| Proof of Rendition: A Very British Cover-Up!

A Very British Cover-Up ~ Matt Carr’s Infernal Machine.

It’s the festive season and folks probably don’t want to hear about the complicity of the British government’s involvement in illegally kidnapping terrorist suspects and flying them around the world to be tortured by dictators.

Such things leave a bad taste in the mouth, and make the moral high ground suddenly slippery and precarious, especially for those who continue to believe that our government has been engaged in an elevated moral struggle on behalf of our democratic values and ‘way of life’ against the enemies of freedom.

Nevertheless, bad news doesn’t always come when we want to hear it, but it sometimes comes when the government doesn’t want us to pay any attention to it.

On Thursday, with the nation winding down and xmas shopping, retired judge Sir Peter Gibson completed a review of 20,000 top secret documents pertaining to allegations of involvement by MI5 and MI6 officers in the American ‘extraordinary rendition’ program introduced in the aftermath of 9/11.

Sir Peter concluded from his study of these documents that:

‘It does appear…that the United Kingdom may have been inappropriately involved in some renditions. That is a very serious matter. And no doubt any future inquiry would want to look at that.’

Maybe, but that doesn’t mean that the British establishment wants to. The government has announced that the ’27 issues’ identified by Sir Peter as worthy of concern will be investigated by the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a body which the intrepid investigator Chris Ames has called ‘ toothless, clawless, and clueless.’

One of the suspects rendered was the Islamist Libyan fighter Abdul-Hakim Belhaj, who alleges that he was ‘rendered’ by the CIA in Kuala Lumpur, then to Bangkok while flying from China to the UK with his pregnant wife to claim asylum, and flown to back to Libya, where he was tortured.

Belhaj was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighter Group (LIFG), consisting mostly of veterans of the Afghan mujahideen who were looking to overthrow Gaddafi. But this was before the world decided that Gaddafi’s regime was an oppressive dictatorship and helped overthrow it.

In those days Libya was just one of various countries, such as Syria and Egypt, to which prisoners in the ‘war on terror’ could be flown precisely because those countries were oppressive dictatorships that were able to do things to their prisoners that our chaps generally preferred not to do in their own countries.

Golden days, and Belhaj got the full treatment. He was imprisoned for seven years in the notorious Abu Salim prison, during which time he was repeatedly beaten and kept in solitary in a dark room.

Since then documents found in Libya suggest that the head of M16 Sir Mark Allen provided the CIA with the intelligence that led to his abduction, and that British intelligence agents may have provided his Libyan interrogators with questions they wanted to ask him.

Belhaj was released in 2010 under a ‘de-radicalization’ amnesty presided over by Saif Gadaffi. In 2011 he became a de facto ally of the UK during the overthrow of Gaddafi he has since been trying to sue Jack Straw, Allen, and the British Foreign Office. The lawsuit involved £3 million in damages, but Belhaj has since declared that he will only ask for £1 pound, and that what he wants is for British complicity to be revealed.

Yesterday however, Mr Justice Simon announced that this is not going to happen, and that Belhaj’s case cannot go forward.

The judge conceded that Belhaj had a ‘potentially well-founded claim that the UK authorities were directly implicated in the extra-ordinary rendition of the claimants’. He also noted that a court of law rather than the ISC was the proper forum to pursue his allegations. Nevertheless, he rejected this possibility because – you guessed it – it would ‘jeopardize national security.’

More specifically, Judge Simon has pointed out the fact that American officials were also involved would damage the ‘national interest’ insofar as British relations with the United States are concerned.

And anyway, he says, the case is ‘non-justiciable’ in the UK because it involved officials in China, Malaysia, Thailand and Libya.

In other words, it’s ok for UK intelligence officers to kidnap or torture someone, and even for the government to sanction actions abroad that it knows to be illegal, as long there is an American involved, or these actions take place abroad and therefore become ‘non-justiciable’ in the country that colluded with them.

It is rather neat, when you think about it. But something tells me that our crusty and unaccountable establishment doesn’t want anyone to think about it too much.

Something tells me that it would like the public to put its feet up and take comfort in the thought that the security agents who are working night and day to ‘keep us safe’ from the terrorists who hate our values can do whatever they want, whenever they want, in accordance with the highest principles of an advanced democracy.

