Open letter to the Swedish prosecutor general

Dear Mr Anders Perklev,

Many people in my country want to know why Marianne Ny appears to have been given special privileges to prosecute a minor case against Julian Assange. Is this the way the Swedish judicial system works? Every man I know would not step foot in Sweden any more for fear of trumped up charges being brought against them. Marianne Ny is supposed to be a prosecutor not a persecutor.

We are also concerned why facts found in articles like the one in Expressen http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/expressen-avslojar/interrogator-in-the-assange-case-friend-with-woman-accusing-wikileaks-founder/ published 18 months ago which showed a friendship existed between Irmeli Krans (police interrogator) and Anna Ardin (complainant) have not been reproduced in the UK media. Does Sweden not believe in the free transfer of important information that could clear a good man's name?

The following open letter states my concerns, and those of many other ordinary people in England.

By email: anders.perklev@aklagare.se

OPEN LETTER TO ANDERS PERKLEV, PROSECUTOR GENERAL, SWEDEN

Dear Anders Perklev,

The extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden under the European Arrest Warrant is currently before the UK Supreme Court, who will decide whether to hear his appeal on the grounds it has not been issued by a proper judicial authority. Mr Assange’s case has drawn international attention and left many ordinary European citizens questioning what safeguards and protections there are in the EAW scheme for people facing police investigation in Europe. In view of this, could you please provide some clarity for non-Swedish citizens on some aspects of Swedish judicial procedure for which you as Prosecutor General have overall responsibility.

On 6 December 2011 the Swedish Prosecution Authority issued a statement pointing out that Sweden decided to make ALL public prosecutors "judicial authorities" for the purposes of issuing EAWs under the Framework Directive. This is not something that was anticipated by British Parliamentarians when drafting the UK Extradition Act 2003 (Hansard), who felt strongly that such warrants should only be issued by a court. May I ask why you felt it necessary to issue such a statement on that date?

Mr Assange’s name was leaked to the press, apparently by the Stockholm Prosecution Service, which is illegal under Sweden’s privacy laws. Can you outline - for an international audience - what steps were taken to investigate this and a summary of the findings. How were those responsible dealt with?

Can you publish some statistics on how often a Swedish public prosecutor nominates themselves as the chief investigator in a case? The Swedish Prosecution Authority English website says: "In the case of less serious crimes, the police continue to lead the preliminary investigation." As the strongest allegation against Mr Assange is described on the Prosecution Authority’s own website as "less serious crime", it is not clear why Marianne Ny is involved in the case as chief investigator at this stage.

Mutual Legal Assistance is ordinarily used to interrogate people in foreign jurisdictions. However,Marianne Ny stated that British and Swedish law prevented her from questioning Julian Assange in London, which was untrue. Her statement was later redacted. What disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General when a senior public prosecutor misleads the public in this way?

Can you please outline - if only in general terms - on what basis this case was re-opened on 1 September 2010 after Eva Finné, a senior prosecutor you appointed to review it, cancelled the original arrest warrant - "I consider that there are no grounds for suspecting that he has committed rape." - leaving only one instance of alleged molestation still to be investigated? From reading the leaked police protocol on the internet - as millions of people across Europe have - there seems to be only one item of new evidence which might have appeared between Eva Finné’s decision on 25 August 2010 and the re-opening of the case, a torn used condom. However, the forensic analysis of 25 October 2010 included in the prosecution protocol does not support any offences related to this item being included on the face of the EAW issued by Marianne Ny on 18 November 2010. To put it plainly, no DNA could be found on this condom.

http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110622,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20111126,01.shtml

This would appear not to meet the Prosecution Authority’s Objectivity Demand (on your website): "Forensic evidence must, of course, be gathered and investigated in a correct and secure manner. The prosecutor must also be objective when he or she initiates a prosecution. During the course of the trial it is admittedly the prosecutor’s task to prove that a crime has been committed, but the prosecutor is obliged to give due consideration to anything that could change the situation with respect to evidence."

Again, please outline - for an international audience - whether this is a disciplinary matter and, if so, what disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General.

