Anyone else see what the redacted paragraphs said, and ask, “Is that it?”

The notion that the United States has been complicit in torture and mistreatment of detainees is beyond question – the only question is the extent to which the types of policies, documented by Philippe Sands in “The Torture Team”, have since been walked back.

Can anyone tell me what precisely was the significance of the information redacted in this case? I get that intelligence sharing protocols on confidentiality etc are nigh sacrosanct, but the whole government posture with respect to this case was that what was being witheld would if published cause major embarrassment. So what particularly was so embarrassing, when we now know waterboarding and other torture techniques were once official US policy?

Keep watching friends…don’t say i didn’t tell you so.

Keep them mirrors shiny.

Samuel Pepys styleeeeee.

Ed,

“Is that it?”

Well yes, but then you read the related stuff, and you see an enormous can of worms, not only open, but the buggers are crawling all over the place.

I’m a simple soul from Oldham, and don’t ask, nor expect much from my Government.

However, I expect my Government, to not only uphold The Law, which actually comes from the Common Man, rather some elite, but to also uphold the very basic tenets of human morality.

Whilst my Cat may Torture a Mouse to Death, my Cat dosen’t torture other Cats to death, and we do not live in the Middle Ages.

How else can I explain My Disgust, that my peers in the Year 2010 are not as Disgusted and enraged as I am at the Treatment of a Fellow Human Being.

Irrespective of the suspicion of evil, committed by others, if the Government is in any way suspected of even complicity in the Torture of Other Human Beings, then it loses all Moral Authority to Exist as Government.

It is On The Path To Barbarism.

The Law Applies To EVERYONE

Tony

I’m not sure what this means, or whether I agree with the meaning.

But take a look at this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00682/TTM102701CC_RGB1-co_682716a.jpg

Tony

Sorry, I didn’t ask my question very clearly. My view on torture is exactly as yours, my question was whether information about the torture or mistreatment of Binyam Mohamed could be considered potentially embarrassing when it is now widely known that this is what America did to suspected terrorists.

Having read a bit more about the case, it seems the Lord Chief Justice looked at this redacted text and decided it was not genuinely secret. I can only assume because of what we now know about official US policy.

So perhaps my question here has been answered… still, nothing short of a full investigation of UK policy on torture in the Blair years will be enough to draw a line under this.

Ed,

I understood your question completely.

My respect for the Judiciary has risen considerably.

I have No Respect For Any Members of The Government, Nor Any of The Civil Servants who Stayed Silent who Knew What Was Going On.

Craig Murray Could Have Gone Along With This Evil – and May Have Become The British Ambassador to The USA by Now.

Thank God For His Courage.

Where is Everyone Else?

Cowering Their Heads in Shame Whilst Slurping At The Trough of Evil and Greed?

Or Organising Their Hit & Torture Squads To ANYONE Who Dare Complain?

Tony

Why the silence?

John Pilger describes it all rather well:

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=555

Or you could take the Dick Smallpenis approach and just dismiss it all out of hand:

On “Binman” as he called him.

“Meanwhile, the usual useful idiots will have a field day, filling their boots with legal aid, and using his unsubstantiated claims of torture to bash America and undermine our own security services. Makes you proud to be ‘British’.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1153360/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-bras-panties-Straw.html

To torture a British politician all you seem to have to do is to threaten some kind of embarrassment, then they run for the Kleenex. Binyam Mohammed had to be put on the rack, deprived of sleep and then face a British court – and he still has self-respect.

I feel ashamed to be British. Miliband is a slimy lying fathead in the image of his makers: Blair, Straw and Campbell.

In my opinion many of the people tortured are entirely innocent. Torture was used by the US/UK to get confessions to confirm the existence of a ‘terrorist’ Strict Muslims were used to add credence to the belief that a particular person was engaged in terrorism.

The judiciary’s decision today actually made the News on Music Radio today.

Now, you might not think this is important, but whoever is the news editor on the Music Radio Station I am currently listening to, obviously thought it did

I Rarely Watch Mainstream TV News, because most of it is BLATANT Government Propaganda – like you used to get in Obscure Third World Countries 30 Years Ago.

I thought how can they put up with such shit?

So I asked them, and although we had a bit of a language problem – after awhile we understood each other completely.

Unless you turn the TV off for a considerable period, and then turn it on again, you don’t realise how you are being programmed.

Everything you think is being delivered subconsciously when your brain is an open receptive non-critical state

If you read books instead, you might find that some writers also write complete and utter shit, but many write some extremely well researched obvious truth.

The words are revealing.

Tony

This doesn’t restore my faith in the judiciary at all. In this case it’s quite plain that the UK has been complicit in torture. Releasing all the evidence doesn’t really add to anything.

The judiciary appears to go against the government but is vital for the judiciary to give the semblance of being impartial. In cases I’m familiar with senior judges have quite deliberately refused appeals to hide state crime.

Ruth,

Neil Armstrong Said as The First Man On The Moon…

Well acually he didn’t, but that is not the point – most people thought he said it on the moon, and if you don’t give credit when it is due – just a little bit of encouragement – when you think the judiciary have actually said

Well, if we don’t slag off the British Government now, cos They are TOTALLY OUT OF Order

And They Didn’t Even Get a Place on The Chillcot Whitewash?

You See I Have Met These Judges and Their Wives in India

And They Want Their Kids To Enjoy The Same Priviledges

Otherwise They Worry that The Arsewipes Like Me, Might Get Arsey

And I don’t begrudge them dishing out a bit of Justice when it is DUE

I Do Not Want Anarchy and Civil War

I Want The Rule of LAW

And I KNOW it REALLY PISSES OFF The REAL ARSEWIPES When OLDHAM TWATS Like Me, DEMAND That WAR CRIMINALS IN GOVERNMENT Should Face a Fair Trial

I just ask and demand that they should be treated the same as any other suspected criminal.

They may actually be innocent.

I just want to see a bit of justice, and I am not going to get it by slagging the judges off.

You may be surprised about the places that working class oiks from Oldham get to.

But we’ve only got one world

And even High Court Judges go on holiday

They don’t half talk posh though and expect India to be like it was in Their Father’s Time, and to My Surprise Some Parts of India are largely untouched by events over most of the last 100 years.

I do admit I was really surprised, that the Press in India, still is written in the same flowery language as it was in 1920, but the World is a big place to be discovered providing you get off your arse and travel.

You may be as amazed as me at what you might find

Is that OK My Lord?

Tony

Miliband uncomfortably squirming and acting very uneasy on UK C4 7.00pm news while being interviewed this evening showed me how very worried the party must be.

They made their dirty bed. Now they are attempting to lie badly in it.

Hi everyone,

Just popping in – in a rush. Did you notice that Tony Blair said recently in regard to his evidence at Chilcot that people were looking for “conspiracy theories” about the lead-up to Iraq? I think he said it on Fox News.

I’ve been watching Jon Snow on Channel 4 News interviewing Miliband (that slimey lying slug) and he, Miliband, has just used the expression “conspiracy theory”. Jon Snow queried him about a government lawyer writing to the Justices in the Binyam Mohammed case to get them to water down their final conclusions (as I understood it) saying that they kept that letter secret from the other lawyers until 11am the morning after it was dispatched, when it was too late for them to do/say anything. Miliband tried to smile, and told Jon Snow to stop looking for “conspiracy theories”.

Watch out for them trying to discredit criticism/opposition with the phrase “conspiracy theories” from now on …

Doesn’t matter how much they blab on about conspiracy theories.

They’ve already been caught. The threads of their conspiracy and deceits are unravelling before our eyes.

Most people now quite openly know that the Blair gang were involved in a conspiracy to take the country into war they knew to be illegal. As each day goes by we see more and more evidence of these criminals and the tactics they employed to subvert and undermine all the elements of due process and diligence and any person, body or institution of the state that might have thwarted their criminal plan.

No one is any longer fooled by any of them. These are criminal gangsters pure and simple, and their day of reckonning will come.

We all knew he was guilty as charged, because he told us all the truth.

But his ex had learned from her friend how to almost completely destroy a man who still loves her and is the father of her children – but She (in both cases – had found someone else – and wanted to take EVERYTHING he had – his wife, his home and his children)

And so I just wrote everything down about the entire history of all related parties and submitted the evidence to the courts for consideration.

His only charge, was for breaking an injunction against him.

He was banned from anywhere near the family home.

He just wanted to see his wife and kids who he still loved.

He didn’t harm them in any way. He just wanted to talk.

And so after being arrested and spending even more time in jail and shackled and transported to the court by the outsourced security company.

The judge found him guilty

And Gave Him a Complete Discharge

He said You are Free To Go

He’s Over Her Now

And His Latest Girlfriend, who he has now been with for around 5 years is Completely Lovely and They Are Still Very Much in Love

Whilst Waiting In The Courtroom to Give Evidence – This Guy Came Up To Him

And Said What Are You Doing Here?

He was Completely Convinced (As I Was For awhile when I first met him) That He was in The Rolling Stones.

He Ain’t. In Fact He’s Younger Than Me.

He has survived a Major Cancer Operation and Has a Colostomy Bag That No one Knows about

And He Looks as Fit as a Fiddle

Tony

Hi Craig, I’m surfing by from the US, pardon my ignorance, but I clicked your link to your youtube testimony, and I’m trying to understand more about that quickly and I see it’s lengthy and serialized — when did you testify, what was the context, the before and after, and is there a link to a transcript or news coverage of that that you thought was good? (the link in the youtube info simply goes to UK Parliament website, not a specific moment, and I get over 700 results when I put your name in the search box there) Just trying to understand… many thanks for all you do.

Regards,

Me

But…nothing will happen…..ever. Labour will most likely go sometime during summer, and we get the Conservatives. Same as Labour really. Will be elected on a pack of lies. Most likely if you look back at party campaign literature and the promises made, you might find they did things differently from what they said they would. Still even if Labour had said they were going to bomb Iraq & Afghanistan, restrict human rights, sign up to Lisbon and make your kids pay billions in tax for years to come I am sure some folk would still vote Labour. Thats all they know.

I did my dissertation on China’s four largest commercial banks some years ago. I managed to speak to an employee of the Chinese central bank in person, I asked him why the banks had not paid any money back..he said that because banks and asset management firm state owned there was no need to pay any money back. I believe the money loaned to the banks will never be repaid. How much did the BOE pay for the distressed and worthless debt, do you know. The money was stolen from and the taxpayer will foot the bill.

Please take note that no word on torture has been made that I know by David Cameron.

Can we trust this man, or is he more of the same. I believe he is and I hope astute British public will come to the same opinion.

Ishmael,

There is Enough Food, Water and Energy On This Planet For All Life To Survive Including Us Human Beings – In Peace and Harmony

Sure We Have Problems But We Also Have Elegant Solutions That Almost Everyone Can Agree as Reasonable and Sensible.

We Just Need To Discuss All Our Problems and Potential Solutions as If We Are All EQUAL Human Beings

Now There is a Tiny Extremely Powerful Elite Who Don’t Want Us To Do This Because It Will Gradually Dilute Their Power…

But then they might agree when they think about the alternatives, because we are not going to take this shit any more

We all Know The Bankers are Wankers, But My Wife Has Worked in Banking, and My Perception Of Most Of Them is That They Are Just Incredibly Stupid Greedy Cunts But Not Intriniscally Evil

Most of Them Just Want a Fuck and a Line

Sure They Don’t Really Like Anyone Not Even Themselves Or Their Wives and Kids – Its Just Like a Sport To Them…

They are not a problem that cannot be solved, but the best change is gradual, such that people don’t realise much.

Inflicting pain on someone else only gives pleasure to the evil.

I watched Marnie with My Wife, last Night.

I had seen it before.

It was made in 1964 by Alfred Hitchcock

Marnie knew she was totally guilty but she was distraught for the horse, and had to do the right thing even in her Psychotic state.

She Blew its Head Off – Though Of Course We Didn’t See The Details Cos it Was Made in 1964 After JFK

Tony

I cannot see Cameron acting any differently. After all he is complicit and accepts gratefully the same sort of none UK political lobbying and funding as many of the current government similar to many others of his own party.

Vote for one of the independents or an honest backbencher and try to avoid the corrupted. Check out the MP relationships with others. Find out who serves you rather than serving other influential interests.

You see these City Guys – Most of Them in London – Are Barrow Boys From The East End – Who Have Now Moved Out To Essex and The Cayman Islands…

Fuck Knows Where The Wall Street Boys Come From – But I Reckon I have an Idea…

The thing is none of these cunts learnt the lessons of “The East India Company” – Traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpetre, tea, and “OPIUM”

The idea is that you fuck over an entire Continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

You are Not Supposed To Take Part Yourselves

Which is Something I Have Never Done.

Sure I have Done Pounds Shillings and Pence and I May Have Shagged Mary Jane, But I gave it all Up in 1985…

And I have seen such messes in people who drunk far too much alcohol and stuff, and my girlfriend a long long time ago told me about Neil Young and the damage done to her friend who ended up in a coffin.

