories in the local and European elections were not among the Guardian-reading artichoke-chompers of Islington or Southwark but in suburban Croydon, Merton and Redbridge. The party’s success in such places was the culmination of years of steadily shifting demographics there.

As a political party, failing to anticipate and respond to long-term demographic trends is a recipe for decline (just ask Republicans in the United States). For the Labour Party, then, this means recognising that its future as a party of the “working-class” (accepting that the term is fluid) depends on its ability to win over young voters, urban and suburban voters, university graduates, ethnic minority voters and service workers—precisely those voters generally not drawn to UKIP. This is the new working class: more internationalist, better educated and much more ethnically diverse than the older generation, but in many cases more economically insecure.

And just as—as Mr Akehurst notes—the union movement bound the traditional working class to the party, so single-issue campaigns, online fora like Mumsnet, NGOs and alt-labour organisations provide political channels to the new working class. It is no coincidence that the most resonant moment of Labour’s otherwise calamitous 2010 election campaign was Gordon Brown’s address not to a trade union audience but to Citizens UK, an alt-labour network. The speech topped the YouTube charts and was credited with helping Labour keep seats it would otherwise have lost.

All political parties should, of course, seek to build election victories on broad-based coalitions of voters. But eventually they are confronted by zero-sum calculations. The cultural differences between the traditional working class and the new working class are no exception. Labour can only go so far towards one group of voters without losing some in the other.

The paper Labour’s Next Majority by Marcus Roberts of the Fabian Society provides a fine overview of the choices available to the party ahead of next year’s general election. In it, Mr Roberts argues that the party’s “core vote” is about 27.5% of the electorate. To this, he elaborates, it can add 6.5 points by winning over former Liberal Democrat voters, a further five points from new and former non-voters and one final point by winning over former Tory voters.

The result is a very credible “40% strategy”. But it rests on the assumption—thrown into doubt since the paper’s publication by the results of the European and local elections—that although UKIP is competing with Labour for former non-voters, it is “not drawing significant support in terms of Labour 2010 voters”. Based on current YouGov polls, however, UKIP appears both to be eating about two to three points of this pool and to be doing especially well among non-voters. This risks knocking the election-winning 40% down to the hung-parliament territory of 35% (less if rates of Lib Dem-Labour conversion are lower than expected). This begs the question: could Labour add enough support from the new working class to get into clear majority territory? And how big would the pool available to the party be?

There are two obvious places to look for such voters. The first is the stream of Britons turning 18. These voters are—by definition—typical of the long-term attitudinal trends affecting the British electorate, and well disposed towards Labour. The 18-24 age group was the only one to support the party over the Conservatives in 2010. But turnout was low, at 44%, so this counted for less. If Labour could increase this rate to the national average of 65% (through its campaigning activities, or through methods like this intriguing one from Lord Andrew Adonis) it might add two to three points to its support—and perhaps two more if it could do the same to the other below-average-turnout group, the 25-34-year olds.

Tory voters from 2010 constitute the second pool. They, it is worth noting, are worth double to Labour (in Tory-Labour marginals, at least) what voters of other parties are. Some in Labour rightly observe that this group is relatively small (after all, David Cameron did not even win a majority). But look at the proportion made up of sub-groups broadly or potentially well disposed to Labour, and it seems more promising. One in five Conservative voters in 2010 rent their homes, for example, and only 37% own them outright. About one in ten are ethnic minorities. About one in five are under 35. Pre-election polling suggested that many work for SMEs. Add to that research by the pressure group Class showing that comfortable majorities of Tory voters in 2010 support left-of-centre policies, and YouGov polling showing that 41% of them are (to one degree or another) open to voting Labour in the future. Is a Labour pitch aimed at splitting off such sub-groups from the Tory base, to the tune of 5-6 points of the electorate, so unrealistic?

Of course, this is seriously back-of-the-envelope stuff, but it is nevertheless fair to suggest that these two groups of voters—additional new voters and 2010 Tories—could increase support for Labour by up to 10 points. On top of its shrinking base and its pool of Lib Dem converts, this gives the party a potential 45% electorate if it pursues new working class voters (even if, in the process, it loses some current and potential support to UKIP).

Mr Akehurst's firmest objection to such an approach is that it betrays Labour’s traditions as a party of “the working people”. This erects an unhelpful wall between communitarian values on the one hand and cosmopolitan ones on the other, plonking the Labour Party, its “natural” voters, history and tradition squarely on the side of the former. It overlooks a rich liberal seam in Labourism that unites Keir Hardie, the Attlee government, The Future of Socialism, the Jenkins reforms, the Kinnock-Smith-Blair project and some of the best aspects of the contemporary Labour Party.

