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 2 3 5
  • Jon

    Craig, does the internal Beeb policy about not mentioning that second name give any reason? D-Notice?

  • Jives

    What the BBC are hiding is obvious.

    The Truth.

    The Truth of a dirty little cabal of buddies inventing a series of dirty lies by which to setup Assange for the USA.

  • N_

    Is it OK to say that “when accuser AA took accuser SW to the police station, the Policewoman X who took the initial statement from SW, in AA’s presence, is known to be a good friend and political associate of AA and also of AA’s CIA lawyer, Thomas Bodstrom?”

    Three possibilities:

    * there’s more that’s very interesting about Irmela Krans that they don’t want mentioned

    * they’re misdirecting us

    * they think Irmela Krans is the other accuser, whose name is actually Sofia Wilen

    Start here for more info:

    http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.ie/2011/04/affair-irmeli-krans-in-case-of-sweden.html

    Irmeli Krans’s website is here:

    http://www.s-info.se/page/about.asp?id=1686

  • Komodo

    Anna delivered Sofia to the police station only after the main force had gone home at 4 pm, leaving Anna’s friend Irmeli to handle the distraught Sofia. At 4:21pm, Irmeli began writing what would later be described as “the interrogation of Sofia Wilen”. Anna Ardin was always present in the room: she brought Sofia in and introduced her to the policewoman, but her presence was never mentioned in the protocols. This is a gross violation of law: fellow witnesses are never present during police questioning! Furthermore, every person present at the inquiry must be listed, yet Anna unaccountably remains invisible. She gave no evidence at all.

    In the end, all this careful police-room theatre was spoiled with a too-hasty denouement. The interrogation was not even over before a different policewoman, as if on cue, called the prosecutor and obtained an order to arrest Julian in absentia. It almost seems as if a thoughtful hand had prearranged it all. The prosecutor issued the arrest warrant without having read the complaint and before Anna had made a statement or even a complaint. The climax of our drama took place at 6 pm on Friday, and yet the very next morning (Saturday, August 21st), the sleazy right-wing tabloid Expressen, a Swedish clone of the New York Post, had already published all of the police allegations, featuring a photo of Assange on the front page and the headline ‘DOUBLE RAPIST’.

    That was a Pentagon threat coming true. The US military demanded from Assange to destroy all the files, or else. “If doing the right thing is not good enough for them (WikiLeaks), then we will figure out what other alternatives we have to compel them to do the right thing,” the Pentagon spokesman said. The sex case was a device to compel Julian, and Sofia’s feelings were of no importance.

    The leaked police papers reveal that Sofia was heart-broken when she learned of the charges; she never expected Assange to be charged with rape. As we learn in testimony from her American boyfriend, Sofia was raised to have a hysterical fear of unprotected sex. After a lifetime of horror stories, she feared the fatal consequences of unprotected sex; she was terrified at the thought of viruses crawling over her body, and the only thing she wanted from the police was to force Julian to take an STD test immediately. Julian was willing but the labs were closed for weekend.

    Even Irmeli Krans, our man-hating interrogator, could not help but think there was no crime committed. Apparently Irmeli had made plans to comfort Sofia, and voiced her intentions to her superiors; she was promptly taken off the case and her boss Mats Gehlin took over. The first thing he did was order her to fix the record of the Sofia interview. Irmeli knew this was wrong, and she wrote him a message saying “With the risk of appearing difficult I do not want to have an unsigned document with my name circulating in DurTvå-space. Particularly not now when the case has developed as it has.“ But he kept pushing her, and eventually she submitted to his authority. The computer system (DurTvå) however, would not allow her to falsify the records – instead, the system re-dated the protocols to August 26, a sure sign of tampering. So now the original protocol does not even exist. Yet even after doctoring the records, the interrogation of Sofia Wilen is a most peculiar one: she did not sign it and there is no voice recording, so we can only guess what went on in there. Discrepancies in Swedish police records might not be news, but that night of August 20th – the night the prosecutor authorized Julian’s arrest – was a very busy night for a pandering political party and its pet journalists.