So drink Nescafe and Speckled Hen Instead

Or Read Some Recent History

http://www.peterdalescott.net/q.html

Tony

Me,

I suggest you get hold of a copy of Craig’s book “Murder in Samarkand”. It tells the whole story plus loads of other details and sub-plots, reads like a novel, and is a real page-turner.

“But…nothing will happen…..ever.”

The more we tell ourselves that, the more likely it will be to come true.

I’ve been saying on Irish blogs for the past year that we sit down under the shit the government throws at us — the government that was hand-in-glove with bankers and “developers” and left us holding the baby when the whole thing collapsed. We whine and whine in blog comments, and do nothing. If the Greeks can take to the streets why in hell can’t we?

I’m tired of listening to people telling me that nothing will happen and nothing can change. Well naturally it won’t, if that’s the attitude.

We need massive sit-ins at government buildings. We need massive sit-downs on the streets. We need to make ourselves felt, and heard, and get arrested if necessary. We need national strikes. We need to tell them that they GOVERN ON OUR BEHALF – AND AT OUR DISCRETION.

[Why do I have images in my mind of women knitting in front of a guillotine?]

Follow the money.

Two of the biggest funders of the political parties are the Israeli lobby group and the banks. Next in the US are probably the insurance, medical, oil and defence industry companies.

Our ‘democratic’ agendas are set by the huge cheques to the political parties written by these lobby groups, long before any vote gets cast in any election.

Look no further.

Tony,

You are not allowed to mention the Israeli’s on here unless you are an Israeli. I Tried doing once, and my post was deleted before I could even correct it for spelling mistakes, which of course you also can’t do on here.

But Gilad Atzmon can get away with it because he is an Israeli and Can Play Drums or Something

He Just Blurts it Out

I Still Haven’t Heard Him Play

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/britain-you-better-wake-up-by-gilad-atzmon.html

But he don’t half fucking write and talk.

I suppose he is a bit like an ex-smoker

Tony

Cameron models himself on Blair, and employs precisely the same modus operandi as Blair to undermine local democracy and opinion in his party.

They already understood that there was no democracy in the voting system, nor in parliament itself once elected. The only democratic link left to destroy was the local party. Labour destroyed theirs under Blair in the mid 1990s. Cameron is doing the same to his today, undermining his local Conservative associations, only the latest example being this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7199532/Joanne-Cash-will-stay-as-Tory-candidate-after-24-hours-of-confusion.html

It’s all very straightforward. These people don’t like democracy in any form.

They like big business and centralised control.

It’s called fascism.

It’s true that the only way out of this is to vote for independents across the country, on a platform of ensuring that none of these criminals, gangsters or fascists can ever have unchecked power again.

We need urgently to develop a modern checks and balances constitution. The British one is much too easily abused by fanatics like Blair and we must ensure that it cannot happen again.

I had learned of Craig when I read his post in Consortium News last October, How a Torture Protest Killed a Career: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/102409b.html. Since then I’ve bookmarked his blog and I check into it now and then. (I’m perplexed that I don’t see him in the lefty blogs as the go-to guy for commentary about the UK Iraq hearings — ? waiting, waiting…) Today I heard and cheered the news about Binyam Mohammed, on our local NPR public radio station, and so checked in here again for a quick look.

Looking back now over at the original Consortium News article, I see Craig includes a link to his post here about his parliament committee appearance March 13, 2009 (ah!): http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/03/trying_again_my.html .

Anyway, a lot to digest later, I was just hoping for something big and plain about the parliamentary hearings he referred to that I could grasp quickly. (I’m in America, remember–crappy torture news coverage–plus I have a short attention span and 20 windows open

Thanks,

Me

As you can tell, watching Miliband made me very, very cross. Goodnight, all.

I am the first to admit that I supported both The Falklands War and The First Gulf War…

But with the First Gulf War – I didn’t Understand Why They Made The Musicians Change The Bands Name, and didn’t even think about it for the Second Gulf War

As if It Didn’t Fucking Matter.

I Now Know All The Detail Leading Up To The First Gulf War, and if I had Known What I Know Now, I would not have supported it – but would have been protesting, except I was too busy working and having Babies

Now All I Can Do is Complain

Will The Fucking Bands Put Their Names on Their CD’s (I tend to be a bit chaotically disorganised)

Sure it Totally Matches The Colour and Theme Of Our Top Room That My Wife and Son and Even Me Have finished Decorating Today

BLACK AND WHITE AND STARS

And Sometimes You Just Have To Ask

Why The UK Government Insisted in 1991 That

MASSIVE ATTACK Change Their Name To MASSIVE

And Didn’t in 2003 When It Was Even Worse

And Why I Am Now Listening To The New Album HELIOGOLAND which arrived today at EXTREMELY HIGH VOLUME with a Lazer Machine Shining STARS

Perhaps We Can All Get Ready For a

MASSIVE ATTACK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EatYdFw3eHo

Tony

Labour friend of Israel, Denis McShane, explains his curiously excessive expenses claims on the British taxpayer:

“I did not come into politics to manage budgets, supplies, staffing etc, and I am the first to acknowledge this has not had the important and detailed attention which with hindsight I now realise I should have provided,’ he said.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196038/Labour-MP-Denis-MacShane-claims-expenses-laptops–just-years.html

Is it important that this waste of our time and money is a “Friend of Israel”?

Yes. Very much so. Being a “Friend of Israel” guarantees an easy life and indeed access to further monies from Zion.

Does anyone really think this person has the interests of his constituents at heart, or is he looking after his own interests?

Let’s look at what it’s like if you REALLY have an interest in international affairs.

Jenny Tonge is a friend of Palestine, not so popular these days. She got no easy money nor easy life.

She stood up for Palestinians and lost her front bench job in the Lib Dems. Yes. Even the Lib Dems are afraid to tell the truth about the Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinins from their homeland.

Did Jenny give up?

No.

She’s still there fighting away for moral decency. It just isn’t much reported, because our mainstream media have been corrupted by the Zionist threats.

But the funny thing is, she’s still there working away doing her thing exposing the fascism and racism of the Israeli state.

How come our major media figures are so timid?

Is it the money?

I think so.

ediot,

Thanks, very informative post. Can anyone here give me information on a group called ’38 degrees 2009′ a limited company acting in the UK to put pressure on politicians on a range of issues. Are they politically motivated?

http://38degrees.org.uk/

I have to declare an interest.

Just so I could record the Radio Broadcast – Craig Murrays Thing On Radio 4 at 2:30 pm on Saturday February 20th, I have not only got My Thomsons Sky+ HD Box Fixed (Needed a New Power Supply – Must Be Costing SKY a Fucking Fortune – Should Have Bought Yorkshire Pace Instead Where The Saltaire is Pure Highly Engineered Quality) – The Guy Also Put An Enormous Fucking 1GB Disk in It as Well

But He Also Left Some Pre-Recorded Programs On My New Monster Disk

Who The Fuck – is She – My Wife Asked Before Seeing The First Two Episodes of Lost in Full High Definition Last Night?

I said You Know Diary of a Schoolgirl…???

I think She May Have Been Fucking Dr Who

My Wife Was Impressed

I of course need to be reminded again – it only does a week in advance

Tony

“I am still shocked by the virtual media blackout of my own evidence..”. Christ, what an ego. Perhaps they’re not that interested in the gripes of an embittered ex-HMA with an axe to grind?

OK I Made a Slight Mistake It is Not 1GB it is 1,000 Times Bigger

1 Terabyte

But most of the rest of my post was correct…

No I don’t know whether she was fucking Dr. Who

But when this new couple moved into a house very near to us a few years ago I was sure it was her when I went round to welcome them.

I thought Fuckin Hell

http://www.buddytv.com/btv/mt-static/FCKeditor/UserFiles/Image/secret-diary-callgirl-finale.jpg

Tony

Another criminal regime complains about being found out in its criminality.

“The US attacked a British court decision yesterday to publish information about allegations of torture by American officials.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8b941594-16ad-11df-aa09-00144feab49a.html

The sooner these criminal shitbags remove themselves from public life and let it back to decent people the better.

Dirty filthy evil filth that they are.

How did we ever let scum like these subvert our democracy.

Democracy – Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

Especially salient after Labour’s real reason for promoting Third World immigration has been disclosed.

If, says Labour, we don’t like the UK’s indigenous electorate of ingrates, we will simply import a racially alien one who will show political gratitude.

I am just giving all the help and support and encouragement that I can, such that our Children Can Help Fix Some of The Problems Of This World, and Be Self Supporting and Give More Than They Take

And Be Proud Of Themselves For What They Have Achieved By Their Own Efforts

I ask No More – I Don’t Want Anything More Than To See Our Children Inherit Our World and Leave It in a Better State Than The One They Have Inherited From Us

And Love All Life on This Earth and I Guess They Know

But I Will Still Be There when The Time Comes – Maybe in 10 Years or So

Perhaps You Have Realised What I Want By Now

Tony

This is in response to a radio competetion currently going on

And my response is

Of Course We Want Tony Blair’s Head on a Plate

But We want it Completely Shaved Clean and Simmerred in Boiling Water For 24 Hours

Before We Eat The Eyes

And Throw Up

And Eject The Devil Wence He Came

Back Into The Depths of Hell

Tony

Given the illegal and disgusting activity (read: murders, tortures, military and economic war crimes, crimes against humanity etc) of the UK state, isn’t it the case that those wishing to attack it, are morally FULLY JUSTIFIED to do so?

Whilst The Americans Tooled Up To The Eyeballs, Have a Far Simpler Subtle and Gentle Solution

Haven’t You Being Paying ATTENTION

Jump You FUCKERS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yge311sFhC8

Tony

Why are we tolerant of a world in which “(military/covert)intelligence” or its sanctity are actually an issue?

I’m afraid the human race is wallowing in its own filth. It’s so stupid it never considers that it shouldn’t be wallowing in it in the first place.

The redaction of the human spirit is to be human is deeply shameful. After 1000′s of years this obnoxious worldly system is the fruits of out activity? How utterly pathetic.

Vogons… where are you.

@Mark

“38 degrees”

Definitely dodgy. See here: tinyurl.com/yg4kg2u

The link is to a generally useful site (but as usual, believe nobody).

“The underlying problem is secret unaccountable government which bypasses Parliament and how the law is administered in the UK, gives aid and succour to such a state of affairs. The most common device is the concealment of evidence and manipulation of cases. There is a tendency when challenged for those in authority to talk of conspiracy theories. My experience is that those who do so are usually part of the conspiracy.”

Don’t forget about the case of _Salahuddin Amin_, who voluntarily went to the police in Pakistan & who then was tortured with the complicity of the UK spooks. (Info here: http://tinyurl.com/y9k9maz )

The tenet of ‘UK terrorism’ cases rests upon the convictions obtained in this (‘fertiliser bomb plot’) case.

The case of torture was hushed up by a court order of 13th January 2006 (Case No: 200506175 D5) with the explanation…’the grave risk to national security at the present time from potential acts of terrorism and the likely obstruction both to the identification of perpetrators and to the bringing to justice those who are identified are so real that an exceptional course is justified.’

Basically: “Torture is acceptable because it allows us to use the evidence obtained in the process to construct a ‘terrorism’ case against those who we have tortured

How thwarted is that?

Read the case/background info disseminate widely

Hey, whatever happened to that lobbox terrr alert? Oh, it seems the “severe” alert must have scared them off. Great Job.

“Me”, as anonymous says earlier, Craig’s books are a great way of understanding the context of his work now.

Also, subscribe to this blogfeed, and take part in the comments discussions. There are times when it gets heated, we have a few trolls and troublemakers, sometimes it gets a bit silly, but there are amongst the dross some comment gems that make for worthwhile debate.

Ha.

The current terrorism threat level is Severe

This means that a terrorist attack is highly likely.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-terrorism/current-threat-level/

Wasn’t was raised recently as an accompaniment to Bliar’s appearance at the Chilcot tea party? No tanks at Heathrow this time – they are all in use in Afghanistan.

s/be Wasn’t it. Sorry. More haste less speed!

“Espionage involves peeking at the other fellow’s hand, marking the cards, cooking the books, poisoning the well, breaking the rules, hitting below the belt, cheating, lying, deceiving, defaming, snooping, eavesdropping, prying, stealing, bribing, suborning, burglarizing, forging, misleading, conducting dirty tricks, dirty pool, skulduggery, blackmail, seduction, everything not sporting, not kosher, not cricket. In short, espionage stands virtue on its head and elevates vice instead.”

- all to further our mission to do good in the world naturally – so that’s OK then.

Some things never change eh? And despite all the pompous, ridiculous – not to say comical if it weren’t so damned depressing – protestations of their apologists (well he would say that wouldn’t he? – aka Mandy Rice Davies) the routine behaviour of our own SIS’s are most certainly no exception.

