Well Done, Dave and Nick

[Slabber]

A Kent MP has apologised for being drunk in the House of Commons and missing a vote on the Budget.

Mark Reckless said he did not feel it was appropriate to take part in the vote in the early hours of Wednesday because of the amount he had drunk.

The Conservative MP for Rochester and Strood told BBC Radio Kent: "I made a mistake. I'm really sorry about it."

Labour MP Hazel Blears said she returned to the library after it became "a bit lively" on the terrace.

Mr Reckless is one of 227 new MPs who started work at Westminster following the general election on 6 May.

He said: "I'm terribly, terribly embarrassed. I apologise unreservedly and I don't plan to drink again at Westminster."

Mr Reckless denied claims that he fell asleep on the terrace or got a taxi back to his constituency.

He added: "I remember someone asking me to vote and not thinking it was appropriate, given how I was at the time.

"If I was in the sort of situation generally where I thought I was drunk I tend to go home.

"Westminster is a very special situation and all I can say... is given this very embarrassing experience I don't intend to drink at Westminster again."

Mr Reckless was having drinks on the night of the second reading of the Finance Bill, which lasted until 0230 BST on Wednesday.

Commons leader Sir George Young described it as the first "seriously late" sitting of the new parliamentary term.

Hazel Blears told Sky News on Sunday: "On Tuesday night, it was a hot night, and we all knew we were going to be there until two o'clock so I went out for a drink on the terrace.

"I was there until about half past 10. Then I thought this is getting a bit lively so I went back in the library and did a bit more correspondence and then I popped out and had a drink somewhere else with my friends."

She added: "I think the lesson is [that] there's a lot of new members in the House. He said, Mr Reckless, he said it was a bit like a lock-in so maybe he does that in his pub.

"But I think he's probably learnt his lesson."

[Slabber]

Nominative determinism.

[Son of a Leather Dealer]

Mr Reckless.

[Slabber]

Automatic life sentences for every murderer could be scrapped in a fresh review of the law, a justice minister has signalled.

A system of first and second degree murder could be introduced after it was revealed Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, is “sympathetic” to proposals first raised four years ago.

It would mean an end to mandatory life terms for all murderers because courts would be allowed to set the length of prison sentences for those guilty of the lower tier murder.

Under the proposals, drawn up by the Law Commission in 2006, young murderers, such as the Jamie Bulger killers, would also escape life sentences if their lawyers could argue they were immature for their age.

However, some killers who would currently be convicted of manslaughter would be upgraded to second degree murder.

Victim groups condemned any possible change, saying there was no “degree” of dead for bereaved families who had a loved one murdered.

It is likely to lead to accusations that such a move could be another attempt to save money, because some killers would serve less time behind bars at public expense. It comes less than a fortnight since Mr Clarke signalled a radical shift in sentencing policy, suggesting that fewer offenders should be sent to jail. Yesterday, Andrew Bridges, chief inspector of probation, said that some murders and other serious crimes commited by released prisoners may have to be "accepted" by society because it is too expensive to keep them locked up.

The Law Commission put forward the suggestion of murder by degree as part of the biggest review of murder laws for half a century but it was not taken up by the then Labour Government.

However, Lord McNally, a Liberal Democrat peer and Justice minister, told the House of Lords yesterday that it would be one of the issues now discussed as part of a wider review of sentencing policy.

He revealed the Government was “mindful” of the Law Commission recommendations and that Mr Clarke was “sympathetic” to them.

"This is one of the issues that the Government will be looking at in its review of sentencing policy in general," he said.

He said the 2006 report put forward a range of alternatives that would give "a degree of flexibility to the judiciary when dealing with this matter".

"I do know that in looking at the matter the Lord Chancellor is sympathetic to the line taken by the Law Commission," he said.

He added that the previous government had brought forward some "part proposals" from the report and the new administration was "now looking at this with some urgency".

Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a crossbench peer and former law lord, said a reform of the law of murder was "now long overdue".

"It is the mandatory life sentence which distorts this branch of the law and stands in the way of much-needed reform," he said.