I am particularly concerned that Mutual Legal Assistance has not been used in this case. Under Sweden’s Code of Judicial Procedure "the investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience." (Chapter 23, Section 4) and there is no doubt that a great deal of both Swedish and British taxpayers’ money has been wasted arguing this extradition in court when much simpler methods could have been used to question Julian Assange. Can you please explain the mechanisms by which Britain is reimbursed its costs in representing the Swedish Prosecution Authority in the UK courts? Likewise, what avenues are available to Mr Assange to seek recompense for his substantial personal legal costs in challenging this abuse of the European Arrest Warrant process?

Yours sincerely,

John Goss, Birmingham, UK

Swedish translation by Joakim Ramstedt

Öppet Brev till Riksåklagare Anders Perklev

Anders Perklev
Riksåklagaren
Östermalmsgsatan 87C
Box 5553
114 85 Stockholm Sverige

Genom e-post: anders.perklev@aklagare.se

ÖPPET BREV TILL ANDERS PERKLEV, Riksåklagaren, SVERIGE

Bäste Anders Perklev,

Utlämning av Julian Assange till Sverige enligt den europeiska arresteringsordern är för närvarande under behandling i Storbritanniens Högsta domstol. Det som skall avgöras är om man skall höra hans överklagande med motiveringen att den inte har utfärdats av en laga rättslig myndighet. Mr Assanges fall har orsakat internationell uppmärksamhet och många europeiska medborgare undrar därför vilka rättssäkerhetsgarantier och skydd som finns i EAW systemet för personer som står inför polisutredningen i Europa. Mot bakgrund av detta, skulle ni möjligen kunna förklara för både svenska och icke svenska medborgare de aspekter av det svenska rättsliga förfarande för vilket du som Riksåklagaren har det övergripande ansvaret?

Den 6 december 2011 gjorde den svenska Åklagarmyndigheten ett uttalande och påpekade att Sverige beslutat att göra alla offentliga åklagare till så kallat ’rättsliga myndigheter’ för att därmed kunna utfärda europeiska arresteringsordrar enligt ramdirektivet. Detta förutsågs inte av de brittiska parlamentarikerna vid utarbetandet av den brittiska utlämningslagen 2003 (Hansard). En lag som starkt betonade att sådana arresteringsordrar bara bör kunna ges av en domstol. Får jag fråga varför du kände det nödvändigt att göra ovannämnda uttalande sagda datum?

Mr Assanges namn läcktes till pressen, till synes av Stockholms åklagarmyndighet, vilket är olagligt enligt Sveriges lagar. Skulle du kunna beskriva - för en internationell publik - vilka åtgärder som vidtogs för att undersöka detta och en sammanfattning av resultaten. Har de ansvariga identifierats och hur har detta i så fall hanterats?

Har du någon statistik eller uppskattning över hur ofta en svensk åklagare utser sig själv som förundersökningsledare i ett ärende? På den svenska åklagarmyndighetens engelska hemsida står det: ’När det gäller mindre allvarliga brott fortsätter polisen att leda förundersökningen’. Den allvarligaste anklagelsen mot Julian Assange beskrivs på åklagarmyndighetens egen webbplats som ’ett mindre allvarligt brott’. Det är därför svårt att förstå varför Marianne Ny var inblandad i fallet som utredningschef i detta skede.

Konventionen om ’Mutual Legal Assistance’ från 2000 används väl fortfarande vanligen för att förhöra medborgare i andra länder? Marianne Ny uppgav dock att brittisk och svensk lag hindrade henne från att förhöra Julian Assange i London, vilket därmed var osant. Hennes uttalande togs senare tillbaks. Vilka disciplinära åtgärder är tillgängliga för dig som riksåklagare när en högt uppsatt åklagare vilseleder allmänheten på detta sätt?

Kan du beskriva - om så bara i allmänna termer - på vilka grunder detta fall öppnades på nytt den 1 september 2010 efter Eva Finné, en högt uppsatt åklagare som utsetts av dig att granska ärendet, annullerade den ursprungliga arresteringsordern?

