Turkey threatens to expel 100,000 Armenians

The Prime Minister of Turkey has threatened to expel up to 100,000 Armenian migrants working illegally in the country. Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that they had been "turning a blind eye" to the issue but that "tomorrow, I may tell these 100,000 to go back to their country, if it becomes necessary."

The announcement is the latest evidence of renewed tensions between Turkey and its Eastern neighbour Armenia over the slaughter of ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. Sweden and the United States are recent additions to the growing number of countries that have declared in varying degrees the killings to be 'genocide', a claim furiously rejected by Turkey. The country admits that many Armenians lost their lives but that this was not on the scale claimed by those advocating genocide nor was it specifically directed at the Christian minority living within the country's borders.

Erdogan's Armenian counterpart is unimpressed; Tigran Sarkisian told the parliament in Yerevan that the comments only brought back painful memories of the mass killings. "These kinds of political statements do not help to improve relations between our two states," he said. "When the Turkish prime minister allows himself to make such statements it immediately for us brings up memories of the events of 1915."

The questioning of established acts of genocide is surprisingly common, even in the face of overwhelming evidence; witness the thriving mini-industry that has long surrounded Holocaust denial. But the near-universal recognition of the attempted extermination of the Jewish people by the German state in the early 1940s and before is in stark contrast to the Great Calamity of the Armenian genocide a generation earlier. Only 20 or so nations have thus far officially pronounced the events as genocide of the sort perpetrated during the Shoah, despite a general consensus among historians - and harrowing photographic and documentary evidence - that the killing of the Armenians constituted ethnic-specific mass murder. The position of the UK government is one of political detachment from the issue, leaving it instead to historians - to the chagrin of Armenian organisations within the country.

Despite the controversy Turkish opposition to the genocide thesis has won it few friends in the international community; an acknowledgement of the systematic killing of Armenians by the Ottoman state narrowly missed becoming a precondition for Turkey's drawn-out EU accession bid.

But perhaps the saddest thing about the entire debate, however, is that the argument over semantics blurs the fact that very large numbers of innocent people were killed, intentionally or otherwise. Their stories would be enough to make even the most ardent Turkish nationalist - or anyone else, for that matter - weep. One cannot look at the contemporary photographs of Armin Wegner and others and not feel a deep sense of shame at the barbarity and senselessness of war, and of what one human can do to another.

Back to Prime Minister Erdogan. The Turkish position on the genocide - that it shouldn't be treated as such because it wasn't planned, that only a third of the estimated 1.5 million killed actually died, and that many Turks also lost their lives - may be a nonsense, despite its objections to the contrary. But it is still acknowledged that many people were murdered during a particularly turbulent time which has all but slipped from living memory. To use this history as a political weapon is to shame both those that would advocate such a policy and dishonour those that paid the ultimate price for the vanities of their masters.

Government refuses to divulge Omagh intelligence

The UK government has rejected calls for it to release classified evidence relating to the 1998 Omagh bombing, the most deadly single event in the course of Northern Ireland's troubles. 29 people - including one pregnant with twins - were killed in an attack later admitted to be the work of the Real IRA.

The refusal comes in the light of an inquiry into how much intelligence services knew about the bombers. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report - published earlier this week - said too many questions remain unanswered and that there should be a fresh investigation into whether the state withheld vital information from detectives.

Accusations similar to these have dogged the government since a 2008 edition of Panorama claimed that the intelligence services had intercepted details of the bombing via tapped 'phonelines but did not pass this information onto the police; had they done so the likelihood of a successful detonation would have been greatly reduced. There are also questions surrounding the investigation itself and whether enough was done to catch the perpetrators.

Thus far no-one has been successfully prosecuted over the bombing in criminal proceedings; South Armagh man Colm Murphy had been found guilty in Dublin's special criminal court but his conviction was later quashed. Another man was cleared in a separate trial in 2007. Only in a landmark civil case - where the burden of proof is not as high - have the relatives of the Omagh victims received any semblance of justice.

It could be that there are genuine fears that national security could be compromised should such information be released, particularly in the wake of ongoing militant activity within Ulster. But given that only two years ago the Province's Policing Board admitted that no one will be charged over the massacre unless fresh evidence is found the need for justice must still be regarded as absolute. Submitting the details of intelligence to an investigating committee behind closed doors and away from media intrusion would at least be a step in the right direction; it's also more than likely that withholding such information will merely serve to reinforce the suspicion that the role of the intelligence services in the bombing was not without flaw.