At every stage (apart, perhaps, from the early 1980s) the party has—like the Conservatives—sought to present itself as a One Nation outfit uniting disparate parts of the country. Like the Tories, however, it has spent the decades in a near-permanent debate about precisely which voters should constitute its natural base—those on whom it should rely for a mandate to govern effectively and with stability. In truth, and to a greater extent than Mr Akehurst allows, the answer is in the party’s hands. In the sage words of Mr Roberts, “the voters we pursue dictate the policies we get.” That dictum presents today’s party with an increasingly stark choice. If it wants to win power to fight a rearguard action against the forces of globalisation, then it should chase UKIP voters and the UKIP-inclined with all its might. But if it wants to a mandate to make the most of globalisation's opportunities, it might want to start elsewhere.

The electoral coalition outlined above is but one of many possible permutations. Readers may well have well-founded doubts or objections about it. But it is, at the very least, broadly consistent with the current experience of the wider North Atlantic centre-left. Where Labour’s sister parties are doing fairly well (the United States, Italy and Sweden come to mind), they are responding to the international rise of the new working class. Where they are not (France, Germany and Spain being obvious examples), they are seeing their old electoral coalition fragment; with right- and left-wing populists, Greens, moderate Christian Democrats and single-issue parties hoovering up the bits. Your correspondent ventures that Britain, though politically distinctive, is not so different from these countries as to render such examples entirely inapplicable.
 

EU Council bans official visits to Thailand

24 June 2014

The EU Council* has adopted the following conclusions today:

“1. The European Union and Thailand are bound together by strong and longstanding ties, ranging from trade, tourism, investments and culture, to people to people contacts.

2. It was therefore with extreme concern that the Council has followed recent developments in Thailand. It called on the military leadership to restore, as a matter of urgency, the legitimate democratic process and the Constitution, through credible and inclusive elections. The Council also called on all parties to exercise the utmost restraint. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms must be upheld. Furthermore the Council urged military authorities to free all political detainees, to refrain from any further arrests for political reasons and to remove censorship.

3. The military leadership’s recent announcement falls short of the credible roadmap for a return to constitutional rule which the situation requires. Fully functioning democratic institutions must be brought back to ensure the protection and welfare of all citizens.

4. Against this background, the EU is forced to reconsider its engagement. Official visits to and from Thailand have been suspended; the EU and its Member States will not sign the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Thailand, until a democratically elected government is in place. Other agreements will, as appropriate, be affected. EU Member States have already begun to review their military cooperation with Thailand.

5. Only an early and credible roadmap for a return to constitutional rule and the holding of credible and inclusive elections will allow for the EU’s continued support. The Council decided that the EU will keep its relations with Thailand under review and will consider further possible measures, depending on circumstances.”

It is a rebuke; there is some criticism of the roadmap. It is not a surprise. Will some individual countries go further and ban junta members from traveling to the EU as Australia as done?

The Guardian view on the jailing of three al-Jazeera journalists in Egypt

24 June 2014 Editorial

There could be no clearer evidence that Egyptian society is still in a state of civil war than the verdicts which Egyptian judges have been handing down in recent cases, culminating in the appalling miscarriage of justice represented by the sentencing of three al-Jazeera journalists to jail yesterday. The evidence that the three were involved in aiding terrorist activities by the Muslim Brotherhood was risible, while the evidence that the court was determined to make an example of them, and of other defendants, was overwhelming.

The journalists were accused of falsely suggesting that Egypt is a deeply divided nation, yet these perverted verdicts prove just that. So does the recent confirmation of death sentences on 183 people accused of attacking a police station in 2013, another case where irrelevant evidence was waved about in court and relevant evidence, such as that some of the defendants were not even at the scene of the attack, was simply disregarded. So do the revelations this week about the existence of a secret military prison where torture is routine and even minimal standards for treatment of detainees are disregarded.

What is happening is that the Egyptian security establishment is striking back at those it perceives to be its enemies. The Brotherhood, in spite of the fact that it is a huge religious, social and political movement, has already been criminalised. Mere membership is an offence; anything more active attracts the punitive attention of the police and intelligence services. Now any institution connected with it – as al-Jazeera is because its base is in Qatar, whose sympathies with the Brotherhood are well known – is to be pursued.

