Still at Schiphol 1154

I am becoming quite fond of my little corner of Schiphol airport. I have put up my Christmas cards and a few bits of tinsel. I now have a boarding card for the 0800 to Manchester. This is the sixth boarding card I have had. It is very hard to understand why, time after time, they don’t know a flight is cancelled until some time after it was due to leave and all the passengers have queued at the gate for hours.

Of course, Manchester is a lot further from Ramsgate than Schiphol is, so even if the flight atually goes, this represents rather dubious progress.

Happy New Year everybody.

Remarkably, KLM delivered my lost luggage, including my laptop, at 9.30 pm on New Year’s Eve. At that time a pretty lively party was already in full swing,much improved by the presence of a great many beautiful young women, mostly from Latvia. I am not sure why; my life as ever consists of a bewildering succession of chance encounters with really nice people. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that Nadira was the most lovely of all, without indulging in dutiful hyperbole.

It was an extremely happy Christmas. Having my mum, both my brothers and all my three chidren together was as great as it was rare.

We have been through the laptop in lost luggage discussion before. The problem is that my shoulders dislocate at the drop of a hat, and I travel without hand luggage to avoid an accident.

2011 is going to be a very important year for me. particularly the first quarter. A number of crucial events are going either to set me up financially for the rest of my life, or result in real distress and failure. At present I have reason to be very optimistic. I am also very absorbed in my life of Alexander Burnes, which I hope will help establish a serious academic reputation.

The Portuguese edition of Murder in Samarkand has sold unexpectedly well in Brazil. The translation of the Turkish edition has just been finished.

I hope to do a Wikileaks retrospective in the next couple of days. Just a quick thought on the case of the poor young gardener in Bristol. Of the Jill Dando case, long before Barry Bulsara’s succesful appeal I blogged that this appeared to be a miscarriage of justice in which the police had fitted up the local weirdo.

Despite not being enamoured of landlords in general, I fear the same dynamic is at work in Bristol, albeit Chris Jefferies is much more intellectually capable than Bulsara. My instinct is that the police have picked up on Jefferies for being camper than a boy scout jamboree and archer than Trajan.

Jefferies’ release on bail has me worried that there was nothing against him other than the “He’s a weird one, guv” instinct of some not very bright cop. The case needs to be closely watched as history shows that the powers of the police to make the evidence fit the suspect are considerable.

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>

1,154 thoughts on “Still at Schiphol

1 35 36 37 38 39
  • gyges

    Often I wonder, under the British legal system, what is the probability that someone has committed a crime given that they’ve been convicted of that crime.

    Just imagine that the answer is 99%; this sounds reasonable but with a prison population of 88,000, there would be 880 people in prison who had been convicted of a crime but had not committed that crime.

    Anyway, I’ve got more to say on the subject but this is more of a blogpost than a comment.

  • Jon

    Could the person who is re-posting items anonymously choose a name and stick to it? The thread gets a bit confusing otherwise.

    @Steelback – I made some points earlier [January 2, 2011 2:48 PM] regarding Kevin MacDonald, and the dynamics of scientifically interesting work that could be misused to support racist political platforms. Care to comment? MacDonald himself has done so, at length. Would be a more productive use of your intellect than constant sniping.

  • CD

    I see the sick monkeys have shown up to fling their faecal matter around.

    From the owner of this site:

    July 6, 2010

    * Not Wanted *

    Apostate, Freeborn and Steelback (who may or may not all be the same person) are not welcome on this site, under these or any other names


    Once again a meaningful debate gets buried in an avalanche of personal abuse.

    This unwanted, taunting and degrading demonstration of trollery seals the argument for the urgent need for some kind of moderation. In case we’d forgotten.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “There are applying a unified jurisprudence despite the historical distnictions between Napoleanic, Common Law and the various European legal systemn that have united within the EU.”

    You couldn’t be more wrong, Courtenay.

    Sweden is not applying a “unified jurisprudence” at the level of the court of first instance, or even at the court of final review. Nor is the UK. Nor is Germany. Etc.

    I stand by my original comment. You can’t graft common law legal concepts onto the Swedish legal system.

    It’s not a big deal if you don’t understand European integration. But it is a big deal if you – loudly – get the most basic concepts completely wrong.

    I studied law at Leiden, btw.

  • Jon

    CD: done.

    I’ve removed one post each from Steelback and Apostate for abusive behaviour. Civil contributions welcomed.