Labour have been rightly proud of their achievements in helping to bring about peace in Northern Ireland, from the signing of the historic Good Friday Agreement to the restoration of devolved government in Belfast. Now it is time the party's leaders led the way helping to bring about justice, too.

Ex-Tory MEP joins Clegg's Lib Dems

I almost missed this one. The former Conservative MEP Edward McMillan-Scott has joined the Liberal Democrats. McMillan-Scott, as you might remember, fell out with the Tory leadership over David Cameron's much-criticised decision to realign his party with the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists in the European parliament. He was once also the head of the Tory grouping in Brussels.

The Conservatives, perhaps unsurprisingly, have been keen to downplay the incident. One source within the party pointed out that McMillan-Scott had been expelled some six months ago and that "he has not been a Conservative MEP since then." And speaking of his defection: "They're welcome to him." Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, on the other hand, said he was "delighted" to welcome on board an MEP who was "respected... across Europe."

The Lib Dems are an interesting choice for the former Tory; the party is currently subject to rampant speculation over its role should the prospect of a hung parliament come to fruition in the wake of this summer's general election. Leader Nick Clegg may have shrugged off suggestions that his party will be 'kingmakers' if both Labour and the Conservatives fail to win a majority but that still hasn't stopped people asking just that. Claims that he would seek coalition government with the Conservatives - Shadow business secretary Ken Clarke considers Clegg a conservative with compatible views to his own - have been matched by counterclaim that argue any such move would alienate the Lib Dem's left-leaning core membership. Clegg's recent praise of Margaret Thatcher and his knack of recruiting former Tories has probably not helped his current claims of political neutrality.

Liberal Democrat-Conservative link-ups are not particularly unusual, at least at a local level; the city council here in Leeds is an example of one such partnership and several others exist around the country. Coalitions are not always a recipe for successful government and so it has proved here in West Yorkshire when it recently played host to the largest industrial action seen in the region since the dark days of the 1980s. The dispute resulted in a victory for the striking workers and a humiliating climbdown for council chiefs.

Clegg has attempted to divert the focus away from such speculative efforts by concentrating on his own party's performance come the general election, and it's no wonder why; the inherent assumption within the 'kingmaker' debate is that the Lib Dems are fated to come in third once again. To the lowly party activist it may seem an overly pessimistic - if entirely plausible - scenario.

But it is Clegg's apparent right-wing sympathies, at odds with so much of his party, that - combined with Labour and the Conservative's similar poll ratings - has fuelled such speculation in the first place. It will be interesting to see whether the prospect of a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats at its heart will seem quite so unpalatable if such a situation eventually does arise come May 6th.

Wainman's Pinnacle

There's something rather magical about sunrise and sunset, when the fiery sun - low on the horizon - tinges the land with a golden hue. I've always wanted to travel north of the Arctic Circle to experience a Summer when the sun never sets.

I took the above picture of Wainman's Pinnacle during a recent evening when the light was especially clear. The monument itself overlooks Sutton-in-Craven in North Yorkshire and was built by a local landowner in 1816 to celebrate the Battle of Waterloo and to commemorate his son's death in the Napoleonic Wars. It forms a curious double act with Lund's Tower, a late Victorian birthday present to a local's daughter located further along Sutton Crag. It's an exceedlingly pretty location and if you're around in the vicinity I'd heartily recommend a visit.

Government rejects calls to lower age of criminal responsibility

England's children's commissioner Maggie Atkinson has called for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised to the age of 12, a move roundly rejected by the government. She said that most criminals under that age did not fully understand their actions; in response the Ministry of Justice claimed that those over 10 did in actual fact know the difference "between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing."

The domestic limit is amongst the lowest in the world, currently set at 8 in Scotland and 10 in the rest of the United Kingdom. Only Switzerland has a lower threshold - at 7 - in Europe, with most countries' age of criminal responsibility set at somewhere in the mid-teens.

Atkinson's comments have come in the wake of the recent Jon Venables saga; she said it was wrong that he and Robert Thompson - 10 years old at the time of James Bulger's abduction and subsequent murder - had been tried in an adult court. Both were released on life licences in 2001 and given new identities. The reasons behind why Venables was returned to prison earlier this month have still not been revealed, nor his right to anonymity removed.

