If there were any reports in the UK media about a story reported in Der Spiegel last month about the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Turkish army against Kurdish rebels, I missed them.

The story states:

“German experts have confirmed the authenticity of photographs that purport to show PKK fighters killed by chemical weapons. The evidence puts increasing pressure on the Turkish government, which has long been suspected of using such weapons against Kurdish rebels. German politicians are demanding an investigation.

It would be difficult to exceed the horror shown in the photos, which feature burned, maimed and scorched body parts. The victims are scarcely even recognizable as human beings. Turkish-Kurdish human rights activists believe the people in the photos are eight members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) underground movement, who are thought to have been killed in September 2009.

In March, the activists gave the photos to a German human rights delegation comprised of Turkey experts, journalists and politicians from the far-left Left Party, as SPIEGEL reported at the end of July. Now Hans Baumann, a German expert on photo forgeries has confirmed the authenticity of the photos, and a forensics report released by the Hamburg University Hospital has backed the initial suspicion, saying that it is highly probable that the eight Kurds died “due to the use of chemical substances.”

Did the Turkish army in fact use chemical weapons and, by doing so, violate the Chemical Weapons Convention it had ratified?”

Had this authentication been available before David Cameron’s visit to Turkey, would he have been quite so positive about fast-tracking the negotiations around Turkey becoming a member of the European Union?

However, given that David Cameron had had a number of meetings with Chancellor Angela Merkel prior to his visit to Turkey and as a prominent member of her own Parliamentary Party, Ruprecht Polenz (the chairman of the Bundestag’s Foreign Relations Committee) has called for an international investigation into the issue, it is more than likely that he HAD been briefed on the matter.  In which case, the only conclusion that one can reach is that David Cameron IS prepared to condone the use of chemical weapons.  I wonder what Nick Clegg thinks.

I have already explained that I really don’t mind.

However, just in case you really really want to cast your vote for this blog in the Total Politics annual beauty parade, this is what you have to do:

The rules are:
1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and rank them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name.
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

So I’m not asking you to do it, but I really won’t mind if you do……

According to a German News Service, a man from the Rhineland has been arrested for spying on more than 150 girls in their bedrooms by hacking into their computers and using their webcams to watch them, provoking warnings that others will be doing the same thing.

Apparently, Thomas Floß from the association of data protection advisors, discovered the case. He often visits schools to talk with children about data protection and sensible behaviour on the internet and gives a presentation including a video showing how children can be spied on via their webcam.

“I want to show how dangerous webcams are,” he said. “I became suspicious when from February, increasing numbers of girls expressed the suspicion this was happening to them.”

According to the report:

“Two girls told him the little lights on their webcams were not going out when they had finished using them. On examining one of the computers Floß discovered a so-called Trojan computer program which was being used to control the equipment, and which had been spread via the chat service ICQ.

The hacker had allegedly broken into the chat service account of one schoolgirl, and used it to choose which others he wanted to spy upon, and send the Trojan to their computers.

He was traced to the Aachen region and arrested – when police officers arrived at his home they found several live feeds to bedroom cameras running on his computer.

Floß said he believed many more people were doing the same thing. “I have visited 50 to 60 schools, and every time at least one schoolgirl tells me they have such a problem [with webcams not switching off],” he said.”

I have already explained that I really don’t mind.

However, just in case you really really want to cast your vote for this blog in the Total Politics annual beauty parade, this is what you have to do:

The rules are:
1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and rank them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name.
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

So I’m not asking you to do it, but I really won’t mind if you do……

Apparently, last weekend the Vatican was subjected to a cyber attack from an unknown source.  According to the Rome-based Zenit News Agency, the attack meant that anyone typing Vatican into Google was directed to the site “www.pedofilo.com” as the first suggestion, rather than the proper Vatican Web page.  According to the Agency:

“When this misdirection was discovered, Google was informed, said Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office.

The Internet organization immediately apologized and assured the Holy See that it would do what it could to resolve the problem as soon as possible.

On Sunday morning the problem seemed to be corrected, as users were once again directed to the proper Vatican Web page upon initiating a search for it.

Although the person who caused this problem has not been found, the indications suggested that the operation may have been carried out by someone who had significant knowledge of how Google functions.”

Heavens!  Is nothing sacred?

I am not looking for any recognition, as you know these things don’t matter to me at all and I am profoundly disinterested in where this blog comes in the annual Total Politics ranking of political blogs, so I really am not asking for you to vote for me or my blog ……..

but ……..

should you be so inclined (and I repeat I really, really don’t mind one way or the other), this is what you have to do:

The rules are:
1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and rank them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name.
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

So I’m not asking you to do it, but I really won’t mind if you do……

I remember being told by a (slightly tipsy) Conservative MP before the election that the Tories’ political strategy, if they won, would be to declare that the state of the economy was much worse than had been expected and then embark on a programme of “Ridley-ite” cuts that would make Margaret Thatcher proud.

And, so far, so true.

The objective, of course, is to make the eye-watering severity of the cuts in public spending seem inevitable and try to blame the previous Government for all that happens.