No matter that the journalists concerned were, according to their professional colleagues, simply reporting what was going on in a professional manner. No matter that there is an important distinction between al-Jazeera's English service, which aspires to almost BBC-like standards of objectivity, and its Arabic services, which are more biased and critical but still can hardly be accused of attempting to undermine the Egyptian state. It would be easy to conclude that these verdicts are instances of "telephone justice", in which somebody in the executive simply tells a judge or a panel of judges what verdict is required.

But this is probably not the case. The Egyptian judiciary has historically been quite independent, but it also has some of the aspects of a hereditary, privileged caste. It felt threatened, bullied and infiltrated during the period when the Brotherhood was in power. It also had a tradition of strong identification with the old authoritarian state, and a belief that one of its roles, and sometimes its most important role, is to defend that state, now back on top, against its enemies. The army, the police, the intelligence services and the judiciary are in this kind of view all on the same war footing against subversives and terrorists. And in a war of this kind, "ordinary" standards of justice are less important than the need to deter and intimidate. It may be that President Sisi did not personally signal that he wanted such unfair and harsh verdicts. But he has helped create a them-and-us divide in Egyptian society that has infected the judiciary and produced these travesties of justice. It has to be added that much public opinion in Egypt, anxious for "order" and mistrustful of the Brotherhood, will not be unduly disturbed.

The Egyptian military is heavily dependent on a constant supply of American equipment, while the government draws international legitimacy from its friendly relations with western states. Yet the secretary of state John Kerry, visiting Cairo at the weekend, revealed that the US has released $575m (£338m) in military aid to Egypt that had been frozen since the ousting of President Mohamed Morsi last year. This makes his remarks there about upholding the rights of all Egyptians nugatory. The United States and other friends of Egypt should be using the leverage represented by aid and other forms of assistance forcefully rather than just throwing it away.

Al-Jazeera journalists' stiff sentences prompt international outrage at Egypt

24 June 2014 The Guardian

International outrage at Egypt's brutal crackdown on dissent intensified on Monday after three journalists for Al-Jazeera English were sentenced to up to a decade in jail for endangering Egypt's national security in a verdict that dealt both a shocking blow to Egyptian free speech and a humiliating rebuke to American attempts to moderate the worst excesses of Egypt's security state.

US secretary of state John Kerry said it was "chilling and draconian", British prime minister David Cameron condemned the verdict as "completely appalling" while Australia's foreign minister, Julie Bishop – whose fellow countryman, Peter Greste, was one of those convicted – said that the "Australian government simply cannot understand it based on the evidence that was presented in the case". Australia, the Netherlands and Britain all summoned their respective Egyptian ambassadors to explain the verdict in what marked the fiercest international condemnation of Egypt's crackdown on dissent since the murder of over 600 anti-government protesters last August.

The backlash followed the sentencing of former BBC correspondent Peter Greste, the ex-CNN journalist Mohamed Fahmy, and local producer Baher Mohamed to seven, seven and 10 years respectively for endangering Egypt's national security, falsifying news, and helping terrorists. Four students and activists indicted in the case were sentenced to seven years.

Rights campaigners portrayed the verdict as a frightening assault on what remains of Egyptian free speech. But it also represented a shaming slapdown to American diplomacy, coming only a day after John Kerry, America's top diplomat, landed in Egypt for a brief meeting with Egypt's president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, in which he raised the impending trial in their discussion and called for Egypt to improve its human rights record. That a guilty verdict was still reached hours later, despite Kerry confirming the return of US military and economic aid to Egypt, represented an embarrassment for US diplomacy, analysts argued.

In court, 10-year sentences were also handed to British journalists Sue Turton and Dominic Kane and the Dutch reporter Rena Netjes, who were not in Egypt but were tried in absentia.

The courtroom, packed with reporters, diplomats and relatives, erupted at the verdict which came despite prosecutors failing "to produce a single shred of solid evidence", according to Amnesty International, which monitored the trial.

Family and friends of the convicted men broke down in tears, while inside the defendants' cage the journalists reacted with defiance. Greste, who had only been reporting in Egypt for a fortnight when he was arrested last December, silently held his arm aloft. Fahmy, a dual Canadian-Egyptian national, clung to the bars of the cage as he was pulled away by police, shouting: "They'll pay for this. I promise you they'll pay for this."

Fahmy's mother and fiancee both broke down in tears, while his brother Adel, who had travelled from his home in Kuwait for the verdict, reacted with fury.

