Church ceremonies for same-sex couples unlikely to be given go-ahead owing to traditionalists’ opposition to homosexuality The Church of England has said it would allow civil partnerships in its buildings but only if the General Synod agreed to the move, an unlikely prospect given the staunch opposition of traditionalists to homosexuality. In response to the government’s Equality Office consultation on the subject, the church said the “present objective” was to ensure that amendments to existing legislation continued to provide “unfettered freedom for each religious tradition to resolve these matters in accordance with its own convictions and its own internal procedures of governance”. Some religious groups welcomed last year’s House of Lords decision to lift the ban on religious premises holding civil partnership ceremonies. The amendment to the equality bill, tabled as a free vote by Lord Alli, received overwhelming backing, including from several bishops. But William Fittall, general secretary of the Archbishops’ Council and member of the synod, which would decide whether to allow civil partnerships in churches, wrote: “For most Christian denominations, as well as other faith groups, the issues involved are set to remain sensitive and, to varying degrees, contested.” There would need to be an “opting-in mechanism”, as proposed by the government. He added: “In the case of the Church of England, that would mean that its churches would not be able to become approved premises for the registration of civil partnerships until and unless the General Synod had first decided as a matter of policy that that should be possible.” The church, indeed much of the Anglican communion, has wrestled with the issue of same-sex blessings for decades, leading to factions, splits and power struggles. Senior figures are unenthusiastic, to say the least, about same-sex weddings in Anglican churches. Dr John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show: “I live in a liberal democracy and I want equality for everybody. I cannot say the Quakers shouldn’t do it. “Nor do I want somebody to tell me the Church of England must do it or the Roman Catholic Church must do it because actually that is not what equality is about.” Earlier this year the Most Rev Peter Smith, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Southwark, attacked the government, saying it was neither “necessary nor desirable” to allow gays and lesbians to have civil partnership ceremonies in religious premises and accused ministers of “considering a fundamental change to the status of marriage”. In spite of assurances from Theresa May, the home secretary, that the rule changes would not be mandatory, Smith said the change was something “never envisaged by the Equality Act or any other legislation passed by parliament”. He added: “Marriage does not belong to the state any more than it belongs to the church … It is a lifelong commitment of a man and a woman to each other, publicly entered into, for their mutual wellbeing and for the procreation and upbringing of children.” In 2008, the Rev Martin Dudley , conducted a same-sex blessing for two gay clergy at a church in the City of London, triggering an outcry from evangelicals and an investigation by the bishop of London. Civil partnerships Anglicanism Gay rights Religion Christianity Marriage Riazat Butt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Metropolitan police officer sacked for Facebook and text abuse of colleagues
June 23, 2011 No Comment
Officer called one colleague a a ‘grass’ on Facebook and sent offensive texts to female colleague he dated previously A policeman has been dismissed without notice for posting offensive messages about a fellow officer on Facebook and harassing a female colleague. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said the 35-year-old Metropolitan y74police constable, who was based in Islington, north London, posted comments on Facebook on Friday referring to another officer as a “grass” and a “liar” and using deeply offensive language. The IPCC said the officer had also been involved in a brief, casual relationship with a colleague which ended acrimoniously in April last year. It said: “He sent the woman a series of abusive text messages and subjected her to verbal abuse and threats. “On one occasion, when both officers were off duty, a member of the public was so concerned about the male officer’s behaviour that he followed them off a bus and intervened when he saw the male officer smashing up a bin in the street. The male officer then verbally threatened the member of the public.” Both cases were investigated by the Metropolitan police’s professional standards directorate under the management of the IPCC. A report was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which decided there should be no criminal proceedings. The case went before a Metropolitan police gross misconduct hearing which concluded the officer was guilty of “discreditable conduct and failing to meet police conduct standards of respect and courtesy”. IPCC commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said: “When I read what shocking things this police officer had written on Facebook about his colleague and the appalling way he had behaved, I felt completely dismayed. “He worked in a job that demanded trust and respect and yet acted in a way that resembled a nasty schoolyard bully. I am pleased that the Met’s misconduct panel clearly shared our view that this sort of person does not belong in the police service.” Metropolitan police Facebook London guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Salmond drops demands for anti-sectarianism bill to be rushed through parliament
