CentreRight

Have we all the missed the point about the debate on the BNP appearance on Question Time?

The issue is not whether the BBC should have invited Mr Griffin. The issue is that the licence-fee payer had no right to make a decision either way.  In fact the licence-fee payer was disenfranchised from this decision.

I have argued before on CentreRight that licence-fee payers must be given the chance to vote on major decisions made by the BBC (including programming quality, executive and celebrity pay and the level of the licence fee).

Each licence fee payer would be given a vote via a Pin number, in which they could register their voting intentions on various issues.

Recent major controversies that the BBC has been involved in (Jonathan Ross, the Gaza charity appeal and now the BNP), have been all the more controversial, because the decisions made have been decided by senior management alone.

With most computers running a version of Microsoft, and so many businesses using the company for their commercial activities, the idea seems fanciful. Impossible even.

Yet, it seems to me that Microsoft is on the decline. Where once almost everyone depended on the company for a decent computer operating system, that is no longer the case.  This has happened for a number of reasons.

First the advent of smart phones.  Because mobiles have become - in essence - pocket computers, with powers of internet, word processing, photography et al, it means that people can carry out necessary tasks (like email etc), without having to rely on a mainframe computer.  In the same way the advent of the car liberated individuals to go exactly where they wanted to, when they wanted, so smart phones have provided a similar form of freedom.

There is no longer any need to carry a bulky laptop, or be tied to a desk monitor in order to have computing powers. Blackberries, iPhones, Google Android and Nokia Symbian mobiles have rescued people from the hold of Microsoft. Consumers can now email when and where they want to, and, use a host of computing powers, without ever needing recourse to a Microsoft machine.

Last night I saw one of the worst films I have ever seen.  It wasn't because it was bad. Far from it. In fact the story was accurate, the acting too real and the scenery entirely on location.

So, what was the matter?

I say it was one of the worst because the story was a tale of profound human misery - of man's inhumanity to man.

This film was called Shooting Dogs - about a particular and desperate episode, during the Rwandan genocide, when thousands of Tutsis were massacred at famous school in Kigali known as L'Ecole Technique Officielle.

I happen to know this school, having visited the buildings and walked around the classrooms.  I have seen the markings of Machetes on nearby trees.  The trunks were used for weapon sharpening, before the Interahamwe (the extremist Hutu Militia) went into into the school to slaughter the Tutsi innocents.

So I knew the backdrop to this film and I was aware of what had happened.

Although I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for ‘the Twitter Uprising’, we should not get too carried away with the idea that Presidential Candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, is some kind of Ghandi type figure, about to bring unbridled freedom in Iran.

It is true, he supports some domestic reforms, and some relaxation of strict Islamist laws (all of which is welcome), but the question is, where does he stand on the fundamental issues?

The signs are that Mr Mousavi, would not be much different from what has gone on before.  He helped create the feared Ministry of Intelligence and Information (which ruthlessly targets oppositionists).    There is also a fair amount of evidence that he helped found Hezbollah and was on its leadership Council during the 1980s – including arranging funding.  Unsurprisingly, Mr Mousavi has been a major proponent of calling for Hezbollah to be used as an attack force against Israel, and his views on Hamas are not thought to be much different.

It is worth remembering also Mr Mousavi, was Prime Minister of Iran during the purge of 1988, when many thousands of ‘political’ prisoners were killed, on the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Mr Mousavi’s term as Prime Minister saw renewed hostility towards America and his establishment of the Iranian chemical weapons programme.  His government brought nuclear centrifuges on the ‘open market’ thus setting in train the nuclear armament programme that is close to completion today.  I mention the above, not to put a dampener on the remarkable events in Iran, just to show that the outcome may not be quite what we wish for.

At a time when the economy is in freefall and all of us face ever increasing bills and higher taxes, it seems wrong that the BBC are planning to increase the licence fee.

Last year, the BBC spent £15 million on taxi bills and £14 million on plane flights.  Many of its presenters are overpaid - look at the millions of pounds that Jonathan Ross gets for example.  Some BBC senior Executives get more than the Prime Minister in salaries.

When MPs salaries and expenses are rightly being scrutinised, why is it that BBC journalists and employees can seemingly spend taxpayer's money - also on expenses and allowances - without any kind of public examination?  Astonishingly, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the whole of the BBC.

I have argued before on CentreRight that we need to democratise the licence fee, so that every licence-fee payer has the right to vote on the level of the increase on the fee, how they think the BBC has
performed and on the hefty salaries that are paid to high profile presenters.

I happen to enjoy and admire much of the BBC output - and am willing to pay for it.  Like many voters, I just want a choice on how my money is spent and not to have to fund unnecessary increases, when it is possible for the BBC to cut costs from its bureaucracy.

The call by Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt yesterday for a freeze in the Licence Fee, was a necessary first step in putting the public back in control.  It is a great shame that Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs chose to be so frivolous with Licence-Fee Payers' money and vote for an increase.

How is that the Speaker of the House of Commons has allowed a group of Parliamentarians, Clare Short amongst them, to host a live video link tomorrow, with a known terrorist, someone who advocates suicide bombings in Iraq and has been refused entry into the UK?

After all the recent goings on with the thwarted terrorist attacks – and arrest of a number of individuals in the North of England, what can possibly be the rationale for giving succour to such people?

Tomorrow evening, in Portcullis House, Khaled Maashal, a senior Leader of Hamas, who was denied a Visa, is instead speaking to an invited audience, through video.  If this were to happen outside Parliament, that would be bad enough, but to host a known and self confessed murderer in the Commons is beyond the pale.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, most people will be appalled that Mr Maashal is being given such a platform.  This is a man who is on the record, actively promoting ‘martyrdom cells’ in Iraq.  He has also argued that ‘Allah made a laughing stock of America’, urging for the world to submit to the ‘Arab Islamic will’.  This is not forgetting his role in supporting and planning a range of suicide attacks in Israel.  He is also regarded as instrumental in the Hamas coup in Gaza, which saw, Palestinian Authority members thrown off the rooftops, and 400 Palestinian Fatah members killed by Hamas fighters.

To the credit of Shadow Foreign Minister, David Lidington, he has contacted the Speaker, urging that the event be called off stating:

If this event goes ahead, a strong signal will be given to Islamist extremists in Britain and elsewhere, that Parliament is soft on terrorism.  It will give a propaganda boost to extremists over Palestinian moderates.  Above all, it will demonstrate that all ‘means’ – particularly suicide bombing – justifies the ‘ends’.  And those ‘ends’ usually mean an Islamic caliphate and the destruction of the State of Israel.

One of the most brutal aspects of the extreme Islamism of the Taliban, was the way in which women were subjugated and treated as second class citizens. The West's invasion of Afghanistan was designed not just to deal with Osama Bin Laden, but also to help rid the country of Islamist Totalitarianism and restore a sense of civility to the country.

Now we find that despite a semblance of the mechanics of democracy, the Taliban spirit lives on, even under those who are seen as so called 'moderates'. Today's Guardian and Daily Telegraph, explain how President Karzai - in an effort to win votes from Shias, in advance of the forthcoming elections - has signed into law, legislation which, in effect, allows husbands to rape their wives. If this barbarism were not bad enough, the new law also refuses wives the right to work, to see a Doctor, or leave the house without their husband's permission. The United Nations has condemned the new laws, demanding to see the full legislation - which thus far they have been denied.

Whilst I was a full supporter of the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda (and remain so) - who couldn't be after 9-11 - I can't help feeling that something, somewhere has gone deeply wrong. What is also going on in Afghanistan today, is also an important reminder, that freedom does not just mean holding democratic Elections. It has has to be about upholding the rule of law guaranteeing property rights, and above all treating all human beings equally and with dignity. President Karzai has failed this simple test of genuine liberty.

What is the biggest vote currently facing the nation? Is it the local elections? The European elections. Fat chance.  Does the answer lies in crisp packets?

In the old days, when a company wanted to develop a new product they might have a few boffins create the idea, followed by focus groups and some marketing here and there. After, the new product would appear on the supermarket shelves. It would succeed by its advertising and by a bit of luck. 

Walkers Crisps have turned this approach on its head. Instead of centrally announcing a new flavour of crisps to a munching public, the company invited people to send in recipes which were then voted on - by the public via the text or internet. The winning flavours were reduced to just six.

The company then released these six flavours onto the market and, as crisp lovers will know, are available at most outlets.  But Walkers didn't stop there at this exercise in crisp democracy.  Every packet bought carries a coloured rosette and allows you to vote (again by text or internet) as to which of the six flavours is preferred. The intention is that after the voting ends, Walkers will introduce the extra flavour based on the voting public's final say so.

I expect many political die-hards will watch Walker's Crisp Democracy with cynicism at another marketing exercise. Yet the truth is that more people will know about this Crisp vote than who their MEP is or local MP for that matter.

Last Saturday I read an article by the Chief Rabbi, which talked about the need for a new moral basis to the market economy - to return to a time when if someone said "my word is my bond", they meant it. The Chief Rabbi's argument was that bankers had got away with making huge errors, not just because of failure by Government or the market, but through the weakening of social capital - of values that differentiated between right and wrong.

I thought about this as I attended a dinner yesterday evening. A famous Peer and tough self-made businessman (who started one of our most famous retail chains), began to talk about the concept of 'duty of care'.   His argument was that the main reason for the financial failures by the bankers was not because of greed (this vice had always existed and would continue to exist in the future) but because of a failure of 'duty of care'.  In contrast to nurses, doctors and teachers, bankers and City folk were not bound by a duty of care - and this had led to the disastrous decisions that had helped ruin our economy (alongside Gordon Brown).  Rather than regulating, establishing a duty of care, would solve the problem of bankers mis-managing assets and savers deposits etc. 

Duty of care is defined by Wikipedia as:

I think this businessman had a fascinating thesis - the question is how one would establish a duty of care for bankers et al, that would be supported and respected by the profession and recognised by the appropriate authorities?  Incidentally, this businessman also said that he had once offered to fund with substantial sums of money, a Chair of Economic Ethics for a famous University in London. His proposal was turned down by the Dean on the grounds that economics was a science and did not have an ethical dimension.

I thought it was only socialists who indulge in the politics of envy.

We should be thankful that the party can attract the best.

As Tim Montgomerie blogs, the role he has played in stopping the left caricature us as the 'nasty party' has been crucial to our recovery. 

Hilton's recent creation, the baby poster ad about Gordon Brown's debt is hitting home with voters. How better to have creative brains devising strategy  - in contrast to Labour.

Hilton's worth is shown by our poll ratings, which are not too bad at present! 

Love bombing is not, as Tim Montgomerie wrote, about ‘appearing to agree with the electorate who vote Liberal Democrat’. It is a much more substantive strategy - and less cynical - than that.

‘Love bombing’ means distinguishing between the extremism of Liberal-Democrat party activists and the moderate views of those members of the public, who are not members -  but often vote for them.  The difficulties Conservatives have always had to contend with, is responding to the often hard-faced and extreme tactics of the Liberal-Democrat activists, particularly fighting in local and parliamentary By-elections.

In the past, Liberal Democrat shenanigans on the ground has provoked Conservatives into tarring all Liberal Democrat voters with the same brush and attempting to fight fire with fire.  As I understand Mr Pickles, ‘Love bombing’ means that, whatever the provocation, we should ignore machinations of the Liberal Democrat activists and go over their heads to woo moderate voters.  These voters will appreciate our stance on issues like Heathrow and Civil Liberties. Far from being a cynical approach, it is one which reaches out to mainly floating voters, and shows the Tory party to be speaking for them rather than responding to the petty politics that emanate from the Cowley St political machine, which, incidentally, is not nearly as good as it once was.

I have written before about how Labour’s attempts to tarnish Mr Cameron have fallen flat.  The most recent jibe, ‘the do nothing party’ far from hurting the Conservatives, could actually be helping – especially if recent polls are too believed. 

One of the biggest fears that voters in recent years had about the Conservative Party was that they would cut spending in vital public services, and raise interest rates (a la the 1990s, following the ERM disaster).  By repeating again and again, that the Tories are ‘the do nothing party’, Gordon Brown is unwittingly telling the electorate that they have nothing to worry about if the Conservatives come to power.  After all, if the Conservatives are the ‘do nothing party’, that means there will be no threats to public services or to the economy, if David Cameron wins the election. 

Mr Brown’s ‘do nothing jibe’, whilst sounding clever, is in reality, telling everyone, don’t worry ‘A Conservative Government won’t frighten the horses’.  The soundbite also hinders Ministers from their favourite line of attack, that the Tories have a secret agenda of hard right wingery, ready to be implemented the moment they win power.  How can a Party be described as having extreme right wing policies, if it is also the party that plans to do nothing? In one fell swoop, Mr Brown has rid the Tories of being ‘the nasty party’.  Moreover it is noticeable that even the media are growing cynical about the do nothing jibe, as they question contortionist Ministers about Conservative policies that prove entirely the opposite!

No wonder, Lord Mandelson’s friend and adviser, Mr Wegg Prossor, has urged Gordon Brown to use this jibe no longer.

Today was a wonderful day. 35,000 people, Jews, Christians, Hindus, all nationalities came to Trafalgar Square to stand up for freedom and against Islamist Terror. Despite attempts by Islamists to disrupt the demonstration through a counter demo and viral emails the day before, we were not to be deterred. The Rally was emotional but supportive of peace. Speaker after speaker urged the terrorists to give up their arms, recognise Israel and make peace. The rally showed that so many in Britain are determined not to appease Islamist terror and to defend Israel's right to protect her citizens from Hamas.  For once the Islamists did not have it their way.

Up to 300 hundred dead.   BBC Television pictures showing Israeli bombardments of Gaza.  The Islamist lobby out in full force.  President Ahmanidejad (Hamas’s financier), hosted by Channel 4.  It’s not really too difficult to get worked up about Israel’s actions. So easy to point the blame.  Much harder to separate truth from fiction – especially when the truth is often under reported  - if reported at all.

Let’s go back to 2005, when Israel withdrew – unilaterally – from Gaza. This action was designed to herald future withdrawals by Israel from much of the rest of the administered territories around the West Bank.

At the time, Israel was praised by many governments in the West for a bold and decisive action.  To jump start the economy in Gaza, millions of dollars were spent on agriculture and the building of green-houses by the World Bank – all of which were smashed up by Palestinian Terrorists - as Israel departed.  Other financial aid – again in the millions of dollars - designed for schools and children, were used by the extremists to promote hate education, and virulently anti-Semitic literature.

Instead of building a peaceful and viable Gaza, Hamas mounted an armed coup d’état against President Abbas’s Fatah movement (which included throwing leading ‘Fatah’ Palestinians off the rooftops).  Aided and abetted by Iran, Hamas gradually began the ‘Talibanisation’ of Gaza (in marked contrast to the more secular West Bank, still run by Mahmoud Abbas).  Not for nothing has Gaza become known as ‘Hamastan’.

Remember the Lebanon war in 2006? Whilst most people know that its catalyst was the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah (from the Israeli side of the border), what is less well known is that Hamas also kidnapped an Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit around the same time.

Although Hezbollah subsequently murdered the two soldiers (their dead bodies were given back to Israel in return for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners), Gilad Shalit - remains a hostage of Hamas.

In over 900 days of captivity, Corporal Shalit has not been allowed any visitation rights, or even access to any humanitarian organisations. Despite repeated demands from the International Committee of the Red Cross Hamas has refused Corporal Shalit the most basic of human rights.

Hamas has flagrantly violated every aspect of international law including humane treatment of their prisoner, the right of the family to know about his well being and the refusal to permit any kind of humanitarian access.

In order to assist Corporal Shalit and to put pressure on Hamas to grant the Red Cross to access, Parliamentarians across Europe (co-ordinated by European Friends of Israel), are leading campaigns to highlight the case of Corporal Shalit and urge the Red Cross to step up its campaign. In London, senior Parliamentarian and Conservative Deputy Chairman, Alistair Burt MP has led a delegation of MPs from all parties (including James Arbuthnot, Alan Beith and Andrew Gwynne) to lobby the Red Cross to ensure that humanitarian access for Gilad Shalit remains high on their agenda.

So said former Labour Home Office Minister Fiona Mactaggart at a Labour Progress Conference.  This was reported to me by an Immigration Officer and I was so astounded that I did a Google search and found it on BBC online.  According to Ms MacTaggart:

"One of the reasons immigration officers are shits is actually because some people cheat and they decide everyone is like that".

If this were a stand-alone comment, this would be bad enough. Yet Ms Mactaggart was backed up by Labour MEP Claude Moraes, who also rounded on the immigration officers, complaining about their 'professional standards'.

It seems astonishing that senior Labour figures can trash immigration officers, when it is the Government who caused the immigration shambles in the first place.  Immigration officers - under-resourced and working long hours - do a remarkable job, against the odds. No wonder so many of the profession are up in arms at the former Minister's comments.

If anything, this is a fascinating example of how Labour tries to turn its own failings in government into an attack on the professions. Who can forget Tony Blair's playing to the gallery at Labour conference about the 'forces of conservatism' allegedly preventing reform - when in fact the biggest roadblock of reform of welfare and the public services was Gordon Brown himself?  It also shows how Labour, piece by piece are losing touch with the huge coalition of voters who supported the party in 1997. It indicates an arrogance of a decade in power and a 'we are the masters now' mentality.  To label an essential profession - in part responsible for the safety and security of the country as sh*ts - without a moment's hesitation - shows just how far lost in their ivory towers, senior Labour figures have become.

For all Gordon Brown’s ‘tough talk’ on terrorism, in reality, the Government is actively permitting Islamist terrorists entering the UK.  Only recently, the British Embassy in Beirut, granted a six month visa to Hezbollah Journalist, Ibrahim Mousawi.  Mr Mousawi is the editor of Hizbullah’s newspaper al Intiqad and former head of Hizbullah’s TV station Al Manar.

Al Manar TV is a Hezbollah propaganda TV station, whose main output is to stir up hatred of the West and a pernicious form of anti-Semitism.  One of the classic outpourings of this station was to broadcast a thirty part series based on the notorious forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which claimed that a secret Jewish conspiracy plotted to take over the world. Mousawi was invited to speak at a “Stop the War” conference on 1st December and Jacqui Smith failed to deny him entry to the UK at that time. In marked contrast, he was to speak at a similar one in Ireland in October but was refused entry by the Irish authorities.  He has also been banned from France.

If we are to keep the Licence Fee, then it is time to emancipate those who are to forced to pay.  At present, whether the BBC is good or bad, no Licence-Fee payer has any genuine say-so about programming, no genuine right of consultation about BBC operations and no right to question the level of the Licence Fee.   Of course there are always the sham consultations (in which most things are decided in advance), votes in Parliament about the Licence Fee and an ability to complain by telephone, email etc etc etc.

But none of this amounts to very much in reality.  If the BBC chooses to over pay its presenters, do we have any real say?  If the BBC is biased, do we have any real right of address?  If we feel that the BBC need not own travel guides or even local radio stations, do we have any real chance of stopping it?  If we feel the Licence Fee is too high, can we get it reduced?  Of course not.  The BBC has a monopoly not just over broadcasting, but has put a straitjacket over every Licence Fee payer in the land. Just a little wriggle room, but no real movement.

Remember John Kennedy FDR?  Well we Tories should do well to remind ourselves of  the old adage; “we have nothing to fear but fear of Peter Mandelson”.  The way the media and other cognoscenti have been talking in recent days (witness Question Time last Thursday evening), you would think that Baron Mandelson was responsible for every plague, fire and pestilence that ever stalked the land. Just because J K Rowling funds the Labour Party, it does not mean that Lord Voldemort now runs riot (except perhaps on Radio 4 Today programme).

Yes Lord Mandelson is well versed in the arts of spin and was a formidable architect of New Labour.  But if he was so deadly, he wouldn’t have got into a position in which he had to resign from the Cabinet twice, be mired in yet another controversy and be loathed by so many of his colleagues on his own side.   All right thinking people should seek to change the narrative – and present Baron Mandelson for what he is – a lightening conductor for Gordon Brown and a shield against a leadership challenge.

If Peter Mandelson is Lord Voldemort, I am Harry Potter.

“I am sure this is the only way, and this is the way we love”.

So said Um Anaz, an 18 year old extremist Islamist in Gaza, when she was justifying becoming a suicide-bomber to a BBC Radio 4 Reporter on the Today Programme this morning. In what was a chilling interview, Ms Anaz observed that suicide-bombing should not distinguish between soldiers and civilians, was an inspiration from God and that she was waiting for martyrdom.   What was even more disturbing was that this interview was conducted as the background to reports that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are using the current ceasefire with Israel to not only re-arm (in the same way that Hezbollah have done in Lebanon), but also to train a new wave of suicide-bombers, with the intention of causing carnage in Israel if the opportunity allows.  The tragedy therefore is two-fold - not just that young Palestinian women are now being used and brainwashed to become suicide-bombers, but that Israeli towns near Gaza (like Sderot, which has suffered an almost daily missile bombardment since the Israeli pullout), are likely to once again live in daily fear from both the threat of missiles and terrorism.

As Hamas and Islamic Jihad have extinguished moderate Palestinians in Gaza, it is now clear that Gaza is now becoming a mini-Islamist statelet with a suicide bombing factory attached.  So when those siren voices call for Israel to do more for peace (despite unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza and asking for nothing in return), it is worth remembering that Israel is dealing not with moderate Palestinians, but Islamists, who believe that suicide bombing is a way of life and a necessary tool to achieve the destruction of Israel.  For peace to occur, whatever painful concession will have to be made, negotiations have to be conducted with rational individuals who have some regard for the sanctity of human life.  As Radio 4 showed all to clearly today, the tragedy for Israel and the Palestinians, is that the Palestinian cause has been hijacked by Islamist Terrorists who have neither regard for humanity nor care for a real peace.

After days of misogynist and elitist attacks by her opponents, Sarah Palin delivered a speech that was substantial and given with poise, humour and rhetorical flourish. Hurricane Palin swept through the Republican Convention in a way that few imagined.

She successfully turned the tables on her critics by standing up for small town America and stuck the boot into the Obama Campaign for inverted snobbery. This was a speech that reached out to Reagan Democrats. Hard working, small 'c' Conservative, aspirational voters, concerned about the Washington elite.

Mrs Palin showed that she was not afraid to take on her enemies and that she is no patsy. She also illustrated a deep attachment to Conservative values but showed that she would challenge the Republican establishment when wrong.  The Vice Presidential Candidate also demonstrated a deep understanding of the threats of a resurgent Russia by her comments about the Russian activities in Georgia and elswehere.  Even a former Clinton operative, Howard Wilson, interviewed after the speech, stated that her performance was 'priceless'.

This was not just a speech to reignite John McCain's campaign - which it clearly did, this was a speech of a future Presidential Candidate.  President Palin in 2012.

(Some final reflections on Rwanda).

Tom (pictured here) was my Assistant teacher and helped me greatly in the  daily English lessons, I gave to Rwandan teachers.  A good and wise man, Tom's story epitomised the old and new Rwanda.

In 1994 Tom was just 12 years old. When the genocide began, he and his family fled from the North to a kind of refugee camp in Kigali, thinking it would be safer.  One day as the Interahamwe (extremist Hutu Militia) closed in on the camp, Tom ran, and ran, and ran.

He ran so far that he eventually reached the Rwandan border, crossing over to the Congo, where he stayed until the genocide was stopped in July 1994. To get to the Congo from Kigali, is at least 4-5 hours by car, so Tom's marathon run was truly heroic. No doubt hiding from the Interahamwe on the way, and passing through scenes of the utmost tragedy, Tom fed himself on the odd piece of fruit or from food given by a passer by.

Incredibly, after the genocide, Tom was re-united with his mother and a brother who also had managed to survive. He never saw his father again and to this day has not found out what had happened to him.

Today I took the worst photo of my life.  So much so, that I have not been able to look at it on my mobile phone. I do not know if I will ever view it again - or whether I will delete it.

The picture is of rows and rows of human skeletons, heads and bodies.  Hundreds of these skeletons are on display at the Murambi Memorial Centre in the South of Rwanda.

Led by Andrew Mitchell MP, I and a bus load of other volunteers from 'Project Umabano' made the three hour drive to see this Memorial Centre earlier today. To get there, you drive Southwards, through the major town of Butari and pass through green vallley hills of quite unimaginable beauty.  The Memorial itself - a former school - is surrounded by these hills and it is almost like the hills represent heaven as opposed the 'hell' we visited.

Murambi Memorial is a former school  in which the most hideous tragedy occurred at the height of the Rwandan genocide.  On 21st April and 22 April 1994, around 50,000 Tutsis were massacred by the Rwandan army, having been baited and attacked by the Interahamwe (militia) in the days before. 

Thousands of Tutsis had gathered in the grounds of the school in the hope of avoiding being slaughtered by the Interahamwe. For days, they lived in terrifying conditions as the water and electricity had been turned off.  Many were left drinking the blood of animals in order to try and survive.  On the 21st April, the order was given for an organised and systematic massacre and the army were given licence to kill all the 50,000 Tutsis, in just over 48 hours.