  • glenn

    Comrades, the organisation “Justice for Women” had nothing to do with the posts above that purported to be from them. I contacted them, and they confirmed it. We’re just dealing with another boring, lying troll masquerading as a representative of a worthwhile organisation.

  • Jon

    @Apostate: I am only intending to moderate lightly, but if you could refrain from making rape jokes, that would be appreciated. Civil contributions welcomed.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    CD, what insinuations? Alfred has displayed his views many times on this website; I did not provoke him into these views. He has taken every opportunity to ezpress them in any manner possible. I criticised these ideas.

    Now it appears that you’re basically blaming me for the “tone of the comments on this blog”. I didn’t hear from you, CD, when Alfred repeatedly insinuated that I was supportive of (or not sufficiently critical of), for eg. avatar singh, nor did I hear your gently censorious tones when ‘Larry’ was suggesting that I was “a jihadist” who supposedly was “ready to don a suicide-belt”, etc. You offered no criticism of Larry or Alfred. You did not criticise Alfred when he made the “genocide in Leicester” comments, nor any of the other comments relating to this subject. Apostate has been “baiting” me for months. Alfred explodes in childish, petulant rage every time anyone persistently disagrees with him. You offer no critique of this behaviour. You seem to have just appeared, out-of-the-blue. How fortuitous!

    The posts which the anonymous contributor – who is not me; I do not post anonymously – presented above are simply small examples of the kind of material Alfred has been posting. Yet you try to draw a spurious chronological link b/w the posts you quoted and those and make an entirely erroneous inference from that. I did not cause Alfred to issue such statements. That is utter nonsense.

    In fact, I have disagreed with almost all contributors at one time or another. I have not been “sowing patronising insinuations about motives and identities” in any of those cases. On the contrary, it is you who is being patronising.

    Alfred will be very pleased that he has found such a dogged and loyal supporter as you, CD. Why, he even raise the flag! Why is Alfred not speaking for himself, though? Is it permissible to ask this question or this, too, deemed to be “goading”?

    CD, welcome to this website and may you prosper in your new role.

  • dreoilin

    Jon, I’m very glad to see someone doing the moderation job.

    Would you like to post your basic ground rules here?

    Or have they been agreed between you and Craig and will they be posted later?

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Furthermore, CD, I have engaged in as many “meaningful debates” on this site as any other regular contributor. You, on the other hand, appear to have just arrived. You describe yourself as “an honest interlocutor”. Why, then, in this situation into which you seem from the void (as it were) to have inserted yourself are you addressing only me and not Alfred? Perhaps, CD, it would be useful if you could be seen to engaging in some “meaningful debate” before we accept your self-appointed performative casting.

  • Jon

    @dreoilin – good idea. Craig’s direction was characteristically brief: “be liberal”!

    I propose therefore that anyone may comment, but anything that is posted for the primary purpose of abusing another poster will be removed. Spam will be deleted on sight, subject to time constraints (there’s a lot of it and this platform is +slow+). Otherwise, anything goes. I’ve not received any directions regarding the banned commenters, so for my part, they are welcome to post, subject to the above rules.

  • CD

    Suhayl, I see no point in me condemning Larry. He’s already been ‘banned’. Why preach to the converted? And my criticism would do nothing to dissuade him: he’d only use it as a stepping stone for further attacks.

    Likewise with Apostate and his multiple putrid personalities. I don’t engage with trolls. I’d recommend that policy widely.

    You, however, are not a troll. You’ve just been baiting them, sometimes (I reckon) for fun, and I’m not sure you’re been alert to the consequences.

    I saw no reason to criticise Alfred, because his unpalatable views were already being competently dissembled, by you and others. Those early debates were enlightening. Alfred argued well, and changed my mind on some issues (e.g. the constitutional monarchy), although he propounded some views I was uncomfortable with.

    However, it seemed to me you deliberately hectored him and changed his attitude. It was fine when you were actually engaging with him, you scored a few hits. But I believe you (and occasionally others) dragged the tone down with sniping tactics, and that’s what ultimately prompted his retreat in frustration. I don’t see that as a victory.

    I accept you’ve had a very rough ride from the trolls. It’s one of the most disturbing aspects of this site (and a good reason not to use real names). Their vile abuse was damaging the reputation of the site. Good bloody riddance to them!

    The situation started to seem like bullying, with feeling justified in responding in kind. The weight of numbers was against Alfred. He said some rotten things, but I’m actually not swayed by your cries of “He started it”. It only takes a little goading and a cycle of retaliation to start a war.