June 23, 2011 No Comment
First minister tells Scottish parliament complete cross-party consensus on issue has not been achieved Alex Salmond has dropped his demands for a controversial bill to tackle religious bigotry in Scotland to be rushed through parliament after intense criticism of the proposals. In a U-turn on a core policy, the first minister told the Scottish parliament that he had decided to drop plans to push the anti-sectarianism bill into law in two weeks – in time for the new football season – because there was not a complete cross-party consensus. Salmond said he would delay a final vote until later this year after opposition parties, executives at Celtic and Rangers football clubs, the Church of Scotland, and senior lawyers complained it was foolish to rush through the legislation . Further controversy erupted on Tuesday after the community safety minister, Roseanna Cunningham, said she could not rule out fans being prosecuted for singing the national anthem or Rule Britannia or making the sing of the cross if it was intended to be inflammatory. Although Frank Mulholland, the lord advocate and Scotland’s chief law officer, clarified these remarks on Wednesday, the controversy highlighted growing anxieties that the new powers, which involve five-year prison terms and unlimited fines, were not properly understood. Salmond described reporting of Cunningham’s evidence as deliberately misleading, but admitted the Scottish government had failed to win sufficient political and public support for the new measures. He said he had listened to every criticism. “We need consensus on this issue and on this issue above all. We want consensus,” he told Iain Gray, the Scottish Labour leader, at first minister’s questions. “By making this [bill] available for full consideration, we will be able to carry this parliament unanimously and together excise and drive out this blight from the game of football in this country.” The legislation – intended to be a flagship bill for Salmond’s new government – was drafted after a sudden upsurge in violent on and off-field clashes at Rangers and Celtic fixtures, and the parcel bombing campaign targeting the Celtic manager, Neil Lennon, and prominent Celtic fans earlier this year. The offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications (Scotland) bill will make it a criminal offence to act in any way likely to undermine public order at or around football matches by attacking someone’s faiths or beliefs, using much broader definitions of sectarian breaches of the peace. The measures cover pubs and clubs and introduce new offences of using the internet and the postal system to spread religious hatred or issue explicit or implied death threats, including sending bullets through the post. Cunningham said T-shirts, posters and even tattoos could fall within the scope of the legislation. The Scottish Greens, Liberal Democrats and Labour had warned they would vote down the bill because of its hasty introduction. Salmond has an overall majority at Holyrood after the SNP’s landslide victory in the May elections, but their opposition would be a serious political blow. His concessions on the anti-sectarianism bill were welcomed by Gray and Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader. Goldie said “common sense has broken out”, adding that there was an “ugly truth … that, in certain parts of the west coast of Scotland, we have entrenched sectarian attitudes”. Salmond rejected Gray’s complaints that the Scottish government had failed to properly fund anti-bigotry campaigns and had no proposals for community-based campaigns alongside the new bill. He said funding for anti-sectarian groups had grown from £224,000 to £525,000 under his administration, and that there were five “work streams” on anti-sectarianism under way to complement the legislation. The first minister has also recently endured one of the most damaging controversies of his four years in the role after his highly personal and bitter attacks on the UK supreme court and its most senior Scottish judge provoked condemnation from lawyers’ leaders, the media and opposition parties. Alex Salmond Scottish politics Scottish National Party (SNP) Scotland Religion Severin Carrell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Convicted double killer found guilty of abducting and murdering 13-year-old schoolgirl Levi Bellfield, the convicted double killer with a hatred of women, has been unanimously found guilty of abducting and murdering Milly Dowler. An Old Bailey jury on Thursday found the 13-year-old was snatched by the former club doorman while she was walking home from school in Walton-on-Thames nine years ago. Bellfield was living just 50 yards from where Milly was last seen alive on 21 March 2002. Her badly decomposed and unclothed body was found six months later by mushroom pickers