COUNCIL VETOES DISPLAY OF ENGLISH FLAG BECAUSE IT’S “OFFENSIVE TO MUSLIMS”

Rainbow flag of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride movement” allowed

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 16, 2013

A local council in England vetoed the display of a St. George’s Cross flag over concerns that it would be “offensive to Muslims,” while allowing the rainbow flag of the “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride movement” to be flown.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

“A local council decided against flying the flag of St George after concerns were raised that it would offend the town’s 16 Muslim residents,” reports the Telegraph. “Eleanor Jackson, a university lecturer, said the red and white symbol could cause upset in Radstock, Somerset, because it was used during the Crusades 1,000 years ago.”

Jackson suggested that use of the flag be dropped for 20 years not only because “it is offensive to some Muslims,” but also due to its use by “the far right.”

Muslim groups reacted to the ban by deriding it as “oversensitive” and “political correctness going a bit too far.”

“Use by the far right is one thing, but to say that Muslims are offended I don’t think is correct. We understand the flag is part of this country’s heritage, and in fact many many Muslims will identify as being British themselves,” said Rizwan Ahmed, a spokesman for the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society.

Muslim Council of Britain spokeswoman Nasima Begum said that England’s patron saint “needs to take his rightful place as a national symbol of inclusivity rather than a symbol of hatred.”

After the decision stoked controversy, the council claimed that the views of Eleanor Jackson were “not really taken into consideration,” and that they had planned on purchasing a Union Jack all along.

The council did not seem to be worried that the display of a rainbow flag at “appropriate” times of the year to represent the “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride movement” would offend anyone.

This is by no means the first time that displaying the national flag of England has been discouraged or banned by authorities over fears it might offend minority immigrant populations.

During the 2010 World Cup, 1200 council staff in Bolton were banned from flying the English flag ”over fears they could deemed as racist.”

When builders in Coventry flew the St. George’s Cross they were told by site managers to take it down within 20 minutes over concerns it might ”offend” the local multi-ethnic community.

In 2009, Labour-run Sandwell Council withdrew funding for a St George’s Day parade, citing fears that it “might attract far right elements.”

This story again illustrates how, while British people are expected to express their “patriotism” by supporting wars that primarily target Muslim populations in foreign countries, any attempt to display pride in one’s country that isn’t state-approved is routinely demonized as racist and offensive.

Unlike in America, it is also seen as abnormal and a potential indication of racism to display a St. George’s Cross on occasions that are not related to state or royal pageantry, such as the 2012 royal wedding.

While the former Labour government and many of its councilors who are still in power set about demonizing the display of the English flag as racist, they simultaneously oversaw a deliberate ”mass influx of immigrants” in order to “change the make-up of Britain” and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”

Lord Mandelson, who served in a number of different Cabinet positions under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, admitted: “In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.”

OBAMA, CAMERON HOLD SYRIA WAR SUMMIT IN WASHINGTON: “MORE WEAPONS FOR AL QAEDA

By Alex Lantier and Chris Marsden | Global Research

.

US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron met yesterday in Washington to step up their campaign for war in Syria and discuss interventions elsewhere in the Middle East.

They pledged to increase the flow of weapons to Islamist militias fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, while promoting plans for talks on Syria with Russia, until now Assad’s main international backer, to be held in Geneva.

At a press conference after their meeting, Obama announced, “Together, we’re going to continue our efforts to increase pressure on the Assad regime, to provide humanitarian aid to the long-suffering Syrian people, to strengthen the moderate opposition, and to prepare for a democratic Syria without Bashar Assad.”

Washington and London are promoting their bloody proxy war in Syria with lies. Far from providing “humanitarian aid” and backing a “moderate” opposition, they are arming far-right Islamist militias with the help of Middle Eastern allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, whose efforts are overseen by the CIA. Proposals aired in recent weeks include imposing a so-called “no-fly zone” to destroy Syria’s air force and air defenses, and using US forces in neighboring Jordan to directly invade Syria.

Cameron’s pledges of tens of millions of pounds to the Syrian “rebels” made the military character of this aid clear. He said, “Britain is pushing for more flexibility in the EU arms embargo, and we will double non-lethal support to the Syrian opposition in the coming years. Armored vehicles, body armor, and power generators are about to be shipped.”

The meeting between Obama and Cameron comes amid a flurry of international negotiations to prepare a possible US-led war against Syria. On Thursday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet with Obama in the White House, with Syria at the top of their agenda. Erdogan has repeatedly pressed for war with Syria based on groundless claims that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to arrive in Moscow today for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Syria. Unnamed senior Israeli officials told the press that Netanyahu intends to ask Russia to block the shipment to Syria of a sophisticated S-300 air defense system. Such a system would reportedly have enabled Syria to shoot down the unprovoked air strikes Israel launched on the Syrian capital, Damascus, one week ago.

The diplomatic offensive that Washington is orchestrating against Syria is a nakedly imperialist operation. It aims to isolate Syria, eliminate its ability to defend itself against US attack, and impose a neo-colonial regime—by negotiation if possible, otherwise by force—that would consist of Washington’s right-wing Islamist proxies and turncoat elements of the Assad regime.

As Washington and its allies prepare for war, they continue to hope that at the Geneva talks the Russian regime might agree to a pseudo-legal ouster of Assad under threat of further US-led attacks on Syria.

Obama proposed to bring together “representatives of the regime and the opposition in Geneva in the coming weeks, to agree on a transitional body which would allow a transfer of power from Assad to this governing body. Meanwhile, we’ll continue to work to establish the facts around the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and those facts will help guide our next steps.”

The acknowledgment that Washington still needs to “establish the facts” about chemical weapons is a tacit admission that previous US claims—that Assad had used poison gas, thus crossing a “red line” and justifying a US attack—were based on fabrications.

Asked whether Russia would agree to cut off its support to Assad, Cameron praised discussions he held with Putin on Syria in the Russian town of Sochi on Friday. He said, “We are all leading together this major diplomatic effort to bring the parties to the table to achieve a transition at the top of Syria, so that we can make the change that country needs.”

In ruthlessly pursuing its agenda of regime-change, in alliance with European imperialism and Sunni sectarian fighters in Syria tied to Al Qaeda, the Obama administration has set into motion forces that threaten the region and the entire world with war and catastrophe.

Speaking of his plan for talks with Moscow, Obama hinted as much, saying: “I’m not promising that it’s going to be successful. Frankly, sometimes once the Furies have been unleashed in a situation like we’re seeing in Syria, it’s very hard to put things back together. And there are going to be enormous challenges in getting a credible process going even if Russia is involved.”