    Alfred holds positions that are unpopular amongst the political left, true. But that’s a reason to include him and argue with him, not to taunt and exclude him.

    I’m criticising you because I think there’s a good chance you might actually listen. That puts you well above the trolls in my estimation. If you continue to dismiss these concerns then we can both start dredging up quotes and dates, but it’s likely to be a long haul.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    “a blatant attempt to stick a BNP sticker on AB so he would be tainted with all the assumptions and negativity that group attracts” CD (at 2:54pm).

    Do you think that that group, or those espousing their core ethos, ought not to attract “assumptions and negativity”? Are these assumptions somehow mistaken? If so, how exactly?

    Well, I’m afraid it was Alfred who repeatedly insinuated the BNP into as many of the debates and discourses as he possibly could on this website over a period of around a year now. It was definitely not me who stuck “a BNP sticker on Alfred”. If anyone stuck “a BNP sticker on Alfred” it was himself. I simply asked him be frank instead of constantly insinuating.

    Oh, it’s been done to death now.

  • Apostate


    As I suspected all along YOU are one of the shills.

    You know damn well I’m not making jokes re-rape. I’m complaining re-threats of anal rape against me being used by the Zionist shills who you have allowed to hi-jack this website.

    Since when did threats of anal rape, lies and smears against your opponents constitute legitimate debate?

    Now you have the control of the blog you have coveted for so long there can be no doubt you will use it to to air-brush wholesale the contributions from anti-Zionists and truthseekers you and the shills like to smear as racists and “anti-semites”.

    Well we’re going to make sure you’ve got a full-time job on your hands……



  • Suhayl Saadi

    CD at 10:03pm: Your post crossed with mine of 10:07pm. Okay, I take your points. Thank you for engaging.

    If you look at the way Alfred has interacted on most threads, it’s followed the same pattern, regardless of who has been attempting to engage with him. This is because eventually he tends to distill everything down to the same little core of race-based theory. So he ends up being cornered and losing it, withdrawing, the n returning on another thread was though nothing had happened and seemingly in denial of all that went before. Richard Robinson actually alluded to this dynamic some time ago.

    Anyway, be assured that I do take your points on board and once again thank you for engaging. Sorry if I wrongly assumed you were a sock-puppet of Alfred; he’s had so many blooming sock-puppets recently.

  • tungsten


    Your first night on the job does not inspire confidence.

    First you smear someone with an MA research degree in black literature as a “racist” (Steelback) on the rather absurd grounds it seems to me that sue hayle says he is.

    Then you censor out Apostate’s complaints re-threats of anal rape being used as a substitute for debate on the absurdly false grounds that HE was “making jokes” about rape……

    I read the comments. They were in no way making a joke re-rape. They were re-people on this comment board who are not well informed enough to participate in debate and therefore use insults, smears and threats of anal rape to impress their intellectually challenged colleagues.

    Accusing the complainant of making a joke re-the crime of which they were the victim is compounding the felony.

    Why the Hell should someone who’s been threatened with anal rape on this comment board want to make a joke about it?

    I should chuck in your day job pal. You’re gonna be busy from now on.

    Why are you allowing that transparent agent provocateur sue hayle to drag this comment board through the mire?

    His comments have been sheer inanity and a constant irritant from the get-go?

    I think in the first minutes of your being in post as moderator we know exactly where you’re coming from.

    Who are you going to have deputize for you when you’re snowed under and need a break?

    Let me guess…..sue hayle, technicolor, glenn, angrisoba?

    Thought so.

    Until now I have been greatly impressed with your intellectual agility and energy as well as your diplomatic skills but in view of the way you’re using your new role to censor legitimate complaints from people who clearly feel they have been abused

    I am revising this assessment.

  • Jon

    Apostate, you are frustrating. An otherwise good poster says something silly towards you, once, and you take it as a genuine threat? Grow up! I’ve deleted a good few of your insulting posts and will continue to do so.

    On the other hand, if you want to engage people in debate, that’s all to the good. I thought the material from Kevin MacDonald was contentious, but certainly not easily dismissed. But please don’t exercise your hobby horse for every post – you must be interested in something other than Jewish people!

  • Steelback

    Anybody want to call me a racist?

    I’ve probably got the largest library of black writing outside a fucking university.

    Who the BeJeezus do these little shits like sue hayle et al think they are?

    If his novels are anything like the utter tripe he contributes here he needs BANNING!

