There have been questions this week in Parliament concerning the television "reality" show known as Big Brother. Our next Prime Minister Presumptive, Gordon Brown, has been dogged with complaints and enquiries about the show during his tour of India.

What is going on? It will come as little surprise to my readers when I admit that I have never watched this nor any similar television programme. From the daily reporting on an alleged incident of racism on television, it appears that those representing this country to the world are giving a bad impression. Gordon Brown, who may have had the misguided notion that representing us was his job, was forced to excuse the behaviour of his fellow citizens.

The show comprises a voyeuristic following of the banal activities of so-called celebrities who, in a twist on the usual rules of kidnapping, are themselves paid to be kept locked together in a "house" with their every move observed. The mixture of inmates included Jade Goody, a woman who is constantly in the cheaper kind of newspapers and famous for being stupid and who gained prominence by appearing in a "reality" television show, and Shilpa Shetty, a rather attractive Bollywood actress. Although I have not heard of her before, I sympathise with Ms Shetty; she clearly had to work in appalling conditions and would not have been able to make her customary multiple costume changes mid-scene and break into song and dance whenever she felt under emotional pressure. There were several other people in the show who mean even less to me and I intend to keep it that way.

Now this is where I go even deeper into my Grumpy Old Man mode. What is this great cult of celebrity where we hang on the words of an ignorant nonentity whose verbal indiscretions can create international outcry? The prediction from that great guru of artistic shallowness himself, Andy Warhol's assertion that, "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes" seems even now subject to devaluation. 

The people who make these television shows are not stupid, neither do they live in a vacuum. It is no accident that the programme is called Big Brother. The Orwellian vision of a totalitarian world under the constant surveillance of Big Brother may have inspired the title, but the Nineteen Eighty-Four similarities do not end there. George Orwell, a middle class socialist writer whose political passion turned to cynicism through observing the fractional in-fighting of his International Brigade comrades, never lost his distrust for the abilities of ordinary working people. He provided the government of his fictitious dystopian states with a Ministry of Truth that, together with creating official lies and propaganda, was responsible for entertainment. In the case of the lower orders or "proles" he suggested that all political activity and self-awareness of their oppression would be masked by prolefeed. This prolefeed included newspapers lacking real news but instead filled with sport, astrology and an unhealthy emphasis on crime, with mindless soft-pornographic films, music created and performed by machines and with formulaic drama and fiction. They also encouraged heavy beer consumption and the false hope of a national lottery.

It may seem unusual for me to praise the prescience of one born with the name "Blair", but George Orwell got so much right. In the so-called "fight against terrorism" we are led to believe that, War Is Peace, in our blind trust in the decisions of corrupt yet democratically elected politicians, Freedom Is Slavery . The current spotlight on popular entertainment confirms the means of ensuring that Ignorance Is Strength.

Admitted, I do not consume the modern equivalent of  prolefeed but I can see, even from this distance, how the news media keep the masses under control. The most frightening aspect of this, and one that even Orwell failed to predict; those feeding us this mind-numbing pap are not slaves of the government but independent and multi-national organisations who are in it not so much for the perpetuation of The Party so much as for making money.

There may have been questions in The House and demonstrations in Delhi but I doubt if many of the complainants saw the show. It is the nature of this "entertainment" that the core audience do not care about such lofty questions as racism. As for me, I will continue to avoid such rubbish; to be forced to view Big Brother would be my Room 101.        

Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, the army general who stole democracy from Chile on 11^th September 1973, has died following a heart attack. They say that the good die young. Pinochet was 91.

I am no stranger to bereavement this year, so it would be in bad taste to crow over the ending of any life, however much harm it may have caused to others in its duration. Those others may disagree. The violent removal of Salvador Allende and his legal government, the death squads, disappearances, torture and repression touched many people. They may not be so generous of spirit.

The only voice of mourning I have heard so far is that of Margaret Thatcher, an elderly woman noted recently for her silence who yet who made an effort to praise the late Generalisssimo in a tribute to the assistance he gave her during the Falklands War.

Much of what was once said about Saddam Hussein, including the brutality, the one-time championing by Britain and the USA and the blind eye shown by these allys to his excesses when it suited them can be said about Augusto Pinochet. The UK went to war with Argentina, which had an equally brutal regime to Pinochet's, because Thatcher was deeply unpopular and about to lose an election. What Thatcher never really understood about Pinochet was that, as a bad man, he was duty bound to support "our side" in a military action to free an island full of penguins and sheep of the coast of Argentina. He had to support us because we too were the bad guys. As with Bush's and Blair's disastrous and illegal war on Iraq, Thatcher claimed that the resultant overthrow of the generals in Argentina and its return to democracy was the justification for her belligerent action.       

