Nitrogen Apocalypse

In the UK gas and electricity prices have increased enormously from the 1st April 2022. I will be paying an extra £2450 more per year, There are threats that there may be bigger increases in energy prices in October. These increases are pushing up inflation but may a minor issue compared to what will happen to food prices.

Take a look at a Youtube video series called Harrys Farm. He is reporting a 500% increase in the cost of nitrogen fertiliser and >100% increases in his other costs.  [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mIBz5r29nw].  He is not sure what he should plant for next year, if anything. To avoid a loss he may be better letting the ground lie fallow.

Russia is threatening to cut off gas supplies to any country that does not pay in roubles. Germany is Russia’s biggest gas customer and. At the moment the German Government are whistling a defiant tune. That may have to change.

 German multinational chemicals giant BASF has warned of the drastic consequences if gas supply from Russia is interrupted, German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine reported on Wednesday.

If gas supplies were to be cut in half, the Ludwigshafen plant – the largest chemical site in the world, which employs almost 40,000 people, would have to shut down, the paper quoted Michael Vassiliadis, chairman of a chemical trade union and a board member at BASF, as saying.

Ludwigshafen is a giant Haber-Bosch process plant. It uses enormous amounts of gas to produce nitrogen fertiliser and many other essential chemicals. 

If the gas supply was less than 50%, the site could no longer be operated stably and it would have to be shut down completely, Vassiliadis explained. If loss of the Russian gas was not compensated for, the effects on the chemical industry would be dramatic with the outage costing “hundreds of thousands of jobs over a relatively short period of time" and affect supply, he said.

The report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine points out that the chemicals industry cannot run without oil and gas, and without the sector the economy stops, as people are heavily reliant on it in their everyday lives. For example, petrochemical products account for 20% of clothing, 40% of cosmetic products and even 35% of aspirin, an essential in most families’ medicine cabinet.

At the moment European politicians are obediently follow America's instructions on Russia and the Ukraine. Expect a very different line from the castrati when food prices start to rise and shortages become common.
 

Does the war in the Ukraine prove we don’t need NATO?

When NATO was formed in the late 1940s it was to counter the threat of massed soviet armour rolling into Western Europe. 

Though that was never a very realistic threat it is even less credible now.  For example, if the population and GDP of Russia is compared with that of the NATO countries.

Russia’s population is 145 million. The combined population of the NATO counties is 952 million [or 510 million excluding the USA and Canada].

Russia’s GDP is less than that of Italy.

A Russian invasion of Western Europe would be like a poor child attacking a rich adult.

The Ukraine conflict has revealed something else. It is now much easier to defend than attack.

In 1914 barbed wire made it much harder to attack and easier to defend. It produced a stalemate on the Western Front in WW1. Then tanks came on the scene and increased the power of attack.

Now new technologies in the form of drones and anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles have enormously increased defensive capabilities and allowed a small and militarily weak country like the Ukraine to stalemate Russia.

If the Ukraine can stop Russia why do we need a military alliance alliance of 28 European and 2 North American countries?  Why do we need the USA using NATO to meddle in European affairs? With current technologies Europe is more than capable of protecting itself.

IN 2019 NATO cost over one trillion US dollars  to maintain. It is expensive and outdated. It is time for it to be drastically pruned.

NATO HQ. Value for money?

President Zelensky’s Dog and Pony Trick

 The “Daddy, I want a pony” tactic goes roughly like this:

Little girl: Daddy, I want a pony! Want pony! Want want want pony!


Dad: Uhm, no, uhm, uhm, no, how about a dog?


Little girl: No no no NO! Want pony! PONY! …Dog? Well, ok then.

At this point the dad thinks, “Phew, that was a close call!”. The little girl on the other hand thinks “Wow, that’s the easiest dog I ever got.”

Zelensky’s pony is a no fly zone and the dog is anything he can get his hands on to prolong the war in the Ukraine.

The BBC has a good article on Zelensky’s tactics.

Shame on you': How President Zelensky uses speeches to get what he needs 

The more equipment we give him the longer he will prolong the war. The less need he will feel to negotiate. The more Ukrainians will get killed.