It is, of course, one of the oldest tricks in the book.  I am sure I could find it in Macchiavelli’s “The Prince”, if I looked.

Therefore, it is important that people try and keep hold of a sense of reality and proportion, while David Cameron and George Osborne, plus their faithful assistants Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, attempt their political and economic sleight of hand.

Today’s “Observer” provides a helpful primer for those who want to remind themselves why the Coalition Government is wrong and why there should be no inevitability about the economic cul-de-sac down which George Osborne wants to take us in just over a week’s time.

Katie Allen’s Q&A, “Spending Cuts: Be Concerned but There’s No Need to Panic” has a message that needs to be repeated every time the smug inevitability mantra emerges from the mouth of a Tory/LibDem apologist and I make no apologies for repeating it here:

“Has Alistair Darling really left the public finances in an even worse state than we thought?

The public purse is pretty threadbare, but it is unfair to suggest Darling left hundreds of skeletons to tumble out of the cupboard – and the former chancellor takes the idea as a personal affront. The figures bear him out: the latest official statistics showed a massive tax windfall at the end of the financial year to April, and as a result the deficit was revised down by £7bn. In fact, it is now £11bn below Darling’s final budget forecast.

Is there no alternative to drastic cuts in public services?

The fact that the deficit figures are not quite so horrific in itself raises questions over macho austerity policies and the £6.2bn of cuts already announced. Yes, we do need to bring the deficit under control, but too much austerity too soon could strangle a fragile recovery.

But won’t my tax bill go up if we don’t cut spending?

There will be a mix of spending cuts and tax rises. One of the big issues is getting the balance right between the two. Concentrating too heavily on cuts could hurt the vulnerable in society, but hefty tax rises, particularly on high earners, can be self-defeating because people avoid paying.

If we don’t tighten our belts enough, won’t our debts run out of control?

People tend to think that the government debt is like a household debt and needs to be managed very tightly. But as Leslie Budd at the Open University Business School says: “This… belongs to the less well known branch of economics called Ignorance Economics.” It is sensible to cut waste, but slashing spending indiscriminately to deal with fiscal crises can do more harm than good. Public spending is an injection into the economy that boosts national income and employment.

Hold on, though, didn’t David Cameron say our debt interest was rising to £70bn a year? That sounds bad.

Yes, it’s certainly not a good place to be. Debt service payments are set to rise from £41.6bn pencilled in this year to about £70bn in five years’ time. It is, as Cameron says, “a terrible, terrible waste of money” and more than the combined budgets for education, climate change and transport. But it is not a new figure and, to put it in perspective, households spend a similar amount of their income servicing their debts and many companies spend far more. Also, it’s not unusual for any country to spend a large part of its revenues on servicing debts.

But I heard that we are in a worse position than Greece.

Nowhere near. Britain has never defaulted on its national debt. Our debt has a long time to run, with an average of 14 years to maturity, twice as long as most European countries, including Greece. In simple terms, that means the UK government needs to refinance less of its debt in any given year and is less sensitive to rising interest rates.

Hmm. But I also heard Cameron say we are “indebted on an unprecedented scale”.

This is the kind of phrase that enrages economic historians. Some context is needed. On paper, the deficit of £156.1bn for the last financial year is indeed the highest since records began at the end of the second world war. But as any economist will tell you, it’s not hard for any nominal figure to be a record after more than 60 years of inflation.

So that’s all right then?

Debt has been higher than this at many points in wartime and peacetime since the creation of the national debt in 1690, according to Glen O’Hara of Oxford Brookes University. The 18th century saw particularly large increases in the size of the armed services and each successive conflict saw public debt peak at a new high. The level of our debt is a cause for serious concern, but not panic.”

Oral Questions in the Lords highlighted the dilemmas being faced by the new Coalition Government in trying to reconcile their previous position – or rather positions (the LibDems don’t necessarily have the same view as the Tories) – and the reality of Government.

Baroness Neville-Jones, the Security Minister, was pressed repeatedly by Labour Peeers (including me) on the problems they face following the decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that two individuals pose a “severe threat” to national security but cannot be deported to their country of origin.

Previously firm commitments have now become “reviews” and subject o indeterminate timescales 0r – in the case of the intention to repeal the Human Rights Act airbrushed from history:

“Question

11.35 am

Asked By Lord Corbett of Castle Vale

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they decided not to contest the judgment of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on 18 May that two men considered a “serious threat” to national security could not be deported to Pakistan.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): My Lords, to appeal further there must be present an arguable material error of law in the judgment. The decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission was studied closely by officials and the Queen’s Counsel and no such error was found. Consequently, there were no grounds on which to contest the decision. However, departments—including, notably, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—continue to pursue the circumstances in which it would be possible to return these men to Pakistan.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission decided that these two terrorist suspects—they were never charged—could not be deported to Pakistan because of that country’s abuse of legal and human rights. Does that not reinforce what was said to be the Government’s determination to repeal the Human Rights Act? If that is the case, does it have the enthusiastic support of the Liberal Democrats?