Unlike the Beast of Bagdhad, Pinochet never faced justice for his crimes. If I were Saddam's lawyers I would now demand a stay of execution for another 22 years, until my client reaches 91. Pinochet has set a precedent for getting away with murder and the Iraqi butcher deserves equal treatment. This amount of time may give us a chance to review just how those countries that extol justice and claim to promote democracy can ever, in all conscience, call such people our friends.               

Last week, just as the Lebanese cabinet was about to give their approval to the UN tribunal to bring to justice those accused of assassinating former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, there was another suspected political killing. Pierre Gemayel, the industry minister, was fatally shot while driving through the Christian area of Beirut. That wounded country is still recovering from 15 years of civil war at the close of the 20^th Century, brutal Israeli occupation of the south ending in 2000, de facto Syrian control of the remainder of the country until last year and, of course, the blood is still running from the wounds caused through the recent Israeli attacks.

Why, given all the problems faced by Lebanon, would anyone want to make matters worse? Who gains through the death of Mr Gemayel? Syria is the obvious choice, since Mr Gemayel had expressed critical hostility to the residual Syrian influence embodied in Hezbollah and had openly blamed Syria for Mr Hariri's death. Both Messrs Hariri and Gemayel were Maronite Christians and Hezbollah, a symptom of the Israeli occupation, represent the majority community in the 60/40% Muslim/Christian population. Syria were insulted by the dismissal of their forces in 2005 and suggest, with some justification, that Israel would not have dared invade Lebanon this year had Syrian troops remained in Beirut as targets for a wider Middle East conflict. But if Syria is in the frame, then so is Israel. They are used to winning wars and this time, despite following their accustomed habit of killing thousands and then crying foul when relatives of the victims bruise one or two of their own citizens, they were eventually humiliated and shown up as foolhardy aggressors. Israel has no love for Lebanon and would not shirk from the clear destabilisation effect of the crisis created by the current assassination. There was a time that the Maronites trusted the Israelis in the same way that Hezbollah now trusts Syria. In the words of  Aeschylus, In every tyrant's heart there springs in the end this poison, that he cannot trust a friend. Last, and by no means least, there is the USA. America was ready to concede that the best hope of escaping from the consequences of their disastrous Iraqi occupation policy was to consult with and regard the advice of her neighbours, including Syria. The day following this admission, Mr Gemayel was assassinated. Following Mr Bush's recent poll drubbing, how possible would it be for groups hostile to policy change to attempt to discredit Syria?     

Simultaneous with this, another assassination had been slowly taking centre stage on the UK news. Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian secret agent and refugee from President Putin's Russia, died slowly and painfully. He was a supporter of Anna Politkovskaya, herself assassinated in Russia following her assertions that the bomb outrages that prompted the second Russian occupation of Chechnya were from explosives planted by Russian agents rather than by Chechens. The Russians are too obvious a target. The poisoning was immediately identified by Mr Litvinenko. He did not know the substance but knew the tactics, no doubt through personal experience at the KSB. At first it was thought that thallium was to blame. Those ignorant of poisoning (most of you, I would hope) might be interested to know that this was one of the substances that the CIA planned to use on Fidel Castro, not to kill but to shed that trade-mark luxuriant hair and beard and thus shame the "History will absolve me" Cuban president. So thallium clearly has a place in international espionage. Then, at the late stages of Mr Litvinenko fading life, the poison substance was challenged. It turned out to be polonium, a rare radioactive metal that is safe within a glass vial but is diabolically harmful when digested. As a matter of interest, the other contenders for assassins of Alexander Litvinenko are the Chechen puppet regime and, er, Alexander Litvinenko. As Juliet said, To bear a poison, I would temper it. Yes, Shakespeare's Juliet. It has been suggested by some that the victim may have poisoned himself. Just the right amount of polonium was delivered to cause a long and painful death in order to discredit Putin. How can you temper a substance as lethal as radioactive polonium? Can this be true? And this above all: To thine own self be true. Too much would have been instantly fatal and too little would have given the risk of recovery. As alleged suicides go, it does not get close to convincing me. The Russians are too obvious, but that does not prove their innocence. 