Reactions to the commissioner's suggestions have been mixed; over on the BBC message boards it seems there are as many people opposed to the idea as there are supporting it. Defenders of the status quo argue that 10 is a sufficient age for a child to know the difference between right and wrong, whilst those more disposed to increasing the limit to the higher levels seen on the continent will prevent criminalising children.

The main problem facing the legal system and child criminality, however, is that children learn and mature at different rates; development is simply not uniform nor homogeneous across youngsters of a similar age. Some 10 year olds will appear both emotionally and physically to be well on their way to spotty adolescence, whilst others will still almost certainly - and properly - be regarded as 'children' and young ones at that. Setting what is in effect an arbitrary age limit on deciding whether a child has adequately acquired the knowledge of good and evil can only ever be used as a guide rather than as a fixed point from when a 'child' has become an 'adult'.

Google Street View expands to cover '95% of UK'

Google Street View, the web search giant's controversial mapping application, has been expanded to cover almost the entirety of the UK's road network. Now more than 95% of the country as normally seen by car is viewable for anyone to see online, and users could - if they so wished - walk virtually from Land's End to John O'Groats. Coverage in some other countries has also reached a comparable figure.

A lot of people, it would seem, are not happy about this; a recent survey of around 1,300 people found that 57% regarded the street mapping service as an ‘intrusion' while 24% thought it ‘a service for burglars’. And many said that they were most angered by the fact they have not given permission for the publication of images.

Street View has aroused mixed feelings ever since its launch, with some lauding its role as an enabler of 'virtual' tourism while others - as witnessed in the aforementioned survey - voicing fears over security. Some in Milton Keynes were so concerned at the apparent facilitation of crime last year that police had to be called out when they blocked the path of a Google car in the Broughton area of the city.

It might be a little hard to sympathise with those who object to their lack of consultation before filming; given that photographs for the project are all taken from public rights of way nothing is available that cannot already be seen in situ. Conceding to such demands could also have huge implications for anyone filming or taking photographs in public spaces.

And so far fears that criminals and burglars may use the programme to scout for easy pickings have not been vindicated in any recorded court case or police report. The small possibility that such data could be misused at some point in the future has also been addressed; Google has incorporated within its programme the ability for residents to blur properties should they so wish.

Street View's expansion in the UK is, on the whole, a welcome one; not only does it offer the opportunity for unparalleled exploration for the armchair traveller, it also affords the chance to hunt for Hogarthian images of modern British life to tempt even the most cynically-inclined internet user. Those who firmly want to live out of sight of Google's lens might want to consider setting up home in a place where someone in the street can't already see them anyway.

University writes to alumni for money

Today I got a letter from my old university asking me to commit to a monthly donation toward bursaries and scholarships for current and future students. Money raised from the campaign will be set aside for those students "who are amongst the brightest and the best but may be deterred (from going to university) by the prospect of high student debt."

The letter itself wasn't a complete surprise; I'd already received a 'phone call from a student on behalf of the university in question a few days ago. The caller also asked whether I'd be interested in making a regular donation, and the campaign itself merely marks the latest stage in a fundraising drive that I helped contribute towards in a small way during my final year in Leicester.

I have some sympathy with the request; from a financial point of view I found university life extremely difficult and throughout both undergraduate and postgraduate study I've had to combine studies with paid work. Needless to say I also graduated with a mountain of debt which burdens me to this very day.

And according to some recent studies student debt at the point of graduation has been steadily increasing in recent years even after adjustment for inflation. There are also strong regional variations within the UK, with students in England - and London in particular - expecting to be in debt by around £5,000 on average for each year of study.

The problem, it seems, is a simple one; students numbers, both in real terms and as a percentage of the population, have long been on the rise. Money sourced purely from government funds - and ultimately the taxpayer - has been stretched further and further and as a result loans and grants are near exhaustion. At some point self-financing has to be considered as an option to keep such numbers in full-time education and - for the main part - out of work, even though this then creates the debt that my former university are worried might prevent some students from applying in the first place. And they almost certainly have a point; for those from low-income backgrounds financing a life of study is an extremely daunting proposal. It's an extremely difficult juggling act.