He has become a dangerous war hawk who might embarrass Biden et al into doing something that ends in a nuclear war. 

Politicians often feel the need ‘to do something’ no matter how foolish that might be.  

Fortunately, I suspect most Americans do not even know where the Ukraine is and care more about the price of gasoline than anything happening in Europe so Biden should not be under too much pressure. 

Even so, somebody needs to tell Zelensky to shut his mouth before we all find ourselves running about screaming with our hair on fire.

War in the Ukraine. Is it 1939 again?

 In 1939 Britain and France feared that Germany was going to invade Poland, so they guaranteed its independence.  It was a very foolish thing to do. Geography meant that they had no way of helping Poland. Also, the two countries were so financially and militarily weak that they not even save themselves [as Germany demonstrated shortly afterwards when it invaded France].

Most importantly, why should they care who invaded Poland? The country was a long way away and of no importance to either country.

 When Hitler called their bluff and invaded Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Another stupid decision. Soon afterwards the French army was destroyed and the northern part of the country occupied. Britain was driven from continental Europe with 66,426 casualties. About 64,000 vehicles and 2,472 guns were destroyed or abandoned. The RAF losses were 931 aircraft.

Britain “won” in the end but it was a Pyrrhic victory. The country was bankrupted and had to give up its empire.

The USA had a good war. It picked Britain's pocket for all its gold reserves and overseas assets, took minimal casualties and emerged as a superpower [with Britain as its vassal].

 

Now we have the same nonsense again. NATO has been expanding eastward. Why?

How do Britain and the other original NATO members become more secure by guaranteeing  to fight for Estonia, Poland and other tinpot east European  counties?

The answer is we do not.  NATO gains by appearing relevant but is it just acting as a sale force for the real winners, the US armaments companies. When NATO takes in another country [as long as they agree to buy lots of US weapons] the US armaments companies get to ring up some sales and in Britain we become less secure. The Ukraine was a juicy sales opportunity until Putin [that spawn of Satan] objected.

Undershaft the arms dealer explained the reality to a naive MP in Shaw’s Major Barbara.

STEPHEN: I am sorry, sir, that you force me to forget the respect due to you as my father. I am an Englishman; and I will not hear the government of my country insulted.

UNDERSHAFT: The government of your country! I am the government of your country. I and Lazarus. Do you suppose that you and half a dozen amateurs like you, sitting in a row in that foolish gabble shop, can govern Undershaft and Lazarus?

No, my friend: you will do what pays us. You will make war when it suits us, and keep peace when it doesn't. You will find out that trade requires certain measures when we have decided on those measures.

When I want anything to keep my dividends up, you will discover that my want is a national need. When other people want something to keep my dividends down, you will call out the police and military.

And in return you shall have the support and applause of my newspapers, and the delight of imagining that you are a great statesman.

Government of your country! Be off with you, my boy, and play with your caucuses and leading articles and historic parties and great leaders and burning questions and the rest of your toys. I am going back to my counting house to pay the piper and call the tune.

Russia's trump card - fertilisers

During WW1 the British Royal Navy blockaded Germany. It has been estimated that over 600,000 Germans died as a result. The most effective part of the blockade was that it stopped Germany obtaining supplies of fertiliser. Food production fell and people starved.

A recent BBC article about the Norwegian company Yara suggests we are likely to see serious fertiliser shortages as a result of the Ukrainian conflict.  Both nutrients and nitrogen fertiliser are at risk. Read the article https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60623941
 

Russia and Ukraine are some of the biggest producers of food globally. Russia also produces enormous amounts of nutrients, like potash and phosphate - key ingredients in fertilisers, which enable plants and crops to grow

Half the world's population gets food as a result of fertilisers... and if that's removed from the field for some crops, [the yield] will drop by 50%. 

[Note - without artificial fertilisers the world could only support a population of about 3 billion. It now has almost 8 billion]

For me, it's not whether we are moving into a global food crisis - it's how large the crisis will be.