at Yateley Heath Woods, near Fleet, Hampshire. Bellfield, 43, is already serving life for the murders of Amelie Delagrange, 22, and Marsha McDonnell, 19, and the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy, 18, all of which took place within three years of the murder of Milly. Milly disappeared “in the blink of an eye” after stopping off for some chips with schoolfriends, then setting off alone on the one-mile walk home from Walton station shortly after 4pm. Bellfield had denied her kidnap and murder. The jury is still deliberating the attempted abduction of another schoolgirl, Rachel Cowles. The verdict came after seven hours deliberation by the jury of four women and seven men. As the foreman read out the guilty verdicts, Milly’s mother Sally, 51, put her face to her hands and sobbed, while Milly’s father, Robert, 59, brushed away tears. Her sister Gemma, 25, broke into hysterical sobbing, and physically collapsed outside the courtroom, wailing and shouting as police and court officials sought to help her and the matron at the Old Bailey was called. Bellfield showed no reaction. . Milly Dowler Crime Caroline Davies guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Even Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum, who’s been stuck to the 11th-dimensional chess theory for too long, is starting to suspect that much of the current deficit-cutting frenzy is by Obama’s design : Matt Yglesias points out that last December, when Democrats cut a deficit-busting deal with Republicans to cut taxes and increase stimulus spending, would have been a perfect time to raise the debt ceiling. But: It didn’t happen. Obama said he trusted John Boehner. Harry Reid said he didn’t want the debt limit to be raised by the 111th Congress because he wanted to force the incoming 112th Congress to take ownership over it. The results of these decisions have been a disaster. What’s more, not only was the disaster predictable but even once it was visibly on the horizon, the White House bungled it. There was a brief opportunity for the President to dig in his heels and simply refuse to compromise. Then the debate rapidly would have become “can John Boehner round up the votes in his caucus necessary to avoid a default.” Instead, the White House conceded the unprecedented point that even though Boehner and Obama agreed about the desirability of raising the debt ceiling that the White House should make concessions to the Speaker in order to obtain it. Consequently, you get what we have here this week. For what it’s worth, I continue to think that this probably wasn’t a bungle. More likely, during his first two years in office Obama had gotten enough deficit religion from the likes of Peter Orszag and Tim Geithner that he actually welcomed the opportunity to put in place some long-term spending cuts . He couldn’t very well admit that publicly, of course, since his base would go bananas, so instead he punted on the debt ceiling, knowing that Republicans would then use it to “force” spending concessions out of him . Mission accomplished: long-term spending is reduced, and Republicans get all the blame. Democrats mostly forgive him because everyone knows Republicans are crazy , and as a bonus, Republicans don’t even get much of a boost from their own base out of this since any real-world spending cut won’t come close to the demands of the tea party crowd. How sure am I of this? Not very. Maybe 60%. But think of it this way: the kind of negotiating position Matt is talking about isn’t rocket science. It’s not even Negotiation 101. It’s more like the fifth grade version. There’s just no way that Obama and Reid and the rest of the Democratic brain trust were literally so stupid that they didn’t understand this. A far more parsimonious explanation is that this is roughly what Obama wanted. He wanted spending cuts, but he wanted Republicans to be the ones to take the lead . And that’s what happened.Bottom line: I don’t think we should try to figure out what Obama “really” thinks about stimulus spending vs. deficit reduction. His actions suggest that he wants long-term spending cuts. Like it or not, that’s the real Obama. Yep. Look what Obama said back in December: Q Just in the sense that they’ll say essentially we’re not going to raise the — we’re not going to agree to it unless the White House is able to or willing to agree to significant spending cuts across the board that probably go deeper and further than what you’re willing to do. I mean, what leverage would you have — THE PRESIDENT: Look, here’s my expectation — and I’ll take John Boehner at his word — that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen. And so I think that there will be significant discussions about the debt limit vote. That’s something that nobody ever likes to vote on. But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower. And so my expectation is, is that we will have tough negotiations around the budget, but that ultimately we can arrive at a position that is keeping the government open, keeping Social Security checks going out, keeping veterans services being provided, but at the same time is prudent when it comes to taxpayer dollars. As Digby said all along, we’re cutting spending because Obama wants to cut spending . Period.