Does ANYONE seriously believe that this will have ANY effect other than to make them and their political puppets – to whom offers may be made that simply cannot be refused – that much more careful, deceptive – and all the other attributes mentioned above – when going about their business of protecting us from their manufactured and calibrated milieu of TERROR?

Robert Cecil is their archetype – and we STILL celebrate his capture and execution of those dastardly gunpowder plotters eh?

Indeed some thing never NEVER CHANGE.

Sorry – meant to attribute the above quote. It is from Joseph Persico’s ‘Roosevelt’s Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage’

on a totally seperate strand (apologies)

Is there anything that isnt spouted that is untrue over in Amerca

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/koops-false-claims/

Given their lovely laws, shouldnt the NHS be taking out a lawsuit against the company/individual concerned for such utter shite?

Oh look!

Now Europe is turning its back on American military adventurism:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/11/european-parliament-veto-banking-datashare

A Prof Gwyn Prins was interviewed just now on BBC Radio 5 Live about the above attitude of Europe. He was quite negative and basically argued that we knew better than Europe how to play relations with the US.

Oh. Do we really?

Just on the off chance I looked him up, and yes surprise surprise, he’s another advocate of the moral necessity and duty of the war on Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2710377.stm

At no point did Radio 5 Live point out his views on international affairs. He was just presented as a neutral expert.

These are very clearly editorial decisions at senior level to deceive the listener. If the interviewee had been an opponent of the war, they’d make such you knew it, and have the odious Justin Webb giving him a hard time.

It’s absolutely disgraceful that this organisation continues to abuse taxpayers money for propaganda purposes, given all we now know about the total folly of that war.

More background on the BBCs neutral expert, Prof Glyn Prins, which they don’t want you to know.

Not a surprise that. He appears to be Defence establishment insider to his core.

“He was later Founder and Director of the Global Security Programme at the University of Cambridge (1989-97), and Senior Research Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London (1997-2000). He is now the Professorial Research Fellow at the European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science (London, UK), the first Visiting Senior Fellow at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency of the Ministry of Defence (Farnborough, UK) and the Senior Fellow in the Office of the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General of NATO (Brussels, Belgium). He is a UK member of the P-5 study group on improving the operations of the UN Security Council.”

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:T-OdC0owWRMJ:www.maxwell.syr.edu/moynihan/PersonDetail.asp%3FpersonID%3D235+Gwyn+Prins&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

The MoD, NATO and the P-5 group, an avid supporter of the Iraq war and god only knows what else, and the BBC don’t mention any of it!!

Radio 5 live= fascist FM. Their persistent rousing of racial idioms and tantalising of the BBC news and foreign affairs agenda is legend. Their editorial are partial to anything rightwing, imho. it needs sweeping clean.

Look ..it’s the BBC ffs!

What do you expect?

Impartiality?

Brigadier Ronnie Stoneham…Room 105 BBC TV centre…check that out…

tony_opmoc IS A DEAD COCK

Thanks for you first contribution here Antonio. Are you a peacock that needs to create attention for that reason alone?

you do not need to, just simple posts will do.

“The chutzpah of David Miliband” would have been far more apt.

Is there a bipolar opposite to the “Green”/Darwin a la eugenics movement? ‘cos as far as I can see, the Black nationalists were far closer to the truth in their denouncement of the white satans.

I agree with ingo. Sweep it clean, but that’s not going to happen.

Fools get starrey eyed when the Beeb cranks out a 1 in a 100 program of any value. This 1/100 dually undergoes re-evaluation in terms of weightage of content output, inflating it to a something like a controlling share of 51%.

“The BBC is a worthy institution” they proudly proclaim beguiled by the silky radio aurally pleasing tones of its presenters, pouffing their chests out with images of red busses, beefeaters and Elizabeth Regina and war criminal Winston Churchill going through their weakly imperialist programmed mind, oblivious to any even scant meaning as to the implications of the presence of the ‘C’ in its TLA.

The Minister of Information continually beats out a moonwalk.

Which segment of the Hamlin population are you?

‘dry evidence’

Would it be possible to deduce that the UK populace and politicians inwardly support our continuing colonialism from the dry evidence that they have not rebelled. Is it British reserve that prevents them from rebellion, or a well-rehearsed habit of stealing from others at any human price?

If so, it will not make any difference whether the evidence is dry or dramatised, they will cough politely and ask for another cup of tea. Dry Englishman asking his wife if she would like a cup of tea means: ” Spot of bother on the North West frontier, probably get defeated. Any chance of a shag? There’s too much money in the current account. We can find another colonial project to recoup our losses somewhere else. It does make you dry, all this whizzing round the world, killing and torturing and subjugating the natives.”

“Yes, darling” she says.

There is no evidence that the British people are complicit in their government’s crimes and approve of their skill at covering up after them. Freedom of speech permits the objectors to articulate but the secret supporters of colonialism never speak. They think that their thoughts go undetected because there’s no witnesses or DNA evidence. But Allah knows their inner thoughts.

Allah knows their inner thoughts, and he’s keeping his powder dry.

“There is no evidence that the British people are complicit in their government’s crimes”

Ummmm.. re-elelection of a war-loving PM? >30% are guilty.

@ Craig.

I have the chance to meet Prof. Emeritus W. Scott Thompson next week.

He wrote: _____”Ghana’s Foreign Policy, 1957-1966: Diplomacy, Ideology and the New States, Princeton 1969″_____. I respect many of your opinions and would like to know what your expert opinion is of this gentleman.

Thanks lwtc247.

http://www.recovery-assets.com/DrWSTPublications.html

http://www.recovery-assets.com/DrWSThompson.html

From Rhisiart Gwilym’s comment on yesterday’s Guardian article by Simon Jenkins which was entitled:

The torture memos show how illegal wars turn even the nicest people bad

The deceit, the slaughter, the atrocity, the abuse of human rights. Today, Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil is everywhere

aaa~

‘Also, if you want to know the real low-down about the uk-state’s continuing day-to-day relationship with torture, look no further than Craig Murray’s informed-insider revelations about that: heavily ignored by the ‘principled’ pocket-politicians like Miliband and his corporate-media-hack apologists, because Craig too is dedicated to telling some highly uncomfortable but essential public truths.’

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1265963616.html

It looks very much like this boss of MI5 is attacking the judges, much as Millibrain did yesterday. It’s as if he’s warning them that they’re providing propaganda for our “enemies”.

So don’t criticise us, or else!

Unprecedented stuff.

Just shows how desperate these criminals and gangsters are getting. It’s a very sorry state that the Blair gang brought us to.

And he’s also using the “conspiracy theory” phrase, as an earlier poster suggested they might.

Anonymous re re-election: around 22 percent of the electorate voted Labour, actually.

Lovely to see such sentiments as the ‘human race are wallowing in their own filth’. Reminds me, I must do the hoovering.

Dr Thompson is a member of the CFR.

The bottom line it seems for the British government and MI5 in the Binyam Mohammed case is to protect the fraudulent ‘war on terror’ at all cost (3000 people died on 9/11) and thus perpetuate war and hegemony in the Middle East.

To some this means, if necessary our great British justice system and the men and women who has sworn an oath to uphold it, will be over-ruled and trashed, to, (in eyes of ‘some’) advance Western democracy.

So I say to the great British public, remember, clearly, the Iraq war was also based on government and SIS fraud (the dodgy dossier) and the Iraq war murdered, maimed, disfigured, traumatised and orphaned ten of thousands of innocent Iraqi children.

If necessary I will shout this from pulpit of Westminster Abbey.

The Magna Carta Libertatum (1297), our great charter of freedoms that implicitly supported what became the writ of habeas corpus, and guarantees the right of ‘due process’ – it is this right that ensures our magnificent High court judges must win the day in their ruling, their wisdom and decision that torture is archaic, unnatural, illegal and serves only to produce lying confessions made in the hope of relieving severe pain and threats of death and the destruction of loved ones.

“Given the illegal and disgusting activity (read: murders, tortures, military and economic war crimes, crimes against humanity etc) of the UK state, isn’t it the case that those wishing to attack it, are morally FULLY JUSTIFIED to do so?”

It depends on your morals, I suppose.

Personally, I go with “Which bit of ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is too difficult ?”

@anon at February 12, 2010 2:14 AM:

“Ummmm.. re-election of a war-loving PM? >30% are guilty”.

I don’t think it’s that simple. First of all, had they voted in the Tories in 2005, the war would not have been stopped immediately, and it is anyone’s guess whether it would have stopped earlier.

Or in 2001, would they have had an inkling of what was in store, and voted for the Tories to avoid war? Wouldn’t the Tories have invaded too?

Remember that the millions who marched in 2003 marched under a banner of “Not in my name”. It is an entirely appropriate phrase – there is little the public could have done at the ballot box to have avoided an illegal war.

Said @anno: “Would it be possible to deduce that the UK populace and politicians inwardly support our continuing colonialism from the dry evidence that they have not rebelled.”

No, it would not: it is a possible answer, but not the only one. Study revolution and discover alternative reasons.

My view comprises of several strands, but basically a constant supply of bad news via a virtual medium deadens the compassion in most humans – they call it “compassion fatigue”. What is the individual to do? “Rise up” in revolution with your comrades and neighbours, and find yourself arrested, accused of terrorism, and vilified by the media and the wider public?

People are also inculcated to patriotism, or the idea that being a “law-abiding citizen” is exemplary behaviour, and so there are powerful psychological reasons why the conclusions you have reached are not popular amongst the wider public.

Regarding my comment about studying revolution, this may come about during a period of substantial social unheaval, which itself may give rise to a “pre-revolutionary phase” in which the masses are inclined to overthrow the state. But for the power of the state, and the present atomisation and ignorance of the people, this probably won’t happen in our lifetimes, whatever crimes are committed in our name.

“this probably won’t happen in our lifetimes, whatever crimes are committed in our name.”

So are we left with…

But leave the Wise to wrangle, and with me

The Quarrel of the Universe let be:

And, in some corner of the Hubbub coucht,

Make Game of that which makes as much of Thee.

Now this sounds good. A journalism haven and freedom of expression enshrined in law. No not the UK. Iceland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8504972.stm

The recent Court of Appeal judgment in the Binyam Mohamed case can be read at the following url: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/65.html

The redacted paragraphs appear at the very end of the judgment.

Mary at February 12, 2010 8:47 AM ?” Thank you for sharing the source of Rhisiart Gwilym’s comment on yesterday’s Guardian article by Simon Jenkins. It ties in nicely with Craig’s topic “The Sheer Front of David Miliband” From personal experience (click on my name), I know the Guardian is only interested in fashionable human rights issues that don’t offend the real establishment, but in its biased excuses for Mr. Milliband it does seem that The Guardian doesn’t understand the concept of Ministerial Accountability either?

I would also recommend that people also look at Ruth’s comment at February 10, 2010 6:23 PM on judicial independence. Independence of the press has always been a bit of a myth, but whatever happened to these old traditional British values like Rule of Law, Ministerial Accountability and Independence of the Judiciary?

Mark: “the power and force of our own individual conscience will always let itself be heard and it is this power that instigates change”.

That’s poetic, but what does it mean? The “power of conscience” is limited because of the pschological barriers I mentioned earlier. True, we had two million march in 2003, but it didn’t stop the war. In fact it didn’t stop the invasion of Lebanon in 2006, the Gaza atrocities last year, and countless drone killings in recent times. We are cowed sheep, though I don’t hold people responsible for that – it would be like holding the public responsible for being human.

I am cynical of the capacity for a natural move away from the neoliberal capitalism based on peoples’ consciences, and I am uncertain that reformism will work, given its long history of failure. But the dilemma with revolution is that the people need to see the need for it and to understand it, but they are a long way away from it at present. I do wonder whether a popular revolution is the only way substantial change can be effected, though I do hope I am wrong.

I should add also: popular revolution that demands social justice need not be violent.

Clare Algar has a very good response to that spook clown who’s been ranting about being caught out.

“Clare Algar, executive director of Reprieve, which represents Binyam Mohamed, said: “It’s incredibly offensive to suggest that the people who are bringing to light the ways in which the British intelligence service and US intelligence service have behaved badly could be responsible for giving succour to the enemy.

“The thing that gives succour to the enemy is the bad behaviour in the first place – and that’s the reason we shouldn’t be involved in torturing people.” “

“MI5′s propaganda own-goal

The head of the security service is denouncing the media for simply reporting the judicial truth of its complicity in torture”

by Richard Norton-Taylor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/12/mi5-propaganda-own-goal

“An extraordinary spectacle is being played out with the head of MI5 publicly denouncing the media ?” and implicitly three of the country’s most senior judges ?” for reporting that officers in the security service were complicit in “at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident, by the CIA.”

“The criticism of MI5 officers, to which Evans and the home secretary, Alan Johnson, responded in remarkably intemperate language today , came not from the media, as they suggest, but from a senior judge, supported by two others. It is based on evidence, including 42 unpublished CIA documents, collected over the past 18 months by two high court judges and described in six separate judgments.