Huge amounts of natural gas are needed to produce ammonia, the key ingredient in nitrogen fertiliser. Yara International relies on vast quantities of Russian gas for its European plants.  

[Note - the article is referring to the Haber-Bosch process which requires huge amounts of energy to produce nitrogen fertiliser]

Last year, Yara was forced to temporarily suspend production of about 40% of its capacity in Europe because of the spike in the price of wholesale gas. Other producers also cut supplies.

 Combined with higher shipping rates, sanctions on Belarus (another major potash supplier) and extreme weather - this prompted a big jump in fertiliser prices last year, adding to a surge in food prices. 

At the moment NATO and the US armament companies are able to control the narrative. That will change when consumers find themselves paying much more for food and energy. Also, US and European farmers will have to pay much higher prices for whatever fertiliser they can buy. That will cut their profits and output. 

The farming lobby is very powerful. It will be interesting to see what happens when they start complaining.

The NATO countries currently believe that they can sanction Russia with impunity. If Russia responds with gas and fertiliser sanctions they can make make a lot of people cold and hungry.

Bribes not bombs

Why have governments been so keen to legislate against civil liberties in the name of protecting us against terrorism, but remain so very reluctant to regulate financial markets.

Let me suggest a reason.

Banks offers juicy directorships to retired politicians and senior civil servants. Terrorist organizations do not. That needs to change.

I have always argued that if terrorists really want to achieve their political objectives  they should be employing bribes, not bombs.

Forget blowing people up. That will never work. It just increases the profits of armament companies and gives politicians an excuse to rant and rave.

Instead, terrorists should be employing well established methods for influencing political debates. They need to give lots of money to important politicians. Governments always have lots of people who appreciate a nice earner. The UK Parliament was [and likely still is] demonstrably full of such people. The US Congress seems to be packed with people who have 'For Hire' signs showing.

I suggest that your terrorist group set up a foundation [tip: do not include terrorist in the foundation’s name] and do the following –

1.  establish a big prize [say, about one million pounds] that can be awarded to a politician who has furthered the cause of world peace [i.e. has done as they were told].

2.  appoint politicians who have been ‘helpful’ to the board of the foundation. A salary of £100,000 a year for one days work a month would be about right.

3.   arrange a series of speaking tours that pay £50-200,000 per speech.  Hire lots of unemployed actors to make up audiences.

4.   start a book publishing firm [tip: Jihad Books would not be a good name for the firm] and pay, say, £20 million for the rights to publish a politicians memoirs.

Of course, all these are well established ways of making payoffs to politicians. They have worked well for many business organizations and other bodies. Zionism has been particularly handy with its cheque book.

You will also need to remember the stick as well as the carrot.  Threats to fund electoral opponents has been particularly effective in intimidating many American politicians. And lets not forget the old standby of paying journalist to write smear stories about anybody who does not toe the line.

If you employ these tactics in no time at all we will see your leaders dining at the White House and being ushered into Number 10.  A bit of spin and any past unpleasantness will soon be forgotten. If this seems unlikely remember that when Britain was being forced to give up its colonial empire we branded a lot of people as terrorists. Five years later the same people were running our former territories and were popping into Buckingham Palace for tea and biscuits with the Queen.

Pope had it exactly right.

"In vain may heroes fight, and patriots rave;
If secret gold sap on from knave to knave.

Blest paper-credit! last and best supply!
That lends corruption lighter wings to fly!
A single leaf shall waft an army o'er,
Or ship off senates to a distant shore;
Pregnant with thousands flits the scrap unseen,
And silent sells a king, or buys a queen."

A few years of bribery lobbying, and we could see Osama bin Laden Drives and Osama bin Laden Roads joining Nelson Mandela Avenues all over Britain.

From Raubwirtschaft to Kleptocracy

I am currently reading Michela Wrong’s ‘In The Footsteps of Mr Kurtz’. This excellent book is about Mobutu Sese Seko’s regime in the Congo. Wrong describes this as being a kleptocracy, which means a government by thieves. I looked up the full definition in Wikipedia which gives a number of examples of such states; including Indonesia under Suharto, Peru under Alberto Fujimori, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Slobodan Milosevic and Romania under Nicolae Ceausescu.