Justice is a strange beast. It may have escaped your attention that Charles Taylor is on trial. Now this may not come across as a big deal; even the name has a ring of harmlessness to it. "Taylor" sounds like the genial chap who measures a gentleman's inside leg and puts together a three-piece suit. But, as you may be aware, innocently sounding names can be deceptive. The name "Bush", for instance, sounds like the top of a lady's inside leg, but is also far from innocuous.

Charles Taylor, former president of Liberia, is facing 11 charges of Crimes Against Humanity, Violation of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II (War Crimes) and other serious violation of international humanitarian law, specifically:

1.       Acts of terrorism

2.       Murder

3.       Violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder

4.       Rape

5.       Sexual slavery and any other form of sexual violence

6.       Outrages upon personal dignity

7.       Violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular cruel treatment

8.       Other inhumane acts

9.       Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces or groups, or using them to participate actively in hostilities

10.   Enslavement

11.   Pillage

How could a man elected (eventually) to the responsible position of president be so violent, so shameful? Quite easy, it seems. Some people do it with oil but the evidence suggests that Mr Taylor acted as a conduit for Sierra Leone diamonds and traded them for arms, arms that were then passed on to the United Front, the rebel group led by his close friend Foday Sankoh. United Front were responsible for appalling atrocities, including routinely hacking off hands and legs from civilians. For over ten years Taylor appears to have been a lightning rod that sparked bloodshed, starting with Liberia and spreading through Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Guinea and West Africa generally.

Sierra Leone, which has managed to obtain Taylor's extradition from Nigeria and hold him in custody, had a problem. The government feared that if they tried him in their own country his supporters might start an uprising. Taylor's supporters, in a rare moment of agreement, also wanted the trial elsewhere, claiming that he would be unable to get a fair trial because of the hatred people feel for him. The suggested compromise was a trial at The Hague. The Sierra Leone Court would still have jurisdiction but not need to worry about guerrillas storming the courtroom. But then what would happen if Charles Taylor were found guilty of the charges? Imprisoning him would be another long-standing liability. To the rescue came the British government; they have offered to provide prison accommodation for Mr Taylor in the event of his being found guilty. And, as of today, the compromise is agreed.

This is all very well, but the assumption here is that he will be receiving a custodial sentence. What if he is sentenced to death? After all, his native country of Liberia, in common with several other African states, had formerly followed the Old Testament American model of justice. We British take a more civilised, European view on punishment. All the same, we cannot impose our own standards since we are only hosting, rather than passing, the sentence. If he pleads guilty our rules of justice permit a reduction in the sentence of up to 30àClearly you cannot 30xecute someone and so the solution may well be that as suggested by the actions of Mr Sankoh; amputate both arms and both legs.  

This perceived leniency might prompt a request for a custodial sentence in addition to the 70% execution. On the other hand, we have to be practical. Prison life is bad enough but the experience of the many can be disrupted by just a few badly behaved prisoners. Tariffs and paroles are adjusted with this in mind. A combination of atonement and exemplary conduct is no more than could be expected from this man, a minister of the church. With this eventuality in mind it is therefore highly recommended that the judicially removed limbs be stored and kept fresh. Some or all of them may be required for replacement in the event of Taylor 's remission of sentence for good behaviour.

So who says justice has to be blind.

What is originality? As an writer I acknowledge that nothing is new under the sun. The trick is to distinguish between inspiration and memory of an inspirational source, and then to either credit that source or make enough changes to disguise the theft.

The copyright of Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh was not breached by Dan Brown, according to a London High Court ruling. Random House had been sued by one of its clients against another due to the similarity between The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982) and The Da Vinci Code (2003).

I must admit to not having read either book. From what I have heard of the later novel and given the excessive publicity and credibility given to its theme, I am in no hurry.

I do know the subject matter common to both books and, given the number of people who have read The Da Vinci Code and the imminent release of the film, there is little point going over it here. If any of those concerned want publicity from me they can pay me in the usual way.

Was this the right decision and does it matter? Let us consider the facts. What was the original idea, theme or treatment of a theme in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail that was compromised by The Da Vinci Code?

1. Was it that the Catholic Church has a dark side that squashes any idea of heresy? That is hardly new. The sources for the Christian religions have been picked over, filtered and selectively translated and edited to give the story they want to display. The recent re-emergence of the Gospel According to Judas could not have come at a better time. And nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

2. Where is the surprise that Templars, Gods Bankers or other Christian enforcers would employ dirty tricks, blackmail and murder to ensure that heresy is silenced? There are historical and modern instances of this in the public domain; news and repeated history are beyond copyright.