I've also long felt uncomfortable with anecdotal suggestions that attempting to cultivate in all young people a genuine aspiration to continue their studies into further education is somehow a bad thing. Arguing that 'too many students' is a strain economically is a valid - if somewhat cold and utilitarian - argument. Demanding that restraints be placed on those who are ill-placed to afford to go, however, is thinly-veiled snobbery.

I do have one gripe with my alma mater's request, however; given that varying estimations for the paying off of all student debt frequently surpass a decade it seems a little unfair to contact those who are almost certainly still paying for their stint at university and ask for money for those who are about to do the same. Just give me another decade or so and I'll think about it...

Should 'historical' films be 'historically' accurate?

A couple of nights ago a friend of mine went to see Invictus at the cinema and has been raving about it ever since; I've been told in no uncertain terms that I must go and see it, partly for the drama and partly because 'it shows Mandela as a hero'. I haven't got round to it yet but as a sports fan it certainly carries some appeal.

The film, for those of you who haven't heard of it, tells the story of the 1995 Rugby World Cup held in South Africa and especially of the political upheaval the country had been experiencing in the post-apartheid era. More specifically it focuses on the efforts of Nelson Mandela - the newly elected president and hero of the transition to full representative democracy - to unify the fractured population in support of the Springboks, South Africa's national team but seen by many blacks as an institution of the hated white supremacist minority. It's probably not going to spoil the film too much by already knowing the outcome of that tournament.

Historical events have always provided a fertile inspiration for film makers, and it's not entirely surprising; great world events naturally lend themselves to on-screen story telling. And ever since then the ability for celluloid to distort the truth - for dramatic purposes or otherwise - has proved as controversial as the films themselves have been popular.

One of the earliest - and most notorious - examples is the 1945 film Objective, Burma! which depicted a purely American force fighting in what had in reality been a largely British Empire theatre of war. So recent was the memory of the war in the UK and so great was the public outrage at the blatant manipulation of the truth - lead actor Errol Flynn safely sat out the war in California - that the film was barred from British cinemas until 1952.

And ever since then war and conflict has provided the source for possibly more notoriously historically inaccurate films then any other genre. The Patriot, Braveheart, Pearl Harbour, U-571 - all of them drawing their influence from war and all of them - just like Objective, Burma! - guilty of altering the truth for dramatic effect.

Which raises a very pertinent moral dilemma: should films which purport to be depictions of actual events be allowed to claim as such if the events it shows are significantly different from their factual counterparts?

Take Braveheart, for example; this Oscar-winning film was credited with assisting in the revival of Scottish nationalism which culminated in the re-opening of a national parliament in Edinburgh several years later. But it also came under fire for its unerring lack of historical accuracy - a fabricated romance, belted plaids before any such thing existed, a battle primarily famed for its bridge that featured anything but onscreen - and distinctly anti-English undertones. Director Mel Gibson defended his liberal treatment of fact by arguing that the changes were much more "cinematically compelling" than a simple recounting of recorded history.

And perhaps that's not surprising; film as a medium is primarily designed to entertain, and history told through the mere constraints of objectivity and accuracy might make for a dull audience experience and a subsequently low return at the box office.

But others suggest that film - powerful as it is - should have have a duty to portray history without more then ephemeral alteration lest audiences gain the impression that what they see is fact. For many Braveheart appeared to be little more then an exercise in nationalist propaganda, and the thesis that the film played an influential part in the development of nationalist consciousness north of the border merits close examination. Similarly other films may find that their dramatic historical interpretations may begin to replace actual accounts in the minds of those who access mediums other than television and film on a less regular basis.

Those that defend the actions of such films argue that artistic licence merits the on-screen alteration of the truth. But to perceive films as constituting nothing but a form of entertainment is to be woefully naïve, for they also have the power to influence, to educate and to inspire. And, just like my Invictus-loving friend has proven, films have the power to stay in the mind for days and weeks after the event. Mere entertainment doesn't come close to describing it.

Northern Ireland witnesses transfer of policing and justice

Policing and justice powers have finally been transferred from London to Belfast as part of the devolution process initiated by the Good Friday Agreement. It'll be the first time in 38 years that such powers have not been administered directly under Westminster control.

And in the end - despite previous rumblings and disagreements over the transfer's timing that threatened to end the power-sharing arrangement - the motion was passed decisively; of the 105 votes cast in the Northern Ireland Assembly, a total of 88 supported the move and 17 voted against. Despite international pressure to the contrary Sir Reg Empey's UUP was the only party to oppose the transfer, emulating the DUP's rejection of the GFA back in 1998. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has praised the deal as "historic" and - referring to recent dissident Republican activity - that "it sends the most powerful message to those who would return to violence: that democracy and tolerance will prevail."