There is considerable anxiety in ruling circles over the consequences of escalation in Syria. In an editorial yesterday titled “Staying out of Syria is the bolder call for Obama,” Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman wrote: “If we supply weapons to the rebels, how do we know that it will not simply lead to more bloodshed… In more recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and its allies vastly overestimated their knowledge of the societies in which they were intervening.”

Appearing Sunday on the interview program “Face the Nation,” Robert Gates, former secretary of defense under both George W. Bush and Obama, said US military action in Syria would be “a mistake.” Saying he thought the US intervention in Libya was also a “mistake,” he added, “I think that caution, particularly in terms of arming these groups and in terms of US military involvement, is in order.”

Obama and Cameron also reportedly discussed troop deployments in the continuing NATO occupation of Afghanistan, as well as plans for talks with Iran over its alleged nuclear program.

This highlights the fact that the war in Syria is part of a broader imperialist agenda for the Middle East. This agenda includes depriving oil-rich Iran of its remaining Arab ally, Syria, as a preparation for a possible war with Iran; forcibly marginalizing Russia’s influence; and, more generally, imposing the strategic hegemony of Washington and its allies in the Middle East.

The Obama-Cameron war summit underscored the fact that pseudo-left organizations such as the International Socialist Organization that support the Syrian war are pro-imperialist state organizations. (See, “The International Socialist Organization and the imperialist onslaught against Syria”)

Any new Syrian regime that might emerge from the Geneva talks would be—like the regime run by competing militias that emerged from the US-NATO 2011 war in Libya—a right-wing US puppet government, based on Sunni sectarian forces seeking to impose restrictive Islamist laws and lacking any substantial popular support.

The US proxy forces that have taken power in Libya have rapidly made themselves deeply unpopular. They have allowed the major international banks to keep billions in Libyan oil money that was frozen when the war broke out, while presiding over an escalation of violence inside Libya between rival Islamist militias.

When a car bomb outside a hospital in Benghazi killed at least three people and wounded 17 yesterday, protests erupted against local Islamist militias, demanding that they be expelled from the city. One witness told Reuters, “This is the flesh of our sons, this is what the militias have given us.”

In a recent article titled “Under the black flag of Al Qaeda, the Syrian city ruled by gangs of extremists,” the Daily Telegraph described life in Raqqa, a city in northern Syria currently held by the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front. The town’s Christian churches are closed, Islamic courts arrest women who do not wear headscarves, and Al Nusra has seized many bakeries and work places. Hundreds of townspeople have joined protests against Al Nusra’s rule.

Washington and its allies are pushing for war and regime-change in Syria despite deep popular opposition to such a war in the working class at home. Some 62 percent of Americans, and even higher percentages of Turks and Lebanese, oppose further escalation of the war in Syria.

FROM WINTERFELL TO KING’S LANDING

How the cartography of Game of Thrones explains the world.

BY FRANK JACOBS | Foreign Policy

In the long and steamy affair between fantasy and cartography, certainly the most mesmerizing image of recent vintage is the dynamic beauty kissed alive by the title sequence of Game of Thrones. At the start of each episode, the viewer is strapped to a rollercoaster and swept across its alternate world. The camera dips and climbs vertiginously over a map of fictional lands and their unfamiliar shores, halting at crucial spots for cities, castles, and magical trees to shoot up from the earth, self-assembling like 22nd-century Ikea furniture.

Apart from enthralling map nuts, the opening sequence also sets the scene for the action to follow, using the map as an elaborate chessboard in mid-game and the castles its precariously positioned pieces. The zoomed-in views occasionally reveal more than location and situation: the charred husk of a fortress serves as a brief memento of its sacking. We’re not just reading a map, we’re playing spy satellite.

Pinning down an imagined world with precise geography is nothing new: The map’s central position in fantasy literature stretches all the way back to Plato’s Atlantis. In his 360 B.C. Dialogues, he situates the vanished island at “a distant point in the [Atlantic] Ocean” and describes it as “larger than Libya and Asia together,” housing “a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power.” (Sounds a bit like Westeros). These and more detailed geographic descriptions are meant to lend credence to Plato’s story– a discussion of the perfect society — though it’s unknown whether he thought he was recounting a true story with a moral, or knew he was concocting pure allegory.

Fantasy islands as a literary device became popular early in the Age of Exploration, when reports were coming in from far and wide of newly discovered lands. In 1516, Thomas More placed his Utopia off the coast of Brazil, then recently visited by Amerigo Vespucci. As for its exact location, More said “someone coughed” when its exact longitude and latitude were related at court. But he specifies that the island is 200 miles across, and crescent-shaped; that it was a peninsula, until its king had a channel dug to separate it from the mainland; and that it contains 54 cities, each divided in four equal quarters. A map printed with Utopia’s first edition shows the island to be vaguely skull-shaped. (These tales of Atlantis and other fantastical empires have a pendant in Essos, the other continent in Game of Thrones; it too once housed a great civilization, its former seat of power said to be haunted by demons.)

Distant fictional lands as settings for social satire and morality tales would remain a literary trope throughout the centuries that followed — think of Gulliver’s travels to the fantastical island of Lilliput; or the Island of Despair, where the fictional Robinson Crusoë was marooned for 28 years (curiously, again located off the Brazilian coast). Most editions of that book included a map of the fictional island, showing the locations of some main events in the story. Unlike the islands described by Swift and Defoe, Martin’s alternate world is not designed to satirize or criticize society, but as the stage for a good, old-fashioned yarn. In this respect, it shares much with Robert Louis Stevenson’s most enduring contribution.

One rainy afternoon in the early 1880s, Scotland would change fantasy cartography forever, by propelling the map itself to center stage. While sojourning in the Highlands with his family, Stevenson glanced over his stepson Lloyd’s shoulder as he was coloring in an island of his own devising — and immediately started improving upon it, adding Skeleton Island, Spyglass Hill, and other features, naming it “Treasure Island.” “Oh, but for a story about it!” exclaimed the stepson, as he later recollected (at the time, he probably was a very annoyed Lloyd).

Not only did the map of Treasure Island precede the story, it also generated an entire subset of entertainment literature — treasure hunts, novels with end papers covered in maps, and charts dotted with Xs that “mark the spot.” Boys’ adventure stories would never be the same again: whenever kids want to fabricate a story using pen and paper in the post-Stevenson world, they’re more likely to map a fantasy world than tediously describe it in those throwbacks to a bygone age — full sentences.

George R.R. Martin’s world did not start with a map, however. The author of A Song of Ice and Fire, the series of books adapted for TV as Game of Thrones, envisaged the opening scene of the first book, and from there on, as Martin liked to say, borrowing from J.R.R. Tolkien, “the tale grew in the telling.”