Their judgments are strongly critical of David Miliband, the foreign secretary. They show how MI5 withheld evidence from the ISC, contrary to claims made by its chairman, former foreign office minister, Kim Howells. “We can ask for absolutely any classified material we want to see and we do it all the time,” Howells said. The trouble is he does not know what to ask for.”

“Evans expressed the hope in his Telegraph article that the US will not now be “less ready” to share vital intelligence with Britain. The same concerns, repeatedly expressed by Miliband during the court hearings, were dismissed by the appeal court as “logically incoherent and therefore irrational”. While the political and security establishment hits out at the British judiciary and media over revealing sensitive information, the facts of the case were clearly laid out already in a US court that accepted as true detailed allegations of Mohamed being “physically and psychologically tortured”. The US judge added: “His genitals were mutilated. He was deprived of sleep and food.”"

by Dominic Kennedy, Investigations Editor

The Times

“His torturers told Mr Mohamed that they knew details of, for example, his British education, London friendships, even the name of his kickboxing instructor. They even wielded the scalpel ?” slicing into his penis ?” a mutilation now confirmed by a court in Washington.

English High Court judges have condemned Mr Mohamed’s ordeal as “at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”.

But in the Court of Appeal this week the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge went further, icily reminding politicians and officials that “torture ?” and any of the euphemisms which describe it” is outlawed.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7025303.ece

Now the criminals who engaged in and allowed this illegality are running around the TV, Radio and Press rooms trying to blame the media and judges for having found them out!!

Just shows that when you lack powerful democratic procedures, criminals and gangsters really do take over. This is Blair’s gift to Britain.

The whole political state, from top to bottom, needs a serious clean out.

Antonio Fargus,

Actually it still works quite well.

Was that you outside my house with a laptop hacking my wireless unprotected network and quoting the works of Shakespeare?

I get loads of such people, and ask them in for a cup of tea when its really cold.

Tony

Posted on a Tory website, who never delete my posts…

Brown maybe an unlikeable controlling, brooding, malevolent, arrogant, psycho’, but Blair is far worse than that.

The Tories actually got it right in 1997 in the way they portrayed Blair, but bizarrely enough the evil has now corrupted them, such they laud him as their hero and have even cloned him to produce another air head, bag of shit.

Anyone who voted for the Iraq war knowing the truth should be in jail with the War Criminal Blair.

He is responsible for mass genocide, based on a pack of obvious lies, that anyone could prove by a simple google search in 2002 of the UK,US Govt and UN websites that demonstrated conclusively that all parties knew that Iraq had been disarmed of all their WMD’s and posed no threat to any other country whastsoever.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election2001/images/0,9350,449562,00.html

Tony

Unsurprisingly, these criminals and liars now bleating after being caught out again, have “form”.

“Three senior judges today delivered a blistering attack on the Ministry of Defence, accusing its officials of misleading the high court and of “lamentable” conduct over attempts to suppress information on the interrogation of Iraqi detainees.

Lord Justice Scott Baker and Mr Justices Silber and Sweeney described claims made by defence ministers in gagging orders as false. The claims led to decisions that the court had made, to suppress evidence, that were “wrong”.”

“The picture that emerged from the MoD’s handling of the case, and assertions its officials had made, were “truly alarming”, the judges said. The history of the case was “lamentable”, they said.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/10/ministry-defence-judges-iraqi-detainees

Who ya gonna believe, eh?

Looks like at long last the judges are getting a bit pissed off with these criminals and gangsters who’ve usuped our political process under the Blair regime.

Who’s afraid to be interviewed on Channel 4 news tonight?

Step forward

Kim Howells, Spook Overseer

Jonathan Evans, Spook Operations Boss

Alan Johnson, Spook Political Boss

Why are they so afraid to answer questions on the allegations they’ve been making across media these past few days?

Would it be because they’re lying through their teeth and they don’t want to face a real interviewer?

Tony,

‘He is responsible for mass genocide, based on a pack of obvious lies, that anyone could prove by a simple google search in 2002 of the UK,US Govt and UN websites that demonstrated conclusively that all parties knew that Iraq had been disarmed of all their WMD’s and posed no threat to any other country whastsoever.’ Indeed.

But you are forgetting the hearsay of a taxi driver. Such compelling evidence gives an automatic reason to decimate a country and kill up to 1.3m of it’s inhabitants.

In Mr Blair’s mind anyway.

Chris Dooley,

I posted the links before the Iraq War started and I marched down Whitehall with over 1 Million People.

And I posted about 9/11 from Day 1.

And I have had people threatening to meet me on a dark night (even people I know)

And I have had people parked outside my house with a laptop at 1:00 am and I have asked them to come in for a cup of tea and they have been very gracious in their acceptance and told us their life stories.

There is nothing to be afraid of if you speak the truth.

And no I am not into eating red eyes

I prefer poached blue ones

Tony

I wonder when the BBC are going to give this the attention it deserves on their website?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/10/ministry-defence-judges-iraqi-detainees

Indeed anon, the BBC do not seem too impartial in these matters. For instance, why did they need to frame the MI5 argument with the judicary with the word.. ‘MI5 Binyam claims ‘ludicrous lies”

These words give to those not following the details of the case, or willing to read the content, the impression that Binyam himself is making ‘ludicrous lies’ about all that has happened to him over the past few years. Which is the exact opposite of what the evidence has now proven.

I know it must be hard to compress an issue into so few words… but why give words which have the exact opposite meaning of the truth involved.

The BBC slides down from it’s once pinnacle of excellance into another bland ‘content’ server.

Tony,

I am confused; why did/do you have people parked outside your house with a laptop and then came/come in for a cup of tea?

Maybe they’re using Tony’s wi-fi. He embarrasses them by inviting them in.

Mark Golding – Re: Comment from tony_opmoc at February 12, 2010 6:52 PM. You ask Tony the question: “I am confused; why did/do you have people parked outside your house with a laptop”.

Perhaps I can help with a possible explanation, and I hope I am wrong. Tony asks some difficult questions and may have made a few enemies in the MI*s,etc.

If you examine the documentation attached to my wiki you will see a series of incidents that the police referred to as the “blue screen incidents.” This series included my being shot in the head by a pellet fired from a moving vehicle. One of the minor incidents in the series was a vehicle sitting outside my house apparently monitoring what was going on with a labtop. Its purpose is to give you the impression that you are under surveillance – which in itself is very intimidating to someone who is not used to it (if you are really under surveillance you actually never see the spooks). The campaign of zerzetsen against me started with my being followed around by vehicles and having vehicles parked outside my house clearly watching. Perhaps Tony is trying to stick it back in their faces by asking them in for a cup of tea. In my case I also tried that tactic, but when I approached the vehicles they would drive off. Since then the threats against me have moved onto a lot more as you can see on my wiki, but if I were Tony I would be concerned because that’s how it all started with me (with strange vehicles clearly watching my house). I hope I’m wrong.

I suspect there are people in white coats sitting outside his locked room, who occasionally pop in to dispense a few meds.

Just a guess…

‘Nurse Ratced’ , you should know from the film that ‘insane’ man who fought against authority was quite sane.

And Nurse Ratched got her come-uppance.

There’s something very very seriously wrong at the heart of British government when Kim Howells, Alan Johnson and David Milliband, all holders of high political office, are criticising the highest judiciary in the land using terms such as “conspiracy theory”, and accusing them of aiding terrorism.

This is unprecedented.

Are they trying to frighten the judiciary off?

And then we have Jonathan Evans, a civil servant, engaging in a similar criticism of the judiciary.

Is he trying to frighten the judiciary off?

What are they up to?

Do these people believe they are above the law?

We are either a society of laws, subject to independent judicial scrutiny or we are a state run by criminals and gangsters at their own whim.

There are quite a few questions to be asked and answered about what precisely has been going on during the Blair premiership.

Those who’ve been watching have had their suspicions, but it’s all beginning to look much much worse than anyone can ever have imagined.

Such a state of affairs cannot hold much longer, before there’s the inevitable breaking of ranks.

There are very interesting times ahead.

Yes Chris.

I know all that.

There’s much to criticise in the state of British political life today.

But that doesn’t mean that all criticism is valid, or even worth posting.

Some criticism just seems to distract from what’s really at stake, and indeed seems designed to undermine valid criticism.

Tony’s posts look much more designed to distract from, rather than focus on the serious questions government has to answer.

He’s a serial poster of things that are never quite to the point, clutters more important posts and in a style that is so bizarre as to easily be dismissed.

In short, his presence is one which detracts from rather than furthers the criticism.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised that some people would seek to undermine Craig’s blog in such a fashion.

Dreoilin,

Thank-you – I actually fell off my chair laughing.

Jon,

Sadly I have to agree, ‘it did not do anything’ but it has/will as people start focusing – I know, I know too much faith in human nature but the disgust over Iraq is huge and may have prevented an attack on Iran already. In Afghanistan we witness a ‘phantom blitz’ to drive the Taliban away with a 2nd phase of delivery to the Afghan people.

This is my ‘power of conscience’ words and images sink into the subconscious an affect action in ever growing numbers. You must believe, kinda poetic but very real.

The battle over torture has been won – here we can see evidence of our distaste manifesting itself into the ‘right’ decision. This is the beginning.

Roderick,

I hope so too!

And so we had heard reports and I texted the information I had found

But no one offered to take us there

So we went on the Bus

Into The DEPTHS

Our Son Offerred To Take Us There (He Doesn’t Drink and Drive) – But He had a Birthday Party To Go To so we just wanted him to have fun with kids his own age…

And so the bus turned up

And I thought

FFS why Don’t All Bands Do The Sound Check Like That…

You See I am a Bit of a Perfectionist

And so I said to The Lord who also turned up – who was also seriously impressed before they had even started the gig – based on the Sound Check

He said How Much?

He said O.K. – But You Only Talk To Me

So

There were a lot of seriously talented musicians there…

They Blew The Fucking Lot of Them Away

So I think it may be a Goer

He said No One Has Ever Heard of Them

I said it doesn’t matter

I have Never Seen This Pub So Busy

They will Take Their Fans With Them

So we missed the last bus home – and probably could have scrounged a lift home…

But She said NO

We will Queue Up at The Taxi Station Like Everyone Else…

So The Taxis Turned Up and Both The Taxi Drivers and The People In The Queue Talked To Each Other.

There was a Single Girl There Saying I want to go to xxxx

And The Cab Driver Said – Come On…And got a Couple of Couples To Go With Her

And So We All Got Driven Home To Our Doors For The Price of Only Slightly More Than The Bus Fare

And We All Talked To Each Other

And Exchanged Views About All The Different Bands and Different Venues That Were On This Weekend

Go By Bus and Talk

People are Really Nice

Tony

Yup.

Definately the tony_opmoc posts are generated spam designed to distract from serious posters who want to make important points, in the hope they lose interest.

If it wasn’t obvious before, it certainly is now.

I’m surprised that Craig allows this easy undermining of his blog comments.

But, it’s his blog.

I suspect he’s too busy, net illiterate or just plain lazy to tackle the issue.

In any event, it’s becoming much too boring to trawl through another of tony-opmoc’s tireome, tedious and irrelevant litany of postings to look for the real gems others post.

Sort it out Craig, or your spammers win!!

He ain’t really a Lord, in fact he’s only about 33 years old, – we met him down the local pub about 10 years ago, and he learnt to play guitar in our kitchen and learnt to sing by taking vocal lessons whilst driving to work

But in his younger days he was a rather good paint sprayer and worked for a company that supplied Pinewood Studios with the Sports Cars That James Bond’s and Other Stand Ins Used To Fuck Up On The First Take

But in a way He is the Lord of The Manor

Cos His Missus Works There and has Got The Job of Getting More Quality Bands On

You Don’t Find em on The Internet

You Have Actually Got To Get Off Your Arse And See Them

You May Find a Really Good Band Occasionally, Unless You Have Gor Loads of Mates Who Travel All Over The Place, and They Come Back and Say…

You Have Just Got To See This Band

So That is How it Is

The Depth of Quality and The Sheer Diversity and The Numbers of Brilliant Musicians….

Is Here – Where We Live

I Cannot Believe It is Better Anywhere Else In The World

No Way Is it Better

In New York

Or Los Angeles

Or Fucking Anywhere On This Planet

This Is LONDON

Tony

I agree with Nurse Ratched.

The disruption of a blog takes many forms. One, which at times seems to agree with the general consensus of the blog but then becomes quite bizarre is highly damaging. It’s quite noticeable that Tony’s posts have increased since the absence of the other detractors/intelligence operatives/Tim Spicer’s mates etc

I agree with Nurse Ratched.

The disruption of a blog takes many forms. One, which at times seems to agree with the general consensus of the blog but then becomes quite bizarre is highly damaging. It’s quite noticeable that Tony’s posts have increased since the absence of the other detractors/intelligence operatives/Tim Spicer’s mates etc

I think the critical point is that in all of this NuLabour crapoganda coming out, Craig’s evidence on torture and his appearance at the Foreign Affairs Committee have been completely ignored and airbrushed out of the record.

