Customer service representatives from Vodafone have justified cutting off telephone communications in Egypt using ‘national security’ as an excuse.

The statement was made to Liberal Conspiracy reader and Green party candidate Rupert Read in a reply to a query.

The email read:

From: Webform
To: rupertreadrules@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: Restoring coverage [#5593488]

Thank you for your email.

Vodafone restored voice services to our customers in Egypt on the morning of Saturday 29th January, as soon as we were able.

The decision to cease service, in certain parts of the country, was made following instructions from the Egyptian authorities. The authorities have the right to instruct operators to take extraordinary actions on national security grounds, and the operators are required to comply. Moreover, we would like to make it clear that the authorities in Egypt have the technical capability to close our network, and if they had done so it would have taken much longer to restore services to our customers.

It was therefore clear to us that there were no legal or practical options open to Vodafone, or any of the mobile operators in Egypt, but to comply with the demands of the authorities.

Moreover, our other priority is the safety of our employees and any actions we take in Egypt will be judged in light of their continuing wellbeing.

Regards,

Vodafone Customer Services

Rupert Read told us:

Do you know what you are saying here? You are taking the side of a dictatorship that has been suppressing and murdering its people, in the name of national security…
Frankly, it’s no wonder that more and more people in this country are campaigning against you … and that with the hundreds of thousands of protesters in Egypt, your name is mud.

Pretty much.

Update: Great article by Salil Tripathi on what other steps Vodafone could have taken

Late last year I reported that Cameron’s net satisfaction ratings were falling off a cliff right from the beginning.

You’ll be pleased to know that the trend is continuing very strongly.

According to Ipsos-Mori, where the poll comes from, Cameron’s net satisfaction rating has fallen by 18pts since December.

The government’s approval rating overall is at -31 points (61% dissatisfied, 30% satisfied). That’s just around 9 points away from YouGov, which gives a approval rating of -22.

It’s unlikely Cameron will fall as low as Gordon Brown but he’s heading straight there.

The release of the Guardian’s book on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks today has definitively poisoned relationships between the two behemoths.

The latest salvo was fired by WikiLeaks last night when it tweeted:

Guardian names Manning as source. Sarah Tisdall mark 2. The slimiest media organization in the UK. http://is.gd/GT0tzF

That leads to a Telegraph article that states:

The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, of The Guardian, name Specialist Bradley Manning, the soldier being held in a US military jail, as the alleged source of the information which was passed on to The Guardian by WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has repeatedly refused to confirm that Mr Manning was the source of the information.

Ouch. So, was the Guardian responsible for ‘outing’ Bradley Manning?

I asked David Leigh whether the Guardian had indeed outed Bradley Manning as the source, making US prosecution against him much easier.

James Ball replied, saying that the Guardian book merely rehashed what Wired magazine had already published several months ago. The same account was detailed in the Telegraph back in November, he points out.

So the Guardian did not reveal any new information, but should there be concern that the book will be used as evidence against Manning if and when the US does eventually decide to prosecute him.

WikiLeaks went on to add:

It should be noted, that as far as we know, neither we, nor the Guardian have any inside knowledge as to who the sources are.

But co-author David Leigh took to Twitter to hit back, repeatedly, saying at one point:

@wikileaks All the #guardian book says abt bradley manning is already in public domain. Of course we don’t name a “source”. Why Lie, Julian?

He also replied to me saying:

No, it’s not “evidence” to repeat Manning public domain material. Evidence is direct knowledge

It’s odd then that the Telegraph has packaged this as a story where the Guardian has ‘outed’ Bradley Manning as the source.

The article has no quotes to back up its allegation, nor any new information that would suggest the book contains more than what it has already published.

All that aside, it clearly signals that relations between WikiLeaks and the Guardian have broken down to an extent where the former is willing to misrepresent its former media partner of choice.

Eye witness accounts for the nationwide UKuncut protests today say that the police use CS gas pepper spray on peaceful protesters in London.

Around 3pm outside Boots on Oxford Street today, a female activist tried to push a leaflet through the closed door of Boots explaining the details of Boots’ tax avoidance to the staff.

A police officer then arrested the individual for “criminal damage”.

Around 20 people tried to help the female being arrested and 10 were subsequently pepper sprayed with CS gas. Ambulances had to be called and three people have now been taken to hospital.

Anna Williams, who took part in the UKuncut action, said:

This is yet another example of political policing that is about protecting corporate interests and not those of ordinary people. We will not however be intimidated off the streets! We have a right to protest when the government are making unnecessary cuts that will hit the poorest in our society the hardest.

Earlier today writer and Dr Ben Goldacre tweeted:

When I went on #Ukuncut it was a really strikingly peaceful protest. Interested in justification for police pepperspraying ppl in face.

Tweeter Linda Marric said:

Way to go Cameron! CS gas being used on peaceful protesters. Is thus [sic] fucking Cairo?

Some pictures from today’s London action here.

Updates:

Also worth asking – why were armed police called? @TheThirdEstate confirm they asked and were told the police were definitely carrying guns. Apparently they were diplomatic protection officers

» Gary Dunion points out: Pepper spray is so dangerous it is under a Firearms Act general prohibition – i.e. civilian possession is completely banned.

» A Boots Twitter account today tweeted that they too were “disgusted by police behaviour” today. [it has since been deleted]

» Gary Dunion has filed a FOI request to ask whether the police are carrying pepper spray illegally.

» Tim Hardy was there and has written up an account.

More updates
The Guardian report has the police confirming that CS gas was used, without further explanation.

Protesters said staff at Boots had been shocked by the police tactics, and took those who were suffering from the effects of CS spray into the store and offered them free eye wash.

» A video by Dawn Foster just after it happened