Baroness Neville-Jones: I can recognise wedge-driving when I see it. I do not think that there is a commitment on the part of the coalition to repeal the Human Rights Act. We are certainly going to look at the possibility of a Bill of Rights which is in conformity with the obligations that we have under the Human Rights Act.

Lord Howarth of Newport: What will the coalition do about control orders, of which the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrat Party and the judges were so critical in recent years? Now that it has responsibility for the lives and safety of the people of this country, what will it do when there is the apprehension of individuals who there is good reason to believe are terrorists; who cannot be deported because of our adherence to the European convention; and against whom the evidence to secure a conviction cannot be produced in court for good reasons of national security?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, there are two parts to that question. In the particular case we are looking at, I can assure the House that appropriate safety measures have been taken in respect of the individuals concerned. As for control orders, the House may be aware that the coalition has a commitment to review their use. I cannot go further on what the outcome of that review will be until such time as we have conducted it. However, it is clear that we would like to reduce our reliance on such measures as is consistent with the security of this nation.

Lord Dubs: Would not one way of reducing dependence on control orders be to look again at the question of intercept evidence? Will the Minister indicate whether the coalition is looking at the possibility that intercept evidence might be used in our courts?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, as the House will be aware, the Chilcot commission is conducting its work but has not yet finished it. I have had discussions on this and I am quite satisfied that the serious work being done by the Chilcot commission needs to be concluded. As the noble Lord knows, we would like to be able to introduce intercept evidence but we have to await the outcome of that work. We will come back to the House.

Lord Avebury: In the SIAC judgment to which the Question refers, was there not a substantial discussion of the risk that these two people, if sent back to Pakistan, would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and that therefore it would have been a breach of the ECHR? However, did not SIAC also add that if the two people who went back voluntarily were not subjected to treatment of that kind, the question of whether the two individuals the subject of the Question might be deported could be revisited?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, the individuals who returned voluntarily did so many months ago, before the hearing. That fact is relevant to the subsequent consideration of the individuals referred to in the Question. The fact that they returned and were not ill treated was one of the reasons for the Government considering that Nasser and Khan would not be ill treated on return. However, the court took the view that this was not sufficiently reliable in their case. The ability to return the two men can be revisited if circumstances change, and we are working on creating the circumstances in which that might be possible.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, does not the issue whether these two individuals should be deported raise a number of fundamental questions about the way in which national security is to be pursued? First, had intercept been available as evidence, would it have provided a different route for dealing with the individuals? Secondly, do the costs associated with the regime being put around the individuals represent the most efficient way of managing individuals who are considered a severe threat to the UK?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, those are very good questions. I shall not trespass on the hypothetical question of whether it would have been different had we had intercept as evidence. It is clearly a relevant issue, which is one of the reasons why we want to explore its availability. As for control orders, cost is clearly one element in considering what we need to do to keep the people of this country safe. The efficiency of the regime is also an element. We are considering precisely those issues in our review of control orders.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but the Minister’s answer raises a number of questions. First, when will the control order study be finished? Are we looking at something that is fairly rapid? The next relates to the resources being used to look at subjects of interest. There is a difficult balance to be struck between the cost of control orders and the cost of doing it in other ways. I am concerned that, as the CSR comes galloping down the track towards us, we can ensure that we have the money required for surveillance of the subjects of interest. As the Minister well knows, it is a very close-run thing. I want to be sure that that money will be protected.

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, the Government will not—I repeat not—put the safety of this country at risk. As for the noble Lord’s question on the review of control orders, I can tell your Lordships’ House that we are looking at it now; it is an issue for the present. I cannot tell your Lordships exactly when the review will be completed. It is more important that it is done properly than that it is done very quickly.”

It was noticeable that there was no string of Coalition-supporting Peers offering helpful or supportive supplementary questions.

Michael Caine’s immortal line in “The Italian Job” was, of course:

“You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!”

According to the BBC, it appears that bank robbers still need to remember the lesson:

“Suspected robbers in Germany appear to have miscalculated the quantity of explosives needed to blow their way into a rural bank.

The building housing the bank in the northern village of Malliss was largely destroyed by an overnight explosion.

The bank’s cash machine survived intact and the suspected thieves are not thought to have made away with any money.”

The full Government list has now been published and I note that no fewer than ten Ministers are not drawing a salary.  I think this must be a record.

Presumably, some Ministers are sufficiently wealthy that they regard the Ministerial stipends on offer as just not worth bothering about – although there are clearly  others who despite being very well off have decided to take the money.

It would be interesting to know whether any of those declining a salary have been given any exemptions from the usual rules about holding other external appointments whilst serving as a Minister.

For the record the unpaid ten are:

• Lord Howell of Guildford – Foreign Office
• Lord Freud – Department of Work and Pensions
• Lord Marland – Department of Energy and Climate Change
• Baroness Warsi – Minister without Portfolio
• David Heath MP – Deputy Leader of the House of Commons*
• Brooks Newmark MP – Whip
• Philip Dunne MP – Whip
• Baroness Northover – Whip*
• Lord Taylor of Holbeach – Whip
• Lord Wallace of Saltaire – Whip*

The three marked with an * are LibDems.