The Guardian Protects Gould-Werritty

by craig on December 1, 2011 10:49 am in Uncategorized

The planned scenario for a war with Iran is playing out before our eyes at frightening speed now. Unfortunately. as I have frequently said, Iran has a regime that is not only thuggish but controlled by theocratic nutters: the attack on the British Embassy played perfectly into the hands of the neo-cons. William Hague is smirking like the cat who got the cream.

The importance of the Fox-Gould-Werritty scandal is that it lifts the lid on the fact that the move to war with Iran is not a reaction to any street attack or any nuclear agency report. It is a long nurtured plan, designed to keep feeding the huge military industrial war machine that has become a huge part of the UK and US economies, and whose sucking up of trillions of dollars has contributed massively to the financial crisis, and which forms a keystone in the whole South Sea Bubble corporate finance system for servicing the ultra-rich. They need constant, regenerative war. They feed on the shattered bodies of small children.

Gould, Fox and Werritty were plotting with Israel to further war with Iran over years. The Werritty scandal was hushed up by Gus O’Donnell’s risibly meagre “investigation” – a blatant cover-up – and Fox resigned precisely to put a cap on any further digging into what they had been doing. I discovered – with a lot of determination and a modicum of effort – that Fox, Werritty and British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould had met many times, not the twice that Gus O’Donnell claimed, and had been in direct contact with Mossad over plans to attack Iran. Eventually the Independent published it, a fortnight after it went viral on the blogosphere.

The resignation of the Defence Secretary in a scandal is a huge political event. People still talk of the Profumo scandal 50 years later. But Fox’s resignation was forgotten by the media within a fortnight, even though it is now proven that the Gus O’Donell official investigation into the affair was a tissue of lies.

Take only these undisputed facts:

Fox Gould and Werritty met at least five times more than the twice the official investigation claims
The government refuses to say how often Gould and Werritty met without Fox
The government refuses to release the Gould-Werritty correspondence
The three met with Mossad

How can that not be a news story? I spent the most frustrating fortnight of my life trying to get a newspaper – any newspaper – to publish even these bare facts. I concentrated my efforts on the Guardian.

I sent all my research, and all the evidence for it, in numeorus emails to the Guardian, including to David Leigh, Richard Norton-Taylor, Rupert Neate and Seumas Milne. I spoke to the first three, several times. I found a complete resistance to publishing anything on all those hidden Fox/Werritty/Gould meetings, or what they tell us about neo-con links with Israel.

Why? Guardian Media Group has a relationship with an Israel investment company, Apax, but the Guardian strongly denies that this has any effect on them.

The Guardian to this day has not published the fact that there were more Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings than O’Donnell disclosed. Why?

I contacted the Guardian to tell them I intended to publish this article, and invited them to give a statement. Here it is, From David Leigh, Associate Editor:

I hope your blogpost will carry the following response in full.

1. I know nothing of any Israeli stake in the ownership of the Guardian. As it is owned by the Scott Trust, not any Israelis, your suggestion sems a bit mad.

2. The Guardian has not “refused” to publish any information supplied by you. On the contrary, I personally have been spending my time looking into it, as I told you previously. I have no idea what the attitude of others in “the Guardian” is. I form my own opinions about what is worth publishing, and don’t take dictation from others. That includes you.

3. I can’t imagine what you are hinting at in your reference to Assange. If you’ve got a conspiracy theory, why don’t you spit it out?

I can understand your frustration, Craig, when others don’t join up the dots in the same way as you. But please try not to be offensive, defamatory, or plain daft about it.

As I said, it would be honest of you to publish my response in full if you want to go ahead with these unwarranted attacks on the Guardian’s integrity.

Possible some Guardian readers will get drawn to this post: at least then they will find out that Werritty, Fox and Gould held many more meetings, hushed up by O’Donnell and hushed up by the Guardian.

It should not be forgotten that the Guardian never stopped supporting Blair and New Labour, even when he was presiding over illegal wars and the massive widening of the gap between rich and poor. My point about Assange is that he has done a great deal to undermine the neo-con war agenda – and the Guardian is subjecting him to a campaign of denigration. On the other hand Gould/Fox/Werritty were pushing a neo-con project for war – and the Guardian is actively complicit in the cover-up of their activities.

The Guardian. Whom does it serve?

Tweet this post

603 Comments

1 2 3 7

  1. Between this and the Wikipedia fall out, the Guardian is in danger of losing credibility.

  2. “As I said, it would be honest of you to publish my response in full if you want to go ahead with these unwarranted attacks on the Guardian’s integrity.”
    .
    The Guardian has got “integrity”, when did this happen!!!.

  3. I should have mentioned I am fully paid up Guardianista.

  4. I am puzzled.

    According to the UK government, the BBC, and the establishment in this country:

    1. If a mob of Iranian citizens had gathered in a public place to denounce the Iranian government, and tried to break into some of its offices, and if the Iranian police had then used force to stop them – that would have been wicked oppression, and the fault of the wicked Iranian government.

    BUT

    2. If a mob of Iranian citizens gathered in a public place to denounce the British government, and tried to break into some of its offices, and if the Iranian police did NOT use force to stop them – that is wicked treachery, and the fault of the wicked Iranian government.

  5. “The Guardian. Who[m] does it serve?”

    “The Guardian” is a legal abstraction, so of course it doesn’t strictly serve anything or anyone. As for the individual people who work for it, and whose collective behaviour is really in question… of course, each of them does whatever he or she thinks will be best for their future career prospects.

    Hardly anyone who matters to an editor or journalist cares what happens to Iran, or Iranians. But many, many of the great and the good sincerely want Iran to be demonized, attacked, and plundered – if only to distract attention from their own misdeeds. (It may be that some of them have “links” to Israel, but who can tell?)

    “The art of leadership . . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. . . . The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category”.

  6. “As I said, it would be honest of you to publish my response in full if you want to go ahead with these unwarranted attacks on the Guardian’s integrity.”
    .
    The Guardian has got “integrity”, when did this happen!!!.

    ==============================================================

    I think you will find that what the Guardian actually has is “intergity”.

  7. Tom

    Aah yes, “Warders are ye, whom do ye ward?”. I shall correct my grammar immediately.

  8. Tom Welsh –

    Good point.

    I am not surprised by David Leigh’s reply. What can one expect from a newspaper who accepts that mentioning America’s slavish support for Israel is anti-semitic.

    The Guardian is not a news service. It has found a nice establishment role in sanitising dissent. I have lost track of the number of times I have been deleted from CiF.

    But you know what? I am going to post this article on CiF this morning. Let’s see how long it takes for them to ban me!

  9. Great article, Mr Craig Murray.

    I am going to post this in another blog, with a link back to this website.

  10. Septimius Severus

    1 Dec, 2011 - 11:24 am

    Tony,

    ‘I should have mentioned I am fully paid up Guardianista.’