"This is not a system," he said. "This is not a country. They've ruined our lives. It shows everything that's wrong with the system: it's corrupt. This country is corrupt through and through."

Greste's two younger brothers, Mike and Andrew, who came from Australia to attend court, were grim-faced. "I'm just stunned," said Andrew Greste, as police pushed reporters from the courtroom. "It's difficult to comprehend how they can have reached this decision." Thousands of miles away in Australia, Greste's father Juris was filmed receiving the news from his Twitter feed. "That's crazy, that's crazy, that's absolutely crazy," a distraught Greste senior was heard saying as he walked away from the camera.

Outside the courtroom – as police jostled journalists, and pushed one into the path of a passing car – diplomats and trial observers expressed incredulity at the verdict.

"On the basis of the evidence that we've seen, we can't understand the verdict," said Ralph King, the Australian ambassador in Cairo.

Evidence provided by the prosecution included footage from channels and events that had nothing to do with Egyptian politics or al-Jazeera. It included videos of trotting horses filmed by Sky News Arabia, a song by the Australian singer Gotye, and a BBC documentary from Somalia. The prosecution's case was also severely undermined by the retraction of key testimonies from three lead witnesses, who admitted during proceedings they did not know whether the three journalists had undermined national security – contradicting written claims they made before the trial.

The case was riddled with procedural errors – including the misspelling of the name of convicted Dutch journalist Rena Netjes in the court papers, and her wrong passport number. "It's ridiculous that a non-existent Dutch citizen with a non-existent passport number has been convicted of terrorism," Netjes said later by telephone.

Ostensibly, the trial was a broadside against al-Jazeera, a Qatar-owned news channel that Egypt's government feels is biased towards Sisi's predecessor, the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi. But Mohamed Lotfy, executive director of the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, who has observed the trial for Amnesty, said the verdict sent a frightening message to all opposition figures in Egypt.

"It's a warning to all journalists that they could one day face a similar trial and conviction simply for carrying out their official duties," Lotfy said. "This feeds into a wider picture of a politicised judiciary and the use of trials to crack down on all opposition voices."

According to Egypt's interior ministry, at least 16,000 political prisoners have been arrested since last July's overthrow of Mohamed Morsi – some of whom have been disappeared, many of whom have been tortured, and many more sentenced to draconian jail terms and death sentences based on little evidence.

In an official Amnesty statement, the group called the verdict a "dark day" for press freedom. "In 12 court sessions," the statement read, "the prosecution failed to produce a single shred of solid evidence linking the journalists to a terrorism organisation or proving that they had 'falsified' news footage."

Amnesty's reaction was matched by a furious international response that saw several foreign ministers including Britain's William Hague expressing outrage at the verdict.

But relatives of the jailed journalists and defendants convicted in absentia said foreign governments must now go beyond banal statements and apply real pressure to help reverse the verdicts. "It's outrageous that Egypt gets away with this and the rest of the world keeps sending them money," said Rena Netjes, in views supported by Fahmy's brother Adel.

"I feel diplomatic pressure is the most important thing," said Adel Fahmy after leaving court. "There has to be lobbying from any country that cares about the freedom of expression in Egypt. It can't just be statements any more. They have to make it clear to Egyptians that this is unacceptable."

But the verdict may have revealed the limits of foreign influence in Egypt, with Egyptian foreign minister Sameh Shoukry issuing a "complete rejection of any foreign interference in the country's internal affairs."

It also represented an embarrassing humiliation for John Kerry, analysts argued. The US secretary of state expressed hopes of a positive outcome to the trial in a meeting with Sisi on Sunday – only to find his pleas unanswered the next day. Commenting on Kerry's apparent ineffectiveness, Michael Hanna, Egypt analyst at the Century Foundation, said: "When you're thinking of making a stop in Egypt, there are a whole range of issues that come into play. And one of the things you have to consider is the pending verdict. The trip could have made sense if assurances had been given regarding the verdict. But if not, then it's sloppy scheduling."

Inside Egypt, where al-Jazeera journalists are portrayed as terrorists due to their perceived support for the ousted Mohamed Morsi, many cheered the verdict. "Aljazeera channel are evil," wrote one Twitter user in a typical response. "They support only the [Muslim Brotherhood] and change stories and want to show Egypt [is] not safe for tourism."