He asked Lord McNally: "Are you aware of any other country, whether in Europe or the Commonwealth, which has a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in all cases of murder, including, for example, cases of mercy killing?"

Lord McNally said he suspected that Lord Lloyd was right that there were "few" other examples.

However, Rose Dixon, chief executive of Support After Murder and Manslaughter, said: "I think a lot of our bereaved members will see this as another example of supporting the accused instead of family of the victim within the legal system.

“At least when someone is convicted of murder the bereaved know that they will receive a life sentence.

“They may also ask how someone can differentiate between first degree dead and second degree dead. Their loved one is just dead. There's no degree about it.

“However, I can see that perhaps some of the cases which are currently now given as manslaughter might go up to murder two which would be a good thing.

“Perhaps if the murder two sentence was also automatically life then that would be more acceptable."

The previous Government did make some changes to murder laws in the wake of the Law Commission report, including abolishing the partial defence of provocation and replacing it with the partial defences of ‘killing in response to a fear of serious violence’ and ‘killing in response to words or conduct which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged’.

But it did not advance the notion of different levels of murder, similar to that in America.

Under the Law Commission proposals, only those guilty of first degree murder would be given mandatory life terms while in the second tier, it would be up to the judge to decide the sentence, with a possible maximum of life.

Children who kill would fall into the second tier if they can argue that they have "developmental immaturity, " which could be used by dozens of killers.

When the Law Commission first published its recommendation, the mother of James Bulger, who was murdered by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, branded it a “Killer's Charter” that sent out the wrong message.

Second-degree murder would also cover killing with intent to do serious injury; killing with intent to cause some injury while aware there was a serious risk of death; and killing that would otherwise be first-degree murder but for the defences of provocation or diminished responsibility.

But some killers would be "upgraded'' to second-degree murder from the existing offence of manslaughter, under the proposals.

They would include battered women who are provoked into killing violent partners and the worst kinds of killing by recklessness.

[Slabber]

They're going soft on murderers.

[Slabber]

One of the positives of having a Tory government is they can do things that Labour can't because they'd be seen as loopy left by reactionary Tories and Labour needs middle England to get in power. They need to reform the law of murder so that people aren't subject to a mandatory life sentence if they only intended GBH but accidentally kill someone.

Basically, if you punch someone in the face and they die, you get life. It's silly.

[Rehash]

Agreed.

And let's not forget that Raoul Moat didn't have a fishy on a little dishy. In fact, the boat didn't even come in.

He sang to the mammy, but daddy wasn't there.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/zN6MxLYB8hM&amp;rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/zN6MxLYB8hM&amp;rel=0</a>

[Charlton Boy]

Suicide used to be illegal. How crazy is that?

It should only be illegal for Pakis.

[Slabber]

With most offences, the intention (mens rea) required to be guilty is an intention to commit the offence. For some reason, murder merely requires an intention to commit a lesser offence. It's a bit more complicated than that because intention requires a judgement on the degree of foreseeability of the outcome and whether the defendant appreciated the risks and all that jazz that ZZ being legally trained may be familiar with about recklessness and so on. But still.

I don't think even attempted murder commands a mandatory life sentence but I'm not sure about that.

[Charlton Boy]

You can plead diminished responsibility.

[Slabber]

Suicide used to be illegal. How crazy is that?

It might have been necessary to have a crime of suicide in order to make attempted suicide a crime. I don't know though.

[Slabber]

You can plead diminished responsibility.

That makes it manslaughter.

[Charlton Boy]

It might have been necessary to have a crime of suicide in order to make attempted suicide a crime. I don't know though.

ATTEMPTED SUICIDE IS JUST AS CRAZY!

[Slabber]

There's some logic in making it a criminal offence. But yes, it's totally pointless and shouldn't be part of the criminal justice system. It might be that it enables the mental health authorities to have powers to section someone they might not otherwise have. I don't know though.

[Charlton Boy]

That makes it manslaughter.

I know someone who killed someone I knew who escaped prison by pleading diminished responsibility, despite the fact they stuck a knife in their neck. It's safe to say my faith in the law is miniscule.

