TPP: Mexicans believe speculation ‘trebled price of corn’.

Putting neocons in charge of food supply is a recipe for mass famine

Further to The Slog’s essay on TPP last Saturday, there’s an intersting addition to the detail and breadth of the threat at this blog here.

Well worth a look.

And as always, any good leaks/stories about the Transcendental Pacific Profits guys welcomed in complete confidence at

9 thoughts on “TPP: Mexicans believe speculation ‘trebled price of corn’.

  1. Free trade agreements pauperises nations and removes their sovereign rights to enact their own nations laws and protect their economies from the asset strippers. Example no.1 is the EU.
    The TPP is a similar thin edge of the wedge.
    Corporatism is on the prowl like a rabid dog seeking other pastures to strip bare.


  2. I would say the obsession with Biofuels and a poor Harvest (climate change, innit!) are most likely factors in any increase in food costs.


  3. If farmers [agribusiness] are now grow stuff for fuel/biomass etc, instead of food production. Then agricultural subsidies should be with-held and their farms charged full business rates.


  4. Surely the problem is the absurd governmental policies over bio-fuel subsidies? In the case of the US to penalise Brazil.

    Would you distinguish between food production and other agricultural cash crops (cotton perhaps)?


  5. Yes, Off-topic I know…but of interest.
    today is the day that PC Simon Harwood attends a disciplinary hearing following Harwood’s direct role in the death of Ian Tomlinson. It may be the last chance for any form of justice to be administered to this thug police officer.

    Harwood had “form” when it came to abusing his position in the police and here is a brief extract from it.
    A series of allegations were made against him, yet he was allowed to retire from the Met on medical grounds in 2001 despite unresolved disciplinary proceedings.
    Harwood had been the subject of 10 disciplinary complaints in 12 years as an officer. He only avoided facing serious disciplinary charges in 2001 over a road-rage attack after quitting his job on health grounds – but later rejoined the force without ever having to face a hearing

    The first case involved a “road rage” incident in April 2000 in which Harwood, off duty at the time, had a minor car collision and then became involved in an argument with the man driving the other vehicle. He was accused of unlawful arrest, abuse of authority and discreditable conduct over the incident when he allegedly shouted at the other driver and knocked him over his car door, before announcing he was a police officer and arresting the motorist on a common assault charge. When senior officers investigated the case, Harwood told them the other driver was the aggressor. However, independent witnesses backed the other man, who said Harwood ran at him aggressively, knocking him over and forcing him over his car door. The witnesses said Harwood identified himself as a police officer and tried to arrest the other driver for common assault.An officer who attended the scene later noticed how Harwood amended his notes to seek to justify the arrest, which was unlawful. The Met settled out of court with the man and paid compensation

    But the proceedings against Harwood were discontinued when he retired. (Remember this sentence. I’ll come back to it later).

    Weeks before the misconduct hearing was due to be heard, Harwood applied to be medically retired from the Met, citing injuries he had suffered in a motorbike accident more than three years earlier. His last day at the force was 14 September 2001. But his absence did not last long – just three days later, Harwood was taken on by the same force as a civilian employee.

    In 2003 he joined the Surrey police force as a constable. In January 2004, he was again accused of using excessive force in a complaint lodged by a fellow officer in a raid on a flat. Two officers said they saw Harwood grab a suspect by the throat, punch him twice in the face and push him into a table, causing it to break. No action was taken despite one of the other officers insisting on lodging a complaint, which prompted a disciplinary investigation.

    In November 2004, Harwood applied for a transfer – this time back to the Met, rejoining the force a few months later.

    Harwood was the subject of a number of other complaints after joining the Tactical Support Group, including from a member of the public who said they saw him knee a suspect in the chest in Streatham High Road, south London. The incident, in May 2005, was one of two prosecutors also sought to raise at the Ian tomlinson manslaughter trial.. At a pre-trial hearing they said an independent witness reported seeing Harwood knee a man in the kidney as he lay on the ground in handcuffs.

    This case was dealt by “local resolution”, as was another in which Harwood was alleged to have threatened a father and daughter, telling them he would burn down their house. The allegation was recorded as involving “assault and racial abuse”.

    A second case raised by prosecutors at the criminal trial came in November 2008, when Harwood allegedly twisted handcuffs placed on an AA patrolman whose vehicle he had stopped.

    Harwood also had searched the database to find details of a driver who had been involved in a car accident with his wife.

    After the Tomlinson trial, where Harwood walked free, despite an inquest verdict of unlawful killing (by Harwood). The outrage expressed by ordinary people prompted Deborah Glass of the Police Complaints Commission (I never use the “Independent” part of the IPPC’s title….because it isn’t) to declare…Iit was “alarming” that a police officer could have avoided disciplinary proceedings by retiring, and later rejoining the force, adding that the Met would need to “account for Harwood’s re-engagement as a constable and his deployment to one of the most critical units, the TSG, given his previous record.”.

    Indeed. Not only should Harwood be facing this disciplinary hearing, but so should thise who closed their eyes to Harwood’s track record and went ahead and re-engaged him, first at the Met in a civilian role, then at Surrey Constabulary where he worked as a PC, then at the Met again. Who where these people who re-engaged Harwood? Why are they not in front of the hearing at today’s disciplinary?

    Whatever the result, I reckon that there will be a new job waiting for Harwood elsewhere. After all, there was for John Yates and Andy Hayman.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s