3. French tradition has it that Mary Magdalene sailed to Marseilles bringing with her the Grail, just as British tradition has Joseph of Arimathea had him bringing the same baggage to Glastonbury. Ignoring the cynical view that that Holy Sites and their Relics were the earliest form of tourism, the medical equivalent of Disneyland, let us assume that the French were right. You do not need to believe in religion to believe that people travelled 2000 years ago. But if this story is true, it was not an issue of 1982 copyright.

4. The next question is what does this mean? How is your French? Sangraal means (yes, Messrs. Baigent and Leigh) Holy Blood. The association with a cup is later, as depicted by Mallory, Tennyson, Wagner and Monty Python. Blood can mean blood or blood can mean lineage, get it? Perseval, who figures large in the legends, is the son of the Widow Lady and thus Magdalene. Am I going too fast? And the Widow Lady's husband was alleged to be Jesus.

5. Ooh, what a revelation? Who would have suggested Jesus' crucifixion was a cruci-fiction? Well most of us, actually. It makes a lot more sense that any long-surviving stories were based upon a quite charismatic chap who led an otherwise normal life rather than all that Son of God and back from the dead stuff. By saying that most of us disbelieve, I mean all atheists and agnostics, the mediaeval Cathars and all other heretics. And for those of you who are about to judge my fellow disbelievers in the Resurrection as shallow and lacking in faith, I would like to include 1.2 billion people among our number who believe in one God, go along with most of the other Judaism mythology and also revere Jesus; I refer to Muslims.    

I repeat, does this matter? Well yes it does. Dan Brown, who was the winner many times over in this action, is hardly a deserving cause with a best-selling book and a probable hit for a film. I would have preferred the boring underdog nerds who wrote the original. But I have written plays where I had to seek the permission of the official biographer, one where I listened with trepidation to a rival (and earlier) versions of the story I had used, I currently have a play that mirrors a Hollywood movie written by one of my characters, I have one work that ................no, this is not about me.

As the losing side in the judgement today stated, the case was not brought in order to prevent anyone reworking (their example) the Faust legend; it was to prevent anyone from re-writing Goethe's, Marlowe's or Mann's version of Faust and calling it their own.

I look down on extraordinary rendition. However high the Gulfstream 5 "private executive jets" may fly, it is a pretty low act.

Seizing "suspects" from the streets of European cities is wrong. The proportion of abductions of the "totally innocent" compared to those of "reasonably suspicion" may never be known, since the kidnappings are by their very nature secretive and any genuine "terrorists" are unlikely to be in any position to complain at their treatment. Drugging and snatching and then sending them off to be incarcerated and "interrogated" in countries whose attitude to human rights and torture are rooted firmly in the Middle Ages does not absolve the US from the suffering committed to its victims by its agents. Any assistance or turning of a blind eye by those countries from which victims have been abducted is equally reprehensible.

In the criminal law of most civilised countries, kidnapping is considered to be a serious offence. In no legal system of which I am aware is the crime rendered less serious if the kidnapper suspects that the victim may know someone who has committed or may be thinking of committing a crime. The same goes for torture, universally condemned and actually avoided in all but the most brutal and uncivilised regimes, irrespective of the quality of the victim's character or that of his acquaintances.  

The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has today been defending her country's position;the motivation, mechanisms and even the morality of these actions. Meanwhile, our government and those of other European countries are being questioned on their connivance or compliance with the US on rendition.

First of all, let us consider the motivation. Ms Rice is an admirably reliable source for this information. In the midst of anti-war demonstrations during her UK visit she said that it is right that the enemies of the US should be arrested, "not that we want to be the world's jailer. But we would not be forgiven if we released people who could give information on planned terrorist activity or who we might later meet on the battlefield". That sounds innocent enough, doesn't it? Well no, actually, it doesn't.

Analysing the right that the enemies of the US should be arrested I feel it would be a worthwhile exercise to define just who these enemies may be:

1.      Osama bin Ladin? Well yes, he and his organisation, Al Q'aeda, have got to be top of the list. And let's face it, they are indisputably bad guys. The only friends of the bin Ladin family I can name are the families Saud and Bush. Al Q'aeda are known to have committed terrorist acts and murders in Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the US. The beardy bloke and Al Q'aeda have been operating for 18 years now and have led a fatwa against the US for nearly half of that. Given the resources thrown into the CIA and US security forces generally, this is not a good advertisement for the US of A.