It’s just as Harold Pinter famously said in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech -

‘It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9spgagSHI

Opmoc bashers note that he made these seven videos of Craig’s appearance and of course you can always scroll down to avoid his posts. I have always thought that he gets carried away in the middle of the night either under the ‘fluence of alcohol or some other substance or perhaps he just has a rather unique mindset.

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-tyranny

Anarcho-tyranny

Samuel Francis argued that the problems of managerial state extend to issues of crime and justice. In 1992, he introduced the word “anarcho-tyranny” into the paleocon vocabulary. He once defined it this way: “we refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).”

In one of his last essays, he explained the concept:

What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny?”the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.

Ruth, re. Tony O and substances of the mind, perhaps some ney (reed flute) would come in useful… calming, you know? Sorry you couldn’t make the London gig, btw – it went well – no worries, maybe next time; I’ll keep you posted. Hey, Tony, you like flute? Anon, are you a different person from anno? Not an anagram? Or an amalgam?

Anarcho-tyranny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-tyranny

That’s a perfect description of what’s going on in policing and state bureaucracy.

@ mary

You surely don’t seriously think Tony is sitting down typing his screeds of rubbish?

Isn’t it all cut’n paste?

At least you acknowledge the need to scroll down, much as you need to do with spam.

It serves only to undermine the more pointed comments and put off new visitors.

Anarcho-tyranny: another way to bash the word anarchy, via a man (Samuel T Francis) who clearly had no idea what it means, and who also railed against ‘miscegenation’ and immigration. Throw in a few cries for more folk music and you apparently have a political philosophy.

As a counter to the idea that anarchy always involves some kind of terrible consequence I suggest reading Anarchy & Order, by Herbert Reed. After that, see Anarchist Catalonia, if you haven’t read Orwell.

Otherwise, yes, tony cuts and pastes, sometimes the same post twice. He did, however, put Craig’s videos up.

“You surely don’t seriously think Tony is sitting down typing his screeds of rubbish? Isn’t it all cut’n paste?”

Somebody _else_ typed it, and tony_o just finds it and copies it ? Why would anybody else have any more reason to type it than he does ? I admit, I can’t see how it serves any constructive purpose except possibly for himself.

Someone was speculating about why Craig wasn’t dealing with all of this. Seems to me, he’s a busy man, got things to do. Spending all your time on the web, clicking each post ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as it comes in, would be a full-time job for a whole team, he’d be insane to take that on; he’d have no sleep and no life.

Personally, I’d like a techy-based solution that would let us decide we want to hide posts from certain people (I don’t know blog software, whether that’s possible). But he’s also said that not much can be done with the current software, and again, changing that to something else would probably be a large amount of work.

So maybe we just have to learn to cope.

And, yes, I can well imagine this isn’t always an appetising place for new people to drop in. People do seem to, though. And also drop out again.

Tony,

I understand your love of friends and your desire to talk to us as, well, friends and let us know your interactions with life – ie music and the problems you had with transport.

I like doing that as well, but, I find I get a much better understanding/reaction on Facebook, or Bebo or Twitter – have you/do you use these sites? Much better to talk generally there than here, this place, a focused board that collectively is trying to push forward an agenda or point initialised by our host, Craig, for the benefit/discussion (one hopes) and education/understanding of our readers.

@technicolour

You can bash Samuel Francis on many levels and you and I can both could agree and disagree on the same things he has written, but because all people have flaws does that mean that everything all people say is wrong.

If I say 1+1 = 2

but I also say 2+3 = 1

Does that make me wrong on everything?

I felt my quote is a good description of what is happening but not a solution. Be aware of the problem and then we may find a solution.

We all have flaws.

“Definitely the tony_opmoc posts are generated spam designed to distract from serious posters who want to make important points, in the hope they lose interest.”

I don’t believe this is the case at all. On many of his comments tony_opmoc has made his position perfectly clear, and it is in full sympathy with the position of Craig Murray and the majority of commenters.

Thankfully, this is an open blog where pretty well anyone can comment and everyone can choose for themselves what they wish to read.

@ technicolour

“Anarcho-tyranny: another way to bash the word anarchy, via a man (Samuel T Francis) who clearly had no idea what it means”

Don’t worry so much about the semantics. The man has described precisely what’s going on in Britain today, succinctly and accurately as follows:

“What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny?”the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.”

When I read UK stuff going on about the tyranny of gun-control laws, it just makes me think it’s an imported foreign rant.

Which, as somone already noted, doesn’t necessarily indicate anything about the other points; it just emphasises the need to think for ourselves obout what we read, even if it’s in quotes..

I would suggest that you read it as it applies.

There’s just much more thinking about the contempoaary world going on in the US than in Britain, in English anyway.

For gun control law you could probably substitute the issues we have with defending yourself from burglary or attack, of which there are many recent examples.

The key really is to get an overall feel for the thing.

It’s about the curious condition of an authoritarian society in which ordinary citizens are over policed and violent criminals are under policed.

The police officer who recently had his blog taken off the web pointed up the same issues but obviously without the overall structural contextualisation provided by Samuel T Francis.

Anarchy is not “the failure of the state to enforce the laws”. Anarchy, from the greek ‘anarkos’ – ‘without a ruler’ – posits that we do not need other people to tell us what to think and do. Naturally, Francis, who is trying to tell people what to think and do, would object to it. Oddly, even some self-declared anarchists like to tell other people what to think and do, too.

I notice in your cut & paste from wiki the reference to “thought-control through…multiculturalist curricula”. Are you happy with that bit?

Nurse_Rachet,

Interestingly ‘the invasion of privacy’ one of the points in your quote, was the most hotly debated subject on the abruptly ‘taken down’ WebCameron site (NB!!)

Even innocent browsing can or *IS* monitored by stealth, (the details of which will be exposed here shortly) after analysis.

Even the innocent ‘store card’ or ‘points card’ is analysed in ways you would not imagine ie where you were at a particular time. The issue of ID cards has not reached finality – only some technology (such as Iris scan centres) has been dropped as being too expensive.

Let us be clear, the government/establishment wants/needs to control us and to them, privacy is a barrier.

@ technicolour

I did suggest that you not be so concerned about the semantics. That’s not what it’s about. He’s not talking about Anarchy as a political philosopy. He’s using the term in a more general sense.

“I notice in your cut & paste from wiki the reference to “thought-control through…multiculturalist curricula”. Are you happy with that bit?”

I’m not at all happy with any form of thought control, from whatever source.

All of it ends in tyranny, even when the initial motivation seems positive.

Ah to ‘not be so concerned about semantics’. Then I could repeat any kind of gibberish, like “thought control…through multi-culturalist curricula” without objecting to it; indeed, apparently agreeing with it.

@ technicolour

No need to be afraid. It’s fairly straightforward.

Anarchy is a political philosophy, but it’s also a term in general usage which people use to describe a breakdown in order.

That’s easy enough.

As to “thought control…through multi-culturalist curricula”.

What he’s getting at there is the self-censorship and lack of common sense that develops when projects like political correctness are enforced through law. There are plenty of examples today.

There’s one below to get you started. When you get better at it, you’ll be able to find your own.

Then you can begin to work out why things like this happen, even when the initial motivation seems positive.

Then you need to get working on what you call “gibberish”. At the moment it seems to be no more than things you don’t understand.

Example No. 1:

“A teenage schoolgirl was arrested by police for racism after refusing to sit with a group of Asian students because some of them did not speak English.

Codie Stott’s family claim she was forced to spend three-and-a-half hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410150/Schoolgirl-arrested-refusing-study-non-English-pupils.html

I’m not sure if Samuel Francis is right

From what I’ve found out/experienced there is most definitely a government within the government. The government within holds the power: the government that we know is submissive to it. The secret entity controls the intelligence services or a select group within the services; it manipulates the judiciary when needed. Through the illicit work of the secret services it controls a vast network of companies through which money is laundered. The laundered money is used to buy up legitimate companies and start up new ones. The secret governments’ loyal servants are granted directorships etc. Hence I believe the UK is very close indeed to being a communist state with an all controlling elite. The only anarchy I can see is the free for all grabbing by the elite of lands that are rich in resources. Other than that we are all at the moment under control.

@ Ruth

Samuel Francis is not talking about Anarchy in the political philosophy sense.

He’s talking about the chaos and lawlessness you see in some parts of the US, and more generally about the way in which there’s little policing of the real crime that scares everyone and in contrast a very authoritarian policing of the more law abiding often by official bodies, like councils etc and an over policing of things people are less concerned about like motoring and parking etc.

WHY MARK’S QUESTION TO TONY IS IMPORTANT ?” AND THE HYPOCRISY OF OUR HUMAN RIGHTS INDUSTRY

I commented on Mark Golding’s question to Tony: “I am confused; why did/do you have people parked outside your house with a laptop” because I thought Mark’s honest confusion needed an explanation. Now I don’t know anything about Tony, but I do know that whomever he got (perhaps pasted) this quote from has some experience of zerzetsen; perhaps as a victim or perhaps as a perpetrator. That’s why I commented.

Zerzetsen started for me with a professionally done character assassination, not dissimilar to what happened to Craig. So it remained for many years, and then the soft zerzetsen began – just as described in Tony’s comment (and also by Mark Higson); open surveillance, numerous odd phone calls, etc. Now this may not feel threatening to you, but it bloody well would if you experienced it. And that’s how it is for most people. In my case it then moved on to death threats, children threatened, shots fired, vehicles run at me and smashed into property, etc.

Zerzetsen is a serious human rights abuse. It is very pertinent to any discussion on human rights, because our human rights industry dishonestly avoids dealing with abuses that relate to elements of our own establishment at home ?” and not just in my case. I know investigating elements within the establishment would be scary; besides no knighthoods, no Orders of Canada, no government funding. The absence of investigation and reporting by the human rights industry is itself an abuse.

Last year, I presented a research paper on zerzetsen and my experiences of zerzetsen at McMaster University. It is all in this paper, including details of the many threats, the involvement of MI5/6, the cover-up by government, and the sheer hypocrisy of our human rights industry. An updated copy of this Paper can be viewed just by clicking on my signature.

Just as the victims of torture in Iraq relate the same stories, I can confirm instances of attempted intimidation of a child, vehicles people being driven at people and into their buildings, setting fire to a home, regular telephone calls with stange noises, attempts to put people on money laundering charges and so on. These people were involved in criminal cases where there was very, very strong evidence that the intelligence services set up the frauds and framed the defendants.

Firstly “The man has described precisely what’s going on in Britain today, succinctly and accurately as follows:”

Secondly “I would suggest that you read it as it applies. … For gun control law you could probably substitute the issues we have”.

I could probably adapt your quote until it fits your description. Maybe, but it’s not much of a discussion if I have to make your points for you.

@ Richard Robinson

I would have thought it self evident that it was an American piece, pointing up authoritarianism in one area of life and a rather more lax approach in another.

It’s that curious dichotomy that’s important, not that gun law is often an issue for Americans and rarely for us.

It is not semantics we should be questioning but whether there are well paid trolls who pick at fine points to dissect and subsequently create smoke and mirror arguments. These deflect readers within various threads from the main points and issues.

As a rule of thumb perhaps we can identify when we have hit a nerve when these type of pedantic discussions arise.

@ anon

Indeed.

But then again, sometimes there are just people who aren’t very bright who may benefit from some explanation, so you have to do a bit before you’re sure.

“Anarchy is a political philosophy”

Not entirely, or necessarily mainly, and sometimes not at all.

“but it’s also a term in general usage which people use to describe a breakdown in order.”

Wrongly.

“As to “thought control…through multi-culturalist curricula”. What he’s getting at there is the self-censorship and lack of common sense that develops when projects like political correctness are enforced through law.”

Is he indeed getting at that? Then why doesn’t he say so? He’s able to express himself quite clearly elsewhere: for example when saying that ‘whites’ must “reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites.”

But thanks for trying to translate. Of course, the assumption that multi-culturalism is a negative and destructive force which can be used for ‘thought control’ was a bit of a give away.

“There’s one below to get you started. When you get better at it, you’ll be able to find your own.”

Yes, on Noel’s HQ, I believe. Sterling stuff. In the meantime, your example proves little except that the police should never have been involved. The reporting was poor, the background unexplained, the sources biased, the quotes selective and the context unknown. Daily Mail, was it?

On reflection, I take back the statement that Francis is able to express himself quite clearly elsewhere. Although I was laughing quietly at the idea of anyone being ‘white’; I lazily failed to imagine what ‘articulating a racial consciousness’ actually meant. If you do try, you realise it doesn’t mean anything. It just sounds as though it should.

finally, it is your assumption that ‘political correctness’ or ‘thought control’ could ever be positive in intention. Not mine.

As a rule of thumb perhaps we can identify when we have hit a nerve when these type of pedantic discussions arise.

or even that there is such a thing as ‘thought control’.