’Jag anser att det inte finns anledning att misstänka att han har begått våldtäkt. Detta gör att det nu endast återstår ett fall av sexuellt ofredande att undersöka.’
 Chefsåklagare Eva Finné När man studerar det läckta polisprotokollet på Internet - som miljontals människor över hela Europa har gjort - verkar det endast finnas ett nytt bevis som kan ha uppstått mellan Eva Finnés beslut den 25 augusti 2010 och återupptagandet av förundersökningen: en trasig använd kondom. Emellertid framgår det av den rättsmedicinska analysen från den 25 oktober 2010, vilken ingår i åtalsprotokollet, att detta bevis inte styrker något brott. Några anklagelser relaterade till detta objekt är inte heller nämnda i den europeiska arresteringsordern som utfärdades av Marianne Ny den 18 november 2010. För att tala klarspråk kunde nämligen ingen DNA varken från målsägare eller misstänkt hittas på denna kondom.

http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110622,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20111126,01.shtml

Detta förefaller inte uppfylla Åklagarmyndighetens krav på objektivitet. På din myndighets hemsida kan man läsa: ’Teknisk bevisning måste naturligtvis tas upp och utredas på ett korrekt och säkert sätt. Åklagaren måste också vara objektiv när han eller hon inleder ett åtal. Under rättegången är det visserligen åklagarens uppgift att bevisa att ett brott har begåtts, men åklagaren är även skyldig att ta vederbörlig hänsyn till något som skulle kunna förändra situationen när det gäller bevisning’.

Återigen, vänligen förklara - för den svenska och internationella allmänheten - om detta är ett disciplinärende och i så fall vilka disciplinära åtgärder finns tillgängliga för dig som riksåklagare?

Särskilt bekymmersamt är att konventionen om ’Mutual Legal Assistance’ inte har använts i detta fall. Enligt den svenska rättegångsbalken ’bör utredningen bedrivas så att ingen person i onödan utsätts för misstanke eller för onödiga kostnader eller besvär’ (kapitel 23, paragraf 4) och det råder ingen tvekan om att en stor del av både svenska och brittiska skattebetalares pengar har gått till spillo i dividerandet om denna utlämning i domstol, när mycket enklare metoder skulle kunna ha använts för att förhöra Julian Assange. Kan du förklara de mekanismer genom vilka England ersätts för sina kostnader när dom representerar den svenska åklagarmyndigheten i de brittiska domstolarna? Likaså vilka vägar står öppna för Mr Assange att söka ersättning för sina stora personliga rättegångskostnader, i sin kamp mot detta missbruk av den europeiska arresteringsorder processen?

Med vänlig hälsning

John Goss, Birmingham, UK

Video-message

I've created another video and reduced my costs by making it a one-woman production. Hope the sheeple can learn from it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bS1608Afr4

Judge John Deed and other old retiring farts

There were only 29 episodes of Judge John Deed, a BBC drama that got close to the true nature of the judiciary, with all the corruption, leverage and manipulation that goes on in chambers. The plug was pulled probably because it was more like what actually happens than fictional drama, and Martin Shaw has demeaned his talent to play a dreadful sixties' policeman in a drama series with a mediocre script that isn't worth the licence fee. In real life there is so much persuasion goes on in the High Court upwards that individual lives are regularly put at risk. And the most recent of these has been that of Julian Assange.

What governments get High Court and Supreme Court judges to do just before they retire is something pretty damned nasty. So Lord Hutton presided over an Inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly, delivered a verdict of suicide from the accounts of unsworn witnesses, and retired to do charity work, when by law there should have been an inquest. Likewise, when Liam Fox was forced to resign and there was another whitewashed inquiry into the Atlantic Bridge financed foreign affairs trips and defence meetings at which Adam Werritty, without Whitehall clearance was attending, they got Gus O'Donnell to chair the inquiry, later found by Craig Murray to have been a real whitewash. Meetings between Werritty, Fox, Miliband, Gould and others were not included and were possibly set up to ease us into what now seems like an imminent War on Iran. Gus O'Donnell had already retired by the time the truth came out. In another disturbing case Judge Geoffrey Riflin QC acquitted four policemen of assault on Babar Ahmad for whom the metropolitan police had already paid damages of £60,000 for the assault in a private case. Riflin  retired straight after the case.