     But let us be clear at this stage; terrorists are not the same as enemies. At the height of the struggle against the Mafia, did Italy declare war on Sicily? ETA may have once declared war on Spain, but the converse was and remains etymologically absurd. As a committed pacifist I should be the last person to quibble over such details or to recognise the legitimacy of enemies at war, but the Geneva and Hague conventions chewed this over in some detail about a century ago. An enemy at war is a State which uses arms to commit a hostile act against another State. There was some concern in these conventions over "recognised" and "unrecognised" states being treated with equal importance, but the conclusion was that the "hostility" from a particular state was no less hostile through your failing to recognise its legitimacy. All the same, at no point in these internationally recognised rules was a concept given the status of enemy. In all the major conflicts in the previous century the US has "waged war" on German imperialism, Nazism, Fascism, Japanese Imperialism and Communism. But in fairness to the US, these concepts were firmly based on land and sea battles on enemy territories and, whatever the rights or wrongs of the conflicts, the basic ground rules were quite often observed by the US.

2.      Arabia? Muslims? The rest of the world generally? There are certainly grounds to suggest that the ineffective, ill-conceived and illegitimate action taken so far to attempt to deal with the Al Q'aeda problem has polarised Islam against the US. More, many more, innocent people have been killed by US troops than have terrorists in the so-called "war" on terrorism. Entire countries have been invaded under this pretext, their governments overthrown and the conditions for the general populations reduced to chaos. The more the US endeavours against Osama fail, the more desperate and foolhardy becomes American actions. The growing numbers of innocent people killed or damaged through what looks increasingly like the tantrums of a frustrated child just inflates the ranks of we peace activists in Europe and the rest of the free world, joining peaceful Islam in complaint at the injustices heaved upon it. And, even more so, it inflates the ranks of less peace loving opponents of the US the world over. Even America must know that it cannot fight the whole world. Will it not eventually learn from its mistakes, become embarrassed when it eventually transpires that its only real allies are the more corrupt regimes of Africa and the Middle East, that of Russia and the obscene tyrannies that replaced some of the former Soviet Republics? That stage has not been reached yet, but the backlash against kidnapping of "suspects" from the streets of Europe will come some day very soon.

3.      America? When it was suggested that Herbert Morrison was his own worst enemy, his fellow MP, Ernest Bevin quipped, "Not while I'm alive, he ain't!" Given that all of the world may now be against America, how can it possibly be its own worst enemy against such strong competition? I suppose it depends upon how the United States defines itself. If it still holds itself as a bastion of democracy, then its routine overthrow in the previous half-century of elected governments of which it disapproves and habitual propping up of obscene dictatorships friendly to its beliefs and money proves this to be a lie. If it feels itself to be the "land of the free" then the FBI rummaging through your household waste and library cards, security services checking your email and generally getting inside your head to eliminate "thought crimes" all run contrary to the description. America can be called the land of the free in the same way that a lunatic in an insane asylum can be described as free to be mad.

Our governments in Europe have colluded with America to let these illegal abductions and abuses take place. How can we hold up our hands and say we know nothing? There are tracking stations and radar, we have Air Traffic Control. We have airports where planes land and refuel. Given that the second most publicised terrorist act of all time concerned the use of aeroplanes, it is inconceivable that any government would be blasé about who is flying what, flying it where or flying it why. If we allow the US to subcontract torture or to abduct people to their civil rights sewer in Guantanamo, then we are equally guilty of these crimes. If we fail to stand up to a tyrant, then we become an accessory to the crimes of that tyrant. Until they come to their senses, the tyrant here in front of us is the United States of America.

Governments, keep your security services and police alert to criminal abductions. There are no exceptions. As for the rest of us, keep watching the skies. Just keep watching the skies.

Nothing changes. I have stayed quietly waiting in the wings for over a week now, not talking about this subject. I first wrote about it six years ago you see, before it happened.

In the period between WW1 and the mid 1920's there was a abuse of political fund-raising that became known as the Sale of Honours Scandal. The prompting of this trade was the change in the decision for who should be elevated to the House of Lords; removing it from the Crown and passing it on to the supposed more democratic nomination by the government of the day. The Prime Minister initially responsible for this change and who also began abusing the newly created system was David Lloyd George. 