Following the links in the Wikipedia article lead to Raubwirtschaft, which means a plunder economy, and is a term for a form of colonialism where the goal is purely the plunder of the wealth and resources of a colony with no pretence of "civilizing" or aiding the native inhabitants. The Congo under King Leopold II of Belgium is the foremost example of such a state. This story is largely forgotten now, fortunately for the reputation of the Belgians.

From 1885 to 1908 the Congo was the personal property of King Leopold who maimed and murdered the inhabitants in his attempt to extract as much wealth as he could from the country. About ten million people died in this forgotten holocaust and many others had their arms or legs chopped off.

Australia is often called the lucky country but many others, including the USA and the UK, have been very fortunate in their history and geography. If there are lucky countries, there are also unlucky ones, and the Congo must be the unluckiest. After Leopold and Mobuto there has been a succession of wars. It has been estimated that 3.8 million people died in the Second Congo War [1998-2002]. Whenever we are tempted to moan about some aspects of life in our own countries it is worth remembering the awful lot of people who have had the misfortune to have been born in countries like the Congo.

Boris Johnson - his words are golden

Boris Johnson has a very good chance of becoming Prime Minister of Britain when the present incumbent, Mrs May, leaves.

The UK's Independent newspaper has just reported that

"Boris Johnson was paid £40,000 an hour for giving a speech to an Indian magazine company, parliamentary records show.

The former foreign secretary received nearly £123,000 for a three-hour engagement with India Today on 2 March. Transport and accommodation were also provided by the New Delhi-based company, Living Media India Limited.

He was also paid £38,250 plus VAT by Citigroup for another two-and-a-half hour speech 10 days later, the register revealed. This means he earned more than £160,000 for the two addresses."

and

"Mr Johnson, the MP for Ruislip in west London, earns £275,000 a year for a weekly column in the Daily Telegraph in addition to his parliamentary salary of £79,468.

The latest register also shows he received an £8,000 donation from digger company JCB in March. It came a month after another £15,000 donation from the firm and two months after he gave a Brexit speech at its headquarters in Rocester, Staffordshire, in January, when he was given a further £10,000 donation."

Link

The payments were also reported in the UK's Sun, Guardian and Daily Mail newspapers and by Bloomberg.

I have not been able to find any reports in the Daily Telegraph or on the BBC website.

Its the oil, stupid

See if you can guess why the USA is so interested in what happens in Venezuela.

Who has most of the wealth? Is it the 1%?

The research arm of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse publishes an annual Global Wealth Report. You can download copies of the report from here.

The report is about household wealth and contains comparative data for a number of different countries. Credit Suisse define household wealth as follows -

"Net worth, or "wealth," is defined as the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts. This corresponds to the balance sheet that a household might draw up, listing the items which are owned, and their net value if sold. Private pension fund assets are included, but not entitlements to state pensions. Human capital is excluded altogether, along with assets and debts owned by the state (which cannot easily be assigned to individuals).

All the values are in US dollars


These are the mean and median wealth values for eleven countries.

Table 1

Note the big differences between the mean and median values.

The mean [aka arithmetic mean or average] values are calculated by adding the wealth of all the households in a country and then dividing by the number of households.

The median is the middle value in a ranked table of the wealth of that countries households. For example, the median wealth in the USA is $61,667. That means that half of US households have wealth of less than $61,667. That is a lot less than the median values for the UK, Canada and many others.

An Example of Mean v Median

The mean value of 31 in table 2 has been calculated by adding the five values together and dividing by 5.

The median value of 19 in table  has been calculated by ranking incomes from highest to lowest and then taking the value that is in the middle of the list.

Table 2

The mean is distorted by the first value in the table. The mean wealth value for the USA is distorted by the wealth of its billionaires.

If we return to the household wealth figures calculated by Credit Suisse and sort the list by average household wealth [table 3] Switzerland is first and India eleventh. The USA is third.

Table 3

If we sort the list by median household wealth [table 4] Australia is first and India eleventh. The USA is seventh. Though the average wealth in the USA is 403,974 the median household wealth is only 61,667.