And if the government deems it necessary from time to time to depart from these practices, and send someone off to have their feet or testicles beaten, that is not something that concerns us.

Because reasons of state are not for public consumption. Is that clear? Good. Now off you go and enjoy your Christmas.

And remember, that we really are the good guys in this.


cia rendition1 B'Liar & extraordinary rendition1

| UK ‘was inappropriately involved in rendition!’

UK ‘was inappropriately involved in rendition’ ~ BBC.

There is evidence Britain was inappropriately involved in the rendition and ill-treatment of terror suspects, an inquiry has revealed.

Retired judge Sir Peter Gibson reviewed 20,000 top secret documents after allegations of wrongdoing by MI5 and MI6 officers in the wake of 9/11.

He found no evidence officers were directly involved in the torture or rendition of suspects.

But he said further investigation was needed into evidence of complicity.

Minister without portfolio Ken Clarke announced that a further investigation by a committee of MPs and peers will now be held into areas of concern highlighted by Sir Peter.

Sir Peter told reporters: “It does appear from the documents that the United Kingdom may have been inappropriately involved in some renditions. That is a very serious matter. And no doubt any future inquiry would want to look at that.”

‘Not robust enough’

In a statement to MPs, Mr Clarke said the guidance for intelligence agencies on detention and torture was “inadequate” in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and “it is now clear that we were in some respects not prepared for the extreme demands suddenly placed on them”.

“The period of time was one in which we and our international partners were suddenly adapting to a completely new scale and type of threat from fundamentalist, religious extremists” – Ken Clarke, Minister without portfolio

The “oversight” of intelligence activities with detainees was “not robust enough,” the former justice secretary added.

Mr Clarke did not rule out the possibility of a judicial inquiry into rendition claims after the Intelligence and Security Committee has completed its report.

Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary during the period covered by Sir Peter’s report, welcomed the Parliamentary committee’s investigation, at which he and other witnesses will be able to give evidence.

But he stressed that he never condoned the ill-treatment of terror suspects during his time in office.

“I was never in any way complicit in the unlawful rendition or detention of individuals by the United States or any other states,” he told MPs.

‘Repeated objections’

He said he had agreed to the transfer of British nationals being held in the US to Guantanamo Bay but added: “We never agreed in any way to the mistreatment of those detainees or to the denial of their rights.”

He urged MPs to accept “that we made repeated objections to the United States government about these matters and that I was able to secure the release of all British detainees from Guantanamo Bay by January 2005”.

Sir Peter’s report does not offer final conclusions because it did not have the chance to interview witnesses because of ongoing police investigations. Instead it sets out 27 issues he feels need to be examined further.

“It would be wrong to leave these issues, many of which relate to matters of policy, unexamined for the unknown amount of time it will take for the police to complete their related investigations,” said Mr Clarke.

“The period of time was one in which we and our international partners were suddenly adapting to a completely new scale and type of threat from fundamentalist, religious extremists.

“Many UK intelligence officers had to operate in extraordinarily challenging environments subject to real personal danger. But everyone in the government and everyone in the agencies accept this bravery has to be combined with clear rules of proportionality, accountability, to ensure we uphold the values we are working hard to defend.

“While we accept intelligence operations must be conducted in the strictest secrecy, we also expect there to be strict oversight of those operations to ensure at all times they respect the human rights that are a cornerstone of this country’s values.”


ex_ren 2 

cia rendition1


| Strawman: Former UK foreign minister hits back at Israeli “anti-Semitism” smear!

Former UK foreign minister hits back at Israeli “anti-Semitism” smear ~

Asa Winstanley, electronicIntifada.net, BLOGS » LOBBY WATCH.

Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said today there was “no justification whatever” for Israeli reports he had made anti-Semitic comments last week.

Several Israeli news sources reported the claims of former Knesset member Einat Wilf on her Facebook page that Straw had talked of “ ‘unlimited’ funds available to Jewish organizations and AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] in the US.”

Her claim made it into Israeli paper Haaretzyesterday, spun with the headline: “Ex-UK FM: Jewish money biggest obstacle to Mideast peace.”

