Banned Names 143


Not only have the BBC hierarchy ruled Anna Ardin’s name must not be mentioned. Also Irmeli Krans’ name is banned from the airwaves. And no, she’s not an alleged “victim” in the Assange case.

I put in an official request to the BBC for an explanation as to why it was OK for the BBC to use Nafissatou Diallo’s name but not Anna Ardin’s, in identical circumstances. I have not got an answer yet, but my request did result in a mole within the BBC telling me reporters had been banned from mentioning Irmeli Krans.

Anybody might think they were hiding something.


143 thoughts on “Banned Names

1 3 4 5
  • Komodo

    I’d take some cheer from the news that IRMELI KRANS’ name is not to be named, if I thought that this meant that she too were under investigation….

  • macky

    “Regarding George Galloway, having seen a clip of what he said, I don’t understand the reactions of many people on this blog and elsewhere.”

    It’s another opportunity for Galloway Bashers to do what Suhayl Saadi ironically accuses Galloway of doing, ie jumping on the bandwagon, this time the one of parrotting the usual MSM framing of Galloway as beyond of the pale, and by implication all his views.

  • Ken

    Just for the record, the original story about Andrea Davison was not that she was in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, but that she had fled to Quito and was visiting embassies there to try and find a permanent place of refuge. Over the past couple of days the tales seems to have become corrupted to put it mildly. By all accounts she was a former British government adviser, but to further complicate matters, the name may be a fake…

  • Komodo

    Couldn’t find a source for the Davison story that I could touch with a bargepole, Ken. Anything to indicate that it is not an urban e-myth would be welcome.

  • Al

    All this empty-headed fuss over naming an accuser who outed herself. Why, in such sensitive cases, is the accused not similarly protected? I think I know the answer to that.

  • JimmyGiro

    CheebaCow wrote:

    “I’m guessing we both agree that Assange is being setup, but there is no need for a pro-balls, anti-woman diatribe.”

    I make the distinction between women and feminists in the same way that human beings make the distinction between Germans and Nazis. Go waste your equivocations on the manginas.

  • VivaEcuador

    @Steven Cook:

    “Anyway, one tactic I have been noticing is that if anyone tries to post any of the on the record facts about the Assange extradition case or tries to post a link to the 4 corners documentary, there is a sudden flurry of anti Assange posts that quickly push it off the main comments page. Consequently, given that people rarely read past the main page of comments, I have been periodically repeating the link to the documentary plus any other salient facts.”

    This has been precisely my experience on the Guardian and DT. I have posted the link to the 4 Corners documentary at least 20 times by now on various fora. Interestly, the majority of commenters on the FT see through the bullshit. Perhaps FT readers are less prone to reflexive feminism and anti-Muslim hysteria?

  • Stephen Cook

    The comments pages on the various broadsheets, the comments on blogs such as this, the dreadful BBC coverage and the gender warfare that seems to have been so easily ignited; all of it is frankly bloody depressing.

    It should really hardly need mentioning but this is, of course, about freedom of speech and about about Wikileaks’ part in ensuring that we get to know our elites’ dirtly little (and not so little ) secrets.

    And yet, our elites seem to have absolutely no problem whatsoever in setting left against left, left against right, women against men, etc etc etc.

    It’s like wading through bloody treacle trying to keep the central, pertinent issues in focus in any debate, anywhere. And the so-called educated, liberal chattering classes, (of which, I guess, I am one) are the just about worst for allowing the debtate to pushed pushed off course and into any number of irrelevant ideological cul-de-sacs

    Those at the top must be pissing themseves at how we are all so malleable, so easy to manipulate and so easy to tie up in ideological knots with ourselves and with each other.

    It’s all just so depressing.

  • VivaEcuador

    @Stephen:

    It is depressing but console yourself with the thought that nothing lasts forever. History has shown that in the end people tire of lies. Sure there will be new ones but the good news is that thanks to the internet, lies are exposed far more quickly today than ever before.

    The way I see it, our job as citizens of the so-called open and democratic society is to bombard “the enemy” with knowledge via links. Let them gnash their teeth. Let them scream for the moderator. We are never going to convince the editors of the Guardian or the double-plus-good thinkers of the BBC, but we will reach the waverers. We will slowly shatter the establishment consensus. I have hope.

  • VivaEcuador

    Just a quick comment about George Galloway.

    He has his flaws but I am not going to trash someone who single-handedly humiliated that pack of AIPAC-funded stooges known as the US Senate. It was a tour de force by a courageous man who refuses to be told what to think.

    I wish there were more George Galloways in British politics instead of the soggy toast that occupies the House of Commons.

  • angrysoba

    VivaEcuador: “That was one helluva pathetic post.”
    .
    Glad you found it worth responding to anyway.

  • angrysoba

    VivaEcuador: “It is depressing but console yourself with the thought that nothing lasts forever. History has shown that in the end people tire of lies. Sure there will be new ones but the good news is that thanks to the internet, lies are exposed far more quickly today than ever before.”
    .
    Lots of very unusual comments there. Why should it be consoling that nothing lasts forever? Has history actually shown that people tire of lies? Does the Internet always expose lies, or couldn’t it be said that the Internet actually gives life to numerous lies which then never die?