Canada has a lower mean than the USA but has a much higher median of 106,342 [not so many billionaires].

Table 4

Inequality causes the differences between mean and median wealth. If a country has some very, very rich people and lots of relatively poor people [e.g. the USA] then there will be a big difference between the mean and median values for wealth. In table 5 the countries have been ranked according to the ratio between mean and median [mean/median]. That puts Australia in the top position and the USA in tenth position.

Table5

The BBC website has an article about the wealth of the 1% in different countries. It has the following two charts.

The article provides an interpretation of the values in the charts. For example, the first chart shows that the French think that the 1% own 56% of the national wealth when they actually own 23%.

The second chart appears to show that the French think that their 1% should own no more than 27%. Does that mean that they think that the 1% should be increasing their  share of national wealth?

The article suggests that "that’s the completely wrong interpretation. ....what they’re really saying is that the very wealthy should have about half what they currently have." That would be about 12% of French national wealth.

Parliament fails us again

Under pressure from the Conservative Party whips MPs fail yet again to mitigate the disastrous consequences of Brexit.

"The government has survived an attempt by pro-EU Conservative MPs to change its post-Brexit trade strategy.  The MPs wanted the UK to join a customs union if it does not agree a free-trade deal with the EU.

But the government won by 307 to 301.

Ahead of the vote, Tory MPs were told a defeat would lead to a vote of no confidence in the government" (and so they might lose their cushy jobs in the subsequent general election).

These pathetic losers remind me of the Norman Davies remark about an earlier group of Conservative politicians.

"Under pressure from the ruthless, the clueless combined with the spineless to achieve the worthless."

Mrs May's Kutuzov Strategy over Brexit

Many commentators have accused Prime Minister May of being weak and indecisive over Brexit [Britain's withdrawal from the European Union].

Perhaps they are right, but it could also be that she is following a Kutusov strategy. I think she is a remainer, but knows that she is not strong enough in Parliament or the Conservative Party to win a confrontation.

Field Marshall Mikhail Kutuzov was the commander of the Russian Empire's forces during the later part of Napoleon's invasion of Russia. His strategy was to avoid as far as possible a confrontation with Napoleon's army. He fought at Borodino in 1812 but the battle was inconclusive. After that Kutuzov's strategy was to draw Napoleon deeper into Russia in the belief that his enemy's situation would worsen with time. Kutuzov had replaced Barclay de Tolly who had been following the same strategy during the earlier part of Napoleon's invasion but was forced out by hotheads who wanted a battle.

Both the Russians may have been inspired by Quintus Fabius Maximus
Verrucosus who used the same strategy against Hannibal.

For the following reasons Mrs May has good cause to think that the Brexiteer's situation will weaken as time passes.

1.  The old favoured Brexit and the young favoured EU membership. The old are dying off and more young people are becoming eligible to vote.

2.  The difficulties and disadvantages of Brexit are becoming more apparent over time.

3.  More attention is being paid to some of the people who funded the Brexit campaign and acted behind the scenes. Was Brexit a Russian plot? I do not know but there are obviously questions to be answered about dark money.  As more dirt emerges some of the less rabid Brexiteers may begin to quietly slip away into the night and fog.

4.  The Labour Party's Brexit policy has completely changed over time.  If she has their support she can easily afford to directly confront the Brexiteers.

How the British got Habeas Corpus

The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 is a landmark in English law, permitting a prisoner to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.

But Parliament passed it through an absurd miscount:    Lord Grey and Lord Norris were named to be the tellers: Lord Norris, being a man subject to vapours, was not at all times attentive to what he was doing: so, a very fat lord coming in, Lord Grey counted him as ten, as a jest at first: but seeing Lord Norris had not observed it, he went on with this misreckoning of ten: so it was reported that they that were for the Bill were in the majority, though indeed it went for the other side: and by this means the Bill passed.  

That account, by contemporary historian Gilbert Burnet, is borne out by the session minutes. The act remains on the statute book to this day.

Is America's word worthless?