One of many similarities with Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings cycle is not just the reliance on maps as guides to the story, but even the look and feel of them. Like Tolkien, who created the maps that illustrated The Hobbit and the Ring trilogy, Martin himself assumed the role of First Cartographer, and his own maps appear in the books. Even though Martin is a Bayonne-born New Jersey boy, his anglophilia is evident in his reverence for Tolkien’s trailblazing tale — maps and all — and the inspiration by certain key moments in British history.

Most of the action takes place on the continent of Westeros, which looks a bit like Great Britain. Some fans protest this, and they’re right if you compare Westeros with the actual island; but place it next to a mirrored version of Britain, and it’s a good fit. The main man-made feature of the island-continent is the Wall in the North, at 700 feet high and 300 miles long clearly an extrapolation of Hadrian’s Wall in northern England (itself, a mere 73 miles long, and never higher than 20 feet).

The Wall is meant to keep out the Others, an infestation of revenants in no way comparable to most Scots. Size-wise, however, Westeros is in a different league altogether: it stretches for about 3,000 miles from the Wall to the south coast at Dorne, which if you overlay it on a map of Europe, covers a distance from northern Scandinavia all the way to the Mediterranean.

Some story elements refer to English history — the seven kingdoms seem borrowed from the early Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy, and the conflict between the houses of Stark and Lannister will ring a bell to those familiar with the War of the Roses, fought between the Yorks and the Lancasters. But the scale, and the wider inspiration, is Medieval. Which explains — but hardly excuses — why almost everyone in Game of Thrones is white.

Are the constraints the fantasy genre imposes on itself just another way for TV to remain whiter than the real world? Perhaps. But at least Martin’s fantasy, which is about as multicultural as an Amish prayer group, is less deplorable than Tolkien’s Middle-Earth, where all the heroes are white, and are endowed with individuality, whereas most of the villains, part of warrior collectives that know only to mindlessly attack and destroy, are swarthy savages from the South and East.

Center stage, as with Tolkien, is an area concurrent with our concept of “the West.” Heck, it’s even called Westeros. Unlike Tolkien’s West, Martin’s version is not the repository of all that’s good and right about the world. Morally, Westeros is a gigantic grey area: there are no squeaky-clean good guys, no cartoonishly evil bad guys. Each individual is driven by his or her sense of honor, conflicting as those often are with each other. Which is both refreshing, and problematic: Who are the viewers supposed to root for? Perhaps no one. Perhaps Game of Thrones chimes with these post-idealist, neo-isolationist times: Why support either side in the Syrian civil war — they’re both unpalatable, shame they can’t both lose.

As in many bloody, multipolar conflicts, certainties in Martin’s world are few, and loyalties easily shifted. A reversal of dynastic fortunes is typically swift and cruel. But the show could have benefited from a bit of Marx to balance out all that Machiavelli. In the real world, economic substructure informs the political agenda. In Game of Thrones, however, all politics is personal. War and peace are based on alliances, allegiances, debts, and vendettas between the high and mighty — never on something as mundane as the price of wool or access to exotic spices. The U.S. military-political complex is not above personalizing foreign conflicts as an understandable shorthand for more complex, or more obscure motives. Hence the focus on “bad guys” like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Un, Bashar al-Assad, and others before them — thereby fostering the illusion that each conflict can be solved by their removal.

True to the dictum — however questionable — that democracies don’t go to war, the world of Game of Thrones has no use for them. This world is strictly pre-French Revolution. The Iron Throne may be contested, and kings high and low may be interchangeable, but the idea itself of the nobility’s right to produce kings and queens, and rule over everyone else, is unquestioned.

Geography at least helps wrest the conflicts away from individual actors, involving the lay of the land as a determinant of the outcome. In the first season, the alliance between the Targeryen, claimants to the Iron Throne, and the Dothraki, a cross between the Huns and the World Wrestling Federation, is considered less pressing because they are confined to a different continent. Again, one can look at the United Kingdom, saved by its splendid isolation from the wars on the Continent.

But the geography of Martin’s world, as emphasized by the dynamic map in the opening sequence, also works in perfidious ways. Geographic space is reduced to a chessboard, or the map of Risk: an arena for combat. By creating spatial difference, geography becomes an engine for conflict. If that sounds both simplistic and dire, it’s unfortunately not without example in our reality. Complex conflicts — from the U.S. Civil War to the Cold War — have at times been reduced to “North vs. South” or “East vs. West” (but never Northeast vs. Southwest — only the cardinal directions generate lethal animosity).

The four corners of the world don’t merely produce centrifugality, however. Geographic space can work centripetally as well: in the second season of Game of Thrones, it seems every army is drawn, like moths towards a flame, from every part of the Known World to the seat of power on Westeros. In the real world too, such strange attractors exist — Jerusalem, long ago the center of every symbolic world map, and the object of multiple (and mostly failed) Crusades, still is the focal point of three world religions. Both Serbs and Albanians are drawn to the history soaked Field of Blackbirds in Kosovo, while not quite everyone in Ulster agrees whether it should be in Ireland or the United Kingdom.

Game of Thrones is a fun way to indulge in the moral ambiguities, cynical power play, and sheer bloody combat of a fantasy world, and still go to bed without nightmares. For this world is all stage, without any complex, real-world consequences. No hospital wards filled with mutilated war veterans. No decades-long struggles with post-traumatic stress. It’s guilt-free war porn, and the ultimate parlor game for students of past, present, and future conflict.

QUEEN’S SPEECH CONTAINS BACKING FOR EU ‘PROPAGANDA’ PROMOTING THE VIRTUES OF BRUSSELS

• Cameron under pressure to bring forward in-out referendum
• Buried in Queen’s Speech is European Union Approvals Speech
• It authorises Europe for Citizens scheme developing ‘understanding’ of EU
  

By Matt Chorley | dailymail.co.uk

Britain is to sign off taxpayer-funded ‘propaganda’ to promote the virtues European Union despite growing calls to quit Brussels altogether.

Tory MPs had called on David Cameron to bring forward legislation in today’s Queen’s Speech for his promised in-out referendum.

But instead, buried in the small print, was a plan for the UK to authorise the Europe for Citizens scheme which aims to ‘develop understanding of the EU’.

David Cameron, pictured walking from the Commons to the Lords today, is under pressure to take a tougher line on Europe to see off the threat posed by UKIP

There was no mention of Europe in the speech delivered by the Queen to MPs and peers.

The Tories are under pressure after the recent rise of the UK Independence Party culminating in them taking almost one in four votes in last week’s local elections.

Mr Cameron has promised to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the EU before staging an in-out referendum by 2017, if he is Prime Minister after the next election.