    The Graun doesn’t require you to pay for its services…. not yet anyway. But I’ve heard a ‘pay-wall’ is in the pipe line.

  11. It’s done. I posted it on the comments section of Julian Borger’s blog (UK breaks with Iran, but can anything sway the regime?) at 11:21 am today.

    Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and I will earn a multiple lifetime ban from the Guardian. It would be an honour.

  12. The Guardian has lost all credibility.Its constant attacks on Assange and the deleting of anything anti Israel on it CIF section just proves this point. You cannot even go on their CIF section and state well known facts the facts without being branded an anti semite.They have just joined the rightwing Israeli/American media train. Bunch of jokers.

    I was watching all the berks who work for them slagging Assagne the other day on that silly documentary on more 4, I have a feeling that the viewpoint was obvioulsy sweded in their favour as Assange had about 5 minutes talking and the guys from the Guardian were on there every two seconds giving their side of events,they left out that they released the password to those secret files in their crappy book.

  13. Regrettably, my posting went on the 3rd page of CiF meaning it’s in a forgotten corner of the debate graveyard already but let’s see how the “moderator” reacts.

  14. Maybe David Leigh was working on something to do with this and it was a long investigation. Although, if that were the case I don’t know why he wouldn’t just say to you that something was in the pipeline.
    .
    He does sound quite annoyed. Is he famous for having a short temper or did you make accusations about his professionalism?
    .
    One more thing, there does seem to be something of a dog-that-didn’t-bark question that I have. Is your story about Fox-Werrity-Gould appearing on Press TV or IRNA or FARS? I only had a cursory look through Press TV (and had a shower afterwards, of course) but I didn’t see anything there. Why not?

  15. Dear Mr Murray. do you remember Gordon Brown making a speech in parliament after the hacking revelations. he eluded to Rusbridgers deficiency in making the pm aware of Coulson’s long list of criminal acts. Cameron’s assistance did not pass these concerns on to Cameron which allowed Cameron to say he was not aware of Coulsons past bad acts.

  16. Njegos – you write: “I have lost track of the number of times I have been deleted from CiF”

    Ditto.

  17. I’ve just had a comment moderated in The Guardian. I think it was because I mentioned ‘a blog which I am not allowed to mention’ in bold. Or possibly because I copied part of Courtnay Barnett’s remarks on your previous thread.

    Or possibly because of both.

    Anyway, Comment is not Free.

  18. Septimius Severus

    1 Dec, 2011 - 11:42 am

    Ken,

    It’s been clear for a while that The Guardian has made an editorial decision to go soft on Israel. You may remember the editorial a few weeks back, wherein the readers’ editor essentially said that any comments critical of Israel are going to come in for intense scrutiny. He even said that moderators will make it their job to analyse any mentions of the word ‘Zionist’ for ‘hidden meanings’. Real couldn’t make it up stuff!

    Also, until recently there used to be almost daily CiF articles on Israel/Palestine. Now, I can’t remember when was the last time I saw one. No bad thing, IMHO, I used to be a regular commenter on those threads, but more or less gave up because of the ridiculous moderation policy and the fact that the mods were so obviously running scared of CiF Watch – even though comments naming said group would instantly be deleted, CiF Watch’s ‘editor’ would regularly come on CiF boasting of his identity.

    I can’t help thinking that the Guardian’s enthusiastic promotion of their new US edition has something to do with all this? Either way, it seems clear that the Graun has had its arm twisted big time, just like the BBC before them.

  19. Sassoon –

    It’s the fate of everyone who dares to step outside the narrow debate parameters of CiF.

  20. willyrobinson

    1 Dec, 2011 - 11:44 am

    For motivation, look instead at the Guardian US edition. They’re trying to crack the US in a big way and they’ve completely changed their coverage regarding Israel.
    .
    But they always changed their tune in the run-up to war. Someone has a word in their ear. You could almost read it as a confirmation of UK government policy.

  21. Craig, you sound surprised. In all honesty, what did you expect? The Guardian is part of the establishment.
    .
    I stopped taking the Guardian seriously, as a newspaper which reported honestly but tended to favour the left, about halfway through the Blair years.
    .
    What took me so long? I know, I’m naive.
    .
    There isn’t a newspaper I’d give my money to any more, only buy them for train journeys – I give it to MSF instead. The Telegraph is the best of a bad lot – despite it’s politics it’s at least professionally produced and still LOOKS like a newspaper.

  22. Alex Marshall

    1 Dec, 2011 - 11:45 am

    Three small points
    A war with Iran is likely to be to annex their oil reserves, so excuses are needed to invade.
    I don’t want anyone to have nuclear weapons, but why only a fuss about Iran when Israel already has illegal ones?
    The point about The Guardian, to me, is its refusal to investigate, to check out the claims. But that applies to all our print media, doesn’t it?

  23. Ok, an update:

    I have received 2 recommendations on CiF. Still not banned. The “moderator” is obviously on an extended tea-break.

  24. 1. I know nothing of any Israeli stake in the ownership of the Guardian. As it is owned by the Scott Trust, not any Israelis, your suggestion sems a bit mad.

    Is anyone suggesting that the Guardian, or the Guardian Media Group, is owned by anyone other than the Scott Trust? Not me. It is what the GMG owns, and what its sources of revenue are, that is of interest.
    To repeat (again) GMG lost £54M last year. GMG sold half its holding in Trader in 2007. GMG received a half-share in a “special” dividend from Trader Media this year. This amounted to £50M (I will correct these figures if they are wrong). The co-owner, with 49% of its shares, is Apax. They also took £50M in dividend. In total that is more than a third of Trader’s total revenue for 2011. Not profits, revenue.
    Eighteen months ago, the CFO of Trader, Andrew Miller joined the GMG board as CEO.
    .
    All this looks remarkably convenient for GMG, to say the least. My opinion (Sue, Grabbit and Runne advisory) is that Apax is propping up GMG’s failing operation via some very strange accounting in Trader.
    .
    Apax is not an Israeli company. However, one of its co-founders, and present trustee, is Sir Ronald Cohen, who has very close ties to Israel. It has very extensive Israeli interests. Some of these are indicated here:
    http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/rotten-fruit-delivered-to-apax-partners-investor-in-israeli-agribusiness-7895#.Ttdpa4SGVvA
    .
    Disclaimer:
    Opinions and conclusions stated by me on this topic are exclusively mine without any input by Craig, or other commentators on this site.

  25. Komodo: Is anyone suggesting that the Guardian, or the Guardian Media Group, is owned by anyone other than the Scott Trust? Not me.
    .
    Presumably it is an answer to Craig Murray’s message to David Leigh. We don’t know what Craig Murray’s mail to him was that David Leigh is answering here. Are you sure he is answering you directly?