The practice was nearly exposed through the public speaking campaign and written articles of the flawed working class hero, former Socialist MP Victor Grayson. In 1920 Grayson identified the agent who acted as the middle-man between party donors and government, a former Secret Service Agent by the name of Arthur Maundy Gregory. He encouraged a wealthy friend to feign interest and to obtain a price-list, showing a sliding scale ranging from a fairly tidy sum for a Knighthood to a then fortune of £33,000 for an ermine robe and a seat in the Upper House. In September 1920 Victor Grayson disappeared. 

There is no need for a Grayson today. Nobody is breaking the law, it seems. Then as now, no opposition party will make too much fuss because they are all as bad, all playing the same potential game of raking in the funds; opposition parties can also nominate Honours. The present government established rules for the transparency of political funding, preventing foreign nationals from donating and ensuring that amounts above £5,000 should have names attached. The small-print covered donations but did not specify loans, for which £14 million has been admitted so far. The rules state that any loans must be on commercial terms; one hopes that terms also includes paying the money back at some time.

Most of those who have donated more than £1.1 million to the Labour Party have received Honours. Many of those who have loaned similarly large sums have found the same favour. It is unlikely that they will be asked to vacate their seats in the Lords when the money is repaid.

A defence put out by government sources is that all people it nominates are worthy of the honour and it would be unreasonable to expect those people who donated large sums to a political party to be excluded from nomination for honours. That is fair as far as it goes, but does not explain the coincidence of nearly all (and at least one donor has admitted he was offered but refused a peerage, which may explain why not all donors are elevated) big donors getting that posh fancy dress, a coronet and a membership of one of the most exclusive clubs in the world. The other excuse used by the government is that those people able to afford £1.1 million or more must be successful in their chosen field and thus worthy people. Great! Since when did the amassment of funds make you a good person? On that basis the red benches in the House of Lords should bear the backsides of every successful mafioso, the most able and ruthless illicit drug dealers, leaders of gangs trafficking young women for prostitution, big-time bank robbers, arms dealers (no, for a reason I cannot comprehend, this one usually counts as genuinely worthy).....you get my drift.

One last point that may be of interest. £1.1 million, factored backwards to the time of Maundy Gregory and Victor Grayson and taking inflation into consideration, comes to exactly £33,000. As I mentioned before, nothing changes. 

Tell me if you have heard this before.

"Dr Kelly's meeting with Mr Gilligan was unauthorised and in meeting Mr Gilligan and discussing intelligence matters with him, Dr Kelly was acting in breach of the Civil Service code of procedure which applied to him".

Dr Kelly was a British Civil Servant, a weapons expert who accused the British government, and Tony Blair in particular, of exaggerating facts shown in an official report on the possibility of Saddam Hussein's possessing any Weapons of Mass Destruction. Andrew Gilligan reported the story but protected his sources. The government disclosed who had blown the gaff and Dr Kelly died. The official enquiry confirmed that it was suicide. Mr Gilligan resigned and Greg Dyke, the BBC director general who supported the right of his news staff to protect their sources and publish the truth, was forced out. Tony Blair later said, "All I wanted was an apology".

There are equally colourful stories emanating from the bogus shipment of uranium from Niger to Iraq and linking to revenge for upsetting the cosiness of rampant corruption in the White House. The names of exposed agent Valerie Plame, her troublemaker husband Joseph Wilson who found dirt too near the top and jailed reporter Judith Miller come to mind. That one was close enough to demand a sacrifice; Scooter Libby had to go but it could have been worse, the bastards were close to telling tales going right up to Sharp-shot Cheney and his Chimp at the Oval Office. It was a close call.

On Wednesday Australian TV aired previously unseen images of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in 2003. The new images show murder of prisoners, torture and sexual humiliation. Prisoners shown are forced to masturbate for the camera, one prisoner is seen hitting his head against a wall. There are prisoners with body and head wounds; some photos are said to show corpses.

The US government has complained that the images should not have been released and could incite violence. A US state department legal adviser said the government felt it was better for the photos not to be released, "not because there was anything to hide..because we felt it was an invasion of the privacy of the people in the pictures" and that the images, "fan the flames around the world and cause more violence".

I can only agree with these comments. Some of the pictures have now been re-broadcast on US networks and on Arab satellite channels al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera. The truth about the occupation must be hidden; whether it be to conceal the reasons for invasion, mask the corrupt manner in which big corporations have stripped the assets intended for rebuilding or brush aside the violation of the Iraqi population by their conquerors.

I would recommend bombing al-Jazeera and SBS. You cannot change the more unpleasant aspects of history but, from many recent examples, it is clear that there is no problem in shooting the messenger.