From the BBC report

Dr Myers said: “It’s something that, with a lot more resources and with a lot more manpower and quality control, possibly could have been avoided but I have difficulty in thinking that this is something that was a design error.”

He said: “The standard phrase is that the LHC is its own prototype. We are pushing technologies towards their limits.”

“You don’t hear about the thousands or hundreds of thousands of other areas that have gone incredibly well.

“With a machine like the LHC, you only build one and you only build it once.”

And from Cern’s Director General, Rolf Heuer.

Two years of continuous running is a tall order both for the LHC operators and the experiments, but it will be well worth the effort. By abandoning CERN’s traditional annual operational cycle we’re increasing the overall running time and discovery potential over the next three years. This run will be followed by preparations for 14 TeV collisions in a single shutdown and another major advance into new territory as great as the one we are on the threshold of achieving.

And, on the search for ‘dark’ matter, I can’t resist linking the Guardian’s interview with Brian Cox

G: Historically, we’ve often thought we’re getting close to cracking the secrets of the universe. Are we?

Brian Cox: I honestly think the wheels are coming off our picture of the way the universe works at the moment. We don’t know what 96% of the universe is made of – that tells us that we don’t understand something fundamental. It reminds me of the start of the 20th century when quantum mechanics and relativity were about to appear.

G: We wouldn’t expect a dog to understand the mysteries of the universe, so why should we imagine that we can?

Brian Cox: It’s an open question, whether it’s too complicated. All you can do is point back to history to note that we’ve been successful on this reductionist journey up to now. But there’s no reason…

G: Have you ever believed in God?

Brian Cox: No! I was sent to Sunday school for a few weeks but I didn’t like getting up on Sunday mornings. But some of my friends are religious. I don’t have a strong view on religion, other than illogical religion. Young earth creationism, for example: bollocks.

Heh.

At the same time it is neither possible nor desirable to shut a family victim up. The gruelling campaigns of the Omagh families and the McCartneys may not have been successful but they uncovered much that would have remained hidden.  Penny Holloway’s is a case in point where her brave and skilful campaign carried on to the highest level won a rare reappraisal of a decision not to proceed in the case of the murder of her son Thomas.  In cases of deep pain and controversy, we can only proceed case by case and with minds as open as possible and with no grandstanding from politicians. While it is right that more heed is paid to victims than ever before,  their demands should not be accepted just because they are victims. These issues should be considered even more carefully, now that Justice powers are about to be handed over. All the parties should be alive to the danger of turning cases into political footballs. They must question their own prejudices. The behaviour of politicians on the Policing Board sets a mainly helpful precedent.  “Justice” is both what the courts say it is and what the public thinks it is. It is up to us all, not just the judicial process, to ensure that the two coincide. 

“This is a new era for politics and a new era for the SDLP. This country needs a strong SDLP and the people of the North need strong representation at Westminster.

“Today I have submitted my application to represent the party in the constituency of Fermanagh South Tyrone in the forthcoming Westminster election. This election will be won and lost on the doorsteps and I am keen to build on the good work of Tommy Gallagher and others in the weeks and months ahead. I know I have a fight ahead of me to win the seat but I am looking forward to the challenge.”

A similar device under the passenger seat of a car belonging to a police officer’s girlfriend in East Belfast was further evidence of growing expertise in the hands of dissidents. Does this mean dissident engineering skills are improving or has there been an influx of fresh personnel with real bomb-making skills? Neither of these two factors is mutually exclusive.

It has also been revealed that the Newry bombers had undertaken a dry run to the courthouse nearly a year ago in a huge disruptive exercise which paralysed traffic.

There is no evidence that security experts are seeing particularly new or original technology. What is shaking the police to the core is the fact that these -IEDS ( improvised explosive devices) are now detonating.

What is not clear is why rebel republicans are now having success after such a long period of botched operations like the device discovered not far from Ballykinlar security base in South Down. Again the bomb at the policing board headquarters in Belfast only partially exploded.

A former IRA activist who is totally committed to the peace and political processes is highly critical of some of the individuals known to him who are linked to dissident republicanism.

He pointed out it is not always easy to know the young people now involved because the IRA ended the war in 1994 when some of these people were only children.

Some further extracts of interest

What is ‘national security’?

3. ‘National security’ relates to the safety and security of the state and its people. ‘The protection of national security, and the carrying out of other related activities in the interests of national security, are in law the functions of the Security and Intelligence Agencies (“SIAs”), accountable to Ministers in the UK Government.

General Principles

4. Constitutionally, national security is an excepted matter under section 4 of and Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”). It is not, therefore, among those matters devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

5. Issues will arise within the transferred policing and justice field which have a national security dimension or which touch on national security related issues. Therefore, there will be a need for consultation and the sharing of information between the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice. It is the responsibility of the UK Government to determine what information pertaining to national security can be shared and on what terms it is provided. Information which, if made public, might hinder the ability of the SIAs to perform their functions, or which might reveal the operations, investigations, sources, techniques or methodologies of the SIAs or of other agencies that use the same techniques or methodologies will not be shared. [added emphasis]

And

NIO historic records

10. All records created by the NIO prior to devolution, whether they are held electronically or on paper files, remain Crown Public Records and continue to be subject to the Public Records Act 1958. The NIO therefore retains ownership of and control of access to all pre-devolution records.

11. To facilitate the smooth operation of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and to ensure good governance, the NIO will provide access for DOJ officials to those pre-devolution NIO records relating to matters that are now devolved that are necessary for them to carry out their post-devolution functions effectively. DOJ officials will have no access to pre-devolution NIO records that relate to matters that remain the responsibility of the UK Government, including records that relate to matters of national security.

12. For the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), any pre-devolution NIO records that are held by the DOJ will be deemed to be held by the DOJ “on behalf of” the NIO. Under the FOIA, information held by one public authority on behalf of another is considered, for the purposes of the Act, to be held by the originating body, and they are the decision making body. Therefore, when a person requests access to information held on pre-devolution NIO records that are on loan to the DOJ, it will be for the NIO to provide the response to the applicant and apply any exemptions or public interest test that might be necessary. [added emphasis]

There is an annex to the above Protocol - Arrangements for Managing Issues which are National Security Related or Which Have a National Security Dimension

1 Counter-Terrorism Policy and Legislation

1.1 UK-wide counter-terrorism legislation applies in Northern Ireland and remains the responsibility of the UK Government. In pursuance of that responsibility, the UK Government works with the PSNI and other agencies in the policing and justice field on issues relating to counter terrorism and other reserved or excepted functions.

And

2 Contingency planning and crisis management

2.1 These matters are devolved. Northern Ireland Executive Ministers lead in the planning and government response to any event that does not involve a national security dimension. Where a crisis or public order situation is national security related, it remains the responsibility of the devolved administration to manage the devolved government agencies’ response in close liaison with the NIO which leads on any issues relating to reserved or excepted matters including deployment of the armed forces, co-ordination across national government, UK wide media handling and international implications.

2.2 The police operational response, including any request for military assistance, is a matter for the Chief Constable who has operational responsibility and is independent consistent with the arrangements in place between the Home Secretary and other Chief Constables. [added emphasis]

3 Policing

3.1 The Independent Commission[2] on Policing in Northern Ireland recommended that responsibility for policing be devolved to the NI Executive, except for matters of national security. Post devolution of policing and justice, the Chief Constable, while remaining operationally responsible, will be accountable to the Minister of Justice on all aspects of PSNI work save that he or she will continue to be accountable to the Secretary of State (representing the UK Government) for those aspects of the PSNI’s work - past, present or future - that have a national security element or dimension. Where the practical consequences of this impact on the role and responsibilities of the Minister of Justice he/she will be given access to relevant information in accordance with the principles set out in para 5 above including through the arrangements which will be put in place for the Chief Constable to brief the Minister of Justice on the security situation in Northern Ireland. The powers and responsibilities of the Policing Board have not been altered as a result of devolution or of this document.

3.2 The Minister of Justice is responsible for the process of appointing the Police Ombudsman (“PONI”) and for sponsoring his/her office (although the appointment is made formally by HM The Queen on the recommendation of the First Minister and deputy First Minister). In relation to all devolved matters PONI reports to the Minister of Justice. In relation to reserved or national security matters, PONI reports to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State may issue guidance to PONI on matters relating to national security. [added emphasis]

And a final extract

15 Organised crime

15.1 Organised crime remains a PSNI operational lead and the established procedures for management of national security information govern the passage of information from the SIAs to the PSNI. As in other areas, devolved Ministers will have access to relevant information in accordance with the principles set out in paragraph 5 above [in the protocol] to assist them in the effective conduct of their responsibilities. [added emphasis]

Particularly important in a situation where “a good friend” may be involved…

The baleful focus of Mr Robinson’s attention was the Ulster Unionist minister Michael McGimpsey who had earlier told members:

We are here due to Sinn Fein blackmail… I understand the anxiety of the DUP when it comes to facing the electorate.  In side deals there is something about the Irish language,  an Irish civic forum and an all-Ireland parliamentary forum and on-the-runs – what Gerry Adams calls a staging post…  If a Justice minister needs to call in the Army, where will SF stand then?” And – where is Nigel Dodds?

This you have to admit, was quite a good question. But with an eye to his own voters, Mr Robinson set about Mr McGimpsey whom he bracketed with the the absent non-member and DUP apostate Jim Allister. 

I support (the transfer) on the basis of the DUP manifesto of 2007, co-authored , voted for and campaigned on by Jim Allister

…
Mr Allister’s reference on the radio to the 2012 hurdle could not be disposed of quite so easily. Mr Robinson admitted that under D’Hondt, Sinn Fein could have chance of gaining Justice if they become the largest party ” but they will not become the largest party after the next election.” Clearly that’s a problem deferrred.  It was easier to scorn Mr McGimpsey’s claim that SF would oppose any move to call in the Army to deal with the dissident threat.

“Paragraph 2 of the National Security Protocol.  Any request for military assistance is a matter for the Chief Constable who has operational responsibility and is independent. I hope that kills off this Ulster Unionist nonsense”

Declaring that claims of side deals were “claptrap” he asked

“ where do they get this nonsense?  It is all complete trash.”

Contrary to the claims of Sir Reg and Margaret Ritchie who led it, the First minister praised the achievements of the working group on improving the functioning of the Assembly, even though they had last night turned down an FMDFM offer not to oppose bringing to the Executive any measure supported by three ministers.

“ But I make the offer again.”

The pledge of a more open approach to the operation of the four party coalition suggests that Ulster Unionist and SDLP complaints are about to be taken on board, notwithstanding Mr Robinson’s harsh words about the Ulster Unionists this afternoon.  Hopes will be raised that the UUs will soon be able to climb down from the uncomfortable hook on which they have impaled themselves. This and the imminent publication of the Robinson/McGuinness version of the CSI document together with the passage of the Devolution of Justice motion appears to set the Assembly on a far more positive course - with the caveat that nearly all the details have yet to be worked out.

On the transfer of Justice powers, a lot of devil will be in the detail. For instance SF’s Martina Anderson breathed fire against MI5

(“malignant, poisonous; some parties want to make them part of policing and then blame us for rejecting it “)

Now what party would that be? Surely not SF’s sturdy partner?

In an impressive display of his credentials, the SDLP’s thwarted Justice minister Alban Maginness laid out a full programme for the Justice Ministry that was so long he hadn’t finished it by the time his five minutes were up. The list contained a charter of rights for victims, prisons ombudsman, reform of the prison service, a new women’s facility and a new prison,  new accountability for the PPS, a criminal law reform forum and reform of legal aid. He would have no trouble spending the full £1.3 billion, even before we pay for all those police officers with damaged hearing

In a thoughtful and notably non partisan contribution based on her grassroots experience of a multi-agency approach to the problems of North Belfast,  SF’s Cara Ni Cuilin declared that great strides had been made towards ending criminality but that “gaps remained that will be plugged today.” If SF proceeds along these lines the outlook will surely be encouraging.
Late in the day Sir Reg Empey rose suddenly to treat members to a milder version of the McGimpsey speech so savaged by Peter Robinson . He was heard in silence as he read out woodenly from a text. Inevitably he approved of the devolution of P&J, but not to this lot.

“ We do not believe in transferring justice powers to parties that cannot agree on the transfer of children from primary to secondary schools… Th leaders have not had a single discussion about the dissident threat .or what to do when inevitable problems arise.”

The SDLP’s other champion of detail Alex Attwood derided Martin McGuinsess for professing joint working and erring on the side transparency.

“ It is not joint working to exclude the SDLP.. and to do deals over the heads of the community on a shared future and parading.. Let’s see the documents!”

In fact Margaret Ritchie had told the Assembly during Questions earlier that the CSI document will be published on Thursday.

Towards the end of the debate the DUP’s Edwin Poots threw in a squib nobody seemed to notice.

“ We’re getting rid of 50:50 (police ) recruitment at the end of the year.”

 
Has he shared this with anybody else?

And he repeated his rejection of the pursuit of “post-conflict justice”

Dr Ramos Horta was equally scathing about the issue of post-conflict justice in the Timor-Leste context. “When it comes to , everybody wants to do some experiment on democracy or justice. I simply say no,” he said. “The midget intellectuals who regurgitate academic jargon about justice can go on and on dispensing academic judgments on poor little us, but my people, whom I know well, they applaud the wisdom of my policies – that is: heal the wounds, reconcile, and move on . . . I am not going to play Don Quixote de la Mancha of justice to pursue every seen or unseen culprit of the past.”

As the Irish Times report also points out

Timor-Leste was designated a priority country by Irish Aid, the Government’s overseas development division, in 2003.

From 2003 to 2009, Irish Aid provided more than €30 million towards poverty reduction programmes and projects aimed at strengthening governance, human rights and public service capacity. The Department of Foreign Affairs also engages with Timor-Leste through its conflict resolution unit.

One hopes, for the sake of the people of Timor-Leste…

McGuinness wasted far too much time attacking UUs rather than say, pledging SF support for operational policing decisions.

Ulster Unionist Danny Kennedy, flanked by a mute Sir Reg, decided the best means of defence was +attack and gave us quite good knockabout. Where were the DUP MLAs missing form their own benches, “the abominable no-men, whose opposition may melt away in the early spring sun?” For those with long memories, Justice minister (putative) David Ford of the Alliance party was the Joe ( I buy anything “) Kavanagh of Stormont. Yesterday when Danny and friends were ordered out of the DFM’s office it was not a case of “ a Shared Future.. or Makeover Martin but Martin of the Bogside.”
Alex Maskey was relaxed about UU opposition In practice,  they were among among the many on all sides who were working the policing system “ 24 hours a day “.
Groans on either side of him greeted Alliance leader David Ford himself as he rose to his feet. He made the cardinal mistake of drawing attention to them.  He chose not to address the attacks on his own presumed candidacy for office, perhaps saving that for later. But it left him with little to say that anybody wanted to hear and therefore sounding sanctimonious, to more groans.

Ian jnr made a bold bid to steady DUP nerves by trying on the mantle of statesmanship even treating us twice to his key soundbite “to make this House noble instead of a House of ridicule.”
But it was SDLP leader Margaret Ritchie, voting for the powers but sounding as opposed to them as the UUs, who made the most substantial speech.  She slated the SF for “dissembling” that they had won DUP agreement to devolve Justice powers at St Andrews, compounded by the governments who allowed the claim to go unchallenged.  The Hillsborough “agreement” was “unclear, uncertain and unhelpful” and - ominously-
“we may be turning the clock back on parading.” On the secondary agenda of making the Assembly work better she was as sceptical as Danny Kennedy. The working groups? Going nowhere fast The FM DFM Cohesion Strategy report? She wasn’t allowed to see it.  Is this the right way to run a four party coalition?

A couple of procedural points. A major debate like this is severely cramped by over-tight time limits even on main speeches. No doubt standing orders were laid down to cut down on argybargy but this is far too short for a debate of this kind and restricts the number of interventions which are key to genuine debate.. On major occasions 20 minute speeches should be allowed by main speakers for each party and 10 minutes from the backbenches rather than five.

Chair Jimmy Spratt announced the third and final report of the Assembly’s Executive review committee on the nuts and bolts of transferring Justice powers, a solid piece of work greatly to its credit.  A harbinger of better things to come, it’s to be hoped. Back after lunch…

Another highlight - the Tasc approach seems to involve having our cake and eating it too. I.e. A roll-back of any spending cuts along with an increase in capital spending. Gurdgiev argues this isn’t possible & given the Greek Socialist Party are now implementing cuts does anyone seriously agree this is possible within the Eurozone?

The authors do not understand that increasing consumption – by borrowing at 5-6% per annum to give the money to our welfare system and to pay public sector’s obese wages is taking money out of investment. Instead, they seem to think that both: welfare payments increases and public sector wages can be sustained while increasing state spending on capital projects.

So do the simple additions. To maintain NDP investment at previously planned levels, on top of the current budget deficit we will need some odd €6-7 billion more. To return welfare payments to their 2009 levels, and to reverse pay cuts in the public sector and reductions in employment there, we will need additional €3.4 billion. These are all net of receipts. So the Exchequer will be borrowing some €29 billion this year - 18% of our GDP. What would the Greeks say with their current 12.7% GDP deficit and heading for 10.7%?

Update: Although in fairness to the Tasc position GDP would be higher under their expansionary route and thus the deficit may not quite scale the heights of 18%.

Philip Lane also has a response on Irish Economy.ie

dFM - so where are we at?
Danny Kennedy - un-helpfulness of the “3 days to sort themselves out” comment at the weekend.
dFM - UUP dug a hole for itself and kept digging.  UUP are now anti-Agreement.
Michael McGimpsey - UUP negotiated the Agreement and committed to powersharing.
dFM - Internal unionist in-fighting is threatening the institutions.  All UUP media appearances mentioned dysfunctionality.  Nolan loves that.
Empey - We are not anti-Agreement.
dFM - (rehearses an anti-Agreement argument.)
FC - We are not here to be lectured by you.
dFM - Then leave. (Shouted.)

Hmmm… I have to confess that I don’t get this. The DUP have been bending over backwards to get the UUs on board, even though the vote will go through tomorrow without any real controversy. Even George Bush has been dragged out to appeal to David Cameron not to wreck a deal tht the UUs are simply not in a position to wreck…

As they pointed out on the Now Show, political impotence is the order of the day from Washington to a post election Westminster government. And it really matters that the UUs don’t buy the functionality of the current arrangements at Stormont?

Not convinced it does…

Adds I think it’s worth adding a comment I made below

I’ve noted the US involvement here previously.

And it has been positive at times.

Particularly when they had leverage over certain parties.

But my feeling is that, this time, they’re being mis-briefed by other players.

JA Froude

there had been, was and ever will be but one way of governing Ireland, by putting authority exclusively in the hands of men of personal probity.. and loyal to the English connection.”

WEH Lecky an Anglo-Irish liberal unionist, declared his greater objectivity…
“

No one else in Ireland can supply the antidote ( to Froude).. for I have the ear of the English… and am one of the very few persons in Ireland who are not under the influence of an overpowering craze..”

Extracts from Owen Boycott in the Guardian

The 350-year-old writing is barely legible, the spelling across 19,000 pages of text erratic. The events they chronicle, however, poisoned Anglo-Irish relations for centuries, focusing attention on atrocities inflicted predominantly by dispossessed Irish Catholic rebels on Anglo-Scottish, Protestant settlers. The barbarities are still emblazoned on Orange Order banners and loyalist murals in Northern Ireland.
Professor Jane Ohlmeyer, one of the principal investigators at Trinity, believes that new language analysis methods will allow the documents to be explored “in a way we couldn’t have done 10 or 15 years ago during the Troubles”.
The rebellion, which broke out in October 1641, was a significant moment in the formation of identity in Ireland, she told the Guardian. Estimates of the numbers killed vary from 4,000 to up to 200,000. It began in Ulster but spread across the country. The depositions were ordered by government commissioners, many of the Church of Ireland clergymen, who recorded the victims’ testimonies.“They did it in the hope of obtaining evidence against the rebels and also as a crude form of insurance claim against lost property,” Ohlmeyer said

.

Contemporary historians’ verdict on 1641
Modern Ireland 1600-1972 Roy Foster pps 85 –86

What people thought of that bloody autumn conditions events and attitudes .. for generations to come.. But the reliability of those accounts must remain suspect.. These resemble a pornography of violence and the may indicate more about contemporary mentality than actual massacres… But there is more than enough evidence to indicate the horrific suffering of non-combatants.”

A History of Ulster Jonathan Bardon pps 137-138

Irish historians have been reluctant to accept these depositions as having any value.. Certainly much of the evidence is fantastic, exaggerated and even salacious.. but some of the statement are supported by other evidence.”

Mark also points out something to keep in mind if you’re going to take seriously what Shaun Woodward had to say about “those who had indicated support for the UUP” - he hadn’t anything to say about any other parties.

There have long been doubts about the reliability of NI polls when it comes to voting intentions and this is maybe born out by an equally surprising set of low figures for Sinn Fein in comparison to the SDLP. I don’t know how many people in the NIO commissioned survey declined to answer, but I gather that in the OFMDFM poll 26% of those who were interviewed over the phone refused to say which party they backed, whilst 13% gave no affiliation. [added emphasis]

So, as ever, a note of caution. But these are the figures given me unofficially.

NIO commissioned poll

DUP 26%
SDLP 21%
TUV 1%
PUP 1%
SF17%
UUP 14%
Alliance 8%
Green 4%
Conservative 2%
Workers Party 2%
RSF 1%
UKUP 1%

OFMDFM Commissioned Poll

DUP 30%
UUP 19%
SDLP 19%
SF 16%
Alliance 11%
TUV 2%
PUP 1%
Others 3%