  26. As for war with Iran, I am rather hoping that statements from the Israelis recently – that they are not planning on it – will defuse tensions. (Yes, they could be lying, but what is said in public still matters).
    .
    Sadly I think a reticence at the Guardian to publish may have as much to do with the overtly antagonistic attitude evident in Leigh’s email as a fear of the lobby backlash if they publish. Mainstream left thinking has been eviscerated with the rightward shift of all the traditionally left parties in Britain (and in the US) and it’s been replaced with a “balance” that, in fact, does not achieve that lofty goal at all.
    .
    I suppose also it matters how the message is delivered to the Guardian et al too. “You’re all stooges of the military industrial complex” may not be the best way to get journos on side, as @Angry says – even if with some it is effectively true. I used to be quite a committed Graun reader, but too many MSM errors of this kind have pushed me over to the Morning Star. That’s not without its problems either, but I sense its heart is much more in the right place.
    .
    I don’t doubt that Leigh doesn’t think the ownership of the Guardian makes a difference, but if they have Israeli backers I am surprised he doesn’t know about it. Of course, he’s still annoyed over the Assange affair, and not just ‘cos they fell out. Leigh published the Wikileaks encryption password in his book, which (as Leigh later discovered) is the digital equivalent of revealing ones secret sources.

  27. One should perhaps mention the change in corporate governance of the Guardian, it is now owned by the Scott Trust Limited, a limited company. A change that happened in 2008 about the same time as it’s drift to the right and neocon cheerleading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited

    As a limited company it now perfectly feasbile for Israeli investment to happen and something that may or may not be significant is the appearance of Anthony Salz, an executive vice chairman of Rothschild who joined the board in 2009.

    From a cache copy of a press release
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jpR8Ro7aZo8J:www.gmgplc.co.uk/press-releases/2009/anthony-salz-joins-the-scott-trust/+apax+salz&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a

    As you scroll further down the Press Release you’ll see mention of Apax. Something that’s mysteriously disapeared from the current version.

    Anthony Salz, Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, has been appointed to the Scott Trust.
    The Scott Trust is the owner of Guardian Media Group (‘GMG’). GMG’s portfolio includes the Guardian and Observer newspapers, the guardian.co.uk website, the Manchester Evening News and other local and regional newspapers, regional radio stations, Trader Media Group (publisher of the Auto Trader magazine and website), and Emap (the business-to-business media group).

    The Scott Trust was created in 1936 to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity.

    Before joining Rothschild in 2006 Anthony Salz was best known as one of the UK’s leading corporate lawyers. He spent most of his legal career with Freshfields, becoming Senior Partner in 1996. He was Vice-Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC from 2004 until the end of 2006.

    He is, among other things, Chair of the Eden Trust and a trustee of the Royal Opera House, the Tate Foundation, the Media Standards Trust and the Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

    Liz Forgan, Chair of the Scott Trust, said: “Anthony Salz’s wide experience of the cultural, media and corporate worlds will bring valuable strengths to the Trust. We are delighted to welcome him.”

    In October 2008 the Scott Trust became a limited company to strengthen the protection it affords to the Guardian. All trustees became directors of The Scott Trust Limited.

    (ends)

    Further information: Chris Wade 020 3353 4041

    http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/ScottTrust

    Notes for editors

    The Scott Trust was created in 1936 to protect the legacy of the long-standing editor and latterly owner of the Guardian, CP Scott: the independent, liberal journalism of his newspaper. The core purpose of the Scott Trust is “to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity”.

    The Scott Trust Limited is the sole owner of Guardian Media Group plc (‘GMG’). GMG’s portfolio comprises:
    • Guardian News & Media: the Guardian and Observer newspapers and guardian.co.uk.
    • GMG Regional Media: the Manchester Evening News and its website, and other regional newspapers in the North West and South of England.
    • GMG Radio: regional radio stations across the UK under the Real Radio, Smooth Radio and Rock Radio brands.
    • GMG Property Services: providers of software to independent estate agents.
    • Trader Media Group: one of Europe’s largest specialist print and online media companies, and publisher of the Auto Trader website and magazine. Trader Media Group is jointly owned by GMG and Apax Partners.
    • Emap: the B2B publishing, events and information business, also jointly owned by GMG and Apax Partners.

    The Trust Board is chaired by Liz Forgan and currently consists of executives within GMG, external members, a member of the Scott family and a member of Guardian News & Media’s editorial staff.

    The current directors of The Scott Trust Limited are:

    Liz Forgan (Chair)
    Larry Elliott
    Andrew Graham
    Will Hutton
    Carolyn McCall
    Geraldine Proudler
    Alan Rusbridger
    Jonathan Scott
    Maleiha Malik
    Anthony Salz

  28. doug scorgie

    1 Dec, 2011 - 12:21 pm

    See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15797257 for Israeli propaganda by the BBC.
    Also: part of an e-mail I received from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign:
    I hope that everyone who takes the
    > Guardian will look at the double spread Northern Israeli
    > tourism ad in today’s Guardian Weekend (26 November 2011). It shows the Golan Heights as part of Israel and among other gross statements
    > it extols the ‘hidden gem’ of the Galilee and the fact that
    > ‘quaint villages have opened their doors to visitors’- they
    > don’t mean the unrecognised Bedouin villages
    > presumably. The words ‘Arab’ and ‘Palestinian’ do not appear
    > once, instead the article presents the area as the cradle of
    > Judaism and Christianity.

  29. From our beloved Guardian of Israeli sensitivity:

    “njegos
    1 December 2011 11:21AM

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.”

    And in the comments box of course:

    “Your comments are being premoderated.”

    So I lasted about an hour before the bouncers threw me out of the party.

    I hope the god-damned rag goes bust. It’s a disgrace to journalism.

  30. Septimius Severus

    1 Dec, 2011 - 12:26 pm

    Doug,

    I don’t buy the Guardian, so wouldn’t have seen that ad. If the Guardian did run it, that’s further evidence that they are now little different from the Torygraph or Times in their coverage of Israel. A shame, because until very recently they used to feature some excellent writing on Israel/Palestine, including their breaking, along with Al Jazeera, of the ‘Palestine Papers’.

    In fact, while it has long been clear that the CiF moderators were being pressured by CiF Watch et al, the dramatic turn-around in the Guardian’s coverage – or lack thereof – of I/P issues dates back only a few months. That really does make me suspect that it’s more about the Graun trying to crack the US market than the influence of Apax, though that too may be an important factor. Whatever the case, there is no doubt that the Graun simply is not worth reading on ME issues any more. Like I say, it is a shame.

  31. Septimius Severus

    1 Dec, 2011 - 12:27 pm

    Njegos,

    In fairness, I don’t think too many newspapers would allow you to use their comments’ section to openly question their credibility.