Continue reading …
Afghan president says Barack Obama’s announcement of pullout of 33,000 US troops is the right decision for both countries Afghanistan’s security forces are growing in stature and can be entrusted with securing the country’s future after the withdrawal of US troops, according to president Hamid Karzai. Responding to Barack Obama’s announcement that a third of US troops in Afghanistan would be withdrawn by September next year, Karzai said the US president had made the right decision and thanked the international troops for their support. “The Afghan people’s trust in the Afghan army and police is growing every day and preservation of this land is the job of Afghans,” Karzai told a news conference. “I welcome the decision of the US president today on pulling out [some of] … its troops from Afghanistan and I consider this a right decision for the interest of both countries.” But the Afghan Taliban said the plan to withdraw 10,000 US troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year was only symbolic and that more serious steps would be needed “to stop this pointless bloodshed”. “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan once again wants to make it clear that the solution for the Afghan crisis lies in the full withdrawal of all foreign troops immediately and [while] this does not happen, our armed struggle will increase from day to day,” the Taliban said in an emailed statement. The Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said “the tide is turning” in Afghanistan, with the Taliban under increasing pressure and government security forces getting stronger. In this context, he said, the drawdown of troops was the “natural result”. Rasmussen said Obama’s decision was taken in close consultation with the allies and said the handover to Afghan security was still on track to be completed in 2014. France followed Obama’s televised announcement by issuing its own statement on the future of the 4,000 French troops in Afghanistan. The office of the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said there would be a progressive withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, who would follow a timetable comparable to that of the staggered pullout of American troops, starting this summer. Sarkozy was one of five leaders Obama called before his speech to inform them of his decision. The French statement said: “Given the progress we have seen [in Afghanistan], France will begin a gradual withdrawal of reinforcement troops sent to Afghanistan, in a proportional manner and in a calendar comparable to the withdrawal of American reinforcements.” French troops have been involved in the US and Nato-led Afghanistan operation since 2001, with 62 soldiers killed, and there has been growing frustration within political circles in the country over the long campaign. The German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, welcomed Obama’s announcement and expressed his hope Germany’s contingent of 4,900 troops would be reduced before the end of the year. Germany has yet to settle on details of its own pullback but Westerwelle said “the prospect of withdrawal is now becoming concrete”. He described the US president’s speech as a “clear commitment” to the internationally agreed strategy of gradually handing over responsibility for security to Afghan forces and said: “It is also our aim to be able to reduce our own German troop contingent for the first time at the end of this year.” Afghanistan Hamid Karzai Barack Obama US military Taliban United States France Europe Germany Haroon Siddique guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Afghan president says Barack Obama’s announcement of pullout of 33,000 US troops is the right decision for both countries Afghanistan’s security forces are growing in stature and can be entrusted with securing the country’s future after the withdrawal of US troops, according to president Hamid Karzai. Responding to Barack Obama’s announcement that a third of US troops in Afghanistan would be withdrawn by September next year, Karzai said the US president had made the right decision and thanked the international troops for their support. “The Afghan people’s trust in the Afghan army and police is growing every day and preservation of this land is the job of Afghans,” Karzai told a news conference. “I welcome the decision of the US president today on pulling out [some of] … its troops from Afghanistan and I consider this a right decision for the interest of both countries.” But the Afghan Taliban said the plan to withdraw 10,000 US troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year was only symbolic and that more serious steps would be needed “to stop this pointless bloodshed”. “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan once again wants to make it clear that the solution for the Afghan crisis lies in the full withdrawal of all foreign troops immediately and [while] this does not happen, our armed struggle will increase from day to day,” the Taliban said in an emailed statement. The Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said “the tide is turning” in Afghanistan, with the Taliban under increasing pressure and government security forces getting stronger. In this context, he said, the drawdown of troops was the “natural result”. Rasmussen said Obama’s decision was taken in close consultation with the allies and said the handover to Afghan security was still on track to be completed in 2014. France followed Obama’s televised announcement by issuing its own statement on the future of the 4,000 French troops in Afghanistan. The office of the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said there would be a progressive withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, who would follow a timetable comparable to that of the staggered pullout of American troops, starting this summer. Sarkozy was one of five leaders Obama called before his speech to inform them of his decision. The French statement said: “Given the progress we have seen [in Afghanistan], France will begin a gradual withdrawal of reinforcement troops sent to Afghanistan, in a proportional manner and in a calendar comparable to the withdrawal of American reinforcements.” French troops have been involved in the US and Nato-led Afghanistan operation since 2001, with 62 soldiers