It is this hostile domestic reaction to al-Jazeera that may dissuade Egypt's new president from pardoning the defendants – a move foreign observers have optimistically speculated Sisi might now take. In the absence of a pardon, the convicted journalists will have to navigate Egypt's appeals system – a process that is considered less politicised than the rest of Egypt's judiciary, but may take until at least October to start. "We've lost a good amount of faith in the justice system," said Greste's brother Mike after Monday's verdict. "But [an appeal] may be the only process left available to us."
 

Egypt's kangaroo courts

23 June 2014 Al Monitor

Last week, Wael Metwally, my new business partner, texted at 11 a.m., saying, “Apparently I have been sentenced to 15 years in absentia despite being in attendance in court,” before being promptly arrested in the court room for violating his “in absentia” verdict and thrown in prison, alongside Alaa Abd El Fattah and Nubi, fellow suspects of violating the “protest law” in what is known as the “Shura Council” case. It is worth noting that Metwally was not protesting that day and was simply a bystander at a respectable distance, and yet he was arrested and is now sentenced to 15 years in prison. It is also worth noting that the sentencing happened before the defense even started to present its witnesses, which was supposed to happen the day of the verdict. The judge simply started early and prevented the lawyers and suspects from entering the room. He then stated that given their absence, the trial is over, and he issued a sentence. Metwally was the only one who managed to get inside the court room, and when he pointed out his presence, the judge was startled, gathered his papers and ran off. Metwally was immediately detained.

The shenanigans in this case are nothing compared to the Al Jazeera trial. Burea chief Mohamed Fahmy, producer Baher Mohamed and ex-BBC reporter Peter Greste have been dealing with months of imprisonment in a case so poorly fabricated that it should have been thrown out of court months ago. They are accused of being a secret Muslim Brotherhood cell and supporting “terrorist” activities with their reporting. Evidence against them so far included an animal documentary, hard drives filled with pictures of Greste’s parents and unintelligible audio recordings. Besides refusing to release them on bail despite the lack of evidence, the judge in this case has also decreed that for the defense to access and view the “evidence” of the prosecution, they should pay the prosecution $180,000.

Then there is satirist Bassem Youssef, host of the highest rated and most viewed show in Egypt and the Middle East, who finally announced the end of his show "El Bernameg" (The Program) on June 2, after an almost two-month hiatus that included the presidential elections. His hiatus was preceded by months of character assassinations, changing channels, lawsuits, signal interference whenever his show was broadcast and insane pressure on MBC Masr (his new host channel), which included Prime Minister Ibrahim Mehleb personally revoking a cooperation deal between MBC Masr and Egyptian national television for no reason. Youssef was slated to return after the elections were over to give his comments, but instead his proposed script was rejected. He then announced the end of his show at a press conference. Despite having one of the most recognized brand names in the industry, and a loyal audience of approximately 30 million viewers, not a single private TV channel wanted to pick up his show. The era of intelligent political dissent and satire on TV seems to be over.

It is easy to paint a picture of a planned organized campaign to repress freedom of speech and press, but is this systematic? It may seem so at first glance, but upon closer look, one discovers that the situation is far pettier than that.

What unites these three very different men — Metwally, Fahmy and Youssef — is that they are victims of a state whose different institutions are exercising personal pettiness that is shared by a significant segment of the population. Metwally is sentenced to 15 years because of a personal dispute between the judge and Fattah, with the judge knowing that the ruling will not face wide public outrage due to the hatred that Fattah enjoys among the current regime-backing public. (It is worth noting that other defendents in this case, upon hearing the ruling, turned themselves in and were told to go home, since they only wanted to imprison Fattah — with Metwally and Nubi simply unlucky for being in court as well.)

Fahmy and Greste are facing a kangaroo court and possible sentencing simply because the police and population hate Al Jazeera and its state-backer Qatar, and this is a way to “punish both” and show “them our strength.” As for Youssef, he has to be shut up because of the insecurity of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s backers (Egyptian owners of private TV stations and — in the case of MBC — the Saudi government itself) about the new regime’s survival and success, which they believe is now permanently linked to Sisi’s image. Apparently, anything less than outright praise is unacceptable at this stage.

The scary part of all this is not that the police state is active and is operating efficiently and according to a plan, but that the situation is random and manic, based on personal feelings and likes, and appeals to the angry, insecure and frightened mob to showcase that the state is strong. Take the case of Seoudi supermarkets, a famous supermarket chain in Egypt whose different branches are owned by different members of the Seoudi family. The owner of one supermarket was known for his Muslim Brotherhood leanings, while the rest are all outright Sisi supporters. Because of this one family member, the entire chain was deemed by the public as a Muslim Brotherhood front, and the police — who should know better — seized ownership of all the supermarkets to show they are “stopping the financing of terrorism.” This public relations stunt sent waves of panic to the business community, with one question on everybody’s mind: If even Sisi supporters can be collectively punished for guilt by association, where does that leave those who believe that their best hope of survival is to stand aside and weather the storm? How can one weather pettiness?