    The sooner our new moderator works out who is really intent on ruining this discussion board and creating bad feeling the better.

  • CD

    Good, Suhayl. Seems like progress.

    It’s arguable that the “distilling” down of Alfred’s views to a little core of racist principles resulted from the series of leading questions that were put to him, and that he wasn’t happy with that pattern.

    At one point, he retorted:


    I take strong exception to your allegation about my “oft-expressed race theories.”

    That is a total and offensive lie.

    Quite a strong rebuttal! It seemed to me he objected precisely because he didn’t think his views should be distilled down to those simple prejudices. I think his point was more subtle, but other people were repeatedly casting as brainless BNP propaganda. It’s a pity he’s no longer around to argue the case.

  • Jon

    @tungsten – see above. I am entirely unimpressed with the ‘threat of rape’ argument – as far as I can tell, it was a silly remark that would be best ignored. You have proven yourself able to conduct yourself with civility on this board, but you have a substantial track record of deliberate disruption also.

    Suhayl isn’t an agent provocateur, but nevertheless I intend to remain as even-handed as I can when moderating. Where necessary I’ll step out of debates to avoid a conflict of interest.

    Hopefully I’ll not need to do any deleting at all, aside from the spam!

  • writerman

    What I find difficult to understand is why people don’t seem to realize the massive contribution the role of the state plays in the ‘welfare’ of capitalism, agruably, without it, the modern corporate state would collapse through lack of demand, falling real wages, and over-production.

    For example, consumer capitalism, is difficult to imagine without it’s twin, the welfare state that ‘garantees’ a basic and permanent level of demand, a form of planned economy.

    Even in the US one has the central role of ‘defense spending’ in the economy which substitutes for the welfare state ‘subsidies’ which we have in Europe.

    ‘Liberalism’ was always a myth, the state was always deeply, intimately, involved in capitalism, right from the very beginning, and now of course, it’s involvement is absolutely essential, as the colossal bailouts of the financial system ‘prove’, capitalism without the state is unthinkable.

  • nextus

    Clown puppet to Jon: “Your first night on the job does not inspire confidence.”

    Au contraire! (Et au revoir!)

    Some posts are, and should be, deleted for being inflammatory and abusive. If you show no respect for other people, why should they show any respect for you?

  • dreoilin

    Quit the blatant lies, apostate/tungsten/freeborn et al.

    Here, in its entirety, is what was posted by CheebaCow on the subject:

    Be honest you can tell me, are you still upset because I intentionally broke the condom last time I had my way with you or is it that people are still calling you prostate? (even your Top Gun friends)

    Posted by: CheebaCow at December 18, 2010 5:08 PM

    I want to apologise to everyone for baiting that response. I wasn’t quite expecting such a torrent. While I found the response funny, I’m sure there were many that didn’t. Sorry about that everyone.

    Posted by: CheebaCow at December 19, 2010 8:41 AM

    The only person talking about threatened rape, anal or otherwise, ever since, is you, and you’ve dragged as many names into it as possible, including mine. If you can’t even post without lying through your teeth, god help you.

  • nextus

    Jon: “I’ve not received any directions regarding the banned commenters, so for my part, they are welcome to post, subject to the above rules.”

    Craig: “Apostate, Freeborn and Steelback (who may or may not all be the same person) are not welcome on this site, under these or any other names”

    Sounds like directions to me. You say they’re welcome but Craig said they aren’t.

    Well, you can use your own judgement, but I think it’s already clear they’re intent on disruption. Give them any leeway, and they’ll exploit it to the full. They are anti-liberals, with no place in a liberal forum, and the protestations of unfairness are contrived.

  • Apostate


    The idea that my comments are exclusively re-Jewish people is entirely fallacious as you well know.

    I posted re-the Soham case only yesterday and included two links.

    If you’re a moderator then why are you trying to smear me as obsessed with Jewish people?

    You’re not a moderator at all. You’re one of the Zio-shills I rumbled long ago. Your job is to prevent the truth re-Israel getting out.

    It’s not working…..

    Your smears are going to backfire big-time!

  • Jon

    @Apostate – regarding comments on the Soham case: I stand corrected. For the record, I have no intention being a ‘shill’ for anyone.

    @dreoilin is also correct. There was, in fact, no rape joke at all. Any further references to such a thing will therefore be deleted.

    Let us move on – plenty more stuff to talk about. Wikileaks, Palestine, Afghanistan, Western foreign policy, Gazan youth manifesto…

1 35 36 37 38 39

Comments are closed.