And who is retiring to one of the most despicable and oppressive states on the planet, Qatar, where slavery is still rife? The judge who presided over the Assange extradition appeal, Lord Phillips. Believe me, he is unlikely to be finding in favour of the poor slaves. So he did his dirty work here before retiring to continue abroad. And that is despite today's article in the Daily Mail which shows at least one of the women who accused Assange of rape was lying. As my short satirical video also claimed.

Enticement - politicising art.

For some years I used to write poetry and plays, to little acclaim I might add, but they were not crap. Who reads poetry these days? And who goes to the theatre? These pastimes belong largely to audiences of past times. Immediate gratification is the order of the day, today. The length of plays and poems have got shorter to cater for the quick fix of a quick-fix society.

Minimalism has been in vogue for two to three decades, again to cater for the quick fix. It is not easy to encapsulate succinctly a political message in the form of art. Some successful adverts do it. In fact sometimes the adverts with which drama is apostrophised are superior to the drama. If you cannot beat them join them.

I broke into short film-making a month ago when I quickly put together a cartoon concerned with lack of a proper inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly, whose death instead was inquired into by Lord Hutton, instead of following proper procedures. Such things concern me.

Likewise with the entrapment of Julian Assange. He was set up in Sweden and the intention was to take him off the scene for embarrassing the United States, UK and many other countries with his Wikileaks disclosures. This is my second video about how a Swedish police interrogator, Irmeli Krans, and her friend, Anna Ardin, falsified details to try and get Julian Assange extradited to the US, Sweden's new great NATO friend. Please click on the link below, and watch and distribute this Youtube video. Thanks.

Enticement

Adnan Latif - rest in peace

Six days ago Adnan Latif became the eighth prisoner to die in Guantanamo Bay, a torture camp of the United States of America, where people are held without charge, with very little hope of freedom, and no hope whatsoever if they come, as Latif did, from the Republic of Yemen. Until this week any person, including US citizens, could be held indefinitely without trial in any US penal institution, not just Guantanamo Bay for which excuses have been found due to it not being on US soil. Thanks to a number of major writers, including Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, Chris Hedges, and philosopher and historian, Noam Chomsky, the permanent detention act signed off 'reluctantly' by Barack Obama has been judged to contravene the first amendment by district judge Katherine B. Forrest. This, however, will not bring Latif back to life.

It is doubtful that the US government will try again to establish this in law since the statute was condemned by judge Forrest for its vagueness. In other words they cannot find any justifiable words to describe the grounds for indefinite detention: thank God. Nevertheless they will still find measures, delaying measures like those which have failed to bring Bradley Manning to trial since his arrest and detention in May, 2010, and now postponed till February or March 2013. And all that time these young lives are wasted in prison while war-criminals like Tony Blair and George Bush are free to wallow in the oil riches stolen from the Middle-Eastern and North African countries they invaded for that purpose. These same countries are among those from which some of the US detainees were arrested before being subjected to rendition and torture in complicit outposts around the world. Then as a final insult to humanity they were banged up with no hope of release in Guantanamo Bay. Welcome to the United States.

Five years ago Marc Falcoff, Adnan's lawyer, wrote about Latif and other poets in Guantanamo Bay and included a few lines from his poem about the hunger strikers, of which he was one.

They are artists of torture,
They are artists of pain and fatigue,
They are artists of insults
and humiliation.
Where is the world to save us
from torture?
Where is the world to save us
from the fire and sadness?
Where is the world to save
the hunger strikers?

Adnan Latif was in his thirties, a young man, who should have had a bright future. Instead he has been abused and tortured, until death released him, by a country that thinks of itself as the greatest democracy in the world. He spent one third of his short life in Guantanamo Bay. Theresa May has fought relentlessly to send UK citizens, Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, another poet who happens to suffer from Asperger's Syndrome, to this 'greatest democracy in the world'.

Why the UK has not extradited Julian Assange directly to the US

In deference to its transatlantic master the UK government would dearly have loved to have banged Julian Assange on a plane to the United States where he would have been imprisoned and most likely, if not forgotten about, at least remembered less frequently, over time. Many commentators with an interest in the Assange story use this as an argument to justify his extradition to Sweden. The argument goes something like this. “If the UK wanted to extradite Julian Assange it would be easier to extradite him directly from the UK.” If this is true, why then was this option eschewed? There are several reasons.