[Slabber]

Diminished responsibility is basically a defence that you are a bit of a retard.

[Charlton Boy]

Them getting sectioned would be a good idea then.

[Slabber]

Well that's the point of it. It gives the judge a discretion to send him to a mental hospital under the Mental Health Act.

[Charlton Boy]

Unfortunately, they just got off scot free.

[ZeeZee]

With most offences, the intention (mens rea) required to be guilty is an intention to commit the offence. For some reason, murder merely requires an intention to commit a lesser offence. It's a bit more complicated than that because intention requires a judgement on the degree of foreseeability of the outcome and whether the defendant appreciated the risks and all that jazz that ZZ being legally trained may be familiar with about recklessness and so on. But still.

I don't think even attempted murder commands a mandatory life sentence but I'm not sure about that.

The intention has be clear. "A virtual certainty" to cause GBH. Foresight is not enough. I loved Criminal Law.

[Slabber]

Yes. Though I don't think those principles are unique to GBH. It's law about intention in general though the case in question was the one where the miners chucked concrete blocks onto a motorway and gone done killed someone.

[Slabber]

Business Secretary Vince Cable has said a variable graduate tax could make England's student funding system fairer and more sustainable.

It would mean students repay the costs of their tuition through taxation once they start working, with higher earners paying more.

Mr Cable made his speech as the sector prepares for thousands of job losses and many course cuts.

The University and College Union said such a tax would be unfair.

There is an independent review of university fees and funding being cariied out by Lord Browne.

The Business Secretary said this could fees could "helpfully examine the feasibility of variable graduate contributions".

Students and the university sector are bracing themselves for the outcome of the review, with many predicting that tuition fees could rise from their current level of £3,225 a year to as much as £7,000.

In his speech, at London's South Bank University, Mr Cable said students would "almost certainly have to pay" more but he also called for a "radical re-think" of how universities are funded.

He warned of the "severe financial pressure" to come and said there may even be a "period of contraction" in university budgets in the next few years.

Mr Cable said he was interested in looking at the "feasibility of changing the system of financing tuition so the repayment mechanism is tied to earnings".

"By looking at how and when and at what levels contributions are made it may be possible for low earners to pay not more or even less and high earners pay more," he added.

There was a need to develop a university funding model based on the idea of less public support and greater contribution from those who benefit the most from it, he said.

"Students may have to pay more but that is only part of the answer," he suggested.

At present, the government lends students money to cover the cost of fees, with graduates beginning to pay back the loan once they are earning more than £15,000 a year.

University funding is a difficult area for the coalition. Traditionally Liberal Democrats have opposed tuition fees and had pledged to phase them out within six years.

Lib Dem MPs have been given a right to abstain in any votes on the issue.

Mr Cable also set out ways of cutting the costs of higher education to both taxpayers and students - such as promoting two-year degrees, more students living at home and more flexible, part-time courses.

There were also calls for a wider role for private institutions in higher education, which could offer to teach such courses.
'Devastating'

Speaking to the Today programme earlier, Mr Cable said the debate over tuition fees were part of a "wider reform" of universities.

"The principle we'd be looking at is the so-called graduate premium, the extra earnings that we have as a result of being a graduate.

"If you're a graduate, on average you earn £100,000 net of tax over your lifetime more than if you're a comparable non-graduate."

He also said the current system, which did not take into account a graduate's earnings, meant "if you're a school teacher or a youth worker you pay the same amount as if you were a surgeon or a highly-paid commercial lawyer".

And Mr Cable said the eagerness to introduce a "fair" system went across the coalition government.

University leaders have warned cuts could be devastating and could damage the UK's position as a world leader in research and higher education as well as the country's ability to move out of recession.

The funding squeeze comes as record numbers of people are applying to university, figures due out on Friday are expected to confirm.

The head of public policy at the University and College Union, Paul Cotterell, said a graduate tax was "not necessarily a very fair system either".