But his strategy was blown apart yesterday when former Chancellor Lord Lawson said he would vote to leave the EU.

Slipped into the detail of the government’s legislation plans for the next year was the European Union Approvals Bill.

There was no mention of Europe in the Queen’s Speech, despite the issue threatening to split the Tory party and destablise the coalition

The Queen’s Speech contained several measures designed to address concerns raised by UKIP, including tackling immigration

Described as a ‘minor technical Bill’, it provides authorisation for the UK ‘to support measures and programmes in the European Union’.

Among three programmes listed, it includes Europe for Citizens which according to government briefing notes ‘aims to develop understanding of the EU, its history and policy-making processes and encourage civic participation in the EU’.

It also aims to ‘promote remembrance of Europe’s history, particularly the wars and totalitarian regimes of the 20th century’.

The scheme, which has a 229 million euro budget for 2014-20, claims that most Europeans ‘generally recognise the benefits of the EU’ and ‘want to see the Union becoming a more integral part of their national political landscapes’.

By enshrining the Europe for Citizens scheme into British law, the UK will be able to apply for funds

It aims to increase trust in EU institutions, potentially reaching 5million people across the continent.

The revelation is likely to infuriate Tory MPs demanding Mr Cameron take a tougher line with Brussels instead of backing a scheme which promotes it.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: ‘Hidden beneath the folds of froth Cameron offers a Bill to approve UK taxpayer spending on EU propaganda.

‘He promises that he wants to fight Britain’s corner, but spends our money propagandising on the EU’s behalf to our children. By his acts not his words he must be known.’

UKIP leader Nigel Farage accused the government of backing EU ‘propaganda’

A government source said the scheme needed to be passed into UK law so that ministers can apply for funding from a £200million central pot available to all EU states.

Britain would apply for money to pay for projects such as the commemoration for centenary of the outbreak of World War One, not promoting the EU, the source added.

Some of the key measures announced in the Queen’s Speech were seen as a reaction to the rise of UKIP.

In particular, the government promised a crackdown on illegal immigration in the Queen’s Speech today as concern about the impact of new arrivals to Britain hit a three-year high.

Rogue firms who rent homes and give jobs to illegal immigrants face tougher fines in an immigration crackdown unveiled today in the Queen’s Speech.

The latest YouGov survey showed 57 per cent of people named immigration as being among the top three issues facing the country, its highest level since June 2010 and up 11 per cent on a year ago.

Other flagship bills will cut red-tape to boost business, create a new flat-rate pension worth around £140-a-week, cap the costs of social care to stop families having to sell their homes to pay for elderly relatives to be looked after.

The Queen told MPs and peers that the government’s first priority is to strengthen Britain’s economic competitiveness.’

This includes building a stronger economy, rewarding people who work hard and tackling the deficit to keep interest rates low.

The controversial High Speed Rail line linking London to Birmingham, and then Leeds and Manchester, will move a step closer with two Bills which will ‘provide further opportunities for economic growth in many of Britain’s cities’, the Queen said.

The National Insurance costs for every company will be cut by £2,000, under plans first announced by George Osborne in the Budget. The move will mean 450,000 employers will pay no NI contributions at all. The government also promises to cut the burden of red tape, helping companies to grow and take on more staff.

A Pensions Bill will create a flat-rate pension of around £140-a-week from 2016. Under the plan, years spent away from work looking after children or caring for elderly relatives will count towards a person’s final pension value.

On crime and justice, there will be tougher action against anti-social behaviour, including scrapping the Asbo whole offender rehabilitation and new rules on controlling dangerous dogs. On defence there will be reform of the way the Ministry of Defence agrees multi-billion pound equipment deals.

BRITAIN LAYS OUT PLAN FOR ARMING SYRIAN REBELS AMID FEARS OF ‘LIKELY’ CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK

Exclusive: Britain has proposed “fully exempting” Syria’s National Coalition from a European Union arms embargo allowing rebels to be armed in order to protect Syrian civilians from a “likely” chemical weapons attack.

David Cameron, left, and Bashar al-Assad Photo: Reuters/EPA

-

By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels | daily.co.uk

A confidential paper, seen by The Daily Telegraph, sets out the case for two “options” allowing Britain and France to start supplying arms to the official Syrian opposition as early as June.

“The situation in Syria is deteriorating sharply. With the likely use of chemical weapons and the growth of extremism, the conflict has entered an even more dangerous phase,” the paper argues.

“We must consider all the options, [including] the ability to give further assistance to the moderate Syrian opposition. It will also protect civilians, and save lives. Crucially, it will ensure we can respond flexibly to a major escalation in the conflict, such as chemical weapons attacks.”

The proposal will be discussed by foreign ministers at a meeting in Brussels on 27 May where it will run into opposition led by Germany which also has the backing of Baroness Ashton and her EU diplomatic service.

UK diplomats have stressed that while Britain supports lifting the embargo, no decision has yet been taken to arm the rebels in London.

On Wednesday, David Cameron said he would discuss the Syria situation with Vladimir Putin in Russia on Friday.

“There’s an urgent need to start a proper negotiation to force a political transition and to bring this conflict to an end, and I will be flying to Sochi on Friday to meet with President Putin to discuss this issue further,” Mr Cameron told the House of Commons.

The first option in the British policy paper, clearly the preferred choice of the Government, is to “fully exempt the National Coalition from the arms embargo”.

“The embargo on Syria was created in order to prevent the Assad regime from brutalising its own people,” the paper said.

“There is a strong argument that the embargo should not apply to the National Coalition, which has not been responsible for the systematic and oppressive violence against civilians perpetrated by the regime. This approach is consistent with the approach member states have adopted thus far with regards to financial and trade sanctions.”

The second option tabled by Britain is for the EU to “remove ‘non-lethal’ language to allow lethal equipment to be supplied to the Coalition”.

“This would allow lethal equipment also to be provided, but no other changes would be made. Specifically, lethal equipment would still have to be ‘intended for the protection of civilians’,” the paper said.

“This would allow the EU to send a clear message to Assad that all options are on the table, thereby increasing the pressure on him to come to the negotiating table.”

In order to overcome German and wider EU fears that arms meant for the moderate Syrian opposition would end up in the hands of extremists, the British proposal suggests “safeguards” to ensure the National Coalition keeps control of military aid.

“Clearly we must ensure the National Coalition makes good on its commitments. If the EU were to amend the arms embargo, we would need to rigorously assess, monitor and review how any equipment was used in consultation with the National Coalition,” the paper said.

“We are clear that we want to ensure any equipment provided is used only by those for whom it is intended, and is used for the right reason: protecting civilians. We are also clear that international law must be rigorously applied.”