In a statement emailed to The Electronic Intifada by a spokesperson, Straw said:

“There have been reports that [Wilf] claimed I had embarked upon an “anti-Semitic rant,” I note that she did not use that term in her Facebook posting, although she is reported as saying that my remarks, “reflect prejudice of the worst kind.

In any event there is no justification whatever for such claims, arising from my remarks at this seminar, or on any other occasion.

I am not remotely anti-Semitic. Quite the reverse. I have all my life strongly supported the State of Israel, and its right to live in peace and security.”

Straw’s statement

In the statement, Straw said that at the meeting on Tuesday he had “pointed out that Prime Minister Netanyahu was a player in domestic US politics, on the Republican side, and that under US political funding rules (or their absence) huge sums were spent by AIPAC in support of some elected politicians (or candidates), and against others.”

Straw contrasted this with “the rules in the UK, where spending is tightly controlled” saying that he talked about AIPAC in his memoir, which “quoted from the critical study … by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.”

He also had condemned illegal Israeli settlements: “I said that this amounted to ‘theft’ of Palestinians’ land … the EU needed to take a tougher stand on this (and on the related issue of goods exported from the Occupied Territories by Israelis).”

Straw also addressed Germany’ position on settlements:

one of the difficulties in gaining EU agreement for this [tougher stand] has, in the past, been the attitude of Germany, who for understandable reasons have been reluctant to be out of line with the government of Israel. That said, I think I noted that the EU’s attitude had changed, and there are now restrictions imposed by the EU on goods from the settlements.

Straw’s statement concludes:

None of this is “anti-Semitic.” There are plenty of people in Israel who take a similar view to me – not least (as I do) because they believe that the current approach of the government of Israel will weaken the position of the state of Israel in the medium and long-term.

Einat Wilf

The comments in question were made in a meeting room in the British Parliament on 22 October, at a roundtable organized by the Global Diplomatic Forum which Straw and Wilf both addressed. The Palestinian Authority’s ambassador in London Manuel Hassassianalso shared the platform.

A spokesperson for the Forum told me today that Parliamentary rules meant that no video or audio recording of the event was taken. She said that the Froum would publish its usual report on the event by Wednesday (although it would not be a verbatim transcript).

Einat Wilf is a former member of parliament for Israel’s Labor party, and for its right-wing “Independence” faction (split from Labor by suspected war criminal Ehud Barak until it failed to contest the last elections).

She is also on the board of NGO Monitor, a propaganda group well-known for its anti-Palestinian advocacy.

Since leaving the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) Wilf has focused on Israeli propaganda efforts overseas. While she was still an MK she told The Jerusalem Post that she saw such efforts as a “battle”:

the arena is no longer the Sinai Desert or international terrorism, but has moved to international forums: courts and the new media … we have not gone sufficiently on the offense in terms of agenda … we don’t come up with our own initiatives.

Was this accusation Wilf’s idea of such a PR “initiative”?

She backed up her Facebook accusation against Straw on her website and in comments to Ynetnews.com yesterday. In the same article, she also made an anti-Palestinian comment:

We’re used to hearing groundless accusations from Palestinian envoys but I thought British diplomats, including former ones, were still capable of a measure of rational thought.

Out of the Haartez, Ynet, The Times of Israel and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (whoseinitial report some of the others drew on), none appear to have bothered to approach Straw for comment.

Jack Straw.


Weak EU

Straw’s fairly timid comments against Israeli settlements fits a growing pattern of European Union political figures making incredibly mild comments against limited aspects of Israel’s occupation policies and still being jumped on by Israeli propagandists like Wilf.

It is no surprise that Wilf does not like it when the the very real influence of AIPAC is raised in public fora. According to Haaretz, Wilf has worked very closely with AIPAC in the past, specifically as part of her campaign against the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

Jack Straw was the UK’s foreign secretary under former prime minister and suspected war criminal Tony Blair, including during the infamous illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. That claimed the lives of over a million people in the invasion and associated civil war.

The consequences of that war are still being felt by Iraqis on an almost daily basis. A new deadly wave of sectarian bombings killed 55 Iraqis this weekend.

After a long and successful career in the Labor party, Straw recently announced that he would step down as a member of Parliament at the next election.


SettlementC 1

pizza last slice1



Zio Mafia

| How on earth is my religion to blame for Asian gangs and sex abuse?

