Britain, Government, Legal, Society

Proposed changes to libel law would inhibit the free press…

LIBEL LAW REFORM

The Ministry of Justice has announced that the Government will back Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals for ‘costs protection’ in defamation and libel cases, making it easier for individuals to sue media companies. Under the current rules, if someone brings a case for libel and loses, they have to pay the defendant’s legal costs as well as their own. If proposals by justice minister, Helen Grant, go through, a judge will be able to impose a ‘one-way’ costs order. The effect of this will mean the poorest claimants will not have to cover the defendant’s bill for legal costs if they lose their case, and those on average incomes may only have to pay a proportion of it.

Taken in isolation, the perceived notion of changing the law to ensure that victims of libel (whatever their means) can take on powerful media organisations will be a good one. For one may argue that legal protection from defamation and invasion of privacy ought not to be restricted to the wealthy and well-heeled. In practical terms, though, its effect upon the free press would be iniquitous. The floodgates would be opened as individuals – aided by no-win, no-fee lawyers – freed from the risk of having to pick up the tab for losing a weak case, would sue media organisations on the flimsiest of pretexts. By removing the restraint imposed by the danger of losing, the plan opens the door to any number of opportunistic and vexatious claims.

If the proposals are adopted, journalists and editors might be dissuaded from reporting stories that they fear could trigger a legal battle. Even if they believe that they have right on their side (and could easily win the libel suit), knowing that they would have to cover the costs of a losing litigant would, undoubtedly, make them think twice before reporting the story, however legally defendable they might be.

The Leveson inquiry was set up in response to real and serious abuses by a handful of journalists, the consequences of which are now working their way through the criminal justice system. Whilst there is no-doubt that the newspaper industry requires better, tougher and reactive self-regulation, a free press is a critical part of our democracy and civil society. It would hardly be conducive to investigative journalism, or even equitable, if media organisations have to pay out every time a false charge of defamation is raised against them.

There is no question that libel cases cost too much, and that action’ of libel, defamation and invasion of privacy cause real suffering. But one-way costs are as disproportionate as they are fraught with unintended consequences.

It is both unjustifiable and unfair to allow the criminal misdeeds of a tiny minority of corrupt journalists to crimp the activities of journalism as a whole.

A vigorous and unfettered press is as important as ever, and it must be preserved and protected. The Ministry of Justice must go back and revise its proposals on libel law reform.

Standard
Britain, France, Government, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

UN confirms ‘clear and convincing evidence’ chemicals were used in Syria on a ‘large scale’…

CHEMICAL ATTACKS IN SYRIA: AIDED WITH A RUSSIAN SIGNATURE

Missiles used in last month’s nerve gas attack in Syria had Russian writing on the side, United Nations weapons inspectors have said.

The long-awaited report said there was ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that deadly sarin gas was used in the attack on a Damascus suburb that killed more than 1,400 people, many of them children.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the evidence suggested the incident was the world’s worst chemical weapons attack for 25 years.

‘This is a war crime and a grave violation of international law,’ Mr Ban said. ‘The results are overwhelming and indisputable. The facts speak for themselves.’

Foreign Secretary William Hague has described the report as ‘damning’ and ‘fully consistent’ with Britain’s assessment that government forces were behind the attack.

Presenting the report, which does not attribute any blame for the attacks, Mr Ban said the inspectors concluded chemical weapons ‘were used on a relatively large scale’ in the attack.

They had ‘collected clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used in the Ein Tarma, Moadamiyah and Zalmalka in the Ghouta area of Damascus’.

Mr Ban said: ‘The United Nations mission has now confirmed, unequivocally and objectively, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.

‘The international community has a responsibility to hold the perpetrators accountable and to ensure that chemical weapons never re-emerge as an instrument of warfare.’

He called on the Security Council to ‘move quickly to consider and implement’ the plan for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons through a ‘clear resolution’.

He said there ‘should be consequences for non-compliance’ by the Assad regime but also warned the international community not to be ‘blind’ to other widespread crimes committed by the Syrian government.

‘This is the most significant confirmed use of chemical weapons against civilians since Saddam Hussein used them in Halabja in 1988. The international community has pledged to prevent any such horror from recurring, yet it has happened again,’ he said.