If the Trump government breaks the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a  25-year agreement limiting Iran's nuclear capacity it entered into in July 2015, how will it be able to enter into similar agreements with other countries, such as North Korea?

Since Trump will have conclusively demonstrated that America's word is worthless the only rational course of action for both Iran and North Korea is to develop a full arsenal of nuclear weapons and be willing to use them.

Giving the Devil the benefit of the law

For all those people who think it is ok to abandon the rule of law if  the outrage is great enough.


Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.




The quotation is from Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons".  Sir Thomas More, the 16th-century Chancellor of England, refused to endorse King Henry VIII's wish to divorce his aging wife Catherine of Aragon, who could not bear him a son, so that he could marry Anne Boleyn, the sister of his former mistress. Henry VIII had him killed for his refusal.

Income Inequality

If Americans worry about their 1% they might want to read this from Walter Scheidel,  Professor of Classics and History, Stanford University.

"Well, the most famous or infamous example is that in England right before World War I the richest 1% of the population owned 70% of private wealth, and the richest 10% owned 92% of all private wealth, which means there wasn't really much left for the other 90% of people in Britain to own. That's a particularly extreme example but you have similar levels in France, in other countries, especially, in Europe …"

The quote comes from a podcast on Economic Inequality produced by ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Radio National's Rear Vision programme. You can find the full podcast (audio and transcript) here.

Rear Vision produces excellent podcasts which provide the  historical context for current issues,

"In today's information age we know when things happen almost immediately but so often we don't know or understand why. News and current affairs are instantaneous but more often than not presented in a historical vacuum. Rear Vision attempts to change this by presenting contemporary events and people in their historical context."

Some people see the period before the First World War as some kind of European Golden Age. I suppose it was for a very small number of people.

If the 70% and 92% figures are correct Britain appears to have been a kleptocracy. A country where corrupt political systems and control of what Gramsci referred to as the state's ideological and coercive agents [schools, media, courts, police, army]  allowed one social class to rob the rest of society. All those beautiful English stately homes and Scottish castles are the proceeds of crime.

Brexit cartoons

 

Defending Britain

Free at last

More Fake News

What the media reported -

" I saw a headlining story on the BBC about how Donald Trump had tipped a whole box of fish food into a pond full of carp during his trip to Japan, heavily implying he lacked the patience or intelligence to feed them slowly with a spoon as he was supposed to."

What actually happened -

"Moments before, Shinzo Abe threw his entire box into the pond and Trump simply followed suit, and all of this can be seen in the unedited clip. But major news channels like the BBC and CNN decided to go with a carefully edited clip which showed Trump looking foolish, and ran it on their front pages. Someone, somewhere in these organisations are quite deliberately making these decisions, abandoning all pretence of impartiality and accurate reporting."

See full story here.

It is sad to see organisations like the BBC throw away their reputation for impartial reporting. All because the liberal haters want to blackwash Trump and are willing to damage their organisations credibility to indulge their own political prejudices.

Does it not occur to them that all they are doing is proving Trump right when  he contemptuously dismisses their output as fake news.

Hiding from Britain's surveillance state

A whistleblowers guide contains advice on how to blow the gaff on government misdeeds without being outed by Britain’s secret police agencies.

The guide contains a lot of well considered and useful advice.

For example, if you plan to telephone your story to the media.

“Ever since the days of IRA or INLA bomb attacks and fake bomb hoaxes, all  public phone boxes can be pin-pointed within seconds (often before the phone call has finished) if they are calling certain phone numbers, including all the main newspaper, tv and radio stations.

The same is true for 999 Emergency Service calls, which show up immediately they are answered, on a touch screen graphical information system map.

If you plan to hand over documents to a journalist.

Choose your photocopier carefully. Many photocopiers, especially colour ones, have built in anti-counterfeit US currency routines in the software. Many also have hard disks which record a copy of all ducuments copied on the machine.

Some combined photocopiers and printers are capable of printing tiny yellow serial numbers (e.g. Canon) on each sheet or a special series of dots (e.g. Xerox DocuColor, which makes tracing which machine was used to help to "leak" a document, if the original printout or photocopy is seized, quite a bit easier.

