The Sheer Front of David Miliband 219

Having been roundly defeated in the Court of Appeal, and with it now established beyond doubt that the UK knew that Binyam Mohammed was being tortured by the USA, Miliband has the massive effrontery to welcome the decision.

The truth about the government’s complicity in torture is becoming established beyond doubt. I am still shocked about the virtual media blackout on my own evidence to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights.

But am comforted that the forthcoming dramatisation of Murder in Samarkand with David Tennant will do more for popular understanding than dry evidence ever could.

We will never see justice, but I would strongly support the calls for a public inquiry into UK complicity with torture. Preferably of an inquisitorial kind; but even the cosy conversations of the Chilcot committee have thrown up some truth.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

219 thoughts on “The Sheer Front of David Miliband

1 3 4 5 6 7 8
  • technicolour

    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.

  • Nurse Ratched

    @ 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.”

  • Ruth

    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.

  • Nurse Ratched

    @ 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.

  • Roderick Russell


    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.

  • Ruth

    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.

  • Richard Robinson

    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.

  • Nurse Ratched

    @ 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.

  • anon

    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.

  • Nurse Ratched

    @ anon


    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.

  • technicolour

    “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.”


    “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?

  • technicolour

    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.

  • technicolour

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

  • anon

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

  • Nurse Ratched

    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.

  • technicolour

    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.


    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.

  • anno


    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.

  • Nurse Ratched

    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.

  • technicolour

    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?

  • Nurse Ratched

    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.

  • Chris Dooley

    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.

  • technicolour

    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.

  • Nurse Ratched

    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.

  • I'm a regular sorta guy

    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.””

    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?

  • Good cop Bad cop

    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.””

    Indeedy deedy doo. Good boy.

    Gently gently, catchy monkey

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

    See. It works!!

  • It didn't have to be like this

    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″.”

  • not me guv

    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.”

  • Ruth


    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.

1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Comments are closed.