‘This is a matter that truly affects international peace and security. After two and a half years of tragedy, now is the moment for the Security Council to uphold its political and moral responsibilities and demonstrate the political will to move forward in a decisive manner.

‘My hope is that this incident will serve as a wake-up call for more determined efforts to resolve the conflict and end the unbearable suffering of the Syrian people.

‘We need to do everything we can to bring the parties to the negotiating table. This is the only path to a durable solution.’

Although the team was not mandated to establish who used the banned weapons, Mr Ban said those responsible should be ‘brought to justice’.

He said: ‘As I have repeatedly said, those perpetrators who have used the chemical weapons or any other weapon of mass destruction in the future will have to be brought to justice. This is a firm principle of the UN.’

Mr Hague said the UN’s findings backed the West’s claims that Syrian government forces were behind the attack.

He said: ‘This report, which we are analysing in detail, is clearly very damning. It confirms that there was indeed a large-scale chemical weapons attack on the areas east of Damascus in the early hours of August 21.

‘It confirms that this was an attack against civilians, against children and a large number of people were killed and it is fully consistent with everything we have always argued about this attack – that sarin was used, that it was on a large scale.’

He added: ‘We have always believed that this was the work, the responsibility of the Assad regime and everything we can see in this report is fully consistent with that.’

Mr Hague said he was ‘hopeful’ of an international deal for Syria to give up its chemical weapons but warned it would be a hugely challenging process.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, he said it was clear that it was the Syrian regime that held the chemical weapons, and not the opposition.

He said the talks between Russia and America had finally forced Syria’s government to admit their possession of the deadly weapons.

He said: ‘He (Assad) has to declare the chemical weapons that he has previously denied possessing and hand them over.

‘These are in the regime, there’s no consideration being given to securing weapons from the opposition – even the Russians aren’t considering getting weapons from the opposition.’

He insisted that British military personnel would not be sent into the war-torn country.

‘We will not be sending British troops for this or anything else in Syria,’ Mr Hague said.

‘No boots on the ground, no boots will be deployed. I don’t think that will be a good way of providing security in Syria.’

The United States, Britain and France blame Assad’s forces for the attack and say it killed more than 1,400 people. The government, backed by Russia, denies the charge and blames opposition rebels.

The details of the report’s contents emerged as the western allies, meeting in Paris, warned Syria of ‘serious consequences’ if it stalls on handing over its chemical weapons.

Kickstarting a week of intense diplomatic activity in the wake of a weekend US-Russia deal on the proposed disarmament, the three powers also moved to bolster rebels fighting Assad’s regime and reiterated calls for the Syrian president to step down.

The tough tone triggered an immediate warning from Russia that western sabre-rattling could derail efforts to bring the regime and rebels to the table for negotiations aimed at ending a civil war that has raged for over two years and left more than 110,000 people dead.

US Secretary of State John Kerry said it was vital that the allies, who came to the brink of launching air strikes against Assad earlier this month, maintain the pressure on the regime.

‘If Assad fails to comply with the terms of this framework make no mistake we are all agreed, and that includes Russia, that there will be consequences,’ Kerry said.

‘If the Assad regime believes that this is not enforceable and we are not serious, they will play games.’

British Foreign Minister William Hague added: ‘The pressure is on them (the Syrians) to comply with this agreement in full. The world must be prepared to hold them to account if they don’t.’

The United States and Russia agreed in Geneva on Saturday that an ambitious accord aimed at eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons by mid-2014 be enshrined in a Security Council resolution backed up by the threat of unspecified sanctions in the event of non-compliance.

Russia has made it clear it will block any move to write an explicit authorisation for the use of military force into the resolution.

Lavrov said that kind of approach would scupper hopes of a resumption of suspended peace negotiations in Geneva.

‘If for someone it is more important to constantly threaten… that is another path to wrecking completely the chances of calling the Geneva-2 conference,’ Lavrov told journalists in Moscow.

The US-Russia deal agreed on Saturday gives Assad a week to hand over details of his chemical weapons stockpiles and calls for inspections of what the United States says are some 45 sites linked to the program, which is to be underway by November with the aim of neutralizing the country’s chemical capacity by mid-2014.