Youssef is off the air, and no one knows when, if ever, he will be back on TV again. The Al Jazeera trial’s sentencing is set for this week. No one can predict what the verdict will be, but no one is optimistic. Metwally and Fattah are still awaiting news on when their retrial date is scheduled for, and should have found out at least a week ago. However, the judges refuse to set a date, and even if they do, the prison authority could decide not to take them to court for their trial, with their sentencing to take place in absentia again. All of this is illegal, but still happens because petty men rule this country, and even pettier people support this in the name of stability and (snicker) rule of law needed for the greater good of our country. In doing so, they are forgetting one simple truth: Petty men do not build great states. They only destroy them.

World Cup blocked across Middle East as TV camera lingers on hot Brazilian fan for over permitted time

21 June 2014 Pan Arabian Enquirer

World Cup fans across the Middle East were in tears last night after the tournament was sensationally blocked by regional TV censors.

The move came in response to an isolated incident believed to have taken place during Tuesday’s game between Brazil and Mexico, in which the camera lingered on an attractive Brazilian fan in the stands for what has since been deemed “over the permitted time”.

“We knew this might be a problem in Brazil, so spoke to FIFA long before the tournament began, explaining that we had strict rules when it came to broadcasting visuals of nubile young female football fans waving their arms about in carefree delight, sometimes in slow motion,” said Abdul Rashid of the Gulf Censorship Board.

According to Rashid, the Board had initially requested a three-minute broadcast delay to deal with any potential issues.

“This way, in the event of a protracted shot featuring a toned, olive-skinned goddess with her nation’s flag drawn on her dimpled cheek playfully hugging another Giselle or Adriana Lima-a-like in the crowd in wild celebration, we would have time to replace the footage with something more acceptable,” he added.


But the request was rejected by FIFA, and now millions of football fans living in the Middle East face the prospect of missing the rest of the tournament, with the Gulf Censorship Board saying that the event on Tuesday was “just too much”.

“To put it in simple terms: 2.4 seconds of hot Brazilian nipple bulging through an over-tight soccer jersey is acceptable. But 3.2 seconds is absolutely haram,” said Rashid. “On the upside, this is at least something we won’t have to worry about in Qatar.”

Thailand' human rights record hits rock-bottom

21 June 2014

Thailand has been relegated to tier 3 of the list of 188 nations covered by the annual US human trafficking report. This is an automatic downgrade after four years on the tier 2 watchlist, where it was repeatedly warned to make significant improvements to its anti-trafficking law enforcement, protect trafficked victims and punish perpetrators.

Thailand now sits along side serial human rights abusers such as North Korea.

Predictably Thailand is now saying that the US has no right to judge this issue; in doing so Thailand sounds ever more like China.

That did not stop Thailand spending US$400,000 with US lobbyists to try and avoid the downgrade.

The downgrade could result in economic sanctions and loss of development aid for Thailand, which may also find itself blacklisted by companies no longer wishing to do business with a "pariah" government.

In its analysis of Thailand's anti-trafficking progress, the state department was just short of scathing.

The report cites corruption "at all levels" as impeding significant progress and claims that anti-trafficking law enforcement remains insufficient compared with the overall scale of trafficking and slavery. It also states that, despite frequent media and NGO reports detailing instances of trafficking and slavery in sectors such as the fishing industry, the government "systematically failed" to investigate, prosecute or convict boat owners and captains, or officials complicit in the crimes.

The document also describes "credible reports" of corrupt officials engaging in commercial sex acts with child trafficking victims, colluding with traffickers, and protecting brothels. And it pointed to separate criminal defamation suits filed against individuals like Andy Hall – who documented trafficking violations in a food processing factory – and two journalists who published excerpts of a report on the trafficking of Rohingya refugees (and the Thai Navy's alleged involvement), as possibly "silencing" other activists and the media.

In a statement the Thai government said it disagreed with the state department's decision but would continue to fight against trafficking.

"In 2013, Thailand made significant advances in prevention and suppression of human trafficking along the same lines as the state department's standards," it said. "While the latest TiP report did not recognise our vigorous, government-wide efforts that yielded unprecedented progress and concrete results, Thailand remains committed to combating human trafficking."