^{John Kerry landing in Ciampino, Rome, on Wednesday (PA)}

Earlier on Wednesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Italy seeking to build on fresh momentum to halt the carnage in Syria, holding whirlwind talks with top Italian, Israeli and Jordanian officials.

During marathon meetings in Moscow lasting into the early hours of Wednesday, Mr Kerry agreed with Russian leaders to convene a new international conference to try to find a way to end the 26-month Syrian conflict.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Mr Kerry said they hoped they could convene an international conference by the end of May to build on the Geneva accord agreed by world powers last June for a peaceful solution in Syria.

In Rome, as well as meeting with members of the new Italian government led by Prime Minister Enrico Letta, Kerry will have talks with Israel’s chief negotiator on Middle East peace, Tzipi Livni, and Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh.

The Geneva agreement, which bogged down almost as soon as it was signed, set out a path toward a transitional government without ever spelling out the fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

THE BRITISH EMPIRE’S NEW CONCENTRATION CAMPS

by Dennis Small

Other than gas ovens, one of the most efficient ways of destroying a nation and killing off its population is to induce skyrocketing youth unemployment. It destroys the future potential of the productive economy. It leads to soaring drug addiction, worsening health conditions, and explosive criminal activity, including epidemics of deranged homicides/suicides. It is the perfect circumstance for terrorist recruitment. And above all, it leads to the rampant cultural pessimism which has always been fascism’s breeding ground, and the underpinning of any successful depopulation policy — such as that promoted by the British Empire from Thomas Malthus, to Bertrand Russell, to Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth themselves.

[1]
In Europe today, youth unemployment (ages 16-24) has surpassed 50% of the labor force in both Greece and Spain — two of the leading victims of the policies dictated by the infamous Troika (the European Central Bank, the European Commission, and the International Monetary Fund). In fact, the youth unemployment rate has overall more than doubled in Cyprus and the five so-called PIIGS countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) between 2008 and 2012. For example, Greece’s youth unemployment had more than doubled, from 22.1% in 2008 to 55.3% at the end of 2012. Spain’s had also doubled, from 24.6% in 2008 to 53.2% at the end of 2012 (and further soared to 57% in the first quarter of 2013). Ireland’s had more than doubled, from 13.3% to 30.4%. This is the period of the British Empire’s “solution” to the 2008 financial meltdown: hyperinflationary bailouts for their banks, coupled with fascist austerity for the population, as enforced by puppets such as Barack Obama, Tony Blair, and the like.

Maps comparing European youth unemployment in 2008 and 2012, present an even more sensuous picture.
[2]
[3]
In 2008, “only” six European nations had youth unemployment rates of 20% or greater: Spain, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Portugal, and Sweden. None was higher than 25%. But by the end of 2012, the number of nations with youth unemployment above 20% had tripled, to 19. Of these, four had youth unemployment rates between 30-40% (Portugal, Italy, Slovakia, Ireland); and three exceeded 40% youth workforce unemployed (Greece, Spain, Croatia).

The tide of economic fascism is clearly, once again, sweeping Europe.

But the United States has fared no better. America on Barack Obama’s watch has seen the real youth unemployment rate soar by nearly 50%, from an estimated 23.8% in 2008, to 34.6% in the first quarter of 2013. (We have calculated real unemployment by taking notoriously- understated official unemployment, plus forced-to-work-parttime, plus discouraged/left-the-workforce).
[4]
[5]
Back in 2008, there were “only” three states with real youth unemployment rates of 30% or higher: Michigan (34%), Rhode Island (31%), and California (30%). But by the first quarter of 2013, the tide of despair had spread to 60% of the states of the union: 30 states plus the District of Columbia had real youth unemployment rates of 30% or higher. Of these, five exceed 40% (Nevada 42.6%; Illinois 41.7%, Mississippi 41.2%, California 41.2%, and North Carolina 40.4%); and another 11 have rates in the range of 35-40%.

Should we not do as Franklin Roosevelt did, and stop the tide of fascism with Glass-Steagall and related economic policy measures… before it is too late?

RECOVERY?: ONE-IN-FIVE BRITONS BORROW MONEY TO AFFORD TO EAT

by Tyler Durden | ZeroHedge

While GBP jumped and the world celebrated the UK’s recent avoidance (for now) of a triple-dip recession (defined on GDP as opposed to reality), the situation in the island nation appears to be going from bad to worse. As Carney takes over the reigns of this once mighty nation he faces a country deeply divided. As the BBC reports, while London real estate prices smash old records, a stunning one-in-five households borrowed money or used savings to cover the costs of food in April. This is the equivalent of five million households unable to fund their food via income alone. Over 80% of these people are concerned about rising food prices (just as print-meister Carney is about to go ‘Abe’ on them) and almost 60% find it difficult to cope on their current incomes. The director of the consumer group ‘Which?’, noted that “many households are stretched to their financial breaking point,” as “families face a cost of living crisis.” While equity and real estate prices hit all-time highs, the opposition sums up the country’s feeling, “this incompetent government needs to wake up to the human cost of their failed economic policies.”

Over one-third of Britons “feel squeezed”…

Via BBC,

One in five UK households borrowed money or used savings to cover food costs in April, a Which? survey says.

It suggests the equivalent of five million households used credit cards, overdrafts or savings to buy food.

…

The figures come despite official statistics last week showing that personal insolvencies had dropped to their lowest levels in five years.

…

Results showed that of the households who resorted to using credit or savings to pay for food, most were low income families. Among this group:

• Eight out of 10 (82%) worried about food prices
• More than half (55%) said they were likely to cut back on food spending in the next few months
• Nearly six out of 10 (57%) said they found it difficult to cope on their current income
• A third (32%) borrowed money from friends and family in April

A typical weekly food bill averages about £76, Which? researchers said, up 4% on last year.

Of all the people polled, the research showed:

• A quarter said they were living comfortably on their incomes
• More than a third – 36% – felt their finances were under pressure
• Almost one third – 31% – of those surveyed cut back spending on essentials last month, and they were most likely to be women aged between 30 and 49.

…

Mr Lloyd, Which? executive director, said: “Our tracker shows that many households are stretched to their financial breaking point, with rising food prices one of the top worries for squeezed consumers.

…

Mary Creagh, Labour’s shadow environment secretary, said the UK was facing a “growing epidemic of hidden hunger”.

“Families face a cost of living crisis and are being forced into debt or to use their savings simply to put food on the table.

“This incompetent government needs to wake up to the human cost of their failed economic policies and change course now,” she added.