The deal was greeted with dismay by rebel leaders, who fear that the West’s willingness to do business with Assad will consolidate his grip on power and stall the momentum of moves to provide them with the arms they need to tilt the balance of the civil war in their favour.

Fabius and Kerry attempted to reassure the rebels that they had not been forgotten with the French minister announcing an international meeting with leaders of the Syrian National Coalition on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York next week.

‘We know that in order to negotiate a political solution, there has to be a strong opposition,’ Fabius said.

France has long championed the opposition coalition but there is concern in other western capitals about the prominent role that hardened Islamist fighters are playing in the fight against Assad’s forces.

Kerry also emphasized that Assad’s agreement to the chemical weapons handover did not give him any more right to remain in power.

‘Nothing in what we’ve done is meant to offer any notion to Assad … that he has some extended period as a leader, so-called,’ Kerry said.

In Geneva, the chairman of a U.N. war crimes panel today said it was investigating 14 suspected chemical attacks in Syria.

Commission chairman Paulo Sergio Pinheiro said the Geneva-based U.N. panel had not pinpointed the chemical used in the attacks and was awaiting evidence from the U.N. chemical weapons inspectors.

Mr Pinheiro told reporters the commission believes that both President Bashar Assad’s government and the rebels had committed war crimes.

But he said while Assad had committed crimes against humanity, rebel groups have not ‘because He said the commission had been investigating 14 alleged chemical attacks since September 2011, adding that they had so far been unable to assign blame. He said earlier they were awaiting details from today’s UN report.

Mr Pinheiro emphasised that the ‘vast majority’ of casualties in Syria’s civil wars is from conventional weapons like guns and mortars.

Last week, Mr Ban – who was apparently unaware that his comments were being broadcast on UN television – also said that the Assad regime had ‘committed many crimes against humanity.’

Promoting Britain’s stance against intervention, Mr Hague insisted the aim is to ‘bring about a peaceful end’ to the brutal civil war, now in its third year.

But he conceded that the ‘credible threat of military force’ was a key step in the bid to reach a resolution.

Mr Kerry said all the countries involved, including Russia, were agreed that if Assad fails to comply ‘there will be consequences’.

He said: ‘What we achieve in this agreement as we translate the Geneva agreement into a United Nations resolution has to be strong and it has to be forceful, it has to be real, it has to be accountable, it has to be transparent, it has to be timely.

‘All of those things are critical and it has to be enforced. If the Assad regime believes that this is not enforceable that we are not serious they will play games.’

He went on: ‘We will not tolerate avoidance or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime to the core principles of what has been achieved here.

‘If Assad fails to comply with the terms of this framework, make no mistake, we are all agreed, and that includes Russia, that there will be consequences.’

The report confirmed there is 'clear and convincing evidence' that nerve agent sarin was used in the attacks

The report confirmed there is ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that nerve agent sarin was used in the attacks

Standard
Arts, Britain, Government, History, Military, Science, Second World War

Britain: ‘RAF and the ‘Battle of the Beams’…

R.V JONES: ‘RADIO WAVES & ELECTRONIC JAMMING’

ON THE AFTERNOON of September 7, 1940, the first German bombers came rumbling up the Thames, to drop their bombs on London in the opening act of what became known as the “Blitz.” They were followed by a further 250 Luftwaffe bombers, unloading the first instalment of a massive payload of some 14,000 tons of high explosive that rained down on London until May of the following year.

The trial by fire that started more than 70 years ago is often depicted as a triumph of human resilience, a refusal by ordinary people to submit to terror. And so it was. But it was also a victory for a less known aspect of applied science, for, alongside the ferocious aerial combat another secret, electronic war was taking place, known to very few at the time and little appreciated since.

We rightly celebrate military victory in the Battle of Britain and civilian grit in the Blitz, but Britain’s astonishing scientific triumph in what Winston Churchill later called “the Battle of the Beams” has often been too easily overlooked. It saved countless thousands of lives, confused the German assault and helped to stave off the threat of invasion. This battle was fought, not with bombs and bullets, but radio waves. In the age of Shock and Awe, this covert scientific battle offers a timely reminder that ingenuity is just as important in war as brute force.

..