    Also from
    http://www.israelshamir.net/English/PoliceLeaks.htm

  • Giles

    Now Michael Weiss of Just Journalism and the Henry Jackson Society is having a go:

    Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, has claimed that western Europe is today ruled by “neo-conservative juntas” which, if true, is very disappointing to me because I received no memo from High Command and I’ve got visa issues that need sorting. (Murray also went on Newsnight naming one of Assange’s accusers despite Britain’s sensible proscription against publicising complainants of sexual assault in this country.) The wiser of Assange’s Left-wing apologists have avoided the topic altogether – as they have his nasty comments about Jews, his disdain for anti-Taliban informants and his reckless refusal to redact the identities of genuine dissidents in authoritarian regimes – mainly in order to defend him as the victim of a global conspiracy headed by the United States Justice Department. Tactically, it appears that this has been the right move for them all along.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100177460/americans-and-britons-compete-to-be-the-most-unpleasant-on-the-subject-of-rape/

    This neo-con/liberal interventionist has zero credibility, even on Telegraph blogs, where he is routinely ridiculed. Sadly, comments are closed.

  • Komodo

    Just Journalism closed last year. It couldn’t find any more Israeli apartheid fans to bail it out, apparently. For shame, Poju Zabludowitz….

  • David

    I could tell you all about the censorship that goes on in the BBC, and how BBC staff fail to answer to complaints about gender discrimination, which is targeted at men. Programs about fathers in families, which actually got made, have been cut from airwave time, simply because there were powerful groups that did not agree with the message. The BBC has become a repulsive institution, though some interesting documentaries (I’ll give them that) still slip through every now and again. Their coverage of the war was irresponsible at best, a crime at worst.

  • JimmyGiro

    “‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
    Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
    What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
    Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
    Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
    What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet;
    So Rapist would, were he not Rapist call’d,
    Retain that dear perfection which he owes
    Without that title. Rapist, doff thy name,
    And for that name which is no part of thee
    Take all myself.”

  • David

    On a related point, re: naming people, I should also like to point out that this amounts to contempt of court in family law. The justice system explains this quite reasonably, it would seem, by saying that naming parties makes them vulnerable in the public domain, and that those parties need protection from that. I don’t doubt that there is a little truth in this, and all the lawyers I know will line up to endorse this ban. What the MOJ doesn’t want you to know, though, is that there are special occasions when the truth of matters and public interest far supersede this ban on naming. In the family courts, it is said that children need protecting, and this is why transparency in the judicial system is not an option and secrecy reigns. That secrecy is what enables children to be routinely deprived of fathers, who are routinely bullied out of the lives of their children. This is what Bob Geldof has called state-sponsored child abuse. It continues to happen because parties are banned from talking to journalists, and journalists are gagged, and everyone is threatened with a prison sentence. The real fear is not that parties will be made vulnerable though. Since when did the state care about that? They only care about that inasmuch as it is wise to when it comes to voting. The real fear is that the family courts will be held accountable for its crimes against children, and its contravention of the UNCRC paragraph that states that children shall not be deprived of their right to family life.

    My point is the ban on naming is usually tainted with ulterior motives.

  • wendy

    interestingly the co founder of the henry jackson society has quit .. stating that it had become too hard right and too anti muslim ..

  • lysias

    What occasioned the ban on naming Irmeli Krans? Did anyone ever mention her name on the BBC (like in early discussions of the Swedish allegations against Assange)?

    Is there also a ban on naming Sofia Wilén, who apparently is not alleging rape?

  • VivaEcuador

    This is from N_’s interesting link:

    “Important questions:

    – Why did the accuser SW in the company of AA arrived to the Police station at 14,00 the 20th of August to be interrogated in such opportunity coinciding with just the day and just the shift of Irmeli Krans at just that Police station? (The interrogation, as noted here and elsewhere, was conducted by Anna Ardin’s friend and party comrade Irmeli Krans, the police-officer and HTB-feminist Irmeli Krans)

    – What associations would exist in the fact that the police officer was also active in the social democratic HTB movement, and as a member of its leadership?

    – What is the relevancy in the context above that such interrogation was never tape-recorded, against what it is customary and instructed by the Police authority? Or later re-edited out of “memory” by the police officer friend of the acusser AA?