…

FRIDGES COULD BE SWITCHED OFF WITHOUT OWNER’S CONSENT TO REDUCE STRAIN ON POWER STATIONS

Fridges, washing machines and other electrical goods could be switched off automatically in British homes without the owners’ consent under EU proposals to help power stations meet demand for electricity.

By Melanie Hall | telegraph.co.uk

White goods such as electric ovens would be affected by the proposals to fit all new appliances with sensors that could shut them down when the UK’s generators struggle to meet demand for power.

The measures proposed by the UK’s National Grid, along with its counterparts in 34 European countries, to install the controversial devices are backed by one of the European Union’s most influential energy bodies.

They are pushing for the move because green energy sources such as wind farms are less predictable than traditional power stations, increasing the risk of blackouts

The proposals are outlined in documents drawn up by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E), and has been agreed by the EU-wide body of energy regulators.

The proposals were sent to the European Commission on March 27, and it is set to deliver its verdict on the proposals within three months, the Mail on Sunday reported.

They could then go to the European Parliament to be turned into legislation that would force manufacturers to install the monitors, which could see new appliances containing the sensors hitting the shops within three years.

Critics condemned the ‘Big Brother’ proposals, attacking the energy giants who they said would make millions of pounds extra profit under the scheme, as it would save them from firing up reserve generators or paying factories to switch off furnaces to quell demand.

There is no suggestion in the measures that consumers will be compensated for having their appliances shut down.

The sensors, which will automatically detect spikes in demand for power that the grid is struggling to meet, and temporarily shut off the appliances, could also add £40 to the average price of white goods for consumers, critics warned.

David Davis, the former Tory leadership candidate, said: “There is a Big Brother element to this – and it also shows the energy suppliers passing down their incompetence to the customers.

“They should be supplying energy as customers need it, not the when they want to give it.

‘There is something Soviet about this. It’s a ridiculous idea and it should be opposed. I hope the government puts its foot down.”

Viktor Sundberg, energy strategy manager at Electrolux, warned: “This is Big Brother technology on a grand scale. The device inside the fridge or freezer will automatically change the way the appliance operates in response to the output of the grid.

“This method of shutting down household appliances could to be carried out almost instantly, saving the energy companies millions because they won’t have to start up the turbines or pay huge industrial companies to cut production.

“Consumers are not benefiting at all and will be left paying more when they buy the appliances, as well as having their private goods controlled by outside forces.”

The National Grid, a private company that made £2.6 billion profit in 2011, is required by law to balance supply and demand in the network.

The EU has set a target that 20 per cent of all electricity will be generated from green sources by 2012, but these are unreliable, making the task more difficult.

The National Grid supplies alternating current to homes at 240V and an frequency of 50 hertz (Hz), but because electricity cannot be stored in bulk, there are fluctuations in this.

When demand starts to outstrip supply, the frequency drops – when there is more power than needed, it rises.

UK BASE CARRYING OUT AFGHAN DRONE STRIKES

By Robert Stevens
30 April 2013

The British Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced last Thursday that remote controlled armed drones, used to murder and maim insurgents and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, are now being operated from the UK for the first time.

The UK’s armed forces have been using drones, officially known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), to monitor and attack insurgents in Afghanistan for at least six years. Previously these missions had been operated from the Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, as the British military did not have the capability to operate them from UK soil.

At Creech the drones were operated by the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) 39 Squadron. Described as an “elite unit formed in some haste during 2007”, the unit used state of the art surveillance technology to carry out sneak attacks on people several thousand miles away.

On Thursday it was acknowledged that a specially created mission base—operational since October—at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, England is now directing the drones.

In a deliberately vague statement the RAF said it had commenced supporting the International Security Assistance Force and Afghan ground troops with “armed intelligence and surveillance missions” remotely piloted from RAF Waddington.

There is no information on the individual missions flown from the UK, which are operated by RAF 13 Squadron and consist of 100 specially trained personnel. The Telegraph reported that the drones “take off and land under the guidance of pilots on the ground in Afghanistan but the pilots in Lincolnshire take over once they’ve reached a suitable height. They normally fly at between 15,000 to 20,000 feet.”

Last year the MoD stepped up its Afghanistan drone fleet by purchasing five more US-made MQ-9 Reaper drones, costing $16.9 million, to add to the five it already operated. The 10 will be operated from RAF Waddington in collaboration with the team in the US. Each is able to carry up to 14 Hellfire “tank-buster” air-to-surface missiles.

Only a fraction of information on the death and destruction drones inflict ever reaches the public domain. The RAF’s claim that they are used for “armed intelligence and surveillance missions” is aimed at concealing that their main purpose is to terrorise on a mass scale. Kat Craig, legal director of human rights charity Reprieve, recently commented, “The nature of drones means they hover above communities 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They present an aerial occupation, almost a form of collective punishment, that causes huge concern and distress to people living in those communities.”

RAF controlled drones have been a critical component of the filthy imperialist adventure in Afghanistan, having flown 45,000 hours in the last six years (an average of 20 hours per day) and fired around 350 weapons.

The RAF also leases the Israeli-made Hermes 450. According to the flightglobal.com web site in October 2012, “more than 60,000 flight hours had been logged with Hermes 450s over Afghanistan and also previously Iraq under the urgent operational requirement service by early this year.”

A November 2011 report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that the UK will “spend over half a billion pounds on acquiring and sustaining armed Reaper drones on operations in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2015.”

At that time the RAF were, according to the Bureau’s report, “providing more than 1,200 hours of air support per month for the UK’s Afghan operations.”

The RAF is continually upgrading its drone warfare capability. It is intended that, by 2030, these will comprise 30 percent of the RAF’s capacity. Some £2 billion is being spent on upgrading to a new fleet of 30 drones, known as “The Scavenger programme,” which will be operational by the end of the decade.

The MoD publicly states that it has no record of figures on those killed as a result of drone strikes, whether “insurgent” or civilian. However, in December 2010 Prime Minister David Cameron bragged that 124 insurgents had been killed by British drone strikes up to that point. He has not been so forthcoming in giving details of the civilians slaughtered in cold blood by British drones, including the four killed and two injured when a drone blasted two trucks on the ground in the Now Zad district of north Helmand in July 2011.

These murders are just a fraction of those killed in drone attacks by the United States. The most recent estimates, according to research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, suggest that in Pakistan alone US drones killed up to 3,533 people between 2004 and 2013. About 890 of these are estimated to be civilians, of which an estimated 168 to 197 were children. Another 1,173 to 1,472 people were also injured. The majority of attacks were carried out under the administration of Barack Obama.