How on earth is my religion to blame for Asian gangs and sex abuse? ~ Mehdi Hasan, New Statesman.

Melanie Phillips‘s latest outburst against Islam and Muslims is opportunistic and goes beyond the pale.

So there I was, on a Monday morning, in a rather good mood, having had Ed Miliband give my forthcoming book about him a free plug, live on Sky News and BBC News, and still recovering from the shock of having Norman Tebbit (yes, that Norman Tebbit!) aim some warm words in my direction in a blog post on the Telegraph website about British Muslims; a post in which he wisely concludes:

There are Muslims out there seeking an accommodation with our society. They may not be able to defeat the Islamist fanatics, but we would be foolish to reject a hand held out in understanding and reconciliation.

But then I turned to the Daily Mail and, specifically, to Melanie Phillips. The headline?

While Muslim sexual predators have been jailed, it is white Britain’s hypocritical values that are to blame

My first response? Can you imagine a headline that said, “While Jewish murderers have been jailed . . .” or “While Hindu bank robbers have been jailed . . .”? When was it that we first started classifying crimes and criminals by religious affiliation?

Phillips, of course, has long suffered from a sort of Muslims Tourette’s syndrome — she refers to Muslims 18 times in her column today. From the outset, she makes clear that she plans to go beyond Jack StrawLeo McKinstry and others who have fallen over each other to make spurious arguments about the “cultural” factors behind the so-called on-street grooming of young girls for sex by criminal gangs. Nope, Mel has the dastardly religion of Islam in her sights:

Police operations going back to 1996 have revealed a disturbingly similar pattern of collective abuse involving small groups of Muslim men committing a particular type of sexual crime.

Sorry, but I have to ask again: what has the assumed faith of these men got to do with the crime itself? I must have missed the chapter of the Quran that encourages Muslim men to go out and ply young girls with alcohol (!) and drugs and then pimp them out to older men for sex. While I disagree with Straw, McKinstry, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, David Aaronovitch and others who have speculated about the various cultural factors behind these crimes, I’m not that surprised that “culture” has raised its ugly head — and I, for one, would welcome some peer-reviewed, nationwide studies of this particular crime and the perpetrators of it. But religion??

Phillips writes:

For while, of course, most Muslims repudiate any kind of sexual crime, the fact remains that the majority of those who are involved in this particular kind of predatory activity are Muslim.

First, we don’t know that’s the case. Sorry. But we don’t. You can’t extrapolate from such a small sample (50 out of 56 men) in one corner of the country. That’s also the view, I might add, of the two UCL academics whose research was cited by the Times in its original story last Wednesday. In a letter to the Times published on 7 January, they wrote:

While we were heartened by the open and insightful discussion of the crime, we are concerned that limited data can be over-extended to characterise an entire crime type, in particular, in terms of race and gender. The identity of victims and offenders identified to date, primarily in the Midlands and the north of England, may misrepresent this crime on a national level.

In our work, based on two major police operations, we found that perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively of Pakistani descent: several other ethnicities featured, too. Only through nationwide scoping studies can ethnicity be reliably established. If we allow ourselves to be blinded by this emergent and untested racial stereotype, we risk ignoring similar crimes perpetrated by offenders of other ethnicities.

It is also worth remembering that the “fact remains” that the “majority of those who are involved in” internet child sex offences (95 per cent) are white, as are the majority of prisoners (80 per cent) behind bars for sex crimes. And, as Chris Dillow notes:

Straw gives us no statistics to justify his claim.
Those that do exist seem to undermine his claim.
Table 5.4b of this pdf shows that, in the latest year for which we have data, Lancashire police arrested 627 people for sexual offences. 0.3% of these were Pakistanis. That’s two people. 85.5% were white British. In Lancashire, there are 1,296,900 white Brits and 45,000 Pakistanis. This means that 4.163 per 10,000 white Brits were arrested for a sex crime, compared to 0.44 Pakistanis. If you’re a journalist, you might say that the chances of being arrested for a sex crime are nine times greater if you’re white than Pakistani. If you’re a statistician, you might say they are 0.037 percentage points greater.

So what conclusions should we draw about white people from such statistics? Has Melanie checked with her white husband Joshua or her white son Gabriel as to why white men are so much more likely to commit sex crimes in this country than men from non-white, minority communities? Is this a problem of “white culture” or Judeo-Christian culture? Why the “conspiracy of silence”?

