On Friday, the High Court gave permission for a judicial review of the government’s failure to hold a public inquiry into the UK’s alleged complicity in the torture of a large number of civilians.

The abuse they have documented includes 59 allegations of detainees being hooded, 11 of electric shocks, 122 of sound deprivation through the use of ear muffs, 52 of sleep deprivation, 131 of sight deprivation using blackened goggles, 39 of enforced nakedness and 18 allegations that detainees were kept awake by pornographic DVDs played on laptops.

Lord Goldsmith is now saying that he ‘had no knowledge’ that the Government in which he served might have been complicit in the rendition and torture of British subjects.

On moral grounds, and moral grounds alone, we are right to share the International concern that we may be hypocritical in our desire to impose our values across the world when those values include the despicable crime of allowing people who have been given the right to live in Britain having a hood put over their head whilst they are questioned about the fact that they now appear to be in a Middle East war zone and engaged in terrorist activities against the British Government.

There are worse fates than having a hood put over your head or being kept awake at night. In the same week that the High Court decided that it was right to look into these techniques, another torture manual was released by order of the court. Try this:

“Use an inverted knuckle into the sternum and drive inward and upward.”

“Continue to carry alternate elbow strikes to the ribs” until the desired effect is achieved.

“Drive straight fingers into the face, and then quickly drive the straightened fingers of the same hand downwards into the groin area.”

These techniques are all taken from a manual written by HM Government – and therefore of which they very much do have knowledge. Instructions warn that the techniques risk giving a “fracture to the skull” and “temporary or permanent blindness caused by rupture to eyeball or detached retina”. One passage warns that “if breathing is compromised the situation […] becomes a medical emergency”.

If we are so offended by the idea of an individual who has declared war on our Government being deprived of his sleep, you may well ask what heinous crime a person might have committed to be on the receiving end of the torture that the UK Government so specifically does condone?

The answer will surprise you.

The techniques described above are those sanctioned for use on young children who have been ‘taken into the care’ of our illustrious State. They are not waging war against the state, they are the victims of the years in which it was decided that having a Father was unnecessary, discipline at school was to be deplored, smacking at home was illegal, and the most important thing in life was to express yourself however you wished. When their parents are no longer able to cope with these feral youths in their homes, the State removes them to institutions in which the above techniques result in broken arms, noses, wrists and fingers.

Earlier this month the government was prepared to go to a tribunal to fight against the disclosure of the manual, despite the information commissioner ruling that the public interest was so grave the document should be released. The Ministry of Justice backed down and last week released the entire 119-page document published by the HM Prison Service in 2005 and classified as a restricted government document. Previously, officials had even refused to give a copy to the parliamentary human rights committee.

Meanwhile the main stream media are content to focus on the claims of Binyam Mohamed that the British might have been aware that someone was being nasty to him.

Lord Goldsmith has a lengthy interview in the Independent today in which he says:

“The fundamental principle as far I was concerned was, we can’t be involved in torture, we can’t encourage torture, we can’t be complicit in torture.”

You are Goldsmith, you were, you continue to be; now let us see you campaign to clean up the techniques used in British children’s homes before you emote on the trials and tribulations of Binyam Mohamed.

JimS July 18, 2010 at 22:27

Anyone who has spent time in a NHS hospital will have suffered sleep
deprivation because of the night lighting.

Has no one thought of using infra-red lighting and cameras to monitor the
ward and motion sensors to put on lighting as and when patients need it?

Mrs R July 19, 2010 at 01:09

Anybody who has spent time in an NHS hospital is likely to have suffered
sleep deprivation and noise abuse by being forced to listen to music blaring
out from the nurses’ station.

Will July 18, 2010 at 22:14

“Restraint” is the active use of force when it is justified.

“Self defence” is just that.

Any challege to justified use of force will be tested under the due process
of law in the English Courts.

“Child”, “children” mean individuals under the age of 18. There is a world
of difference between the physical and mental state of persons aged 12, 15 and
17 1/2.

As part of the litigation process of disclosure, the manual would be
provided to a claimant’s legal representatives, upon the giving of
undertakings, in a process approved by the court.

The manual was “restricted” in who could demand to see it (and not
“classified”, which is more limiting than “restricted”; “classified as
restricted” is a phrase that might lead to confusion). “Restricted” and
“classified” are terms of art in the Civil Service and the definitions are in
the public domain.

Have you considered the breadth of reasons there might be why those
responsible for security did not want their security manuals in the public
domain, and known, in detail, to those being restrained?

alf stone July 18, 2010 at 21:20

I think this quote is significant:

‘restraint and self-defence techniques’ for unruly children in secure
training centres

This is not about inflicting pain for the fun of it.

Dennis July 18, 2010 at 22:02

Well no, but before the statutory instrument was quashed back in 2008[I
think – it may have been 2009-], these techniques were allowed in order to
“maintain discipline”. I think it’s fair to take “maintain discipline” as a
euphemism for at an officer’s discretion.

Perhaps it dawned on someone somewhere that, post quashing, the document
is no longer quite as damning as it was when the original FOI request was
made.

DavidNcl July 18, 2010 at 15:43

I also recall Amnesty International rending their clothing over the hooding
of suspected IRA bombers while equivocating about the Soviet use of mental
hospitals (and some nasty drugs) on dissident poets and writers back in the
’70.

Mr Ecks July 18, 2010 at 15:28

A bit baffled by this one Anna.

Have no doubt UK Govt is stupid and nasty enough to publish a torture
manual.

However its the targets of this torture that gives me pause.

If you go to the excellent blog of “Winston Smith” (who works in homes for
kids taken into care) it seems much more likely that Winston and the rest of
the staff there would be the ones on the receiving end of elbows to the ribs
and fingers in the eyes delivered by the feral youth supposedly in their
charge.

How old is this manual?.

Anna
Raccoon July 18, 2010 at 15:32

Mr Ecks,
2005, 5 years old.
I don’t doubt the violence of some of
these kids, it is just the hypocrisy of rolling over and demanding to be
censured for putting a hood on binyam whilst at the same time fighting tooth
and nail to prevent the manual on how to treat ourcheeeldren coming
out……..

SadButMadLad July 18, 2010 at 17:37

Well it was a classified as a restricted government document. Probably
so classified that the staff at care homes didn’t know about it.

English Viking
July 18, 2010 at 14:58

Binyam (stooopid name) should think himself lucky that I am not running the
show.

Dead men tell no tales.