I'm not sure what you're trying to imply but, surely, it seemed pretty likely from the outset (although we didn't have chapter and verse to prove it) that both the US and British governments did not want this information to come to light and therefore colluded in trying to conceal it.

The mechanism they used, as GG says, was for Britain (the supplicant) to elicit from the US a 'threat' to end intelligence sharing. This allowed the British government to imply, "We'd love to release this information - honest - but the big, bad US won't let us".

This, of course, didn't show the US in a good light but I don't think that bothered the US government too much. After all, they'd likely achieve their aim of suppressing embarrassing information and it's not as if the US media have been all over this story and, hey, who cares what the Brits think - what can they do?

The UK government will appeal the ruling and I, too, have an uneasy feeling that something will happen to derail full disclosure. But what is interesting, I think, is (as reported by The Guardian) MI5 chief Jonathan Evans's speech justifying MI5's "co-operation" with foreign intelligence services, including those who use torture. This sounds to me a like a pre-emptive justification for MI5's collusion in torture with the expectation that the shit could hit the fan soon. Let's hope so.

Let's not lose sight of what the main point of GG's article was (I thought so, anyway): the way the US responds to Muslim terrorism just makes more terrorists.

Iraq, Guantanamo, Bhagram, extraordinary rendition, orange jump suits, Israel/Palestine one-sidedness: these are all antithetical to the US's own stated principles and the hypocrisy of this is not lost on others.

Unless you think that Bush's moronic "bring 'em on" response was the correct one, then the US needs seriously to rethink its policy towards global terrorism.

Israel's despicable treatment of the Palestinians most certainly is a cause of Muslim hostility to Israel and the US.

Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Iraq, Iran: they are all part of the Muslim Ummah. When they see fellow Muslims being dragged off to Guantanamo Bay and tortured, they are angry with America. When they see Britain and Spain join with America in the illegal war in Iraq, they are angry with them too. When they see Israel slaughter hundreds of women and children in Lebanon and Gaza, they are angry at Israel and its main sponsor, the US.

I am angry at all these things and I'm not a Muslim, so it's no surprise at all that the rage felt by most Muslims translates into terrorism by a few.

It's always shocked me the apparent willingness of so many Americans to have their armies invade and bomb their way through other people's countries when they act against US interests.

Why is this? Presumably, Americans aren't naturally more violent than most other people so part of it must be down to a lack of empathy.

And is this because it's been a very long time since there was war in the American homeland so people just can't imagine themselves in the position of an Afghan or Iraqi or Palestinian who has seen foreign forces marauding through his country causing, directly or indirectly, great loss of life?

That may also be one of the reasons why most European countries, whose lands were occupied comparatively recently by the Nazis or by the Soviet Union, seem more reluctant to wage war than the US.

It's good to know that there's an official US government report that documents what so many us felt had to be true - that US policies were causing terrorism and not rooting it out.

I'd never heard of this report before - presumably it was disappeared because it was not what the government wanted to hear?

I thought this was real to start with until it got just too psychotic, even for Sarah Palin.

Mind you, you still get a sense of unease knowing that this satire is not so far-fetched after all, and that this woman has real support in the US.

Once you cotton on that it's satire, the horror turns to relief, and then to amusement tinged with unease as you realize the satire is so little removed from the reality.

I live in Britain and I'd echo cerireid about adverts during programmes. For non-BBC programmes, DVR's allow you to skip the tedious brain pollution of the adverts.

In my jaundiced view, most TV is rubbish anyway, but the scheduling battles of the UK TV companies mean that they often pit watchable programmes against each other, typically at 8 or 9 pm. So, most annoyingly, you go from wall-to-wall mindless crap most of the time to two or three progammes you might actually want to see all on at the same time.

This is where DVRs come into their own, allowing you to watch a good programme while the rest of the TV wasteland goes on without you.

My wife and I have been through it with our young daughter. You and your partner work damned hard throughout the flight to ensure that your child does not aggravate other passengers: you have plenty of things for her to do (planned in advance), you keep her distracted, walk up and down the aisle trying to comfort her if necessary (and spreading the pain around a bit).

You should try to inconvenience others as little as possible - if you don't make that effort then that's just selfish and you deserve everything you get.

If other passengers at least feel you're doing your best, they're more likely to put up with it. If you think the flight's just too long for all the diversionary tactics to work, then DON'T FLY.