Phillips continues:

For these gang members select their victims from communities which they believe to be ‘unbelievers’ — non-Muslims whom they view with disdain and hostility.

You can see that this is not a racial but a religious animosity from the fact that, while the vast majority of the girls who are targeted are white, the victims include Sikhs and Hindus, too.

“Religious animosity”? According to the Times‘s own research, several victims of a British Pakistani gang in an unnamed northern city were Bangladeshi Muslim girls. So much for Islamic solidarity among Asian gangs. And has Phillips, or Straw, ever been to Pakistan? Don’t they know that young girls are sold into sexual slavery in Pakistan, too, where they all happen to be Muslims, as do the perpetrators of this heinous crime?

The only “fact” that we learn from Phillips’s rant is that she is willing to find an Islamic angle to any story, no matter how horrific the story, no matter how tenuous the angle. For someone who rails against anti-Semitism under every bed and foams at the mouth at the first sight of journalists or bloggers stereotyping or generalising about Jews or Israelis to then make such sweeping and lazy assumptions about Muslims is particularly hypocritical and, I would add, unforgivable.

Since the Times story broke last week, just two people have decided to “Islamise” it and thereby exploit it for their own Muslim-baiting agendas:Nick Griffin and Melanie Phillips. Shame on them both.


On a side note, I should point out that I am the co-author of the Ed biography that I referred to in passive, above, and that is provisionally entitled Ed: Ed Miliband and the Remaking of the Labour Party. My co-author on this project is my former New Statesman colleague, James Macintyre. You can read more about our forthcoming book here.



| Secret courts: what they don’t want the British people to know!

Secret courts: what they don’t want the British people to know ~ Yvonne Ridley, Our Kingdom.


The ‘secret courts bill’ is heading through the Lords, just as former ministers and MI6 officials face the prospect of public court appearances over torture allegations.

Liberties and freedoms enshrined in Magna Carta more than 800 years ago are under threat from the British government’s plans to deliver a bill that undermines the principle of open justice. This piece will look at the context in which the Justice and Security Bill, or ‘secret courts bill’ as it is nicknamed, is being pushed through and the powerful resistance to the legislation.

The bill is passing through the House of Lords while the country still reels from the most recent Hillsborough inquiry, which exposed a wide-scale cover up involving the police, politicians, and members of the emergency services. It took more than two decades for the truth to surface after the deaths of 96 Liverpool football fans at the stadium in Sheffield, and during that period ordinary people and their communities were demonised by those placed in a position of trust. The toxic legacy of Hillsborough should be followed by more transparency, not more secrecy. Yet the Justice and Security Bill has the potential to make it far easier for such cover-ups to take place.

Furthermore, the bill is being proposed at a time when former ministers from the Blair government including Jack Straw as well as senior establishment figures in the Secret Intelligence Services and Whitehall face the unprecedented prospect of being questioned by Scotland Yard detectives investigating claims of British collusion in the US rendition and torture programme. Crucial evidence of the UK’s role in at least two US-led renditions is detailed in a number of documents held by the Libyan security services, which came to light subsequent to the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

Britain’s role in the rendition of Libyan rebel leader Abdul Hakim Belhadj is pointed to in a letter from Sir Mark Allen, former director of counter-terrorism at MI6, to Moussa Koussa, Head of the Libyan intelligence agency at the time. Dated March 18 2004, Sir Mark writes about how grateful he is to Koussa for helping to smooth the way for Tony Blair’s latest visit to Colonel Gaddafi. He adds: “Most importantly, I congratulate you on the safe arrival of Abu Abd Allah Sadiq [aka Abdul Hakim Belhadj]. This was the least we could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate the remarkable relationship we have built over the years. I am so glad. I was grateful to you for helping the officer we sent out last week.”

It also emerged another rebel leader Sami Al-Saadi was detained whilst flying from his home in Hong Kong to the UK with his wife and four children – the youngest a girl aged six. The family were forced onboard an aircraft bound to Libya two days after Blair’s famous visit. The 45-year-old former Libyan Islamic Fighting Group commander, who was committed to over-throwing Gaddafi, believes documents discovered after the tyrant’s death show British personnel were instrumental in his detention and rendition.