The Ministry or Foreign Affairs permanent secretary, Sihasak Phuangkeykeow, held a Saturday morning press conference where he said that the Tier 3 downgrade "most regrettable." Adding that  "it's not so right that one country will be the only party to evaluate other countries on human trafficking using its own standard."

Sihasak represents the same government that last week voted against a UN resolution on human slavery and then changed its mind only when it realised the isolation of being the only country in the world to do so.

Trying to claim it has been doing a lot to "fix" the problems and deserving of a tier 1, has been another mistake. As has the prosecution of journalists at Phuketwan who have led investigations into the Thai Navy's alleged mistreatment of the Rohingya refugees.

As so often in Thailand it is easier to tell lies to save face than it is to face the truth and take action.

Of course this can now all be blamed upon the Yingluck government since the report is for the year to April 2014. But this was not about PTP incompetence this is the whole of Thai high society and business that is both complicit and willingly involved.

The world does not care whose fault this is; it wants action and it wants visible improvement. Will anything be done about it or as usual just a bit of lip service and pretend action? The mass flight of Cambodian and some Burmese workers out of Thailand suggest more of the same.

One simple action would be for the Junta to drop lawsuits against Phuketwan reporters and other human rights campaigners and to stop law suits being used to silence and cover up the problem.

The Bangkok Post trumpets that "Thailand slams US trafficking report" sadly playing the nationalist card rather than the we should do something card. The Bangkok Post also ignore that in January this year the Thai embassy in Washington signed a $400,000-plus deal with leading US law firm Holland & Knight for then to lobby the White House, Congress and US departments of state and defence that Thailand is a country that fights human trafficking and forced labour.

It seems not to have been money well spent.

The money invested in lobbying therefore represents both a defeat and a serious embarrassment for the Thai authorities.

A drinking license for Emirates flights?

16 June 2014

This was a strange story as the UAE press reported that an Emirates passenger was jailed for six months for molesting a stewardess.

That is good. He should be. But it is alleged that he was drunk. And he was charged with not having a license to consume alcohol.

He is a Brit. He was flying from BKK to the UK with a change of planes in Dubai. He was not meant to enter Dubai or clear immigration in Dubai. He was in transit.

He apparently drank five glasses of vodka (the crew should not serve that much) and then molested the British stewardess when she passed by his seat on a flight back in April.

Despite having entered a not guilty plea, the Dubai Court of First Instance found the Briton guilty.

Presiding judge Ezzat Abdul Lat also fined T.G. Dh2,000 for drinking alcohol.

But EK serves alcohol!

The Briton will be deported after serving his jail term, according to Monday’s ruling. “I did not molest her… yes I consumed liquor,” he had told the court, as he confessed to consuming alcohol without a licence.

He was also fined Dh2,000 at the court on Monday for the alcohol charge and will be deported after completing his prison term.

The 28-year-old stewardess told prosecutors that the incident happened at 6am on the aircraft that was coming back from Bangkok.

“I walked through the aisle of the economy section and once I passed by the defendant’s seat, he touched me. He asked me to sit beside him and kissed my palm against my will,” she said.

A Tunisian stewardess said the Briton used foul language.

“He spoke to me rudely. He also shouted that he wanted more drinks. I asked my colleagues what he had told me in English because I did not understand what he said… Then I saw him touching the stewardess [claimant],” she said.

Monday’s ruling remains subject to appeal within 15 days.

So he had been drinking too much and was stupid. He was presumably detained on the airplane and hauled away by the Dubai police - and has then been held in Dubai for two months.

But since when did you need a license to drink on an Emirates flight in the knowledge that you are only transiting through the Dubai hub. Very strange.

A tale of two capitals - Vientiane or Bangkok

14 June 2014

Here are at least 15 reasons why you will enjoy a visit to Vientiane more than you will a visit to Bangkok:

1. No 17% added to your restaurant bill
2. No one telling you that the city's main temple is closed but that he can take you on a tour
3. No silly Baht500 entry prices
4. No scrum of rip-off taxi drivers waiting for prey at the airport arrivals terminal
5. Baguettes stuffed with liver pate
6. Fresh croissants
7. No search and harass by police on the streets
8. No Baht 2,000 littering fines applied to selected foreigners
9. No one hissing "ping-pong show" or "you want girl" as you walk along the street
10. Sensible wine prices
11. No one shouting tuk-tuk or taxi from over 100 yards away
12. Sunset over the Mekong
13. Airport to city in less than 15 minutes
14. To traffic jams
15. Beer Lao
16. Easy cycling on the steets

Emirates cancels A350; politics, economics or pragmatism?