  32. Septimus –

    Perhaps but it was David Leigh who requested that Craig print the full text of his letter on his blog which he has done. So what’s sauce for the goose…….?

  33. Angry,
    As I seem to be just about the only person on this blog to make a connection between the Trader Media deals and the involvement (allegedly) of Apax in the continuing viability of the GMG, I thought it as well to clarify my conclusions, for the record, What Craig said to Leigh, of course, I don’t know. It may have been based on my comments. Which were not about ownership, but (IMO) backdoor financing by Apax. As I hope I have now made clear.
    .

  34. “I don’t think too many newspapers would allow you to use their comments’ section to openly question their credibility.”
    .
    They do in the United States. Sorry I can’t quote specific examples, but I’ve seen hundreds of them online. Vicious attacks. In the USA free speech really does mean that. (Until they designate you a ‘terrorist’ of course, in which case you lose all rights under that marvellous US constitution.)

  35. Re. the Iranian mob that recently attacked the British embassy. I think it is worthwhile to note that in the 1953 CIA/MI6 organized coup which overthrew the democratically elected Iranian PM Mohammed Musaddiq, rabble rousers and street mobs financed and organized by the coup plotters played a significant role.

    Excerpt below from an article published in Lobster Magazine:

    A “Great Venture”: Overthrowing the Government of Iran

    by Mark Curtis

    SNIP

    According to then CIA officer Richard Cottam, ‘that mob that came into north Tehran and was decisive in the overthrow was a mercenary mob. It had no ideology. That mob was paid for by American dollars.’ (59) One key aspect of the plot was to portray the demonstrating mobs as supporters of the Communist Party – Tudeh – in order to provide a suitable pretext for the coup and the assumption of control by the Shah. Cottam observes that agents working on behalf of the British ‘saw the opportunity and sent the people we had under our control into the streets to act as if they were Tudeh. They were more than just provocateurs, they were shock troops, who acted as if they were Tudeh people throwing rocks at mosques and priests’. (60) ‘The purpose’, Brian Lapping explains, ‘was to frighten the majority of Iranians into believing that a victory for Mussadeq would be a victory for the Tudeh, the Soviet Union and irreligion’. (61)

    http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm

  36. doug scorgie

    1 Dec, 2011 - 12:42 pm

    The thick plottens
    German prosecutors have opened an inquiry into allegations of an Iranian plot to attack U.S. bases on German soil, prosecutor-general Harald Range confirmed in Karlsruhe on Thursday.
    He was referring to a report in the mass-circulation newspaper Bild that a German businessman was suspected of espionage for the purpose of sabotage. He was alleged to have secretly met with Iranian diplomats posted to Berlin, the newspaper said.
    Full story: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/germany-probing-alleged-iran-plot-to-attack-u-s-bases-on-its-soil-1.398987

  37. Septimius Severus

    1 Dec, 2011 - 12:46 pm

    nuid

    ‘They do in the United States. Sorry I can’t quote specific examples, but I’ve seen hundreds of them online. Vicious attacks. In the USA free speech really does mean that. (Until they designate you a ‘terrorist’ of course, in which case you lose all rights under that marvellous US constitution.)’

    Or an ‘anti-Zionist’.

    Seriously though, if you openly call into question a paper’s credibility, and criticise one of their journalists by name – on their own website – you can expect your comments to be deleted. As I’ve said above, I’m critical of the Graun in many ways, but I don’t think any newspaper would react differently in this case.

  38. “If you’ve got a conspiracy theory, why don’t you spit it out?”

    This is the modern Holocaust denial: meant as an absolute show stopper.

    Don’t fall for it.

  39. So the Guardian does not publish a story because it doesn’t like the person sourcing it? And it deletes links to that story? And all comments on that story?
    If that is freedom of the press I am an iguana.

  40. Septimus –

    To me it’s obvious that the Guardian is hiding behind ‘attacks on its credibility’. The article above does not critise David Leigh. It simply asks for answers. If I say I wrote to such-and-such and got no reply, is that criticism or a statement of fact? The hyper-sensitivity of the Guardian on this issue is very suspicious especially after they spiked the Gould/Werrity/Fox article (remember it was taken down from their website). If this is David Leigh’s attitude to news, then he is no better than Alistair Campbell.

    Would the Guardian have deleted my post if I had just posted the link to this article instead of putting up the full text? Would you have approved of that?

  41. Oh, f*ck, moment:
    http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/59300/jewish-envoy-not-loyal-uk-says-labour-mp
    .
    Invites a contribution from the (20’s?) cartoonist HM Bateman: (scene of mass panic among parliamentarians and civil servants) “The Man Who Called A Zionist A Zionist”

  42. Septimus –

    My error. I meant to say:

    It simply asks for answers. If I say I wrote to such-and-such and encountered resistance, is that criticism or a statement of fact?

    I don’t think it changes the gist of my argument.

  43. There are 100’s ? thousands of illuminated people that read this site. Each of them is capable of influencing 2-3 people, who – in turn – can influence many more. Can I suggest a Guardian boycott, both paper and on-line, until they come to their senses and return to their roots? This would be a true indication of blog power without much effort from anyone.

  44. Testing

  45. Sorry. The testing was because my last comment was rejected under my gmail.com address. It worked on the test so just paranoia on my part.

  46. Edwin –

    Where do I sign up?

    Komodo –

    It’s the death of common sense. Appointing a Zionist as ambassador to Israeli would have been considered lunacy a generation ago. But we have gone all trans-atlantic, haven’t we? Dennis Ross, a Jew, was the leading American ‘negotiator’ in the Middle East for many years. It’s not that a Jew can’t represent America or Britain but that we don’t even care whether we look biassed to the rest of the world. When America bangs it head, we scream OW!! That sums up our diplomacy in the ME.

  47. Septimius Severus

    1 Dec, 2011 - 1:26 pm

    njegos

    ‘Would the Guardian have deleted my post if I had just posted the link to this article instead of putting up the full text? Would you have approved of that?’

    It’s not a question of approval or disapproval. It’s just that I don’t see the Gruan’s action in this particular instance as being unreasonable or unexpected. You were posting private emails from employees of the Guardian, wherein their editorial policies were discussed. Of course they are going to delete them – any newspaper would do the same.

    I’m not saying this is a good thing, but I do think it’s a bit naive of you to think that your comments would be left in situ, by the Graun or any other newspaper.

  48. Komodo, I posted that Jewish Chronicle thing on the previous thread (didn’t know this thread was here at the time) and this paragraph made me laugh out loud (literally):
    .
    “But the MP insisted that he was a friend of Israel and had visited the country four times, including once with his family on holiday. Asked if he understood that his remarks could be deemed antisemitic, Mr Flynn said: “I am not an antisemite.”
    .
    How is it antisemitic to suggest that an Ambassador may have dual loyalties, or worse, only one loyalty and it’s not to Britain? It’s got to the stage that when I see the accusation “antisemitic” I’m likely to laugh first and think about it later. “Antisemitic” is a worn out, debased, useless piece of blackmail, in my book.