The Ulster Unionists have defended their position by arguing that it is the timing and not the actual essence of the final act of devolution that has resulted in their opposition, a stance seemingly shared only by the hardline TUV who are opposed to any sort of power sharing arrangement with 'IRA/Sinn Féin' whatsoever.

The Shinners, for their part, are as pleased as punch; out of all the parties concerned it is they who have been most vocal in their support for the transfer of policing and justice to Stormont. Party MLA Gerry Kelly described the "overwhelming vote" as a "huge step forward for the people of the north and throughout Ireland". That they can now say that they have direct involvement in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland - and potentially fill the position of Justice Minister once the current cross-community provision lapses in 2012 - may well please those Republicans who up until this point may have remained unconvinced as to the worth of Sinn Féin's involvement in British political institutions. The party may also feel vindicated for other reasons; the devolution of policing and justice was a key factor behind the decision to drop their longstanding - and some would say symbolic - opposition to the police in Northern Ireland.

But perhaps the biggest loser from this episode is not based in Ulster but is in actual fact rather closer to Westminster. Conservative leader David Cameron's much vaunted link-up with the Ulster Unionists - a commendable attempt to bring Northern Ireland into the mainstream of UK political life - is suddenly looking more like a liability then a vote-winner come election time. For Cameron supported the devolution process in full - including policing and justice - but no amount of leaning on his Unionist colleagues from across the Irish sea has dissuaded them from saying 'no'. Where it becomes more damaging for Cameron, however, is his apparent impotence in changing his allies' mind despite lobbying attempts from former US President George Bush, a potential introduction to international diplomacy if he should succeed in reaching high office. Coupled with the ongoing problems that have beset the Conservative-Unionist alliance from the start it's perhaps not surprising that Cameron cut a frustrated figure during interviews with the BBC this morning.

Policing in Northern Ireland has had a difficult and checkered past, with a lack of cross-community support constituting one of its biggest failings. If the transfer back of control back to Belfast can improve the police's rapport with the mainly nationalist section of the population that have for so long distrusted it then it is to be applauded if - as with everything in Northern Ireland - it is done so in a way that does not create mistrust. It is a fitting end to the long and difficult journey that began at Stormont almost 12 years ago to the day.

Technology isn't always what it's cracked up to be...

I'm not much of a Luddite; although I can just about remember the world before mobile 'phones and the internet and flat-screen televisions I'm fairly fortunate that for the most part I've grown up alongside the development of digital technologies and their mass domestic presence. I like to think that they hold no mystery for me.

It also means that I do a lot of things on the internet that one had to do in other ways before it was invented. I renew my library books, check the news and weather, watch television programmes, and of course catch up on my favourite blogs - all of it online. And if I can do something virtually rather than ring up on the telephone then I always do; it's just that bit more convenient.

At least that's what I was hoping when I wanted to change the address on my driving licence earlier today. I'm finally ready to book my test but in order to do so I need to make sure all my driving-related documentation is fully up-to-date. A reasonable requirement, and one with which the DVLA must be confronted with on a regular basis. So - being the technophile that I am - I dutifully went on to the government website for motor licensing and began what was promised to be a 'quick' and 'easy' process.

Except that after a couple of attempts at entering past and present addresses and various other bits of personal information - not the fastest of tasks - I was told that I would in actual fact need to ring them up in person after all. On a national rate 0870 number.

But that didn't work, either. A prerecorded message at the other end informed me that the number quoted on the website was no longer in use and in actual fact it was something completely different. And when it promised to put me through it actually went to a dead line which still refused to cooperate despite numerous optimistic but ultimately futile repeat attempts at connecting to it. Ultimately it was a frustrating experience which for a short while dented my faith in the marvels of modern technology.

Only later on this evening did I learn that the lack of response to my simple request was almost certainly due to a 48-hour walkout - starting today - over redundancy pay at the DVLA headquarters in Swansea. My experience was purely down to an unfortunate and irritating coincidence.

And it's probably worth mentioning how I found out about the strike - where else but on the internet, of course. The wonders of modern technology never cease to amaze me...!