Many typewriters, computer printers and photocopiers do leave characteristic wear and tear imperfections on the documents they produce, which a forensics laboratory may be able to match to a machine a work or your personal machine at home, if it is ever seized as evidence in a "leak inquiry".

What about photographs?

“Your source or the "anonymous" publisher of a leaked document online may use a scanner to copy the document, but they may instead  use a smart phone or digital camera.

There is  make / model identifying EXIF metadata embedded in the  digital images taken by most types of  camera. These may be used as evidence if your camera is seized during a leak inquiry investigation.


There is even facility for Global Positioning Satellite latitude and longitude data to be stored within this metadata which may provide clues or evidence as to your identity or that of your confidential source.

The mobile phone is as vital tool in state surveillance.

Do not use your normal mobile phone to contact a journalist or blogger. All phone calls are recorded in the UK. The police will have access to your number, the number of the person you are calling, your location and the duration of the call. In some cases the content will also be recorded.

Buy a cheap pre-paid mobile phone from a supermarket or some other anonymous source.

Do not buy the phone or top up phone credit using a credit card or  make use of a supermarket loyalty card [if you have any sense you will not have a loyalty card].

Do not switch on or activate the new mobile at home or at work, or when your normal mobile phone is turned on (the first activation of a mobile phone has its physical location logged, and it is easy to see what other phones are active in the surrounding cells at the same time.

Do not register your pre-paid mobile phone, despite the tempting offers of "free" phone credit.

Do not store any friends or family or other business phone numbers on this disposable phone - only press or broadcast media or blogger contacts.

Set a security  code on the phone. Even when turned off your phone will regularly ping nearby cell towers, providing a record of where you have been.

Physically destroy the phone and the SIM card once you have done your whistle blowing. Remember that your DNA and fingerprints will be on this mobile phone handset.

Do not call from a public call box.

On the 20th November 2006 the UK's Mirror newspaper reported that -

"EYE SPY IN EVERY BT PHONE BOX

BT plans to put thousands of spy camera recorders in its phone boxes and beam suspects mugshots to police.

Cameras stationed on top of lampposts near the kiosks will send images to hidden digital video recorders inside the booths.

Suspects photos will then be messaged almost instantly to hand-held digital assistants used by police and emergency services.

The scheme is already being tried out in Tower Hill, East London, and is due to start in the Midlands soon before going nationwide.

Redcare Vision, BT's engineering arm, said: "The current climate of unease with regards to the safety of our streets has led to a need to expand the CCTV network across the country." 

What is clear  is the extent of the UK’s surveillance state. It is also clear that the state has all the laws and apparatus it needs to prevent inconvenient stories reaching the media.

Do you want to bet that they are not using those powers? Ostensibly the surveillance apparatus has been created to protect us from terrorist. In reality, it has been created to help the government suppress dissent and prevent embarrassing exposure of their activities.

The media has been really stupid not to alert people to the risks of surveillance. Just wait for them to start to whine when they notice that their confidential sources are drying up.

Then as now.

STEPHEN: I am sorry, sir, that you force me to forget the respect due to you as my father. I am an Englishman; and I will not hear the government of my country insulted.

UNDERSHAFT [a munitions maker]: The government of your country! I am the government of your country. I and Lazarus. Do you suppose that you and half a dozen amateurs like you, sitting in a row in that foolish gabble shop, can govern Undershaft and Lazarus?

No, my friend: you will do what pays us. You will make war when it suits us, and keep peace when it doesn't. You will find out that trade requires certain measures when we have decided on those measures.

When I want anything to keep my dividends up, you will discover that my want is a national need. When other people want something to keep my dividends down, you will call out the police and military.

And in return you shall have the support and applause of my newspapers, and the delight of imagining that you are a great statesman.

Government of your country! Be off with you, my boy, and play with your caucuses and leading articles and historic parties and great leaders and burning questions and the rest of your toys. I am going back to my counting house to pay the piper and call the tune.

Major Barbara. A play by Oscar Wilde. Premiered in 1905.