First of all it is a myth to think it would be easier to extradite Assange from the UK. In the present climate Jack Straw and the UK security services are fighting behind the scenes to exonerate themselves from the extraditions authorised by them that enabled the rendition and torture of civilians emanating from Middle Eastern and North African countries. How many were sent back to their homelands where they were on the wanted list of the regime in power it is not yet possible to say. Rest assured, it is much higher than the one or two who are challenging Straw’s decision to have sent them back to be tortured. The fate of some may never even be known. It will be noted that Mr Belhadj and Mr al Saadi were living respectively in China and Hong Kong at the time of their renditions, and after their arrests and imprisonments they were tortured for years in Libya, before Blair’s love affair with Gadaffi came to an end; and NATO forces exploded a path to exploit the oilfields of Libya. This was the act which liberated Mr Belhadj and Mr al Saadi from prison.

Guantanamo Bay, a gulag or concentration camp by any other name, has left a legacy of mistrust towards the United States and the way the US administers justice.  Its injustice has also been costly to the UK taxpayer. British citizens like Moazzam Begg were extradited on the instructions of the United States. As with Mr Belhadj and Mr al Saadi the arrest was made abroad, this time in Islamabad. Moazzam Begg, who witnessed two inmates at Bagram being beaten to death, or nearly beaten to death, was himself tortured and abused before his imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay.

Another whistleblower, who like Assange is a thorn in the side of authority, is the messianic Jew, Mordechai Vanunu. In 1986 Vanunu revealed to the Sunday Times Israel’s nuclear weapons’ programme having worked at the nuclear plant in Israel where the manufacturing process was facilitated. The full facts as to how he was arrested are sketchy but there was no known extradition request from Israel to the UK. Instead Vanunu was enticed to Italy where MOSSAD agents were lying in wait for him. He was arrested and spent 18 years in an Israeli prison, subsequent years under virtual house arrest, and still does not have the freedom to go where he wishes.

Jewish banking families, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, call the tune for UK and US governments, and they are the real decision-makers. It was one of the Rockefellers who informed the late Aaron Russo that there was going to be an event which would lead to a new world order in the Middle East. It was also known that seven countries were to be destabilised to achieve this aim. Of those seven only Syria and Iran have not been fully destabilised yet. People like Mordechai Vanunu and Julian Assange, being opposed to such actions, do not fit in with these bankers’ dreams, so are taken out of circulation to stop them spreading further truths enabling the banking giants to complete their evil intentions.

To do things properly long-winded procedures have to be followed in this country. Despite its abominable human rights record the US has requested the extradition of UK citizens, nearly always of Asian extraction, including Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan (a poet and sufferer from Asperger’s syndrome), who Theresa May has pledged to hand over to her US masters. The US made requests for extradition six years ago in the case of Ahsan and even longer ago in the case of Ahmad. Both men have been in prison without a single charge being brought against them. Ahmad was beaten by UK police and awarded damages. Although their cases have gone to the European Court of Human Rights, and extradition has shamefully been endorsed by that court, their appeals have yet to be heard.

This is why neither the UK nor the US want to extradite Assange directly from the UK. It is much easier to ship him to Sweden on trumped-up charges, where he would be picked up by CIA agents, whisked off to the United States, and put in prison for a very long time. It would happen, as it did with Vanunu, very quickly. William Hague has almost certainly clandestinely agreed to this. When Assange sought asylum not only did Hague behave like a baby who had dropped his dummy, but made vague threats to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy. Hague has been repeatedly asked to guarantee that Assange would not be extradited from Sweden but the only guarantee Hague would give is that Assange would not be executed. Assange could see this coming and he pre-empted them.

How much of a puppet of the United States has the UK become? The US, where human rights have reached an all-time low, have a one-sided extradition agreement which enables UK citizens to be extradited to the US, without having to make any case against those citizens. Conversely the US would never − never ever − allow the UK to have one of its citizens extradited here. The whole Cameron, Hague, May outfit is a Muppet Show and it is very clear to whose tune they are singing and dancing.