12 June 2014

On Wednesday this week Emirates Airline said it had decided to cancel a multibillion-dollar order for 70 long-range A350 planes.

These planes were ordered back in 2007 for delivery in 2017 and onwards. Given EK's commitment to the A380 and the additional 50 A380s ordered at last year's Dubai airshow it is unlikely that EK has to pay and significant penalty for the cancellation.

The news comes just months before the new jet, the A350-XWB, is due to enter service.

There is lots of speculation and some analysts have asked whether the decision by Emirates could presage a slowdown in aircraft orders from Persian Gulf carriers. Probably not. And there may even be new orders at this year's Farnborough airshow.

In a statement, Airbus said that Emirates would not take the planes, which had been slated for delivery beginning in 2019.

The Emirates order was valued at roughly $16 billion when it was placed in 2007; at current list prices, it would be worth more than $21 billion. It is likely that Airbus will be able to fill the original EK delivery slots with new orders from other airlines; which may include Cathay Pacific and Etihad.

Emirates gave no reasons for the decision - “the contract, which we signed in 2007 for 70 A350 aircraft, has lapsed,” a spokeswoman for the airline said. “We are reviewing our fleet requirements.”

One reasonable theory is that Emirates will move solely to a Boeing 777/Airbus A380 fleet - with new routes, as with Oslo and Brussels) being launched with 777s.

In November EK also placed orders for 150 of Boeing’s new 777X — a revamped version of the popular wide-body aircraft — with an option for 50 more.

The A350 was seen as a replacement for the A330 and A340 planes that are still part of the EK fleet. But it may simply be too small. Especially when EK will remain at the space constrained DXB airport until around the middle of the next decade. So assume maybe another 8 to 10 years at DXB; there simply is not the space or flight slots for more, (relatively) smaller airplanes.

John Leahy, Airbus’s chief salesman, conceded that a lost order so close to the A350’s entry into service — and from one of its biggest customers — was a disappointment, but stressed that the A350s large order backlog of more than 740 planes would help to soften the blow.

“I’m not particularly concerned,” Mr. Leahy said. “This doesn’t affect the production or finances of the program.” Worth noting though that this is the largest cancellation in Airbus’s history.

Neither Airbus or Emirates would comment on whether any financial penalties would apply to the canceled order, saying the terms were confidential. Most standard aircraft sales contracts include cancellation fees.

Qatar Airways has 80 A350 aircraft on order and Singapore Airlines has 70. The cancellation also has significant implications for Rolls-Royce of Britain, which is the sole supplier of engines for the A350 series. Emirates does not use Rolls Royce for its A380 engines.

Emirates has been pushing for months for Airbus to upgrade the A380 superjumbo with a more efficient engine, a solution favoured by Rolls-Royce which is among the companies most directly affected by the airline's decision on the A350.

One considered outcome is that EK will convert the final 25 of the latest A380 order to NEOs, and order another 20 or so of this upgraded version.

By the end of 2018, the EK passenger fleet will consist of about 115 A380s 10 777-200LRs, and 152 777-300ERs, a net increase from today of 73 frames if you include the 4 at any one time A380s currently undergoing wing fixes, which will be completed by the end of November. All the A330s and A340s will have left the fleet.

The average aircraft size, however, will be larger, thus the actual capacity increase will better match what DXB and the airspace can handle.

Here is a theory - somehow Dubai has to manage its two airports while building capacity at DWC. One option is that EK ends up being the exclusive carrier at DXB between 2018 and 2025, maxing out eventually by 2025 at about 90 million pax a year and about 335 aircraft, with everyone else at DWC.

Once DWC is built up to handle 100 million plus pax a year, there will be a wholesale swap, at which point EK will be exclusive at DWC and everyone else will move back to DXB.

One other theory about the cancellation is political. The E.U. is waging a war against the Gulf airlines especially EK. The fight is led by Lufthansa but also by Skyteam with Air France and KLM battling alongside Delta. Two months ago a judge in Italy reversed EK's fifth freedom right from MXP to JFL. Germany refuses to extend access to any more than four airports in its country. Ek seems unable to get extra slots at CDG.

And of course Airbus is EU owned and provides significant employment in Germany, France and the UK. Do not doubt that there is a political element to this decision and to its timing.

World Cup: in extra time