  49. I have already started a boycott of The Guardian, having noticed a rightward shift and an increasing amount of meaningless churnalism. On the subject of Iran, I’ve never been there but get the impression that compared to many other countries in that region it is a beacon of stability and moderation. In his book “The New Great Game” by Lutz Kleveman it is noted that during his travels around the oil producing countries around the Caspian Sea, Iran was the only country he was able to travel freely without being followed or harrassed. Since the Islamic revolution the lot of ordinary people has improved with a big increase in literacy and life expectancy. Iran is often called undemocratic, but no more so than the UK or USA. They can choose between two factions just like us. If Iran is not developing nuclear weapons they have been a bit remiss, after all when was the last time the USA attacked a nuclear power?

  50. Particular thanks to Avenir for pointing out the Scott Trust’s reinvention as a limited company in 2008, and the appointment of Anthony Salz. Who previously spent 31 years in Freshfields, which afte 2000 became mega-lawyer Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. Which is currently GMG’s solicitor. What a coincidence.
    .
    Anyway, here’s the statement for 2011. Looks a bit iffy to me, despite the £50m investment/divestment entry.
    .
    http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ST_AR_1011.pdf

  51. Couldn’t agree more Nuid. If they keep pushing being anti-apartheid Israel,and pro-Semitic Palestinian as being antisemitic, then it is time for some T-shirts: ‘Proud to be Anti-Semitic’.

  52. Septimius Severus

    1 Dec, 2011 - 1:35 pm

    ‘How is it antisemitic to suggest that an Ambassador may have dual loyalties, or worse, only one loyalty and it’s not to Britain?’

    If Britain were to appoint an ambassador to Tehran (assuming they had an ambassador there) who was a Shia Muslim and openly voiced his support for Clerical rule in Iran, would eyebrows be raised?

    I think they would, and should be. Ditto it’s entirely reasonable to question the wisdom of sending a Jewish Zionist ambassador to Tel Aviv. Ambassadors are supposed to represent Britain’s interests, not those of the country they’re sent to.

  53. Edwin, I did this morning, cancelled my newspaper, and for sure will not go near their site.. Sadly Guardian also has been bought.. and they will lose the buyers such as you and I . whether that will bring them to their senses, I very much doubt it, I believe they have no choice in the matter any longer.

  54. I pointed this out on CMEC’s site, Septimius…A devout Shi’a with links to Hizb’ullah could have engaged with the Iranian government, spared us the nastiness at the Embassy and even now be promoting trade and research links (Iranians are cracking at research) full time, between mentoring vists by Conservative Friends of Iran.
    Flying halal pigs! Duck!…

  55. Septimus –

    “You were posting private emails from employees of the Guardian, wherein their editorial policies were discussed. Of course they are going to delete them – any newspaper would do the same”

    David Leigh says to Craig –

    “I hope your blogpost will carry the following response in full….”

    I don’t think privacy is the issue here, do you?

  56. Septimius Severus

    1 Dec, 2011 - 1:54 pm

    njegos

    ‘I don’t think privacy is the issue here, do you?’

    It’s not the whole issue, but the fact is that you were sharing private correspondence from a Guardian employee on the Guardian’s own website, following an article which had very little to do with your comments.

    I don’t think there’s much point continuing this discussion – I just don’t think it was unreasonable of the Graun to delete your comments, and any newspaper would have done the same.

  57. I haven’t bought a paper newspaper for over a year, and I feel much better for it. It has saved me a good deal of money, and – more important – a lot of valuable time. For far more years than I should have, I went on reading The Times (through sheer inertia and because I thought it useful to hone my tolerance by reading the clueless views of David Aaronovitch and others).

    Nowadays about the only time I ever read a paper is when I’m in Caffe Nero – which provides some free copies of the Times, Guardian, Daily Mail, etc. I grab The Times or The Guardian as I order my drink, and see if I can finish scanning it by the time I’m served. Usually I can, because there is literally not one single article worth reading. Occasionally, I continue for the time it takes to absorb a large skinny mocha or a hot chocolate – maybe there’s a piece by Matthew Parris or someone else who has respect for facts, logic, and the reader’s intelligence. But not very often.

  58. ‘‘I don’t think privacy is the issue here, do you?’

    It’s not the whole issue, but the fact is that you were sharing private correspondence from a Guardian employee on the Guardian’s own website, following an article which had very little to do with your comments.’

    “Private” correspondence? Meaning a letter in which the writer explicitly invited Craig to publish it on his blog??? Come on, let’s not be silly. Published is published – if Craig was allowed (indeed, urged) to publish it on his blog, then publishing it on The Grauniad’s Web site would make no difference.

    ‘I don’t think there’s much point continuing this discussion’

    Damn straight. Your “argument” is utterly ludicrous.

  59. @Tom Welsh.

    Nice, accurate description, and very true. I entirely gave up reading newspapers about three years ago, and watching television (other than cricket) about 2 years ago. And now I feel much more informed. I still scan the headlines of the major dailies on-line to see the theme/lie de jour but otherwise I gain my unfiltered news from a range of online sources. It takes much more time but the comments in blogs such as this (and valuable links provided by Mary, Komodo and many others) make it easier and more enjoyable.

  60. It is sad to see people like Monbiot and Milne turned into red coats. The Guardian is not only loosing thousands/day in revenues, it is also fritting up like a clogged drain, their bias automatically steering away from issues that matter in a wider context, narrowing their focus to a fine squint.
    One day they will land in a big fat hole for not opening their eyes, many like myslef shall from now on campaing against their sad front, maybe one day a new Guardian will shine through the misery that is current dictating their output.

  61. Dug Scorgie Read the Gaardian’s mealy mouthed responses to the complaints about the Israeli spread last weekend which contained inaccuracies.
    .
    Jews for Justice for Palestine website.
    .
    http://jfjfp.com/?p=26947
    Israel’s Ministry of Tourism causes ‘systems breakdown’ at Guardian
    .
    For an account of the story see the posting Israel’s Ministry of Tourism incorporates all occupied territory, including Gaza, in its maps.

  62. o/t but relevant to Israel/Palestine
    .

    Editor’s note: The possibility of all Palestinians having a vote in who
    gets elected to the Palestinian National Council is a very exciting
    development and is a real chance for Palestinians in the Diaspora and the
    refugee camps to join with Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, East
    Jerusalem and Gaza as a unified society “to affirm and advance Palestinian
    rights, end internal division, restore and strengthen [the] national
    liberation movement, and reactivate the PLO on a democratic basis so that it
    can represent the will of the entire Palestinian people.”
    .
    Please bring this to the attention of every Palestinian you know. The
    process is inclusive and unifies Palestinian civil society – so long
    disenfranchised and fractured – and brings the power back to the people to
    decide how they would like to be represented in their struggle for freedom,
    justice, peace and dignity. It is the responsibility of every Palestinian
    to keep their ancient heritage and culture alive for the honour of those who
    have already given their lives and for those who continue to suffer.
    .
    Sonja Karkar
    Editor
    http://australiansforpalestine.com
    .