Not sure why you’re quibbling about Anarchy as a political philosophy, since that was the sole sense you originally claimed for it, and which I contested.

You don’t even appear to understand your own position.

On anarchy in common usage, it simply indicates a breakdown in order. There’s nothing right or wrong about it. That’s just how it’s used, and how he was using it.

He’s not saying that multiculturalism produces thought control. His argument is that the means employed to deal with the consequences of multiculturalism produce thought control.

His more general argument about multiculturalism is that it puts stresses on the shared set of values in more homogeneous societies.

In the example quoted, there’s not much point saying that the police should never have been involved. The point is that they were.

And of course the more general point is the self-censorship and lack of common sense that develops when projects like political correctness are enforced through law. This is what happens. That’s the problem he’s addressing.

OK, you can claim I said something I didn’t say, but my explanation (or part explanation) of anarchy is not political. And is visible above. So that doesn’t wash.

Otherwise:

a) Define what you mean by ‘multiculturalism’, please. What are the ‘consequences of multiculturalism’, in your view?

b) What do you mean by ‘more homogenous societies’?

c) You say that although the point is that the police were involved, there is not much point in saying they shouldn’t have been? Although that would have collapsed the whole story?

d) “Self-censorship, lack of common sense” etc are the points you say Francis is addressing. He is not addressing them at all. He is leaping straight to a crazed and warped conclusion: that people with more melatonin should not do the rumpy-pumpy with people with less melatonin.

So sorry, you’ll get crucified by that one if you try it politically. Try something else.

anarcho-tyranny

What you get, in the micro-cosm of UK Building Regulations legislation is a very carefully crafted ideal standard, which is embraced by the few and totally ignored by the majority. It is as if our rulers craft legislation but they are not permitted to wield power. Enforcement would rebound directly on government. The infrastructure of this country would not comply with the legislation they are trying to impose on the small man.

In the larger world, enforcement of the Geneva convention, for example, on the Congo would raise far too many ethical questions about the extreme lawlessness of the present USUKIS illegal invasions.

Democracy is favoured by megalomanic superpowers because it refuses to exercise power over either its own power or criminal power. Democracy is like putting human clothes on a bear.

The reason why I asked the question above about the inner thoughts of the UK people, do they condone colonialism, is not to condemn them or judge them – it seems to me that if you asked about the inner thoughts of those Muslims being illegally targeted at the present time in Afghanistan Iraq Palestine etc etc you would find similar doubtful motives.

I ask about human motivation because Islam states that until and unless we change ourselves, Allah all glory be to Him, will not change our situation.

It is not protest, revulsion, or even burying one’s head in the sand that will bring about change, but rather deep inward reflection and an inward aspiration that the present intolerable situation that one part of the world is ripping apart other parts, completely out of control, should change.

Is it asking too much of people to switch from de-activating their consciences to activating them. And see what happens. Clearly, nothing is going to happen through legislation and even less through the world or national judiciaries that are paid to uphold the legislation. Reliance on legislation is just a way of allowing the status quo to remain.

I’m not claiming you said something you didn’t say. You were very clearly using Anarchy in its political philosophical sense at post 2.03pm, and saying that therefore Francis was using it wrongly.

You were wrong to do that, as you were subsequently wrong to quibble about your original position.

I simply pointed out that it was also used in ordinary conversation to indicate a breakdown of order, which it is, and that was the sense in which Francis was using it.

If you don’t know what multiculturalism is and how it contrasts with more homogeneous societies, then it’s no wonder you’re having such problems understanding what’s going on.

I’d suggest you consult a dictionary.

You were able to find a dictionary definition for Anarchy, but as we know that didn’t help you much either.

The point about police involvement in a minor issue like this is itself the manifestation of the problem that’s being addressed. If it wasn’t that example it would be something else. That’s the point. Things like this happen when you enforce things like political correctness through the law.

Francis is very much dealing with self-censorship and a lack of common sense.

He also deals with miscegenation in another context, but then so do many other cultures both within the multiculture and beyond. However it doesn’t form part of the argument we’re dealing with here, no matter how much you wish it did.

I’m so pleased Francis ‘deals with miscengenation in another context’. By the way, person who appropriated a name from a book whose message they clearly do not understand, ‘miscegenation’ is a disgusting word; like genocide, or holocaust. It is not something to be tossed off lightly. But you carry on.

Post 203 pm: “anarchy posits that we do not need other people to tell us what to think and do.” I suppose you can think this to be political, if that’s the way you think.

I know what multiculturalism is. I have travelled and been welcomed by people from other cultures. I live among people from other cultures. They are people; a very few nasty bully boys and girls, and the rest not. What do you think it is?

It’s not a question of what I think multiculturalism is.

Neither is it a question of liking people or not liking them.

Clearly Francis is coming at these issues from some sort of sociological or anthropological perspective. He’s talking about the problems of multiculturalism. That’s the issue.

Even Sir Trev has talked about the problems of mutliculturalism.

If you think it’s as simplistic as liking or disliking people then you don’t really know what the debate is or why people are having it.

You need to put in a bit more effort than that.

I have just finished reading ‘V for vendetta’ – an amazing piece of art which covers alot of political ground and shows people what the meaning of true freedom is.

I wish I could buy a copy for all the people in the world.

As I wish the people of Britain would all read Craig’s ‘Murder in Samarkand’ and George Monbiot’s ‘Captive State’

We can only gently nudge the best we can until all people understand.

I know, that’s the terrible shame about ideologies. It doesn’t come down to simple human liking: people with articles to write (Francis) or with a post to hold (Sir Trevor) or political funding to gain (Griffin) talk about the ‘problems’ of the fact that, across the globe, people have differed in their appearance.

But anyway, please do define multiculturalism for me; I’m interested.

The problems of multiculturalism have got nothing to do with ideology. Far from it.

It’s much more the case that a naive celebration of multiculturalism comes from the ideological realm.

And again you’re fixated on the definitions of words in the same way you approached the issue of Anarchy, yet you’ve already said that you’re familiar with multiculturalism.

It seems you can only rise to semantic pedantry rather than discuss real-world matters. That’s quite a telling ideological trait.

And yet again you seem to think that complex real-world world problems can be reduced to liking or disliking people. It doesn’t make you a better person for thinking like that. It’s just naive, silly and lazy.

The first breaking of ranks.

“The former attorney general Lord Goldsmith last night called for an investigation into whether Britain’s intelligence agencies or government were complicit in the torture of British terror suspects abroad.”

“His view is at odds with the Government, which continues to deny there has been any collusion in torture. The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, last week dismissed the idea as “ludicrous lies”. The Government last week denied it was aware of any cruel or inhuman techniques of interrogation until 2004, after which it changed its guidelines for security officers ?” although these have never been published.”

“One former MI5 official told the IoS yesterday: “I find it inconceivable that the Government would not know. Security officers were making their concerns known about the use of torture in 2002. It is beyond belief that such complaints would not be passed up.”"

“Another authoritative intelligence source added: “Between 2002 and 2005 the UK was probably the most opportunistic partner of the US, picking the fruits of extraordinary rendition, torture and secret detention. Current CIA officers are quite bitter about this, saying that while they did all the dirty work the UK sneakily sent questions and interrogators.”"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/goldsmith-calls-for-investigation-into-uks-role-in-torture-1899128.html

Like the criminals and gangsters they are, once the heat is on they all start blaming eachother.

Oh happy days.

Now, where’s the Don, Mr Blair?

Lord Goldsmith speaks:

“Asked yesterday if he had discussed torture in 2002 he said: “it was an issue of importance to make sure we did not take part, of course, but to be sure that we didn’t do anything that might condone or be complicit in it”. “I’m very troubled by what actually happened,” he said recently, “and that’s why I’ve said yes, these are matters which ought to be investigated. If there was complicity, it’s important that people are brought to book.”"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/goldsmith-calls-for-investigation-into-uks-role-in-torture-1899128.html

Indeedy deedy doo. Good boy.

Gently gently, catchy monkey

No Lord Goldsmiths have been tortured during the taking of this statement.

See. It works!!

Oh dear.

It’s not going well at all. It’s getting worse.

“The senior Labour MP who led the revolt against Tony Blair’s 90-day detention bill yesterday intensified the political storm over Britain’s alleged complicity in torture by attacking the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC) for failing in its remit as overseer of the security services. The ISC, David Winnick said, had become a “mouthpiece for MI5″.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/14/mi5-torture-parliament-binyam-mohamed

Judge Gladys Kessler of the US District Court:

“Binyam Mohamed’s trauma lasted two long years. During that time, he was physically and psychologically tortured. His genitals were mutilated. He was deprived of sleep and food. He was summarily transported from one foreign prison to another. Captors held him in stress positions for days at a time. He was forced to listen to piercingly loud music and the screams of other prisoners while locked in a pitch-black cell. All the while, he was forced to inculpate himself and others in plots to imperil Americans. The government does not dispute this evidence.”

Read it, and weep for our political system, but give thanks that we’ve at least a judiciary left

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/65.html

Tim,

This isn’t quite right. We don’t have a partial judiciary left. When their backs are against the wall, they come out clean to preserve their reputation. I know of at least three cases where senior judges have brought in judgments to hide the involvement of the intelligence services in state crime.

Dear person who’s appropriated a name from a book whose message they clearly do not understand: you don’t know what ‘anarchy’ means; you refuse to define what you mean by ‘multiculturalism’, except for dark references to its ‘problems’; and you post a paragraph from a hack who was an extremist racist ideologue as an exemplar of political thought, then defend him by saying he arrived at his conclusions “from some sort of sociological or anthropological perspective.”

I think you’ve revealed enough about yourself, don’t you?

Ruth,

Can you point me to those ‘three cases’ please.

There is this good comment on Clive Stafford-Smith’s Independent article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/clive-stafford-smith-a-stuffed-toy-cant-stop-prisoner-abuse-mr-howells-1898860.html

‘Craig Murray has some interesting material to add here…

gulliver055 wrote:

Sunday, 14 February 2010 at 03:15 am (UTC)

Go to his website and follow the link to his televised testimony to the Commons committee on torture. He asserts that there was a UK SyS policy change around July 2002 after which ‘intelligence’ collected under torture would be admissible and usable by UK SyS. At this time US intelligence would’ve been presenting UK SyS with ‘intelligence’ written down while waterboarding suspects. He asserted that this was a conscious ministerial-level decision.

He asserted that ‘A vogue…an appetite for false intelligence’ had been created, the aim of which was to exaggerate threats in central Asia, such as where he was based in Uzbekistan, and thereby allow for the creation of narratives useful for the proponents of the war on terror. You get the idea – a local Uzbek resistance fighter becomes a global jihadist by the power of US-UK telegram.

The timing was concurrent with the Dimbleby dossiers released for domestic consumption.

Binyam is mentioned explicitly in this context.

Will this national hero be on the honours list? How many British residents have had to become part of the intelligence myth for piratical invasion and occupation, have their genitals set to with razors in the process, live in legal limbo for eight years, all to fit up the goverrnment’s non-existent case?’

Islam counts all cultures outside its monotheism as one following. It’s irrelevant which of the aspects of God’s creation people worship, it’s not worshipping God. This presents a problem to those who deny the existence of Truth and who like to present Islam as just another culture. You could call a chicken wing a brush used in rural England, but you can’t call a billiard cue a brush even though it’s the same shape as a broom. It has a different function.

There are of course some people who don’t like other cultures. But there is a universal resentment in this country against Islam. Every time the UKUS forces launch a brutal high-tech offensive like Fallujia or now in Helmand, I, a white British Muslim, get greeted by middle-aged English gentlemen passing by in the street with a cheery hello, which means: We are killing your brothers in thousands ho ho ho! Then, when you go to work on a day a few Brits have been killed, everyone looks at you as if you were Usama bin Laden and picks faults with your work all day.

In UK society, multiculturalism is welcome, but Islam is hated, and the reason the government gets away with torture is because the public really hate Islam.

@anno

The few that use their voices in the name of Islam and say ‘bad’ things fan many problems. Most people accept other religions but most people also remember the extreme outspoken things more than the less extreme.

It is this memory which is used to fan any anti-religion propaganda. Curtail the extreme and you may find there is a greater mass of support and sympathy. I would hope most people in the UK country disprove of any war and suffering. Those who abuse their powers in Government will hopefully get their due reward the legal way.

anon

i.e. ‘I would advise you at this stage Mr Anno not to make things worse by speaking the truth as you find it.’

On the contrary, if the British people do not address how they are perceived by others, inside and outside their community, then the likelihood of those others attacking us through sheer exasperation increases.

‘I have the right to remain an arrogant, violent, racist snob if I choose to’ is not the way to win friends and influence people. The Brits have got some work to do on themselves. ‘I would hope most people in the UK disprove of any war and suffering’. They don’t. They love it, or it wouldn’t be happening. There’s not going to be any legal redress against those in power, just an election and sweep the old lot under the carpet.

Sorry if the truth is too strong for you.