In December last year, the High Court in London rejected a request for a judicial inquiry into the alleged role of the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters spy centre in aiding US drone strikes in Pakistan’s northwest region. The case was brought by Noor Khan, a Pakistani man whose father was killed, along with 49 other people, by a US drone attack on March 17, 2011. Khan’s father, Malik Daud Khan, was chairing a peaceful tribal assembly meeting to discuss chromite mining rights in North Waziristan when he was killed by several missile strikes.

The Conservative/Liberal Democrat government has refused to comment on any aspect of the allegations. Lawyers for Foreign Secretary William Hague told the court that it was “territory of extreme sensitivity”. It would be “‘prejudicial to the national interest’ for them even to explain their understanding of the legal basis for any such activities”, they added.

Following the announcement that the new drones will be operated from RAF Waddington, the media largely sought to play down their crucial military role in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as their planned usage in further imperialist brigandage. BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt blithely reported that the “overwhelming majority” of missions the British drones are used for involve surveillance. She added, “The UK has used its military drones and pilots only in areas acknowledged as conflict zones such as Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, while RAF drones do not take part in the CIA programme.”

The BBC kept up its propaganda following a demonstration by 400 people on Saturday protesting the use of drones and calling for their banning. The march began in the nearby town of Lincoln and ended at the heavily guarded perimeter fence of RAF Waddington.

BBC reporter Ed Thomas concluded his report from the protest by citing UK government statements defending the increased use of drones. Thomas repeated the bare-faced lie that “it also says that the drones are not only saving military lives but also civilian lives in Afghanistan.”

SECRET BRITISH COURTS CAN TAKE YOUR MONEY AND CONTROL OF YOUR LIFE AND THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT

NEIL HAS AN IQ OF 125 AND RUNS HIS OWN BUSINESS.  SO WHY WON’T A SECRET COURT LET HIM SPEND HIS OWN MONEY?

By The Daily Mail

A secret court is controlling £2billion of assets of thousands of elderly and mentally impaired people and paying them a paltry rate of interest, the Mail reveals today. The controversial actions of the Court of Protection, which one MP has criticised as ‘bordering on malpractice’, are supposed to uphold the interests of 16,000 vulnerable people – but many claim they destroy the value of savings. Here SUE REID tells the story of Neil Barker, a successful businessman whose finances have been at the mercy of the court since he was injured in a horrific accident.

Neil Barker is, in many ways, a lucky man. At 36, he has a loving girlfriend, Valeria, a five-bedroom house overlooking the park in a smart West London suburb — and he’s made a dramatic recovery from a motorbike crash ten years ago which left him with brain injuries.

All he wants to do is to get on with his life as a successful computer consultant and property restorer — without interference from the State.

But a huge sum of his money is lying in a State bank account controlled by a hidden corner of the legal system: the astonishingly powerful Court of Protection, which has decreed that Neil’s accident means he lacks the mental capacity to handle his own financial affairs.

Fighting for control: Neil Barker with his girlfriend Valeria Carli

Reported: From the Mail last week

Neil, who is chatty and clearly lucid, told me last week: ‘It is very stressful to be told by the State that I am not able to make decisions about my own money or investments, especially when that is untrue and I have recovered my health.

‘I was given £1.8 million in compensation by the insurance company after my accident. A lot of that has been frittered away over time by the Court of Protection and I am powerless to do anything to stop it.’

His story is shocking. But Neil is just one of thousands of people whose financial assets are being managed by the Court of Protection (CoP), which was set up by New Labour’s 2005 Mental Capacity Act to make decisions for ill, confused or elderly people deemed to lack the ability to do so for themselves.

The CoP has draconian and sweeping powers. Judges, sitting alone and in secrecy, deal with thousands of cases a year, making far-reaching rulings about almost every aspect of citizens’ lives — and often those of their relatives, too.

They can compel people to undergo surgery, use contraception or have abortions.

They can decide if a life-support system is switched off, where a person lives and with whom — even if their marriage should be annulled and whether their last will and testament is torn up.

Equally controversially, the CoP judges can authorise what are called Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS), which allow council or NHS officials to restrain someone in a hospital, care home or re-training facility for as long as the State deems it to be ‘in their best interests’.

The Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who is campaigning for more openness in the CoP,  estimates that there are hundreds of these ‘secret prisoners’ across the country.

And while it might seem essential to have a court taking decisions to protect the vulnerable, the secrecy with which the CoP operates — with the public barred from hearings and the Press forbidden from identifying people involved in cases — is deeply disturbing.

Individuals who have disobeyed the court’s rulings or spoken out about what has happened to them or their relatives — even to their local MP — have been threatened with, or sent to, prison.

A legal expert who regularly attends CoP hearings says that the numbers imprisoned for falling foul of the court in the past five years may run into hundreds.

Reported: From the Mail last week

Just last week, the Mail revealed the case of Wanda Maddocks, who was sentenced to five months in prison by the CoP when she objected to her father, John, being sent to a care home against her will.

She has been able to reveal her story only because her father has died.

There is another power of this court that is also highly contentious. Astonishingly, £2 billion of vulnerable  people’s money is now under the  control of the CoP.

This enormous sum is held by another State offshoot, the Court Funds Office (CFO), which has the role of ‘providing a safe place’ for the funds.

Extraordinarily, as I have discovered, the money is in fact being used to help reduce our national debt  figure.

The CFO has sent the £2 billion to the UK Debt Management Office, an agency of the Treasury, where the funds are set against the billions that this country owes.

Furthermore, the life savings of those suffering from dementia, incapacitating diseases, or even old age — as well as people like Neil Barker, who have received accident compensation pay-outs and are deemed unable to run their financial affairs — are paid a paltry interest rate for the use of their money by the State: currently 0.5 per cent, just a third of the rate paid by National Savings.

Understandably, many of those who are caught up in the system object that they are left badly out-of-pocket. 

Some families find that even though the CoP is in charge of their loved ones’ multi-million-pound negligence or accident awards, the money is not earning enough interest to cover their needs — even though its investment is meant to fund a lifetime of care.

Once the COP decides a person is incapable of handling their finances, a so-called deputy is appointed to make day-to-day decisions about their money.

The deputy is appointed by the judge and can be a family member. If no relative is suitable, then the court will choose a local authority representative, often a social worker, or a solicitor to carry out the task.

Wanda Maddocks was secretly jailed by the Court of Protection for trying to save her father from starvation at his care home

 

Many families are left in the unenviable position of having to ask the officially appointed deputy for money to care for their loved ones — and appeal to the CoP if they disagree with the decision.

Needless to say, thousands have complained about the court since 2007, when it began operations.

There are allegations of its officials — including some deputies — charging exorbitant fees, over-riding the wishes of relatives, frittering away money, raiding the elderly’s homes searching for documents and intercepting personal emails.