Both he and Belhadj spent more than six years in custody where they say they were subject to torture. Legal papers were served in April on the former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw by Belhaj’s lawyers Leigh Day & Co and also lodged at the High Court. The documents clearly accuse Straw, Allen, MI6, MI5, the Foreign Office and Home Office of being liable for the false imprisonment as well as “complicity in torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment; conspiracy to injure; conspiracy to use unlawful means; misfeasance in public office and/or negligence” suffered by the Belhadj and al Saadi families.

Sami al-Saadi with his daughter. Image credit: Reprieve, all rights reserved.

The prosecution may fail. The accusations may turn out to have no foundation at all. But stand or fall the case must be held in an open court so that justice is seen to be done. Under the current judicial system the proceedings would be open to journalists and members of the public. However, should the Justice and Security Bill be passed through Parliament this year in its present form then it is almost certain that both the press and the public will be denied access to the trial. Human rights lawyer Saghir Hussein said of this prospect: “What this means is that everyone outside of the court proceedings will not know who has been charged or the detail of what they have been charged with. Even the defendants may not be allowed in to the proceedings and may never find out why the charges have been brought, why they have been charged and what is the evidence against them. In other words they lose the right to defence. Nor will those seeking justice be allowed in to the court to see what is happening to their alleged tormentors”. He added, “It has not been lost on anyone that the drive for this new legislation emerged around the same time some very powerful people in very powerful places realised they could be forced to give evidence in an open court…”

The resistance

Last week, the London-based NGO Cageprisoners launched a campaign from the House of Commons, No More Secrets, to kill the proposed legislation. Respect MP George Galloway opened the press conference by talking about the need for transparency following the Hillsborough inquiry, saying: “When I learned that the police had systematically falsified the truth in literally 168 statements including allegedly at a high level, and the fact that this was all covered up for 23 years and would have remained a secret if it were not for the campaigning zeal, fortitude and courage of the families of the 96 football fans, then it struck me this is what secret courts would be like. One would never know the truth but it would be legal this time to cover those truths up.” Following on from Galloway, Natalie Bennett, the new leader of the Green Party, said: “Closed justice, not open to the scrutiny of the media or the public, is no justice at all and these closed courts further undermine an absolutely critical principal of the British legal system that everyone is equal before the law; because what it is doing is putting the government above the law.” Moazzam Begg, a director of Cageprisoners and former Guantanamo detainee, concluded the press conference by arguing that the introduction of secret courts would destroy the reputation of British justice, which has been respected and exported around the world.

It can take years for a campaign to attract enough pressure to force the hand of authority, as witnessed over Hillsborough; but the momentum against Clarke’s Justice and Security Bill has already built up a full head of steam. Opponents are diverse and drawn from all political parties, human rights groups and the legal profession. Some of the most eminent names in human rights circles expressed concern about the legislation in The Guardian earlier this year. Former shadow home secretary David Davis is vehemently against the bill, as is the controversial Labour MP Paul Flynn who has added his full weight to the No More Secrets campaign. One of the most powerful opponents is Lord MacDonald, the former director of public prosecutions, who has made clear his view that the bill would invite ministers to seek to hide “awkward or embarrassing” actions under the guise of protecting national security. On the same day as the Cageprisoners campaign launch, the issue was being discussed at the Liberal Democrat conference. Jo Shaw, a former parliamentary candidate, tabled a motion in Brighton to withdraw from part of the bill. She said: “This motion is not saying that all the security services or government officials or police are bad or corrupt. But some may be. Some may make mistakes and wish to cover them up. Part two [of the bill] will allow a few bad apples to rot our judicial system from behind closed doors. In simple words, this is a bad bill.”

The Justice and Security Bill will undermine public faith in the judicial system, a system which, as Moazzam Begg pointed out, is admired and embraced around the world. If this bill becomes a reality we may never find out what is being done in our name, behind closed doors.

Yvonne Ridley is a patron of Cageprisoners. She produced and narrated the documentary ‘Lies, Spies & Libya’, directed by award-winning film-maker Hassan al Banna Ghani. For details of the documentary, to be shown as part of the nationwide No More Secrets tour, see the Cageprisoners website.