“Every time the UKUS forces launch a brutal high-tech offensive like Fallujia or now in Helmand, I, a white British Muslim, get greeted by middle-aged English gentlemen passing by in the street with a cheery hello, which means: We are killing your brothers in thousands ho ho ho!”

No it bloody doesn’t. It means “we are reassuring you that we don’t hate you or want to kill you but we don’t know how to stop this”. Just as you don’t.

@anno, I agree 100% with technicolour here, and although you and I have disagreed in the past (on religion) your perspective of the evil-ness of the UK is beginning to sound a bit mad.

Of the Brits disapproving of war and suffering, you say “they don’t. They love it, or it wouldn’t be happening”.

No offence meant, but this really does make you sound like you’re about nine years old. Surely you can think of alternative theories? How about the fact that the ordinary concerned civilian can do very little about it? Or, have you considered that our very human population is subject to relentless propaganda that encourages people into a dehumanisation process that makes foreign suffering less worthwhile than domestic suffering? Or how about that the man on the street has a world of problems of his own, and he can’t take the whole world on his shoulders? Or, perhaps, the ethos of capitalism is to inculcate selfishness, and that British people are vulnerable to that just as anyone else is?

I am not saying that people are right to appear unconcerned. Like you, I fervently wish foreign suffering would register much higher on the importance scale of British voters. But to suggest that British people are wholeheartedly supportive of a war against Islam is offensive and completely wrong.

You’ll not take the word of a non-Muslim for it, I’d wager, but I wonder if you might be swayed by progressive Muslims who are good at speaking out. Should you get the chance to see Moazzam Begg speak, I do recommend you go, and you should ask him whether he thinks the British people are at war with Islam. I don’t know him, and I don’t know what he would say, but I am confident he would disagree with you.

(He comes to mind as I am reading his memoirs, and they are both enlightening and humbling – highly recommended also).

Hey – anno and anon are not the same person! Eureka! It’s not an anagram or an amalgam. Unless, that is, there is a multiple personality thing going on… a la Fernando Pessoa.

Further to Jon’s excellent suggestion, though broadening it out somewhat, intelligent analysis across a borad spectrum can be found in the works of Ziauddin Sardar, Amina Wuddud, Leila Ahmed, Asma Barlas and many others. It’s not imperative that an individual agree with everything ll of these writers say, but they provide refreshing critique.

Also, expanding matters even further (as is my wont), it’s moving to listen to the songs of Yusuf Islam and Ian Abdellateef Whiteman/ Hajj Amin Michaal Evans. Many others, of course

Dear technicolour

You know nothing about me, nor do you know anything of debate or argument.

Childish word games, labels, definitions; mind-numbingly tedious abstractions. That’s all you can do. Life is just some sort of Scrabble game to you. I can just imagine you asking how many points for an “r” and an “ism”, and then claim to have won.

You’re not even in the foothills of understanding, nor ever will you be.

You’re pure superficiality and ideology, and nothing more.

You’re a perfect example of a mind controlled, but not by yourself.

But don’t fret. There are many more like you to keep you company. That’s the point, in so many ways.

Mary, I agree completely with you re. the heinous nature of UK state deep complicity and active pursuance of torture in the case of Binyam Mohd. and all the others. I think they should have redress and the cuplrits (from top to bottom) put on trial at the Hague. However, personally, I would hesitate before assigning him the role of ‘hero’ (national or otherwise). With all due respect, I do agree with most of what you write on this blog, but I think we have to be very careful about whom we choose to beatify.

yeah, ‘nurse’; don’t worry about the actual meaning of words, just ‘get an overall feel for the thing’; accept a lot of extremist racist rubbish poorly disguised as political thought; climb those ‘foothills of understanding’. You need to change your speech writer.

@Nurse Ratched: a few points if I may

I agree with your point that rules are brought in to strengthen oppression, though I see those rules as a natural effect of neoconservative capitalism. I am not sure multiculturalism is thought-control, however, and – though I have not read the author you cite – I do wonder if this is a prelude to arguing against the existence of a mixed-race society.

I think technicolour’s point on the definition of anarchy is well-founded, and though you are right that a common usage of the word means “lawlessness” or “chaos”, I would regard the common usage as technically incorrect. I tend to use the words lawlessness or chaos specifically, if that is what I mean, for the avoidance of doubt. Perhaps the board will get a chance to discuss the merits and drawbacks of anarchy another time?

In general, I dare say it is interesting to discuss multiculturalism, but one has to do so carefully – just in the same way as questioning how many people died in the Holocaust. In both cases it should be theoretically permissible to have a conversation, but you must know that most of those conversations are started by people who hold very racist ideas. I am not dismissing you as a racist – I don’t know what your views on racial differences are – but it is wise to bear this in mind!

Anyway, I would tend to put the blame for the lawlessness of which you speak at the door of neoconservatism, rather than multiculturalism. I think research has shown that where societal inequality grows, crime, depression, and a host of other social ills tend to follow. Neoconservatism likes to blame it on faulty genes, sheer laziness or inate criminality, but I think these are just excuses to tighten the ratchet further on already disenfranchised people – for entirely selfish ends.

I would point out that you seem to have made some ad hominem attacks on technicolour, which are unnecessary and distract from the core of what you are saying. Technicolour is a long-standing commenter here, his grasp of logical argument is sound, and he is willing to engage with people with whom he disagrees.

So – debate away, but stick to the primary guideline if you can, which is: be nice!

Ah, I found the posts I thought had vanished! Man, this requires a more arachnoid dynamic than negotiating the heliopause!

“a more arachnoid dynamic”

Touch-typing with a difference.

I keep getting the impression comments are in a different order from how they were last time.

It’s the Bow Shock, Richard, it’s the Bow Shock. Feel the Galactic Tide at your back, run with the Interstellar Wind! Yeah.

eddie’s in the space-time continuum ?

@ Jon

The term anarchy is mostly used to describe lawlessness and chaos, and hasn’t been used in the political philosophical sense much since WWI.

But that’s beside the point. It doesn’t matter what its “technical” definition is if someone is using to mean lawlessness or chaos. That’s all that’s important. The rest is tedious pedantry. I don’t agree that it has a “technical” definition in that sense either, but as I say it’s all beside the point.

No one is saying that multiculturalism is thought control, as you’d have seen when I responded earlier to this error on the part of technicolour.

There are many people who discuss multiculturalism, even Sir Trev. The reason they discuss it is because it presents challenges, and increasingly so as we have more and more experience of it.

Technicolour has but a naive appreciation of these matters and responds in a rather pavlovian way to signs and symbols.

That’s what thought control looks like.

Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia” is a good read.

Wikipedia also provides some English-language post-WW1 examples of the “hasn’t been much used” usage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia looks like another iteration of this same discussion.

As to the usual Humpty-Dumpty “don’t be so pedantic, it’s obvious the word only means what I want it to” – this works fine, so long as you’re only talking to yourself. If you expect to make any contact with anyone else, it’s more helpful to listen when the other party explains how they’re using their words.

Personally, I find Yeats’ ‘*Mere* anarchy’, along with the slightly-more-pedantic “anarchism” is clearer. But, if pedantry is tedious, there’s not really much point going further.

Nurse Knows Best, is all that’s going on.

Tsk, tsk, nurse. You agree with that wildly racist hack chap, remember?

I asked:

“I notice in your cut & paste from wiki the reference to “thought-control through…multiculturalist curricula”. Are you happy with that bit?”

You replied:

“I’m not at all happy with any form of thought control, from whatever source.”

You then tried to change tack to ‘political correctness’ and ‘self-censorship’, of course.

I appreciate you don’t care about the meaning of words, as long as they suit your agenda, but unfortunately, when using words, most people tend to see their meaning as important. For example, if I wanted to buy bananas, and asked instead for sausages. I might, of course, subsequently argue that what I meant was bananas, not sausages, or even that it didn’t actually matter what I meant, but I would still end up with a terrible banoffie pie.

Waiting with interest for your definition of ‘multiculturalism’. I’d like to know what you think there is to have a problem with, you see. Make one up, by all means.

@ Richard Robinson

There are definitely some very hard of thinking people here today.

If we were having a debate on political systems, then it would be important to be accurate about what you meant by Anarchy. You wouldn’t simply get that from a dictionary definition, of course, as naifs like technicolour might do. You’d need to look at writings by Anarchists, look for common themes and historical antecedents and so on etc etc.

BUT we weren’t having such a discussion.

Someone just happened to use the term anarchy to mean lawlessnes or chaos, in a much broader discussion. The term is quite commonly used in that fashion, and only a pedant or idiot would run around looking up dictionary definitions, complaining that the word was used incorrectly.

You see. It only matters when it is the nature of the term Anarchy that is at stake.

It doesn’t matter at all when someone is just using it interchangeably with chaos or lawlessness, as a descriptive term.

Anarchy after WWI: I was talking about Britain.

After WWI, the weirdos are pretty much all Communism or Fascism, and their variants, of which Anarchy is but a lingering idealism.

For example. They didn’t get too far in Homage to Catalonia and for obvious reasons.

“I asked:

“I notice in your cut & paste from wiki the reference to “thought-control through…multiculturalist curricula”. Are you happy with that bit?”

You replied:

“I’m not at all happy with any form of thought control, from whatever source.”"

So what’s your problem with this, Mr Dictionary?

The rest of what you wrote is drivel, I’m afraid.

Dead meat with toffee. No-one’s going to swallow it, you know.

Definition of multiculturalism, please?

Oh, just spotted “Communism or Fascism, and their variants, of which Anarchy is but a lingering idealism.”

Anarchy, a variant of fascism? Or communism? You know, I think you might actually have to read Homage To Catalonia, not just skip to the end.

When I mentioned multiculturalism initially, you told me you knew all about it.

What’s changed?

Other than that you’re flip flopping all over the place in desperation, of course.

Anyway. What’s wrong with the quoted piece above?

Don’t you know?

For the record. One of the problematics of definitions are mentioned in my reply to Mr Robinson.

“Oh, just spotted “Communism or Fascism, and their variants, of which Anarchy is but a lingering idealism.”

Anarchy, a variant of fascism? Or communism? You know, I think you might actually have to read Homage To Catalonia, not just skip to the end.”

And your point is what exactly. Do you have one or are you just bluffing again?

Nurse.

You are, of course, every bit as free as I am to make assertions as to what’s being discussed.

Me, I was picking up the bit about whether or not the word ‘anarchy’ only means chaos, and providing examples of other uses as an amplification of technicolour’s point.

I gave Orwell as an example of the word’s usage. I don’t take the point of your response, that it didn’t get far – does it have any bearing on the fact that that word was used of those ideals ? which was the point under discussion. The only meaning I can find in it is that you stick your fingers in your ears and shout “I don’t like it, make it go away, I’m not listening” rather than show any interest in talking sensibly.

If you have no better response than these silly sneering dismissals, I’ll just leave you all alone with your unquestionable “because I say so”. You don’t have any authority over me. If you can’t experience that as anything except chaos, it’s not my problem.

Bless you, Mr Ratched. I told you I knew what I meant by multiculturalism. I don’t see any problem with it. You do, from your dark murmurings and postings from an extremist racist hack so I would like to know what you mean by it. Simple.

My point is, read Homage to Catalonia, and you will see that anarchy, in its political, social and spiritual senses, is the antithesis of facism, and an enemy of communism. But this is like teaching. Really, do some reading.

“Me, I was picking up the bit about whether or not the word ‘anarchy’ only means chaos, and providing examples of other uses as an amplification of technicolour’s point.”

That was never in dispute, by me.

On the contrary, it was technicolour who wanted it only to have one meaning and therefore the writer was wrong to use it in any other sense.

In other words, techinicolour found a dictionary definition of anarchy and said the writer was wrong to use it to mean lawlessness or chaos.

It’s all there in the early posts on this issue.

Given that you don’t have a very clear idea of what’s actually being discussed, it’s probably best if you toodle along.

I can manage the dictionary pedant on my own, thanks.

“My point is, read Homage to Catalonia, and you will see that anarchy, in its political, social and spiritual senses, is the antithesis of facism, and an enemy of communism.”

Well no actually. Unfortunately it’s not that simple.

Anarchists formed alliances with Communists in both the Spanish Civil War and indeed in Weimar Germany.

Some anarchists even became fascists.

This is where your dictionary definitions let you down, you see. Things are a wee bit more complex than can be reduced to definition.

Oh, now you’re attacking Mr Robinson. Do you ever listen to anyone who would like to discuss things with you? I guess you can’t, otherwise you might have to change your agenda. So a bit of a sticky situation, I agree. I’m sorry.

And I would point out in warning that most extremist power-hungry racists end up dying alone and widely reviled, or, in Francis’ case, writing furious complaints to tv companies about the ‘miscegenation’ shown in adverts. Are there not better things you could be getting on with?

For the record, my definition of anarchy – which is that it posits that no-one needs anyone to tell them what to think, or do – is all my own. Not a dictionary definition. I did, you are right, also include a dictionary definition. Do you disagree with definitions, Mr Ratched?