killed, and there has been growing frustration within political circles in the country over the long campaign. The German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, welcomed Obama’s announcement and expressed his hope Germany’s contingent of 4,900 troops would be reduced before the end of the year. Germany has yet to settle on details of its own pullback but Westerwelle said “the prospect of withdrawal is now becoming concrete”. He described the US president’s speech as a “clear commitment” to the internationally agreed strategy of gradually handing over responsibility for security to Afghan forces and said: “It is also our aim to be able to reduce our own German troop contingent for the first time at the end of this year.” Afghanistan Hamid Karzai Barack Obama US military Taliban United States France Europe Germany Haroon Siddique guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Afghan president says Barack Obama’s announcement of pullout of 33,000 US troops is the right decision for both countries Afghanistan’s security forces are growing in stature and can be entrusted with securing the country’s future after the withdrawal of US troops, according to president Hamid Karzai. Responding to Barack Obama’s announcement that a third of US troops in Afghanistan would be withdrawn by September next year, Karzai said the US president had made the right decision and thanked the international troops for their support. “The Afghan people’s trust in the Afghan army and police is growing every day and preservation of this land is the job of Afghans,” Karzai told a news conference. “I welcome the decision of the US president today on pulling out [some of] … its troops from Afghanistan and I consider this a right decision for the interest of both countries.” But the Afghan Taliban said the plan to withdraw 10,000 US troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year was only symbolic and that more serious steps would be needed “to stop this pointless bloodshed”. “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan once again wants to make it clear that the solution for the Afghan crisis lies in the full withdrawal of all foreign troops immediately and [while] this does not happen, our armed struggle will increase from day to day,” the Taliban said in an emailed statement. The Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said “the tide is turning” in Afghanistan, with the Taliban under increasing pressure and government security forces getting stronger. In this context, he said, the drawdown of troops was the “natural result”. Rasmussen said Obama’s decision was taken in close consultation with the allies and said the handover to Afghan security was still on track to be completed in 2014. France followed Obama’s televised announcement by issuing its own statement on the future of the 4,000 French troops in Afghanistan. The office of the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said there would be a progressive withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, who would follow a timetable comparable to that of the staggered pullout of American troops, starting this summer. Sarkozy was one of five leaders Obama called before his speech to inform them of his decision. The French statement said: “Given the progress we have seen [in Afghanistan], France will begin a gradual withdrawal of reinforcement troops sent to Afghanistan, in a proportional manner and in a calendar comparable to the withdrawal of American reinforcements.” French troops have been involved in the US and Nato-led Afghanistan operation since 2001, with 62 soldiers killed, and there has been growing frustration within political circles in the country over the long campaign. The German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, welcomed Obama’s announcement and expressed his hope Germany’s contingent of 4,900 troops would be reduced before the end of the year. Germany has yet to settle on details of its own pullback but Westerwelle said “the prospect of withdrawal is now becoming concrete”. He described the US president’s speech as a “clear commitment” to the internationally agreed strategy of gradually handing over responsibility for security to Afghan forces and said: “It is also our aim to be able to reduce our own German troop contingent for the first time at the end of this year.” Afghanistan Hamid Karzai Barack Obama US military Taliban United States France Europe Germany Haroon Siddique guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Written statement from defence secretary Liam Fox attributes high cost to advanced nature of weapons used in conflict The government has revealed that the cost of the operation in Libya has run to £260m, confirming the figure was higher than had initially been predicted. In a written ministerial statement, the defence secretary, Liam Fox, said costs for the initial operation would be £120m, while the cost of replenishing spent munitions could eventually reach £140m. The high costs – which the Treasury has agreed to meet – were attributed to the advanced nature of the weapons used in Libya. While the opposition backs the operation, it has pressed for details of expenditure to be revealed amid concern that the cost is escalating. Earlier in the year, the chancellor, George Osborne, said in the Commons that the eventual cost would be “in the order of tens of millions of pounds, not hundreds of millions”. But in his statement, Fox said: “The current estimate of the net additional costs of military operations for six months in support of Operation Ellamy – the United Kingdom’s contribution to coalition operations in support of United Nations security council Resolution 1973 – is in the region of £120m. This excludes costs associated with capital munitions expended. “Based upon current consumption rates, we estimate the cost of replenishing munitions may be up to £140m.” Prior to his announcement, he had said people would “have to take into account that we have used more expensive precision weaponry so that we minimise civilian casualties in Libya”. He added: “If we are going to fight operations in the future based on minimising civilian casualties, there is clearly a financial price to pay. “I think that shows that we are on the moral high ground and that we place a higher value on human life than the Gaddafi regime.” Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, backed calls from service chiefs for contingency plans to be drawn up “to ensure that our armed forces are sufficiently equipped and that the conflict is sustainable beyond September”. He also urged Nato allies to do more to help reduce the British contribution. Murphy said: “Thanks to pressure from the opposition, ministers have now published figures revealing that the costs of the operation in Libya are higher than originally estimated. “We back the Nato-led operation, and continue to offer the government our support wherever possible. “We want the government to be clearer on what stresses and strains operations in Libya are making on the core defence budget, and whether our standing commitments are, or will be, affected by the ongoing conflict. “In particular, we will ensure the government keeps to its guarantees that the mission in Afghanistan will not be affected. That is absolutely vital.” In March, Osborne had told the Commons: “The House will understand that it is too early to give a robust estimate of the costs of the operations in Libya, but I can say that they should be modest compared with some other operations, such as Afghanistan. “The Ministry of Defence’s initial view is that they will be in the order of tens of millions of pounds, not hundreds of millions. I can tell the House today that, whatever they turn out to be, the additional costs of operations in Libya will be fully met from the reserve.” The national transitional council in Libya is also struggling to meet the costs of running an alternative government to that of Muammar Gaddafi. This week, Dr Ali Tarhuni, the minister for finance and oil in the council, wrote an open letter to the UK government, calling for the release of 1.4bn dinars (£700m) of Libyan government money (£700m), printed in the UK, that was impounded in Britain when the fighting began. The transitional council is running out of money and would like the government to release the funds, but the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has said he is legally unable to do so. Foreign policy Liam Fox Jim Murphy House of Commons Libya Middle East Africa United Nations Nato Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Written statement from defence secretary Liam Fox attributes high cost to advanced nature of weapons used in conflict The government has revealed that the cost of the operation in Libya has run to £260m, confirming the figure was higher than had initially been predicted. In a written ministerial statement, the defence secretary, Liam Fox, said costs for the initial operation would be £120m, while the cost of replenishing spent munitions could eventually reach £140m. The high costs – which the Treasury has agreed to meet – were attributed to the advanced nature of the weapons used in Libya. While the opposition backs the operation, it has pressed for details of expenditure to be revealed amid concern that the cost is escalating. Earlier in the year, the chancellor, George Osborne, said in the Commons that the eventual cost would be “in the order of tens of millions of pounds, not hundreds of millions”. But in his statement, Fox said: “The current estimate of the net additional costs of military operations for six months in support of Operation Ellamy – the United Kingdom’s contribution to coalition operations in support of United Nations security council Resolution 1973 – is in the region of £120m. This excludes costs associated with capital munitions expended. “Based upon current consumption rates, we estimate the cost of replenishing munitions may be up to £140m.” Prior to his announcement, he had said people would “have to take into account that we have used more expensive precision weaponry so that we minimise civilian casualties in Libya”. He added: “If we are going to fight operations in the future based on minimising civilian casualties, there is clearly a financial price to pay. “I think that shows that we are on the moral high ground and that we place a higher value on human life than the Gaddafi regime.” Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, backed calls from service chiefs for contingency plans to be drawn up “to ensure that our armed forces are sufficiently equipped and that the conflict is sustainable beyond September”. He also urged Nato allies to do more to help reduce the British contribution. Murphy said: “Thanks to pressure from the opposition, ministers have now published figures revealing that the costs of the operation in Libya are higher than originally estimated. “We back the Nato-led operation, and continue to offer the government our support wherever possible. “We want the government to be clearer on what stresses and strains operations in Libya are making on the core defence budget, and whether our standing commitments are, or will be, affected by the ongoing conflict. “In particular, we will ensure the government keeps to its guarantees that the mission in Afghanistan will not be affected. That is absolutely vital.” In March, Osborne had told the Commons: “The House will understand that it is too early to give a robust estimate of the costs of the operations in Libya, but I can say that they should be modest compared with some other operations, such as Afghanistan. “The Ministry of Defence’s initial view is that they will be in the order of tens of millions of pounds, not hundreds of millions. I can tell the House today that, whatever they turn out to be, the additional costs of operations in Libya will be fully met from the reserve.” The national transitional council in Libya is also struggling to meet the costs of running an alternative government to that of Muammar Gaddafi. This week, Dr Ali Tarhuni, the minister for finance and oil in the council, wrote an open letter to the UK government, calling for the release of 1.4bn dinars (£700m) of Libyan government money (£700m), printed in the UK, that was impounded in Britain when the fighting began. The transitional council is running out of money and would like the government to release the funds, but the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has said he is legally unable to do so. Foreign policy Liam Fox Jim Murphy House of Commons Libya Middle East Africa United Nations Nato Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …