We are also frequently threatened with mischievous defamation suits.

Similarly, as I refuse on principle to take legal action against those who defame me, there are a number of people who take advantage of the situation, by publishing unpleasant lies about me.

Dismal though it is to be lied about, it would be far worse to operate in a political culture in which it is not possible to talk frankly about issues of importance. That, I'm afraid, is precisely where we are.

Craig - I think you're a loonie, and a good chunk of what you write is conspiracist nonsense, but I'll defend you against any legal threats you receive.

"mercenary killers"...

http://tinyurl.com/yfwkayf

tinyurl.com/yzn9nm6

David T

Thank you. For the record, I think you are a warmongering supporter of the slow and excruciating genocide of the Palestinians. But I will support your right to free speech too.

Dear Craig

That is a good record, do you play football?

47- nil.

I only ask because the Scottish football has a reputation for being s**t.

Do you play in the centre or on the wing?

Well done, keep up the good work.

I liked your Quilliam Foundation posts very much.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

QED!

"a lack of fear makes things much less fraught"

That is so true.

Keep up the good work Craig, funded by the taxpayers. I agree with David T.

George Laird has still not explained what human rights have been compromised at Glasgow University.

Very droll eddie.

BTW just as a side note you have a typo in your post I think:

'Number of flasehoods published Nil'

Control

David T: I'd like to know what 'conspiracist nonsense'. So please, provide evidence (not from the commentators on this board, of course, but from the original post). I'm prepared to accept proof that you're a peace-loving person who has spoken out strongly against the treatment of the Palestinians (white phosphorous?) by the way.

I think you're doing an absolutely brilliant job but I think, though you haven't been sued, your blog is being attacked in another way through the spate of ridiculous and diversionary remarks.

Just goes to show that these cancerous vermin take you seriously, Craig.

That's quite a tribute when you think about it. You must now be even more sued than Private Eye. They felt it a badge of honour, before Hislop became so timid.

Amusing too that they don't take themselves seriously enough to follow through on their threats.

Eddie,

I do not receive any money of any kind from the taxpayer. I am a taxpayer.

I had a vague threat from Nottingham City Council on the basis that my blog might 'distress' some of their employees and councillors.

I largely adopted your approach to the Quilliam Foundstion ie to politely blow raspberries at them.

Not heard a dickie bird since.

Craig
You had six years' salary from the taxpayer, as you have admitted previously.

Wow, is it somehow fishy to be or have been funded by the state now? Better contact your MP, eddie.

Eddie, you have a very peculiar idea of what the word "funded" means if you think that Craig being employed by someone in the past, to do something quite different, means that his current activities are funded by that same person.

Perhaps disingenuous is a better word than peculiar. It's hard to tell if you're a nasty person or just a fool.

I suppose you think this comment I'm writing now was funded by all of my former employers, going right back to school-time work experience?

Craig was paid six years' salary by the FCO when he was booted out of his post. That is taxpayers' money amounting to several hundreds of thousands of pounds. Since then his source of income has been what exactly? Selling a handful of books? So on that basis I think it is a reasonable assumption to state that this site and all his current activities, are funded by the taxpayer. If not, perhaps he could advise.

I'm sure Craig was paid during his time at the FCO.

I very much doubt though that the FCO are paying him for this site. For obvious reasons.

I'm afraid I'd have to conclude that this Eddie is just a tad dimwitted.

Would explain his gullible views of course.

Craig - Any chance you could organise some kind of kindergarten or nursery forum for the Eddies and Larrys who wish to play at commenting, but without the embarrassment attracting on being considered a full adult?

It's surely not fair to expose them to this continual ridicule.

Dear Eddie

First let me say I am profoundly sorry that I didn't reply to you on the subject of human rights abuse at Glasgow University.

In my own defence, I can only say it is because you make such a low impact on this website.

I have found bog rolls more interesting to look at than your writing.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Yes, I agree with Craig Murray and David T that people shouldn't be silenced just because they are loony.

But I think that people who demand free speech for their loony views ought not to apply double standards by asking for others to be banned or censored.

(Admittedly it is cruel to expect logical reasoning from conspiraloons.)

It seems, Soba, that it is also cruel to ask you reasonable questions, given they vex you so.

"It seems, Soba, that it is also cruel to ask you reasonable questions, given they vex you so."

Like what?

This just proves that if you know you're right and you face these people down, they'll back off! I liked the way you dealt with the Quilliam Foundation's lawyers! As a matter of interest, did you ever find out what alarmed them so much by your little note that they hadn't filed their accounts? That must be the oddest of the 47!

'Quilliam ain't sin-ing-in an-y-more!'

'Whooose the bastard bombed Iraq ?'

47-0, those boys took one hell of a beating :)

Nice going. I hope Britain's "libel capital" status will soon be no more, if for no better reason than the embarassment caused by individual American states refusing to implementing the decisions reached by British courts.

A Taxpayer - I don't think you understand. Craig was given a lump sum of six years' salary when he LEFT the FCO. i.e. several hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money. Unless he has some other source of income then I presume he is living off that money and it is funding his current activities.

George - I didn't think you'd answer the question about your dimwitted campaign. Are they making you do some work or something horrible like that?

Eddie, are you getting jealous of people with a job because you will lose yours after the coming election ?

Don't worry so much, KFC have the odd vacancy.

It's a record to be proud of.

So Eddie, you're defining being compensated for an unfair sacking as being 'subsidised by the taxpayer' - what a load of rubbish. By that definition anyone granted compensation by an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal is 'taxpayer subsidised'.

Also everyone is 'taxpayer subsidised' through public services - the roads, the NHS etc - even if big private firms are now also even more heavily taxpayer subsidised through PFIs, arms export credit guarantees etc.

Why is it you're so outraged at Craig getting a few years pay for unfair dismissal but have nothing to say about hundreds of billions taken from patients, nurses , teachers and pupils and handed to PFI consortia?

Hmm, either way, I think Craig deserved a decent severage package, after the deliberately rotten treatment meeted out to him.

In any case, a taxpayer-funded activist is not a bad idea at all, we could use some of those :-)

@ eddie

I see. You're complaining that he may be using his severance pay to fund this site, amongst other things.

Of course he may use his severance pay any way he chooses. We're not quite in a fascist state yet, though new Labour tried hard enough to push us there.

As a taxpayer, I'm quite happy that there are still many good men and women who are willing to blow the whistle on wrongdoing by government. I see that as serving the general good of the nation as a whole, rather than the narrow interests of transient figures in government. Most of them do this at great personal sacrifice.

Sometimes government is so bad that people need to make a stand. The Blair/Brown regime is one of these. It's a very good use of taxpayers money to expose them. In fact it's almost essential that insiders do so.

I was a Labour supporter, even voted for Blair in 1997. Never again. Never ever again.

At some stage it might be a good idea to collate the names of all those who stood up against this evil government and tell their stories in one place. That would be a useful and illuminating way to spend taxpayers' money too.

Perhaps we could erect a statue to their memory in Trafalgar Sq. They really are heroes.

We could offset these expenses on the public purse by withdrawing all salaries and pensions from those who sat quiet and said nothing.

I'm just making the point that it's like the sow that ate its farrow. Craig gets huge payout from a Labour government for incompetence and then spends it on attacking same government calling them war criminals and all sort of other shite. But that's free speech innit? It just highlights the point that we live in a wonderful, inclusive democracy, where all kinds of dissent and anti socail behaviour is accepted and absorbed, just like the USA, where fools like Chomsky can get state-funded tenure and spend their entire careers shitting on the governement that feeds them (is it true that he has shares in Haliburton by the way?). Tell me that happens in any of the following countries and I will call you a liar - Cuba, Iran, North Korea, most of the middle east, Venezuela etc etc.

For incompetence.

On August 21, 2003, he was confronted with 18 charges including "hiring dolly birds [pretty young women] for above the usual rate" for the visa department, though he claims that the department had an all-male staff, and granting UK visas in exchange for sex. He was told that discussing the charges would be a violation of the 1989 Official Secrets Act. The FCO encouraged him to resign.[10]
He collapsed during a medical check in Tashkent on September 2, 2003 and was airlifted to St Thomas' Hospital in London. After an FCO internal inquiry conducted by Tony Crombie, Head of the FCO's Overseas Territories Department, all but two of the charges (being drunk at work and misusing the embassy's Range Rover) were dropped. The charges were leaked to the press in October 2003[16]. Immediately upon his return to work in November 2003, he suffered a near-fatal pulmonary embolism and was again flown back to London for medical treatment. In January 2004, the FCO, after a four-month investigation exonerated him of all 18 charges, but reprimanded him for speaking about the charges.

@ eddie

It's amusing that you think it's new Labour's money. Explains a lot about your mentality.

It's taxpayers money!!

The above error of yours is fundamental to your warped way of thinking about civil society. You quite simply don't get it!

Yours is the mentality of the authoritarian or fascist.

In exposing the wrongdoing of this government, people like Craig are doing the taxpayer a favour. So much so indeed that the taxpayer will be consigning your criminal government to the dustbin of history, where it so truly belongs.

The taxpayer ought to be giving Craig an extra few bob for his dedication and service to the public interest.

Eddie calls Chomsky a fool for his "state-funded tenure and spend their entire careers shitting on the governement that feeds them".

Chomsky has seen a lot of govts come and go, Republican and Democrat. Is Eddie suggesting that he ought to support each one and switch his view to what the govt in power at the time thinks?

Is anyone else coming to the conclusion that this eddie is just seriously hard of thinking?

The whole point of course is that we pay these great minds to apply themselves to the issues of the day, irrespective of what govt is in power.

They're serving a much greater interest than whatever govt is in power. New Labour and its supporters seem to have difficulty with the essential tenets of a civilised society. It's the same on the American right too.

They're quite simply neo-fascists, and let no one be under any illusion that that is what is at stake here. Luckily we will be rid of this lot soon, but there is much work to do still to ensure our democracies are strengthened to ensure that these evil people never have untrammeled power again.

eddie

are you so narrow-minded that you think we should celebrate this government because the only other possible options are regimes like North Korea/Cuba/Iran/etc?

"is it true that he has shares in Haliburton by the way?"

Who knows,but who would have guessed that you are as much of a conspiracy theorist as all the other "loons" here!

A Taxpayer - did I say it was Labour money? No I did not. I said he had the payout from a Labour government. The government of the day acts as a steward for taxpayers' money. QED. The rest of your rant is just drivel.

Woy, again you need to read more carefully. Chomsky is clearly not a fool for living off the state. In fact he is a very rich man who invests in all kinds of dodgy stuff and is a tax dodger to boot. A few quick google searches will elicit that information. Again, my point is that the Western liberal democracies tolerate these people, even though they spend their careers attacking their own governments and ignoring or even supporting FAR greater horrors elsewhee in the world, as Chomsky did with Pol Pot and other fascists, like Slobodan.

MS yes I think we should celebrate our governments and our liberal way of life. For a start it allows types like you and me to spout off in whatever direction we like without fear of being rounded up. See above, if you think my point about Chomsky is a conspiracy theory. He is a deeply unpleasant figure.

eddie

do you think a liberal government would not engage in dodgy dealings or lie to the electorate?

Of course they would. But then it is part of the democratic and electoral proces to expose such things. But I tell you what they would not do. They would not slaughter millions of their own citizens or lock up thousands of their own citizens without judicial process. If you know of an example pray tell.

An increasingly desperate eddie whines:

"A Taxpayer - did I say it was Labour money? No I did not. I said he had the payout from a Labour government. The government of the day acts as a steward for taxpayers' money. QED."

Well, yes you did actually. I quote:

"I'm just making the point that it's like the sow that ate its farrow. Craig gets huge payout from a Labour government for incompetence and then spends it on attacking same government calling them war criminals and all sort of other shite."

You're quite clearly saying there that because a Labour govt gives taxpayers money to someone then they should not criticize that Labour govt.

That's drivel, as was the rest of your post. All your posts indeed.

You quite clearly haven't the foggiest notion what you're whining about, and have no sense of the necessary competing elements in a democratic system.

You're quite simply a fascist, like the rest of your ill-educated ilk.

I don't think eddie is a fascist FWIW.

@ technicolour

Anyone who argues that those in receipt of taxpayers money should necessarily support the government of the day understands nothing about democracy, has an authoritarian mindset and is easily swayed by those corporate elites who wish to undermine democracy.

I agree that it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that eddie has any ideas of his own, but still he's the sort of uncritical twit who will serve as a willing dupe to the type of fascism which will ensue if we let it.

I suspect eddie wouldn't recognise fascism if it bit him on the nose. I agree with A Taxpayer that he would probably be rather comfortable in a fascist state. Provided of course that it didn't involve jackboots, funny moustaches or the persecution of Jews. In the case of other minority groups - muslims for instance - I think he's open to persuasion. Pushing against an open door in fact. On another thread he is desperately trying to argue down the number of Iraqi casualties. His arguments sound eerily reminiscent of those of Holocaust deniers.

I think he's just trying to say, and believe, that things aren't all that bad. On some very selfish level, since I am not currently being attacked, and so far we have all survived, I agree with him. I wish he wouldn't dash off into unsupported critical attacks at the drop of a hat, and it is very tiring to give someone facts over & over again & have them ignored, but I think his heart is in the right place, if that means anything.

I mean, one can hope.

Sorry, feel like I'm defending Blair. Eddie, give a sign that the time & effort everyone's spent in giving you facts was worth it, please. Otherwise why should we bother?

In fact, eddie posted this on another thread:

I think that sometimes people on these boards say things so outrageous that anglo saxon language seems to be the only appropriate response. Such as Craig, who I respect to some extent, likening Powell to Saddam. I think that is outrageous and unjustified and I think "fuck off" is the only logical response. Goering was right to some extent about victors' justice. We did some terible things in winning WW2, Dresden, the atom bombs etc but no one stood trial for these things, and who is to say that they did not save more lives in the long run? That is certainly the view of most historians about the atom bombs. So who is to say that we have not saved thousands of lives in invading Iraq, although many thousands have also been lost. This may sound like a specious moral argument, but it is one that Chomsky has made from the other side in defending red terror. History teaches us that sometimes, when we do nothing, it leads to more death and destruction in the long run. So I accept that Blair and his cabinet may have made a policy mistake (time will tell), but to describe it as a crime etc etc I think is wrong. I agree that the powerful can kill the weak, but it is not just about one country vs another. There is rarely any mention on these boards of the millions killed by Mao or Stalin in their own countries (Mao 60 million), or even the thousands suffering in the gulags of Korea or China, let alone Cuba. That is because the principal motivation of most of the people here is a rabid anti-Americanism that disgusts me, frankly. I think it is morally repugnant. And I did not say that the 58 million people who did not march supported the war, I just said that they did not march."

That is a point of view to engage with, I think. Could be wrong.

I have accepted that the IBC figures may be an underestimate but I completely refuse to accept that they are TEN times higher viz the Lancet report. I think that is just propaganda

sorry, that last bit was from eddie as well. argh, i am cluttering up the board with 'try and be nice to eddie' stuff. how sick.

"That is a point of view to engage with, I think. Could be wrong".

I think it's just backtracking and blether.

"I have accepted that the IBC figures may be an underestimate"

Just a bit. They include only violent deaths. They exclude deaths resulting from the destruction of the healthcare infrastructure. They exclude deaths from DU poisoning. They exclude infant mortality rates, now off the scale. They exlude everything other than a bullet in the head or being blown to pieces by a bomb.

A Taxpayer - for what it's worth I think you and MJ are idiots. I'm sorry if that offends you but a) you don't read what people write and b) if you do, you don't seem to comprehend it.

"You're quite clearly saying there that because a Labour govt gives taxpayers money to someone then they should not criticize that Labour govt."

I'm not saying that at all, and I suggest you read what I wrote again. To leap from that to suggest I am a fascist just makes you look silly, frankly.

dammit, MJ, I know. I posted it earlier. What to do? Is there really any point shrieking 'this many could have killed' at people? Well, actually 'at people', yes, but at one person?

And MJ you still have not engaged with my fundamental point that IBC is the best researched piece of work on deaths in Iraq and if they are wrong it is highly unlikely that they are wrong by a factor of ten.

Eddie, look at the ORB report. Eddie, no-one is saying that IBC are 'wrong'. Eddie, stop putting people through this.

no, take it back, carry on. are you having fun imagining the numbers of deaths and the way they happened? have you picked up the phone and talked to anyone? have you been there?

Plenty of people are saying they are wrong actually.

"I have accepted that the IBC figures may be an underestimate but I completely refuse to accept that they are TEN times higher viz the Lancet report. I think that is just propaganda".

They are numbers. Why not post them here, and we could do the sum ? I don't understand what the point would be, though ? They were measuring different things.

@ eddie

You wrote this. Didn't you?

"I'm just making the point that it's like the sow that ate its farrow. Craig gets huge payout from a Labour government for incompetence and then spends it on attacking same government calling them war criminals and all sort of other shite."

You're quite clearly saying there that because a Labour govt gives taxpayers money to someone then they should not criticize that Labour govt.

If not, what are you arguing?

Do you know?

Or will you have to check with the last loopy American shock jock who provides your baleful script?

You do realise they are handsomely paid to utter their drivel. They know it's crap.

What's your excuse, other than the one I offered you earlier?

Taxpayer - don't be a loon. I am not saying that at all - he can do what he likes, it's a free country and we live in a wonderful liberal democracy. I am just saying he is a hypocrite to do so. It's like a teenager who lives off their parents for years and yet slags them off and abuses their hospitality. Do you understand english?

@ eddie

How can it be hypocritical for someone in receipt of taxpayers money to criticize the government?

It's not the govt's money.

It's nothing at all like a parent's money.

Every MP from every party is in receipt of taxpayers money.

Are you arguing that they shouldn't criticize the govt either?

Why is it that you completely fail to understand the implications of the arguments you make?

He can do what he likes. It's taxpayers money, as I explained before. But he is a hypocrite for taking hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money, after being sacked for incompetence, living a life of luxury and turning on his former employer. That is my opinion. You clearly have a different opnion. Full stop. I hope you understand.

The point I've been making is that your opinions don't make any sense. You simply pluck them out of the air to suit the moment.

Upon examination they fall apart at even the slightest probing.

In short, you're quite simply not competent to give an informed opinion. You haven't done the work necessary.

You're just a passive consumer of the latest media fashion, a fool, a buffoon, a dupe, without any critical faculty of your own, and absolutely no conception of the complex issues you address.

It all requires much more work than lazy people like you are prepared to put in.

'Sacked for incompetence' is a lie. A lie this man has now repeated twice.

Taxpayer
Don't be a moron and a patronising twat. Anyone is entitled to have an opinion. Opinions are not built upon objective facts, they are built upon a subjective interpretation of facts, otherwise we would all think the same and then what would the world look like? Your opinions make no sense to me, but I support your right to hold them.

Patronising and pompous in fact.

@ eddie

You have neither opinions nor facts.

You have prejudices.

So do we all. You are clueless.

There was an idiot who used to post on Irish cultural and political newsgroups some years ago, before blogs, whose tediously repetitive screeds bore an uncanny resemblance to your inane and pointless utterances.

His name was Eddie Wall.

I hope it's you.

If there are two of you, we might as well all just give up now, sign up for Faux News and live out our days in ignorant, dribbling bliss...

I doubt you've ever paid any taxes in your life. Do you want us to carry on abusing each other or do you have anything significant to say?

Sadly, I'm not rich enough not to pay taxes. Deducted at source, I'm afraid.

But still. Happy to play my small part.

As to the matter of abuse, fear not. I don't feel abused by you, not even were you capable of such scintillating wit and barbed repartee as to demean me so.

You see. Such transaction would require that I value your opinion.

Nor am I abusing you. I merely hold the mirror of your words and you see what you see.

And if you're bored with little old me, I'm sure you'll find that Craig has much of significance to say. I trust you'll rip his arguments to shreds in your usual style.

Come on folks, let's not have a slanging match. It clutters up the board, and produces no light.

@eddie, I've mentioned the language thing before, since it looks like you are just trying to get up people's noses rather than have a civil debate. Please try to be decent to people - it's not that hard :o)

Thanks for the advice.

There is a simple way to offset risk of libel action. Stage 1 is to produce a document of facts you know you can prove blindfolded and standing on your head. You send it privately to your opponent, stating that you will release it publicly in, say, 10 days, and if there is anything in the document they feel aggrieved about, would they kindly inform you in writing within the 10 day period. This forces them to think and expend resources. Assuming no response, you publish. Then you produce a re-draft containing the next level of allegations. Continue until you have everything in the public domain. If at any stage they decide to sue, you have already learnt a lot about the way they think. And if they sue late in the day, you can justifiably say "Why did you not sue earlier!" I used this technique against a district council engaged in criminal activity over planning permissions. I had several properties, no cash, no lawyer, and was never sued.
Zen

Dear Eddie

"eddie, I've mentioned the language thing before, since it looks like you are just trying to get up people's noses rather than have a civil debate. Please try to be decent to people - it's not that hard :o)"

It seems that I am not the only to speak out about your language.

We are all big boys and girls on here so have no problem in people having a pop at us.

But you should consider that Craig is such a good writer that his blog is probably read by the younger community.

Craig has used robust language as well but generally in the context of his articles to convey an emotional feeling.

Firing the lead, no problem but we all have to exercise judgment.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Hi George - had a quick look at your site, but could not see any reference to human rights abuses at Glasgow Uni. Can you kindly provide a link?

You are right that Craig frequently uses abusive language.

Your post fills me with optimism for the future of my own project. Would you like an invite to Help Me Investigate.com?

If you are willing to buy a car, you would have to get the personal loans. Moreover, my father commonly takes a short term loan, which seems to be the most fast.

A very nice niche blog, and a good design there sparks Simplicity yet complex algorithm of the internet. Thank You.