To sum up, the examples cited above show that it is much easier to arrest somebody outside of the UK for extradition purposes than it is here.  This answers all those who make the argument: “If the UK wanted to extradite Julian Assange it would be easier to extradite him directly from the UK.”

What free press?

Yesterday I phoned the Independent news-desk and later sent them by email a copy of my last-but-one blog post regarding Julian Assange. I sent a copy to the independent Press Complaints Council. The email read:

"Further to our telephone conversation a few minutes ago I am embedding a

link to available information that shows there is another side to the

Julian Assange 'rape' case to that reported in the media. I should like

to see this addressed rather than listen to Joan Smith and Gavin Esler

shouting down Craig Murray on Newsnight for mentioning the name of Anna

Ardin.

http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-rape-of-julian-assange.html

A man's life is being toyed with in this dreadful vilification by all

and sundry without anyone giving helpful support. It is like ganging up

on Gandhi. The press should be ashamed.

John Goss"

There was no acknowledgment of receipt of this email either from the Indy or the PCC so I assume the press will continue as it has been doing in depriving the reading public of the real truth. It is therefore up to individual bloggers and good people to make sure this news is in the public domain.

Today I discovered the statement of Göran Rudling. It is amazing. It is probably the strongest proof of a police and political cover-up imaginable. Göran Rudling describes himself as a law reform activist. He is particularly interested in rape cases because his mother was raped by her step-father. As might be expected he is concerned that rapists are prosecuted. But he also believes in justice and realising there was something wrong in the prosecution case lodged his concerns.

He discovered Anna Ardin’s tweet deletions showing how much she was enjoying being in Assange's company the day after the alleged rape, and also her 7 step revenge blog on men who dump their women, which Ardin also tried to delete. From his statement it appears that he persistently sent information to the Swedish police that they have been unable to locate. He is a very credible and reliable witness which shows this case to have been flawed from the start, with clear political objectives. The UK media is disgusting in not presenting this to the public who are still being misled into believing that Julian Assange has a case of rape to answer. What has happened to my country?

Göran Rudling's statement is in the form of a .pdf file at the foot of this link.

"Get thee hence Satan!" says Desmond Tutu

As a Christian, not a very good one, I have to question why in one of the most boring of debates the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who I quite like, recently shared a platform with Tony Blair? After nearly 30 minutes of viewing I tried to get somebody with more stamina than me to watch this tedium ad infinitum and precis it for me. She was bored out of her mind and could not rescue me by providing a more enthusiastic impression of the 'debate' than I had already formed. What I would really like to know about this event, and I think I can answer it, is would the Prince of Peace have shared a platform with the Prince of War? No. He would have said "Get thee hence Satan".

This is exactly, well not quite exactly, what Desmond Tutu said to Blair last week and what Rowan Williams ought to have told him previously. Yesterday Desmond Tutu wrote in the Observer that Blair and Bush should be tried at the Hague for war crimes. In response to Tutu's criticism Blair came out with the same old pathological lies. What 'independent analysis', I ask myself, can exonerate Blair from guilt for his crimes in Iraq? Is it the Hutton Inquiry he set up to prevent due process of coronial law taking place after Dr David Kelly was found dead in the countryside? Was it the 'dodgy dossier' that Blair fabricated to take us into an illegal war? I should like to know to what 'independent analysis' he alludes. Because if it does clear his name, and that of Jack Straw, believe me it will not be independent. It will be heavily biased.

You never know with Blair whether the lie is going to slip off the end of the right fork or the left fork of his duplicitous tongue! But you know it will slip out one way or the other.

Here is another piece of 'non-independent' news, that is real news, but you will not see it reported or broadcast anywhere in mainstream media outlets. In comments to The Guardian/Observer on the article linked above the sixth one down sorting by Oldest first was removed by moderators. Though I did not see it myself I have been reliably informed that it claimed Tony Blair should also be tried for not allowing an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. There was nothing as far as I can gather offensive about the comment. Before it was removed early yesterday it was taking a massive number of recommendations (more than 2000) in a matter of hours. Nobody at the Guardian has explained to its readers why this comment was removed. You have to ask yourself what kind of independence there is at the Guardian. About as much as one of Blair's independent analyses, I conjecture.