  • VivaEcuador

    @Angrysoba:

    “Glad you found it worth responding to anyway.”

    Indeed. Your post was worthy of laughter.

    “Has history actually shown that people tire of lies?”

    Think of the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

  • VivaEcuador

    or couldn’t it be said that the Internet actually gives life to numerous lies which then never die?

    The point is the news media is no longer of a handful of newspaper proprietors and tv channels. This increases the speed with which lies can be exposed. It’s not rocket science really…

  • angrysoba

    VivaEcuador: “The point is the news media is no longer of a handful of newspaper proprietors and tv channels. This increases the speed with which lies can be exposed. It’s not rocket science really…”
    .
    Actually, I really don’t understand the charge that some organizations have somehow managed to get more control of what gets out there than before. Surely the opposite is true. Even the fact that we can talk to each other almost in real-time is a good illustration of the idea that the so-called MSM have very little control of what is said these days. Most of these outlets are going bankrupt and being replaced by blogs, Twitter and chatting forums. It also means that people can easily gravitate to whatever “media source” squares best with their prejudices; they can believe whatever they want and collectively work on finding the “evidence” to support their views.

  • VivaEcuador

    @Angrysoba:

    Can you imagine the discussion we are having now taking place say 30 years ago? Look at the variety of links and sources on this forum. Before it was, “Well I saw it on the BBC” or “I read it in the Guardian”. Now I have quick access to Australian documentaries and the opinions of Australian lawyers. I can see the witness statements in the JA case. I have access to WIKILEAKS!!!! I daresay that I am better informed and despite your obstinacy, I suspect you know this. And I could care less if the MSM goes bankrupt. The MSM has become irrelevant in the search for truth.

  • Stephen Cook

    @VivaEcuador:

    “…Can you imagine the discussion we are having now taking place say 30 years ago? Look at the variety of links and sources on this forum. Before it was, “Well I saw it on the BBC” or “I read it in the Guardian”. Now I have quick access to Australian documentaries and the opinions of Australian lawyers. I can see the witness statements in the JA case. I have access to WIKILEAKS!!!! I daresay that I am better informed and despite your obstinacy, I suspect you know this. And I could care less if the MSM goes bankrupt. The MSM has become irrelevant in the search for truth….”

    I understand waht you are saying VE. However, I am more pessimistic (at least today, tomorrow is another day I guess). Yes, the interent is a means by which there is less overt and direct mainipulation of a singular meassage. However, our elites are learning quickly how to utilise the web for their own purposes. They are developing several lines of attack on the truth.

    1) The fact is most ordinary people are too busy working their arse off to make any serious and persistent attempt to find out the truth of a particular piece of news. They may have stopped buying the newspapers, but they still go to, as a primary port of call, the manistream MSM websites (BBC, Guardian, etc) for their news consumption. Most people, for the reasons I have cited, will go no futher than that.

    2) For those thay make more of an effort to search out alternatives online, for every site that offers an impartial, objective reportage of the news, there is another that is in the business of spreading lies and misinformation. and som, it takes a particularly critical mind to sift the wheat from the chaff. Again, most people are not equipped, either intellectually or in terms of time and energy, to be able to do that.

    3), The internet is slowly, bit by bit, being nailed down in terms of suviellance technologies whereby the state can track and trace individual evrey online actuions. At the moment this is not being used by them in any widespead kind fo way. but, as times get tougher, you can be it will be. and each and every one of us will have an online “paper-trail” showing who we have associated with and where we have expressed our views. Every damn thing about us,in other words.

    4) the use of modern information technologies also serves, in some ways, as a kind of panacea, an online alternative to actual real actions in the real world. Yes, sure, we can charter to our hearts content on places like this. but, what are we really changing.

    sorry….I’m not in a good mood today…..

  • VivaEcuador

    @SC:

    I understand your pessimism and there is much truth in what you say. I guess I just feel that there is a greater chance that the truth will surface quickly these days. Will most people recognise it? Maybe not. And I agree that we are in the early stages of the surveillance state with all that entails for freedom of expression (and freedom from fear) but that was tried in the Soviet Union at look at where it ended. Mind control experiments usually fail. I recall the words of a Soviet dissident – “To figure out the truth of what is happening in the Soviet Union, you just need to believe the opposite of what the government and papers tell you”. People will pretend for only so long.

    We live in an age of whistle-blowers. Will it last? Time will tell but I still think it is a far cry from where we were years ago.

  • Noname

    It’s gay rights not to be mentiond!
    Both anna and ismael likes same the same sex.. they are freinds to and anna ardin is a sexual abuse expert of some kind. The feminist mafia and the homo-mafia is allies here in sweden. Ismael sister is american and merried thin an american officer. And ismael helpt Tomas Boström (Minister of justice) klise dow the piratebay.

    Fishy? Hell yes please clean up sweden from corruption!

1 3 4 5

Comments are closed.