    – Or that the same police officer that publicly have declared admiration for the accusers’ lawyer Claes Borgström and his law-firm partner Thomas Bordström, both militant-feminists and both politicinas belong to the very same political party than Krans and AA? Yes, the same Claes Borgström, author of the initiative to re-open the Swedish case against Julian Assange.

    – Or that Thomas Bodström – the main Swedish politician targeted by the WikiLeaks disclosures and involved in the CIA rendition flights of Swedish political prisoners – was also her boss as former Minister of Justice?

    – The same Thomas Bodström which is from the very same political social-democratic group “Bröderskap” in which accuser AA is the political secretary since 2009?”

    This thing is moving into the realm of a major political corruption scandal!

  • rwendland

    AOL News also named Ardin in December 2010. They state MSNBC and CBS News also had earlier:

    “AOL News first identified Ardin in a story in December, after mainstream media outlets such as MSNBC and CBS News identified her.”

    Now that AOL News has been taken over by HuffPost, its stories only seem to live on in caches. A 4 Feb 2011 AOL News story, very detailed and interesting in its own right, that refers back to the December 2010 story for now is at:

    http://tinyurl.com/d95l85c

    or

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y39_4L3_jHIJ:www.aolnews.com/2011/02/04/julian-assange-witness-donald-bostrom-raises-questions-about-all/

  • nevermind

    Good prediction N_ slowly but definately the walls are coming down.

    OT/ Message to all those kilt wearing fanatics for independence north of the border.

    The third annual ‘Doune the rabbit hole festival will reverberate those pesky rabbits out of their holes this weekend and turn them into rabbit pies…. Had to be said.

  • Komodo

    Jives – think that your link shows the value of following the money. Nice one. Add it to the answers to “why Sweden?”

  • Passerby

    King of Jordan intervenes in Paralympic sex case

    The king of Jordan has personally intervened in the case of three members of the Jordanian Paralympic team accused of sex offences at a pre-Games training camp in Northern Ireland, a Jordanian government representative has told a court.

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/king-of-jordan-intervenes-in-paralympic-sex-case-16201116.html#ixzz24I2849pS

    Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/king-of-jordan-intervenes-in-paralympic-sex-case-16201116.html#ixzz24I1r32k4

  • VivaEcuador

    @Wendy:

    “interestingly the co founder of the henry jackson society has quit .. stating that it had become too hard right and too anti muslim ..”

    You are referring to Marko Atila Hoare, a co-founder of that egregious neo-con-think-tank-in-liberal’s-clothing Henry Jackson Society.

    MAH says he has had enough of what he calls HJS’s anti-Muslim bias. He also seems offended that he was used to help HJS “punch above its weight” (when you need a professional anti-Serb like MAH to help you punch above your weight then you know you are in trouble). For me the HJS’s bias was evident from the start. The mere choice of name gave away the game. HJ was a fanatically pro-Israeli American senator from Washington.

    If you looks closely at MAH’s views, however, you will see that he is more concerned about Israel’s reputation than what is happening to Muslims. He is a firm believer in cruise missile diplomacy although it seems that he can only drink so much blood – he has come out on his turgid blog (honestly, it is the best cure for insomnia I have seen in a looooong time) against attacking Iran but without renouncing the right to so-called humanitarian interventionism. The final paragraph leaves no doubt of this:

    “There is an Israeli left, and we in the West would do better to support them. The threat posed to the Middle East by Iran’s regime can ultimately only be resolved by a democratic revolution in that country. In the meantime, to weaken this regime, we would do better to concentrate on bringing down its murderous ally in Damascus, something that would not only save lives, but if handled properly might even improve the West’s reputation in the Middle East, instead of ruining it further.”

    One might reasonably ask why should we be supporting either the Israeli left, right, center or back of beyond? None of the political tendencies in Israel seem capable or willing to end the world’s longest occupation. But MAH could care less. He has bigger fish to fry. MAH doesn’t want Israel messing up his plans to “liberate the Middle East”.

    In the end, the whole thing can be summarised as a pathetic spat between the Militant Tendency of the HJS and the equally clapped-out HJS.

    Sorry for the digression……

  • craig Post author

    I have doubts there is an Andrea Davison holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy. Can Mods please put all comments on that into limbo till I can dig further – this may be some kind of weird distraction.

1 2 3 5

Comments are closed.