    Civic Registration for Direct Elections to the PNC
    .

    Welcome to {PalestiniansRegister.org}, the website of the civic registration
    drive for elections to the Palestinian National Council (PNC), the supreme
    legislative body of the PLO. Only 40 percent of the Palestinian people who
    are eligible to vote are currently registered. This website provides
    information and tools for the remaining 60 percent of Palestinians, in order
    that they can register themselves for elections in all locations where
    Palestinians currently remain unregistered. It explains how Palestinian
    civil society can assist in registering those who have never had a chance to
    vote in national democratic elections.
    .
    /…

  63. Komodo: Angry,
    As I seem to be just about the only person on this blog to make a connection between the Trader Media deals and the involvement (allegedly) of Apax in the continuing viability of the GMG, I thought it as well to clarify my conclusions, for the record, What Craig said to Leigh, of course, I don’t know. It may have been based on my comments. Which were not about ownership, but (IMO) backdoor financing by Apax. As I hope I have now made clear.

    .
    Yes, fair enough, but David Leigh seems to be replying directly to Craig Murray so maybe Mr Murray will publish the email that Mr Leigh is responding to. At the moment we have a somewhat bad-tempered email from Mr Leigh saying that he is annoyed with certain accusations being made to him and those accusations are clearly:
    .
    1) that he is influenced by Israeli stake-holders at the Guardian, and knowingly so!
    2) that he has either ignored or covered up Mr Murray’s correspondence and evidence, presumably because he is in the pocket of said Israelis!
    3) that he has deliberately sought to have something horrible happen to Julian Assange/”thrown him under the bus”/been in league with neo-cons but presumably Mr Murray’s wording was rather coy and suggestive.
    .
    I wonder if Mr Murray would be kind enough to show us the correspondence that Mr Leigh is responding to or whether one of us could lodge and FOIA request because there are some questions that a real democracy should see asked, namely:
    .
    1) Just what kind of relationship with the Israelis did Mr Murray suggest existed?
    2) Just what kind of demands were made of David Leigh regarding Mr Murray’s information?
    3) Just what was Mr Murray suggesting is David Leigh responsible for re: Julian Assange?
    .
    Now please remember, I’m just asking questions.

  64. Stephen Morgan

    1 Dec, 2011 - 2:33 pm

    I never miss an opportunity to recomend this:
    http://neo-jacobins.blogspot.com/2007/09/neo-jacobin-special-against-guardian.html

    “A neo-Jacobin special essay – 50,000 editions of the imperialist, warmongering, hate-filled Guardian newspaper

  65. I see JFJFP have carried these articles on Gould Werrity
    .
    Craig Murray follows the plot on Iran
    Craig Murray, former ambassador to Uzbekistan, was pressed to resign from the FCO in 2005. Since then he has blogged on the secretive side of foreign policy. Here he tracks links between Fox , Werritty and Matthew Gould, ambassador to Israel and that alternative foreign policy on Iran. It should go without saying for JfJfP website readers that being Jewish does not signify being for, or against, Israel, Report from Daily Mail first.

    November 16th, 2011 | Tags: Fox, Gus O’Donnell, iran, MI6, Werritty | Category: News |
    .
    Follow the money: Fox’s friend’s fund-raisers
    Regular visitors to this website may have noticed the regular appearances of BICOM – and of Liam Fox at their We Believe in Israel conference last June. Why Liam Fox and his side-kick Werritty should have needed extra funding to promote the interests of Israel and military effectiveness is mysterious – except that (item 6) Mr. Fox supported a 2-state solution and criticised the settlements and supported peace with the Palestinians, see post above

    October 14th, 2011 | Tags: 2-state solution, Adam Werritty, Atlantic bridge, BICOM, Liam fox, Poju Zabludowicz, settlements | Category: Analysis |
    .
    and the Brian Brady article in the Independent on Sunday
    .
    The odd couple, Mossad and our man in Israel

    Liam Fox, Adam Werritty, and the curious case of Our Man in Tel Aviv

    This odd trio met six times – not that the Government wants you to know that, of course. What did they discuss? Did it include Iran? And who exactly is Adam Werritty? Brian Brady investigates a Whitehall mystery which is slowly unravelling

    Brian Brady, Independent on Sunday
    27.11.11

  66. Sorry for typo in your name Doug Scorgie and misspelling Guardian.

  67. Tom Welsh –

    Excellent. Thank you.

  68. Has that Guardian journalist apologised for publishing the password to the Wikileaks cable cache yet?

  69. All this shows is that it’s absolutely crucial to set up a newspaper online to deal in depth with issues such as these. The newspaper would draw in sources globally.

  70. Sort of O-T but while Clarkson is in the news:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0i0RXMvzMs

  71. Alan Arsebridger

    1 Dec, 2011 - 3:03 pm

    The Guardian. Whom does it serve?
    .
    It serves war.

  72. @Pete – no, he hasn’t. To be fair, I don’t think Assange comes out of that debacle looking angelic, since he should have encrypted that copy of the cache with a unique password. I think it was more oversight than laziness on his part, but it would have hugely limited the capacity for damage.

  73. Ruth the whole internet is a newspaper to us, depending on the value of what one digs ugs up, it will be published. Why duplicate was is plainly visible, popular blogs making money from ‘sponsors’, dependencies one should avoid form the start unless you are crucially ethical in considering who can advertise with you.

    The moment you start thinking online newspaper you are inviting a massive bureaucracy, accountants, writers,etc. you become a fully fledged company with all its statutory needs, an employer perse, it would take some independent thinking away which is currently our strong point,imho.

    It would have to be set up by a dedicated bunch with prior knowledge of setting up media outlets and ideally specialise on the issues that are currently left hidden and obscured by the MSM. The spectre of Wikileaks being blackmailed by a conspiracy of banks does not fill me with confidence.
    There are many hurdles to consider before taking such a lifechanging stressfull step, would you not think so?

  74. Article by Robert Fisk, “What makes Iranians hate Britain”,

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/213238.html

  75. Whores will have their trinkets.
    Nice to know there’s at least ONE journalist left on Planet Earth.

    http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/once-again-war-is-prime-time-and-journalism-s-role-is-taboo

  76. alan campbell

    1 Dec, 2011 - 3:42 pm

    Iran does itself no favours. A plague on both their houses.