THREE MONTHS before the Blitz began, a 28-year-old scientist named Reginald Victor (R. V.) Jones was summoned to Downing Street to address the cabinet on the subject of radio beams. Churchill had become increasingly worried by intelligence reports suggesting that the Nazis had developed some kind of secret ray that could magically guide the Luftwaffe bombers to their targets, even when flying at night and in dense cloud.

Though outnumbered, heroic RAF pilots flying nimble and venomous Spitfires and Hurricanes saw off the Luftwaffe, their decisive victory finally coming on September 15, 1940.

An RAF officer working in technical intelligence, Jones had begun studying German radio navigation systems several months earlier and offered the Cabinet a most alarming conclusion: the Germans were using two narrow radio beams transmitted from separate locations in continental Europe to pinpoint strategic locations in Britain. In effect, the German bomber pilot could follow one radio beam until it intersected with the other beam and then drop his payload – directly over the target.

Night-bombing made bombers safer from interception by fighters and anti-aircraft systems, but finding a target in the blackout or bad weather using traditional navigation was tricky. German scientists, it seemed, had solved the problem: they codenamed it “Knickebein”, meaning “crooked leg”, a reference either to the shape of the intersecting beams or the bent appearance of the transmitting antennae. The Germans could never resist a hinting code-word – the German codename for their long-range radar system, for example, was “Heimdall”, after the Norse god with the power to see over vast distances. But the British were similarly addicted to code-wordplay. With admirable understatement, this threatening new German radio navigation system was given the codename “Headache”; the countermeasures required to defeat it were named, perhaps appropriately, “Aspirin”.

 

TO TACKLE the problem, R.V. Jones turned for help to medicine. Electro-diathermy sets were used in hospitals to destroy abnormal tissue and to cauterise wounds. Suitably modified, they also proved highly effective at jamming the Knickebein transmissions and were now deployed to send out a blizzard of radio noise over a wide range of frequencies.

Hermann Goering, the Luftwaffe chief, had given Hitler his personal pledge that the radio navigation system was invulnerable. He was far wide of the mark and so, increasingly, were his bombers. During the crucial months of September and October 1940, as the Luftwaffe night-raids mounted in intensity, Jones and his fellow scientists became ever more adept at jamming and diverting the radio beams, using more powerful radio transmitters to “inject” the Knickebein signals with confusing Morse code elements.

Deprived of reliable electronic direction, the Luftwaffe crews could become disorientated at night. One pilot was said to have landed in Dover, thinking he was back in France. Bombs intended for vital and heavily populated targets fell relatively harmlessly in fields and hills. According to some estimates, as much as 80 per cent of the German night bombs missed their target. Intercepted messages between German ground controllers and Luftwaffe pilots unable to locate their targets provided vital evidence that the beam-jammers were having the desired effect.

Even so, “Aspirin” was far from a cure-all remedy. The German bombers still caused appalling damage. London represented a target too vast to miss, even at night. A derivative of Knickebein radio navigation, known as “X Apparatus” was used to guide 400 Luftwaffe pilots to Coventry on November 14, 1940. Because of a technical error, the British jammer stations attacked the wrong frequency. The city was devastated, 568 people died, and Joseph Goebbels coined the term “Coventriert” to describe a particularly satisfactory level of destruction.

But how many more lives might have been lost, how many key military and industrial installations would have been destroyed and with what effect on the progress of war, if the Luftwaffe had been able to continue precise bombing under cover of darkness? Churchill was never in any doubt that science had played a pivotal role in blunting the Blitz. He dubbed R.V. Jones the “man who bent the bloody beams”.

 

R.V. JONES, who died in 1997, was a remarkable warrior, but one who believed in trickery and creativity as the antidote to savagery. In 1993, the CIA founded an intelligence award named in his honour, for “scientific acumen applied with art in the cause of freedom”. Yet, in this country, which he did so much to defend, so secretly, his is not a household name.

The Blitz and the Battle of Britain are synonymous terms that have left an enduring legacy of proud national stereotypes; the Spitfire pilot, the ambulance driver, the unbowed housewife sweeping up after the bombs had left their mark.

Just as important, although much less lauded, was the scientist in his lab, using a medical gadget to baffle and confuse Hitler’s bombers.

Standard