I can’t imagine that you perfuddfle (see what I did there), so I’m still waiting for your definition of multiculturalism. I am beginning to suspect, though, that you do not want to define it, because that would reveal it to be harmless, if not actually rather positive. But surprise me.

Not much point listening to Mr Robinson if he’s confusing my and your argument.

He was actually making my case and arguing against yours, even though he thought he was doing the opposite.

I don’t think there’s much point defining things like Anarchy or Fascism for example. They’re notoriously difficult to define, quite simply because the complexity of human life and emotion and desire etc refuses definition. The best you can get is a reductive beginning for further research.

So the way you approach things like this is to look at how they function. How do they work? What do they do?

Same with multiculturalism.

And you have to take on board things that the likes of Sir Trev says. He’s not a racist and he recognises problems with multiculturalism.

So if someone posts something about multiculturalism, it’s not enough to let loose with a load of isms and claim you’ve won.

“Do you ever listen to anyone who would like to discuss things with you ?”

Doesn’t seem to have any repertoire at all, really, just the one song over and over. Not to worry, I have interesting things to do as well.

One of which is, I notice that the last couple of sentences of my previous point to an actual in-process-of-being-worked example of what’s being argued (perhaps, for some peoples’ definitions of) -

Namely, that this situation right here, whatever labels we like to use, is one where no-one has authority over another. And, some people are dealing with that as equals, some are ‘merely’ making chaos and mischief, and others are acting as though they believe that they can acquire authority by acting authoritarian.

Barring Craig, of course, his position is different. And, again, I note calls for The Man to sort things out by making the “bad” bits go away at the push of a button …

Mr Robinson

You hadn’t the foggiest what was being discussed, so much so that even though you thought you were taking technicolour’s part, you were actually making the point I was making.

It’s there in the post.

You really ought to be apologising.

OK, cross posting:

Anarchists formed alliances with Communists in both the Spanish Civil War and indeed in Weimar Germany.

That was because they were united in fighting against fascism. As Orwell makes clear, in Spain (digested read) the Soviet sponsored communists turned on the anarchists as a threat to their hierarchical state system and brutally suppressed them.

Some anarchists even became fascists.

And?

Hey Mr Robinson, I agree.

“OK, cross posting:

Anarchists formed alliances with Communists in both the Spanish Civil War and indeed in Weimar Germany.

That was because they were united in fighting against fascism. As Orwell makes clear, in Spain (digested read) the Soviet sponsored communists turned on the anarchists as a threat to their hierarchical state system and brutally suppressed them.

Some anarchists even became fascists.

And?”

The AND is that the reality undermines the definition. The purity described in your definition just doesn’t exist, other than in marks on a page.

I think, Nurse (interesting name to choose) that you mistake the idea of debate. No-one is on anyone’s side.

Still waiting for your definition of multiculturalism (see above)

technicolour wrote:

“Hey Mr Robinson, I agree.”

Really?

Do you agree with this bit?

“I was picking up the bit about whether or not the word ‘anarchy’ only means chaos, and providing examples of other uses”

This is quite dull, now. My post from about three days back:

“Anarchy, from the greek ‘anarkos’ – ‘without a ruler’ – posits that we do not need other people to tell us what to think and do…Oddly, even some self-declared anarchists like to tell other people what to think and do, too.”

What you say you are is not what you are. I am quite prepared to believe, for example, that Nick Griffin is just saying he is a right wing racist extremist in order to get power and be popular among a small contingent, and to support his right wing parent. I feel for a person who has made a cage of their own making, in this way. And I feel for the society that has his views, and the views of his mad supporters, inflicted on them. But I feel for him, because how can he ever withdraw? Could Hitler ever have said ‘hold on, this is nonsense?’. Maybe, before he killed people.

“You really ought to be apologising.”

Feel free to hold your breath if you want to.

Nurse, I was rather hoping my attempt at diplomacy would be the start of an interesting discussion, not the continuation of a fraught one.

I said I didn’t know about your views on racial differences, but given that you may have cited a racist, it would be interesting to hear what your views actually are. Especially since technicolour is essentially asking the same, relevant, question )

It may be too late to ask everyone to play nicely, but the ad hominem really is unhelpful if you want other people to see your perspective.

Naughty, naughty, technicolour

This is what you posted, and is the subject of the dispute:

“Anarcho-tyranny: another way to bash the word anarchy, via a man (Samuel T Francis) who clearly had no idea what it means”

I simply pointed out that the man was using the term to indicate chaos or lawlessness, but you insisted he was using it wrongly, and you argued and argued and argued, so much so that poor Mr Robinson got all confused and supported me by saying:

“I was picking up the bit about whether or not the word ‘anarchy’ only means chaos, and providing examples of other uses”

Precisely what I was arguing.

You may redeem yourself with an apology. Or not. As you wish.

I think the point about being hateful of other people and cultures is that hate is stupid (irrational, meaningless, self-destructive) , but it gives power: either a cold, icy power, or a fire-fuelled fury, but either way. Frost put it better:

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I’ve tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To know that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

Dear Mr Ratched, I don’t think you are either. Do you really want destruction and death? From your presence on this board I don’t think so. All this stuff is interesting, isn’t it? Not a way to rabble rouse. But I think you may be using forces beyond your control. So what are you? Please define multiculturalism, by the way.

I was picking up the bit about whether or not the word ‘anarchy’ only means chaos, and providing examples of other uses”

I agree with this. What are you on about?

@ Jon

I initially came to this through the post of another. Can’t remember who now, it’s all so long ago.

What I found interesting were his observations thus, excluding Americanisms.

“What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny?”the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.”

And technicolour became all pedantic over his use of the term “anarchy” which he’s been arguing about ever since.

So we haven’t really got round to anything I would call substantive.

“I was picking up the bit about whether or not the word ‘anarchy’ only means chaos, and providing examples of other uses”

I agree with this. What are you on about?”

What I’m on about is that if you agree with this then you must also agree that the writer can use the term anarchy to indicate chaos or lawlessness without being WRONG.

la la la. Goodnight, nurse. I guess you will have to be happy with your core supporters, who don’t question meaning, or indeed the sources you use.

Btw being ‘wrong’ is fine. Refusing to expand your narrow definition of a term, in the teeth of all the evidence, is self-serving. But hey. You only wanted to post Francis to get some approval of an extremist racist hack who (I notice) met Mr Griffin, so that’s OK too. Sorry it didn’t wash.

@ technicolour

Hmmm. Well. I think la la la is about your mark.

You’ve contradicted yourself on the only point in dispute.

It’s obvious to everyone but an idiot that the writer can use the term anarchy to indicate chaos or lawlessness. It doesn’t matter that it’s used to describe a political philosophy too.

Even Mr Robinson eventually understood that.

“I agree with this”

*Everybody* agrees with this. Sweetness and light all round, isn’t that nice ?

Everybody* agrees with this. Sweetness and light all round, isn’t that nice ?

Yeah, fuckit. As I said, Francis used the word anarchy in his own self-serving way, with no appreciation of the context or philosophy or of the word’s multiple meanings.

Why anyone should even listen to Mr Ratchet, never mind be sweetness and light to him, is therefore a good question. There is no reality or tangible sense. Jon?

definition of multiculturalism, please, Mr Ratchet?

Oh, there are so many points in dispute. Forget ‘anarchy’; let’s deal with your views on ‘multicultural society’. See above. Define it, you coward.

“Yeah, fuckit. As I said, Francis used the word anarchy in his own self-serving way, with no appreciation of the context or philosophy or of the word’s multiple meanings.”

You didn’t say anything of the sort, but had you said that you’d still be a pedantic idiot.

People use the term anarchy everyday to describe absence of order, or chaos or lawlessness.

And the only reason you get upset about it is because you’re programmed to go off at the sight of certain key words.

No thinking adult would get upset about it. Grow up!

And then you think you can run around abusing people just because you don’t do thinking, eh.

The cheek of it!

I’ve explained the problematics of definitions a number of times now. To define is to limit. This is well accepted by everyone except yourself and Mr Robinson.

Amusing though that yourself and Mr Robinson seek to limit human experience.

This will give you an idea as to what’s at stake

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3600791.stm

No no no Mr Ratchet. Answer the questions before you start calling people stuff. I will answer any question you care to put, or try to. So answer mine. What is your definition of multiculturalism?

yes yes yes miss technicolour.

The world is as it is. Words are as they are, and there is no definition that does justice to the complexity of multiculturalism.

That’s why these clever people on the BBC are saying things like:

“There are two ways in which people interpret multiculturalism.”

“Multiculturalism is sometimes taken to mean”

“To understand multiculturalism is to appreciate that it means many different things.”

In other words the kind of thing I’ve been saying all along.

So not only have you lost the “anarchy” word game. You also lost the useless definitions game.

Bet you wish you’d stayed in bed this morning, eh, with Mr Robinson perhaps?

No, Mr Ratched, I might be gay, or female, or anything, but I wish I could take your love truncheon and show it the meaning of sensitivity. I think it has some learning to do.

Anyway, never mind the ‘clever people’ at the BBC. Define multiculuralism, since you have a such a problem with it, please. Oh, you’re not going to? Argue away, then. Francis is discredited, no-one with a vocabulary can understand you, you remain in a blocked in minority, that’s fine.

technicolour: this is all getting a bit circular for me. I’m outta here: at least anno is a tiny bit more responsive!

FWIW: “multiculturalism” is the concept that races can, and should, live side by side, as harmoniously as their differences will allow, since it is better in the long-term to understand other races and cultures than to develop the resentment that comes from segregation. It is, accordingly, also a study dedicated to improving the same.

“Bet you wish you’d stayed in bed this morning, eh, with Mr Robinson perhaps?”

Given the available evidence, this is an extremely odd conclusion to arrive at.

That’s not a definition of something that exists.

It’s an aspiration.

They’re the last things that are definable, for obvious reasons.

Well, I think multiculturalism exists as a concept, as well as a practical reality. Though we can aspire to improving it, as you say, and we should.

But why are you so opposed to it? Is segregation, or apartheid, better in some way? How?

“I’m still waiting for your definition of multiculturalism. I am beginning to suspect, though, that you do not want to define it, because that would reveal it to be harmless, if not actually rather positive. But surprise me.”

“I’m still waiting …”

He came here telling us all to read some writer or other, with some fantastically applicable description of UK society. The tyranny of repressive gun laws, etc. Oh, well it’s self evidently not a description of the UK, only a fool would think so; but it _could_ be, if only everybody else would do the work of making it fantastically applicable. Then, no, no, it says something very important about ‘multiculturalism’, but he won’t say what.

In short, there’s no evidence that he has anything to say at all, except that we should all read this thing, and it’s up to us to guess why. No evidence, in fact, that he’s read it himself, or understood a word of it if he did.

A remarkably ineffective advertising campaign.

“A remarkably ineffective advertising campaign”

On which happy, and perspicacious note, good night, all.

@ Jon

“Well, I think multiculturalism exists as a concept, as well as a practical reality. Though we can aspire to improving it, as you say, and we should.”

Multiculturism certainly exists as a project, a policy, an aspiration, an engineering of the social sphere. I’m not so sure it has reality and existence as an achieved.

But still, your idea that different cultures can live together in an improved way, shows at least that you have insights and potential that are lacking in technicolour and Mr Robinson.

On apartheid and segregation, fwiw, I’ve opposed both when they were real live issues, as did the vast majority of my generation.

I remember when racism was a real live issue just as others will have remembered when anti-semitism was a real live issue, before they became disgracefully appropriated by particularly nasty political projects, who sought to use them to dominate others for advantage.

@Nurse:

“I’m not so sure [multiculturalism] has reality and existence as an achieved.”

Not sure what you mean by this. Is that a reference to the imperfectness of multiculturalism e.g. cultural segregation in Britain by choice? That does happen, though our streets are still multicultural in reality even if complete harmony and acceptance is not possible (hey, all races are still only human).

“On apartheid and segregation, fwiw, I’ve opposed both when they were real live issues, as did the vast majority of my generation.”

Glad to hear it!

“… before [racism and anti-semitism] became disgracefully appropriated by particularly nasty political projects, who sought to use them to dominate others for advantage.”

Would love to respond to that, but of what “nasty political projects” do you speak? Zionism, perhaps?

But surely multiculturalism is not merely the fact that we have a diverse culture, as we obviously have. It’s the making of special laws about it.

It’s the making of extra laws to ensure people have the correct attitudes.

The nasty political projects are quite simply those who have exploited anti-racist legislation in the West to attack critical enquiry.

The Zionist or right-wing Israeli project accuses everyone who criticises it of anti-semitism, even if they are Jews. That’s how bad they are.

They’ll destroy your career if you criticise them, even the careers of brilliant Jewish intellectuals.

We see a similar thing, on a much smaller scale, when we look at the career of former Met Commander Ali Dizaei.

There are many more examples of abuses of multicultural legislation, so much so indeed that the majority community lose faith in the project.