  77. Azra, that is not actually a Fisk article for Press TV (not even he would sink that low) but rather a regular propaganda piece by Press TV in which they have excerpted bits of his article from the Independent. Just one thing that makes the Press TV thingy bizarre is its subtitle:
    The United Kingdom has a history of adopting hostile measures against Iran, which is why the Iranian nation hates the British monarchy, an English journalist says.
    .
    This is why the Iranian nation hates the British monarchy? Fisk said nothing about the monarchy at all.

  78. Here’s Gould addressing RSY-Netzer>
    http://blog.onevoicemovement.org/one_voice/ovi/page/2/
    (scroll down to Aug 18, 2011)
    But, you may say:
    ‘”We didn’t want to only define the issues, but also present the different approaches and views,” said Danny, OVI’s Youth leadership Program coordinator. “The students rejected any use of violence to resolve conflicts and acknowledged the Palestinian right for a state.’
    .
    Specifics are as usual absent. The state they have in mind is probably in Jordan or Egypt. RSY describes itself as the “Zionist Youth Miovement for Reform Judaism.

  79. Perfectly understandable that Iranians, lacking a Shi’a British Ambassador who can explain things in their own terms, should believe that, say, Ministers of the Crown should have something to do with the monarchy. If you’re nitpicking subheads, Angry, expect some retaliation on JPost pieces…

    I liked this point, though:
    “….Mossadegh was arrested – by an officer assiduously done to death in the 1979 revolution – and the young Shah returned in triumph to impose his rule, reinforced by his faithful SAVAK secret police whose torture of women regime opponents was duly filmed and – according to the great Egyptian journalist Mohamed Hassanein Heikal – circulated by CIA officers to America’s allies around the world as a “teaching” manual. How dare the Iranians remember all this?”
    .
    Now that is from the original Fisk piece.

  80. Yep, this bit might be interesting too:
    Anyway, the Iranians trashed us yesterday and made off, we are told, with a clutch of UK embassy documents. I cannot wait to read their contents. For be sure, they will soon be revealed.


    .
    And why would you be nitpicking JPost articles? :S

  81. Jon
    Sure, Assange could have done things differently. But the discussion here is of the Guardian. They need to apologise. If Assange had known the sort of people they were he would most likely not have had anything to do with them in the first place.

  82. Archie Taylor

    1 Dec, 2011 - 4:36 pm

    “Iran does itself no favours. A plague on both their houses.”
    ,
    Yeah they should just take it by snivelling, cowering, and begging for “forgiveness”! Never mind the constant streams of threats, unilateral, and arbitrary sanctions, constant harassment, and killing of their scientists. Indeed plague on them for not taking shit, and moreover, dishing out some street justice.
    ,
    The hysteria of antisemtie, antisemite directed at Paul Flynn is sickening. What happened to sovereignty, and independence of nations?

  83. Anybody remember how the Guardian failed to protect Sarah Tisdall who leaked documents regarding the arrival of cruise missiles? Nothing changes much. It still has its dark side. There are some competent journalists at the Guardian, but the newspaper, in severe financial difficulties, is on its way out. Those who tried posting comments on the Guardian’s pages regarding Werritty, Gould, Fox and a secret plan to wage war on Iran were systematically removed. David Leigh might have no idea what the opinions of his co-hacks at the Guardian are (what a strange admission?) but everybody who reads this blog is sure that they are all singing from the same hymn-sheet. If David Leigh does not take dictation from others, and he is planning to publish about the other meetings, he is the only one on the paper. That augurs badly for circulation figures.

  84. Ingo we may consider ourselves as purveyors of the truth via the internet and blogs, but not the Master of the Rolls, Lord Newberger of Abbotsbury f=giving evidence to a joint committee the other day.
    .
    Q529
    Lord Janvrin: You will have seen from some of the earlier evidence sessions a certain amount of discussion about bloggers and tweeters. Could you reflect on whether this should affect our deliberations on, say, trying to define privacy or public interest, or how we ought to take this into account. Or do you see it simply as a matter of the practical application of the law, and therefore a different order of question?
    Mr Justice Tugendhat: We certainly cannot ignore it. The world is as it is. One of the reasons I am hesitant about the way the law has developed out of confidentiality is that it gives people the impression that privacy is about secrecy. Sometimes it is, for example the identity of a former employee of the intelligence services; either the name is known or it is not. But in most personal privacy cases, while they have an element of secrecy in them, the main element has nothing to do with secrecy; it is harassment or taunting, as I sometimes prefer to call it. For example, it is not in the least private that somebody is of a particular ethnic origin, but if every time their name is referred to their ethnic origin is added there comes a point at which a message is being conveyed and at a certain point it is unlawful. It may be harassment or something else; it may be discrimination. The bloggers and tweeters who tweet what idiots we judges are think, I assume, that what we are concerned to do is to
    .
    27
    stop disclosure of a secret, and they are saying, “Ha, ha, you can’t keep it secret.” But if what we are attempting to do is something quite different, which is to stop harassment, intrusion and taunting, then all that the bloggers and tweeters are doing is demonstrating to us how necessary it is to keep the order in force. There is a difference between the blogosphere and other media. The two main differences are that people take more seriously something that has passed through the editorial department of an established newspaper; it carries more weight. You are more likely to think there is, or may be, something in it if it comes from an established news organisation, whereas you may dismiss anything on the blogosphere as being impossible to verify and of little value.
    .
    There is also the question of whether or not something is ephemeral. Nowadays, in a newspaper most organisations have archives which appear to be everlasting, so once you get your name in the BBC or The Guardian it is unlikely that it will ever be removed, whereas something in a tweet or blog is much less likely to be everlasting. There are claimants who are well aware that, if an injunction is granted, it will not stop people disclosing or discussing the information on the internet, but nevertheless they wish to stop it getting into a publication which carries some degree of weight.
    .

    We were being disparaged. We have no weight in his eyes.

  85. Correction…. Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury giving evidence to a joint committee the other…..
    .
    Link http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/ucJCPI211111ev6.pdf

  86. Sorry, off-topic: For long hours Bradley Manning has been kept naked in appalling conditions in a US prison and has been denied access from the United Nations special rapporteur on torture Juan Méndez. 50 MEPs have written an open letter to Obama and the Senate.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/bradley-manning-mep-open-letter?newsfeed=true

    On 13 December at 2 p.m. there will be a vigil outside the US embassy in London.

  87. @Pete – no, I think he’d still have worked with them. In fact, as an evidently highly intelligent individual, I suspect Assange decided to hold his nose whilst working with the MSM even before they fell out. He can’t possibly have been unaware of the structural flaws of the corporate media, but they were necessary to lift the story outside of the blogosphere.
    .
    My criticisms of Assange are not intended to suggest I don’t support him – I do. I think he’s done a lot for transparency already, and I hope he does more. (Also: major hat tip to all the people who do work for Wikileaks and don’t get credited)!