In a depressingly typical case, children’s author Heather Bateman was forced to seek permission from the court to use family funds after an accident left her journalist husband Michael in a coma.

She wrote a moving account of her family’s ordeal in Saga magazine: ‘Michael and I were two independent working people.

‘We had been married for 28 years. We had separate bank accounts and most of the bills were paid from Michael’s account.

‘Now, to continue living the way we had always done, I needed to access the money in his account.

Wanda Maddocks’ father John, pictured in 2008

‘The Court of Protection brought almost as much anger, grief and frustration into my life as the accident itself.

‘It is an alien, intrusive, time-consuming and costly institution, which was completely out of tune with what we were going through. It ruled my waking moments and my many sleepless nights.’

Mrs Bateman even had to apply to the court for permission to pay the couple’s daughter’s university fees.

‘I could write as many cheques as I wanted up to £500. But if I needed more, I had to ask the permission of the court.’

Fury over the CoP has erupted on social networking sites and on help forums set up by charities.

Only recently the Alzheimer’s Society received this heartbreaking plea for help: ‘My family is having severe problems with a solicitor who has been appointed by the CoP as deputy for my mother of 87, who unfortunately suffers from dementia.

‘They have managed to make a complete mess of my mother’s affairs. She had capital of £40,000 and income of £850 a month.

‘Her expenditure (predominantly on carers) was approximately £2,500 a month, meaning that, by now, she should have £27,000 of her capital left.

‘However, we are in a situation where her bank account is overdrawn. There are unpaid bills and direct debits.

‘The carers have not been paid so, understandably, some are reluctant to continue working. This means my mother is not receiving the care she needs.

‘We are at our wits’ end, trying to find out why there is no money to meet her obligations. What really frightens me is what would happen to someone with no family to support them?’

This family is not alone. Stories of incompetence and even possible fraud have emerged in blogs and forums about the CoP.

In particular, there are tales of exorbitant fees charged by deputies. One retired lawyer was asked for £4,100 in fees to withdraw £5,800 of her own money.

In another case, the proceeds of the sale of a house, authorised by the CoP deputy, were paid into the wrong account.

And one family was charged £42,000 in fees for the legal paperwork to transfer a sick  daughter’s care to her mother after the father died.

But not all the grievances are about money. Take the case which emerged last year of pensioners Norman Davies and Peggy Ross, who were looking forward to going on their annual cruise when Cardiff Council intervened.

The council argued that it was not in the ‘best interests’ of 82-year-old Mrs Ross, who has dementia and lives in a care home, to go on the holiday.

Mrs Ross’s social worker decided the pensioner lacked the capacity to make a decision about whether she should go on the £3,200 cruise because ‘her ideas were not based in reality’.

She said the council was worried that Mrs Ross might wander off on the ship or fall overboard.

Just before the holiday, the council went to the CoP to obtain a DOLS to prevent Mrs Ross leaving her care home.

The judge, to his credit, refused to make the order, which has allowed details of the case to become public. The couple duly enjoyed a 16-day cruise around the Mediterranean.

The Lib Dem MP John Hemming is campaigning for more openness in the Court of Protection and estimates there are hundreds of ‘secret prisoners’ across the country

However, lawyers and MPs have said it illustrates how the CoP is being used by council apparatchiks — social workers and care home workers, in particular — to  meddle with and control people’s lives.

Mr Davies, a lucid 81-year-old former engineer, who lives near Newport, said after the holiday: ‘They tried to strip Peggy of her rights completely. The whole thing was disgusting from start to finish.’

He is not the only person to think that of the CoP. At one recent hearing, a desperate mother asked the court to allow the life-support machine keeping her brain- damaged daughter alive to be switched off.

As is standard in the court, the daughter was referred to only by the letter ‘M’ to protect her identity.

But the judge also issued a Draconian injunction imposing secrecy for as long as  ‘M’ lived.

The ruling barred the media or anyone interested in the case from approaching a list of 65 people who play, or had played, some part in the girl’s life.

And it stifled any reasonable debate on the moral issues of the case and stopped her own family publicly expressing their views on what should happen or why.

The injunction made clear that those who made such inquiries, apart from to the solicitors of ‘M’, would be sent to prison or have their assets seized as a punishment.

This would probably not come as a surprise to Neil Barker. He says his life is being ruined by the CoP and that the court has lost him thousands of pounds.

This week, he told me that, after his motorbike crash in April 2003, he struggled to carry out everyday tasks because of a brain injury. Even going to the shops to buy groceries was a major challenge.

His family, to whom he is still close, were worried that he would not be able to manage his own money.

And when he won £1.8 million in a personal injury claim after the accident, they agreed that Neil’s pay-out should be placed in a CoP-controlled account.

A solicitor from the firm which dealt with the injury claim was appointed as his deputy by the CoP to make financial decisions on his behalf.

Neil says: ‘I thought at the time it would be nice not to worry about money, that it would be like an ordinary bank account with added security. But I was wrong.

‘Now I have made a full recovery, but the CoP refuses to let go.

‘I have trained as a computer engineer. I have renovated a house successfully and sold it for a profit.

‘I am well enough to run my own business, to manage my own finances, but I am not being allowed to do so by this court and the deputy.’

Neil explains that his own home was bought with £1.2 million from his pay-out — money the CoP agreed to release for the purchase.

Judges at the Court of Protection sit alone and in secrecy making decisions about almost every aspect of citizens’ lives

But he adds: ‘The rest of the funds have been allowed to dwindle away. The interest rate on the money at the Bank of England account is so low that I estimate I have lost £75,000 over the years.’

At one stage — before the banking collapse and interest rates fell — Neil discovered that the bank where he was fixing the computers would have paid him eight times more in interest than what he was receiving from the CoP account.

That is not his only grievance. During his fight to free himself — and his money — from the clutches of the CoP, he has undergone a series of independent medical examinations which, he claims, prove he has fully recovered from his brain injury.

The DVLA has also tested his  driving and found him completely capable of driving a car. The cost of £4,500 for these checks had to be paid for by Neil himself.

Yet, still the CoP and the deputy have prevaricated and refused to release his money.

‘The most recent medical tests were two years ago by an eminent doctor who said I was like any other normal person,’ says Neil now. ‘My IQ was found to be more than 125, which is well above average.’

Speaking with the permission of his solicitor this week — who says his story is in the public domain because of a BBC interview he gave two years ago — Neil added, with some anger: ‘I am quite capable of managing my financial affairs, yet I am still being told by the court and the deputy that it is not the case.

‘I am continuing my fight and I am starting legal proceedings against the CoP.’

It will be an epic battle, but one that most people in Britain must surely hope he wins.