"The only difference with the graduate tax is that they'll be paying back through their income tax and one of the problems with that is that over the period of the repayment, poorer students will probably pay a higher percentage of their earnings through a tax system than they would through a loan system.

"So better-off students who get jobs, higher paid jobs will pay back proportionately less of their income than students who get less well-paid jobs."

The National Union of Students welcomed the graduate tax proposal but warned any proposed alternative must be genuinely fair and progressive to win students' support.

NUS president Aaron Porter said the fair solution was to abolish tuition fees and ensure graduate contributions were based on actual earnings in the real world, rather than guesswork.

[Slabber]

Vince, you'll pleased to hear that this graduate tax might be applied retrospectively to all graduates.

[Slabber]

Nick is about to PMQs because Dave is in the USA.

[Slabber]

Jack Straw is speaking for the opposition.

[Slabber]

Clegg is such a cunt.

[Slabber]

He hasn't answered one of Straw's questions.

[Slabber]

He answered a question about Forgemasters in Sheffield by talking about the illegal invasion of Iraq.

[Slabber]

David Cameron has been criticised after mistakenly saying the UK was the "junior partner" in the allied World War II fight against Germany in 1940.

He made the historical slip, neglecting the fact that the US had yet to enter the war, on the second day of his first trip to the US as prime minister.

Labour's David Miliband called it a "slight", while a veterans' group said it could "alienate" former troops.

No 10 said Mr Cameron had not meant to belittle the efforts of British troops.

Mr Cameron referred to the situation in 1940 during an interview with Sky News in which he was asked about the changing nature of the "special relationship" with the US and his meeting with President Obama on Tuesday.
'High regard'

"I think it is important in life to speak as it is and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US but we are the junior partner," he said.

"We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis."

However, the US officially declared war on Germany on 11 December 1941, shortly after Hitler launched hostilities against the US and four days after the Pearl Harbour attacks which drew the US into conflict against Japan.

The US had been supplying the UK with war materials for the previous nine months.

Asked about his remarks, No 10 said Mr Cameron had been referring to the "current relationship between the UK and the US".

"He holds the armed forces in a very high regard," a spokeswoman said.

Mr Miliband, the shadow foreign secretary, said the prime minister's comments had been misguided.

He said: "1940 was our finest hour. Millions of Britons stood up and gave their lives to defeat fascism.

"We were not a junior partner. We stood alone against the Nazis. How can a British prime minister who bangs on about British history get that so wrong? It is a slight, not a slip."

Terry Burton, president of the Association for Veterans of Foreign Wars, said Mr Cameron's comments were "rather inappropriate".

"It is going to alienate a lot of veterans. He should consider his words more carefully. The UK had been fighting the war a long time before Pearl Harbour," he said.

Before leaving Washington DC for New York, Mr Cameron laid a wreath at the US military's Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.

[Slabber]

Justice Minister Crispin Blunt has been over-ruled by No 10 after he suggested prisoners could be allowed to hold parties.

Justice Minister Crispin Blunt said a ban on "inappropriate" prison events, introduced in 2008 after reports of fancy dress parties, was "daft".

He blamed the media for an "absurd over-reaction" over the issue.

But No 10 insisted there would be "no such parties" after Mr Blunt's comments were reported in a newspaper.

David Cameron's spokesman said the prime minister retained full confidence in the minister.

Mr Blunt made the remarks in a speech on the "direction and reform" of the criminal justice system, his first major address on the issue since taking office.

He referred to guidelines given to all prison governors last year after reports that some prisoners, including convicted killers, had taken part in a horror-themed fancy dress party for female inmates. The guidelines also covered events such as comedy nights.

They stated that all activities for prisoners, whether educational or recreational in nature, must be "appropriate, purposeful" and meet the "public acceptability test".

In approving activities, governors must consider how they "might be perceived by the public and by victims", Prison Service officials said.

Particular consideration, they spelled out, should be given to whether activities provided value for money, could be useful in tackling re-offending and how they would be perceived "if open to media scrutiny".

Mr Blunt said he had not been aware of the guidelines until taking office although he had been "vaguely conscious of some row in the tabloids about offenders being recorded as enjoying themselves".

He described the guidelines as "typical of the last administration's flakiness under pressure" and said they would be revoked.

"At the slightest whiff of criticism of from the popular press, policy tended to get changes and the consequence of an absurd over-reaction to offenders being exposed to comedy in prison was this deleterious, damaging and daft instruction."

Quoting Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, he said the coalition government would represent a "change from an era of policy making with a chequebook in one hand and a copy of the Daily Mail in the other".

Mr Blunt said arts activities in general could play a "valuable role" in helping to improve prisoners' communication skills, tackle low self-esteem and help them to come to terms with their past behaviour.

His comments were reported on the front page of the Daily Mail, beneath the headline Now You Pay For Prison Parties. The newspaper said Mr Blunt's "astonishing declaration" had "provoked fury".

A No 10 spokeswoman said Downing Street officials had "instructed" their counterparts at the Ministry of Justice to make it "very clear" there would be no prison parties.

"I understand the Ministry of Justice guidance to prison governors doesn't quite give carte blanche to such parties, but we just want to make it clear to the public there will be no such parties," she told reporters.

She refused to be drawn on whether No 10's instruction had been issued after the Daily Mail front page emerged on Thursday evening.

Pressed on whether No 10 knew about the speech or its contents before it was delivered, she stressed that policy was always discussed in the round before announcements were made.

Asked whether David Cameron retained confidence in Mr Blunt, the spokeswoman replied "yes, he does".

BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said Mr Blunt's policy announcement had effectively been overturned in less than 24 hours.

Ken Clarke has already attracted criticism from sections of the media and elements of his own party for suggesting the prison population is too high and there is no direct link between rising prison numbers and falling crime.

[Slabber]

NHS bosses have drawn up secret plans for sweeping cuts to services, with restrictions on the most basic treatments for the sick and injured.

Some of the most common operations — including hip replacements and cataract surgery — will be rationed as part of attempts to save billions of pounds, despite government promises that front-line services would be protected.

Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”.

An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.

* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.

* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.

* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.

* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

The Sunday Telegraph found the details of hundreds of cuts buried in obscure appendices to lengthy policy and strategy documents published by trusts. In most cases, local communities appear to be unaware of the plans.

Dr Peter Carter, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, said he was “incredibly worried” about the disclosures.

He urged Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, to “get a grip” on the reality of what was going on in the NHS.

The Government has promised to protect the overall budget of the NHS, which will continue to receive above-inflation increases, but said the service must make “efficiency savings” of up to £20 billion by 2014, which would be diverted back to the front line.

Mr Lansley said last month: “This protection for the NHS is protection for patients – to ensure that the sick do not pay for the debt crisis.”

Dr Carter said: “Andrew Lansley keeps saying that the Government will protect the front line from cuts – but the reality appears to be quite the opposite. We are seeing trusts making job cuts even when they have already admitted to being short staffed.

‘‘The statements he makes may be well intentioned – but we would implore him to get a grip on the reality, because these kinds of cuts are incredibly worrying.”

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said the cuts were “astonishingly brutal” and expressed particular concern at moves to ration operations such as hip and knee operations.

“These are not unusual procedures, this is a really blatant attempt to save money by leaving people in pain,” she said.

“Looking at these kinds of cuts, which trusts have drawn up in such secrecy, it particularly worries me how far they disadvantage the elderly and the vulnerable.

‘‘We cannot return to the days of people waiting in pain for years for a hip operation or having to pay for operations privately.”

She added that it was “incredibly cruel” to draw up savings plans based on denying care to the dying.

On Thursday, the board of Sutton and Merton primary care trust (PCT) in London agreed more than £50 million of savings in two years. The plan included more than £400,000 to be saved by “reducing length of stay” in hospital for the terminally ill.

As well as sending more patients home to die, the paper said the savings would be made by admitting fewer terminally ill cancer patients to hospital because they were struggling to cope with symptoms such as pain. Instead, more patients would be given advice on “self management” of their condition.

Bill Gillespie, the trust’s chief executive, said patients would stay at home, or be discharged from hospital only if that was their choice, and would be given support in their homes.

This week, Hertfordshire PCT plans to discuss attempts to reduce spending by rationing more than 50 common procedures, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic treatment.

Doctors across the county have already been told that their patients can have the operations only if they are given “prior approval” by the PCT, with each authorisation made on a “case by case” basis.

Elsewhere, new restrictions have been introduced to limit funding of IVF.

While many infertile couples living in Yorkshire had previously been allowed two cycles of treatment — still short of national guidance to fund three cycles — all the primary care trusts in the county are now restricting treatment to one cycle per couple.

A “turnaround” plan drawn up by Peterborough PCT intends to make almost £100 million of savings by 2013.

Its cuts include closing nursing and residential homes and services for the mentally ill, sending 500 fewer patients to hospital each month, and cutting £17 million from acute and accident and emergency services.

Two weeks ago, Mid Yorkshire Hospitals trust agreed plans to save £55 million in two years, with £20 million coming from about 500 job losses.

Yet, a month before the decision was taken, senior managers at a board meeting described how staff shortages were already causing delays for patients being diagnosed and treated for breast cancer.

Mr Lansley said any trusts that interpreted the Government’s demands for efficiency savings as budget or service cuts were wrong to do so, and were “living in the past”.

[Slabber]

A Tory MP who suggested some of his constituents held up their trousers with bits of string has apologised.

Rory Stewart was quoted as saying: "Some areas around here are pretty primitive, people holding up their trousers with bits of twine...".

He does not dispute the quote in the Scottish Sun.

He is challenging a Sunday Mirror headline which says he called his Penrith and the Border constituents "primitives".

A spokesman for the MP said he was highlighting the rural poverty in his area, not commenting on the individuals who live there.

On Sunday he wrote on his blog: "I meant that there are areas in Cumbria where people lack things, taken for granted in cities, and that these areas need more investment and more public services.

"It was never a judgement on people."

Mr Stewart is threatening to complain to the Press Complaints Commission about the coverage of his comments in the Sunday Mirror.

On his blog, he said: "The Sunday Mirror's misrepresentation of my words is an insult to the hard-working people of Cumbria.

"I am investigating raising it with the Press Complaints Commission.

"I remain very sorry for any hurt that this misrepresentation may have caused."

[Amaru]

Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

'The big society'

[Slabber]

Hurtling through the streets of Bangalore there are plenty of unexpected obstacles that can cause you to veer off course, whether a bus, a tuk tuk, a speeding moped, or even a cow.

And in the last 24 hours David Cameron has caused a couple of diversions himself.

First stop this morning was the gleaming campus of the IT business Infosys - an enormous, modern complex that looks somewhere between Disneyland and NASA.

But after a generally well received speech to talk up the prospects of trade between India and Britain, a question and answer session moved onto the fraught relationship between India and Pakistan.

Although in his speech Mr Cameron had tried to suggest this was not a subject on which a British prime minister should opine, he appeared to accuse Pakistan of double dealing over terrorism: "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world."

Given the care with which he had avoided giving any judgement on this subject in his scripted speech, his comments came as rather a surprise.

And given just how fraught that particular relationship is, his intervention might not be seen by some as altogether wise.

Mr Cameron's comments came shortly after the leak of confidential "war logs" which included detailed claims that Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency was secretly helping the Taleban.

Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit dismissed the claims as "crude, self-serving and unverifiable" and said Mr Cameron should not use them as a basis for his analysis of the situation, adding: "There is no question of Pakistan looking the other way."

Pakistani senator Khurshid Ahmad, vice-president of the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami Party, warned that Mr Cameron's remarks risked fuelling "anti-American, anti-West" feeling on the streets, in an interview with BBC Radio 4's The World at One.
David Cameron at Infosys Technologies, Bangalore Mr Cameron is comfortable with the question and answer format

Along with the business secretary's now public view that the UK government's planned cap on immigration from outside the EU must be flexible, there is no doubt Mr Cameron answer to this particularly fractious question threatens to take the shine off the £700m deal between India and BAE for Hawk trainer jets that he was pleased to announce.

But it is the second time in less than 24 hours that Mr Cameron's comments may have arched a few diplomatic eyebrows.

On Monday, in Turkey, his description of Gaza as a "prison camp" will have jangled a few Israeli nerves. One diplomatic source was clear this was further than any British minister had gone before in their assessment of the situation.

And the PM's defence that he said the same thing in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago does not quite explain it away.
Rogue elements

He made similar, but not identical remarks at the end of June, describing Gaza then as "effectively, a giant, open air prison". And if nuance matters in any context, it could be argued that this is it.

In both of these cases, the countries where the remarks were made may well have been receptive audiences for Mr Cameron's message.

Turkey is still angry with Israel, previously a rare Muslim friend of the country, about the raid on the flotilla to Gaza in which Turkish activists lost their lives. And India, deeply worried about rogue elements in Pakistan, may have been pleased with his forthright remarks.

But judging by the gaggle of TV satellite trucks that have been parked up, not just for the British broadcasters, at the venues where Mr Cameron has been speaking, any remarks he made were never going to be confined to the country where they were made.

And his assessment of the situation in Gaza made it back to Westminster and riled a clutch of Conservative MPs too.

Given the delicacies of both of these situations it is perhaps surprising that Mr Cameron spoke so plainly.

Especially as there had been an obvious decision not to mention certain subjects on this trip.
'Junior partner'

Having asked three different cabinet ministers in private for their views on India and Kashmir, not one of them was willing to tell me what they really thought.

They all remembered the awkward photographs and offence David Miliband the former foreign secretary caused on his previous visit to Kashmir - not to mention the slightly unedifying sight of Gordon Brown pronouncing from India on the racist row over Shilpa Shetty on Celebrity Big Brother.

Add to that the irritation in some quarters that Mr Cameron described the UK as America's "junior partner" last week, and his slip over the history of when America joined the Second World War and perhaps it is worth asking just what is going on?

Is this David Cameron finding his feet on the world stage, not quite yet firmly planted in the niceties of foreign affairs?

Is it the stubborn habits of opposition, when what you say to capture attention arguably matters more than what you do?

Or are these errors brought on by exhaustion from the extraordinarily intense and punishing six months of British politics that he has just been through?

Perhaps it is a little of all of the above, but maybe something else too.

David Cameron often pitches himself as a realist, a pragmatic politician more interested in solving problems than being hitched to ideology.
Refreshing?

What you see is what you get, he often suggests, with transparency being one of his buzzwords.

The argument, honesty is the best policy, is often deployed when talking about the coming cuts.

And having witnessed a few of his Cameron Direct, or as they are now called, PM Direct, public meetings, the prime minister appears at ease with candour, and handles such question and answer sessions with ease.

He prides himself on being straight with people - refreshing, perhaps, for a Westminster politician.

But after his early foreign forays does "saying what you see" work abroad, where tangled relationships between many different countries can defy simple explanation?

Perhaps after Mr Cameron's first few overseas travels as prime minister, there is a danger that candour can be lost in translation.

[DD]

Cameron is a bluffing chancer.

[Slabber]

A ban on using jobcentres to advertise for strippers and lapdancers is expected to be announced this week.

Adult industry job adverts have been allowed in jobcentres since 2003, when lingerie chain Ann Summers won a legal fight to advertise for shop staff.

But the government is now expected to plan a change in the law to prevent another court battle.

The new ban is expected to apply only to so-called performance jobs, and not to adult industry shop or bar staff.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said it would make an announcement in "due course".

However, he refused to confirm or deny any of the details.

The ban is expected as the coalition government responds to a consultation set up by the former Labour administration.

Figures show that jobcentres advertised more than 350 jobs in the sex industry in 2008.

[Slabber]

[Slabber]

The coalition have fucked the economy and the housing market.

[Son of a Leather Dealer]

The banking sector is buoyant.

[Slabber]

That's because they haven't lowered interest rates despite base rate being 0.5% and because they're wankers.