  88. @Latin – I don’t particularly subscribe to the ‘dictation’ theory, in the main. Sure, there are directions from UK security services from time to time (“D Notices”) but even the MSM would squeal if they were used too frequently. Even the Telegraph would jump up and down, and it is often said (tongue in cheek, of course) that its primary audience is retired colonels.
    .
    I think the biases are psychological and subconscious, and perhaps in this case they are the self-censorship that comes from not wishing to be “too radical”. Might scare aware the wealthy middle-class moderately-left readership.

  89. Assange probably got turned years ago and is playing his role to perfection as a warning to any others who might be tempted to whistleblow.

    What did he really reveal? Tittle tattle largely.Nothing of earth shattering proportions IMO.

  90. EU adopts new sanctions against Iran and Syria
    Sanctions against Syria, over its crackdown against protesters, set to be wide-ranging; actions against Iran could include controversial oil embargo; U.S. says would support sanctions on Iran central bank.
    .
    By DPA and Reuters
    .
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/eu-adopts-new-sanctions-against-iran-and-syria-1.399008
    .
    Brown’s appointee and stooge Baroness Ashton read out a statement expressing the EU’s outrage at the attack on the British embassy in Tehran, etc etc.

  91. I really messed up on that quote from the Joint Committee on Privacy. The quote I put up was from Mr Justice Tugenhat. This is the one from Lord Neuberger.
    .
    Q533
    Mr Bradshaw: What about the deterrent effect? We heard from bloggers that basically they do not care what the law says; they will just blog whatever they want. As far as I am aware, none of them has ever been served with a contempt of court.
    .
    Mr Justice Tugendhat: In my experience, claimants are not usually particularly troubled about restraining what is said in the blogosphere or in tweets. Obviously, they do not like it, but they are mainly concerned with stopping things getting into a source that carries weight.
    .
    Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury: I should like to make three points in response. First, to pick up Lord Janvrin’s point, we are in a state of flux and change in terms of communications, and where we are now may be very different from where we will be in 10 years. At the moment, the differences between the blogosphere, and newspapers and more established media are entirely as Mr Justice Tugendhat has described.
    Second, many of the hosting companies and servers insist on people who have web pages or whatever agreeing in their terms that, if the host is required by a court order to reveal the identity or company who is putting up the web or blog, they will do so. My understanding is that, whenever they have been required to do so by an English court—it is not very frequent—they have done so. In that sense, they are chaseable to an extent. I am sure there will be some companies in countries where our writs do not run, so that may not be a complete answer.
    The third point is to illustrate the relative unreliability at the moment of the blogosphere. On a couple of occasions when I have been involved in upholding injunctions in favour of erring individuals—footballers as it happens—I have gone on to the blog to see to what extent the information is out there. I think that on each occasion there were different blogs confidently identifying a total of 11 different footballers as the actual person concerned. Although they do not like us, I think that in many ways the newspapers to some extent have the legislators and judiciary to thank for their reputation for reliability. Much as they do not like it in individual cases, the law tends to keep them relatively accurate and, in so doing, we help to ensure that they maintain their reputation. The less policing there is, as we see on the blog, the less reliable the information and, consequently, the less influential the blogosphere is, but, as Lord Janvrin’s question shows, that may change over the next 10 or 20 years.
    .
    You can read on at page 29
    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/ucJCPI211111ev6.pdf

  92. “The Guardian. Whom does it serve?”
    .
    Im confused, everyone knows the bottom line for the Guardian is pro NeoCon .. it has always been so in recent years.

  93. The corruption table of the world,apparently.
    Who’s to say,of course,that the compilers didn’t take huge backhanders to fiddle the results though?
    Uzbekistan in a relegation dogfight…
    .

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/dec/01/corruption-index-2011-transparency-international

  94. “Assange probably got turned years ago and is playing his role to perfection as a warning to any others who might be tempted to whistleblow.
    .
    What did he really reveal? Tittle tattle largely.Nothing of earth shattering proportions IMO.”
    .
    Yeah, I’ve wondered about this. It would make sense for our Masters to deflect the attention of the politically curious to a source purveying nothing but harmless gossip. You know… “Oh, if that’s the worst they’re up to then I can forget all this stuff and sleep at night.” If people think Assange has all the dirt, they’re not going to look any further.
    .
    I may be wrong, it’s just something that occurred to me.
    .
    (Incidentally, everybody talks about Wikileaks but does anyone actually read it?)

  95. O T but

    Anybody clock page 65 of tonights London Evening Standard with an incredibly pro Alistair Campbell missive from Journo JOHN LLOYD – ex counter culture TIME OUT’s “NIGEL FOUNTAIN” and now also a senior PROFESSOR OF JOURNALISM who also scribes for the FINANCIAL TIMES. Sickening plus. Some fountain eh? Keep well clear and bath well afterwards.

  96. @ Franz
    .
    “(Incidentally, everybody talks about Wikileaks but does anyone actually read it?)”
    .
    Nope,not me.All the donkey work seems to be left to certain journalists which in itself is another filtering process.Who’s to say those journalists aren’t the steerers?

  97. “The Guardian. Whom does it serve?”

    The fact is that so much of the MSM has been penetrated by the intelligence agencies, or is just plain scared of them.

    In British Journalism Review Vol. 11, No. 2, 2000, Mr. David Leigh himself wrote – “journalists are being manipulated by the secret intelligence agencies, and I think we ought to try and put a stop to it.”

  98. If the Guardian had any integrity, the way to remove it is for the Zionists to buy a small share in it.
    Simple.
    And the guardian is a business, and businesses are in the business of making money.
    When it comes to newspapers the way to make money is by getting stories.
    The way to get stories is by having sources.
    So they choose to keep the Zionists sweet, because they can get a lot more stories from them then they can get from you.

  99. “I have already started a boycott of The Guardian, having noticed a rightward shift and an increasing amount of meaningless churnalism.”
    .
    interestingly the Pakistan government has blocked BBC/CNN and other anti Pakistan organisations from broadcasting via cable .. they have no recommended to replace with RTTV.
    .
    .
    “Brown’s appointee and stooge Baroness Ashton read out a statement expressing the EU’s outrage at the attack on the British embassy in Tehran, etc etc.”
    .
    Cant stand the woman, Im wondering who the organ grinder is.
    .
    .
    “Azra, that is not actually a Fisk article for Press TV (not even he would sink that low) but rather a regular propaganda piece by Press TV in which they have excerpted bits of his article from the Independent.”
    .
    Fisk has appeared on PressTV. Isnt all media Propaganda and agenda driven, why do you expect PressTV to be different?
    .
    The issue is about facts and reliability and at present it is more reliable and factual than the BBC,CNN,FOX,Sky etc

1 2 3 7

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud