I am a guest speaker tomorrow at the NUJ Conference in Newcastle, on the subject of blogging. Never one to appease an audience, I shall give them it straight on my opinions of the collusion between mainstream media and power, and thus those who work within it. I expect to hear a lot about how bloggers are irresponsible, do not check sources etc.
I shall be drawing on some of the content of this talk:
I post this again because nowadays this website has far more readers than when I first posted it, and because it encapsulates my thoughts rather well.
I shall tell the NUJ that the mainstream media remains very constrained in what they publish. The Jimmy Saville affair broke on the internet in a big way a year ago, and yet the mainstream media is only now catching up – and still not making key links, like to Haut de la Garenne.
I receive, constantly, emails from people wishing me to take up various cases on my blog and furnishing information. 95% of the time I do not publish because I am not able to investigate fully (there is just one of me) and I do not know the source: the exclusives on this blog come mostly from my access to well-placed sources I have known for years through my past diplomatic career, and trust.
A notable proportion of the cases brought to me by those I do not know involve alleged paedophile rings. I was sent information about Haut de la Garenne for years, which named a string of senior people alleged to take advantage of organised paedophilia in the care home. Among the judges, politicians and aristocracy, there was indeed the name of Jimmy Saville. I have to admit it was not just that I could not prove any of it, I was actively sceptical about what seemed a random list of names of the famous. We now know for certain that Saville visited the place several times. The whole Haut De La Garenne investigation always seemed to obscure more than it revealed; I do hope it is mow re-opened, and taken away from the local Jersey police.
Another case which caused me great concern was that of Hollie Greig, where the jailing of Robert Green seemed to me vicious and unjustified. But I had earlier refused a request on behalf of the Greig family to involve myself in the case because the allegations made seemed to me incapable of proof without investigative powers and resources of the kind the police have. That the police do not properly deploy those resources where allegations involve the powerful appears to me too often to be too likely. Where the accusation is that the judicial establishment is involved in a paedophile ring, for the same judicial establishment to start jailing campaigners is extraordinary.
But the Alisher Usmanov and Adam Werritty cases will be the main thrust of my talk to the NUJ. In the first, the mainstream media still to this day persist in covering up the criminal past of the convicted blackmailer and Putin cohort who purchased 10% of Facebook and 35% of Arsenal Football Club.
The Werritty case is much more sinister because it goes to the media collusion in burying evidence of the influence of Israel on British politics. The public were told that Werritty was at a small number of meetings where he should not have been. The mainstream media refused to discuss why he was at those meetings or what his participation was actually about – leaving the public to infer he was merely Fox’s lover or in some way they were making money.
Even when I was able to produce undeniable evidence that Fox and Werritty held eight meetings with Matthew Gould, now and during six of those meetings British Ambassador to Israel (and Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary for the first two meetings) the mainstream media refused point blank to publish it. Mossad were present for at least two of those eight meetings. Gus O’Donnell’s report, whcih led to Fox’s resignation, had revealed only two of these eight meetings. This should have been a massive story. The media buried it (with the sole and belated exception of the Independent on Sunday).
No media were prepared to put any investigative resources into what Gould, Werritty and Mossad were doing. I had an impeccable senior source who told me that they were discussing preparing the political ground for an attack on Iran. You would think that, given the Werritty affair caused Fox to resign, that was worth investigating. The media completely blanked it. To this day the fact that Werritty and Fox met Gould eight times has been reported nowhere but one column in the Independent on Sunday.
I think my encounter with the journalistic profession could be quite fun. I shall also be arguing that bloggers should be allowed to join the NUJ; an internal NUJ debate on this is the background to my invitation to speak.
Lemonpuffs wrote: “I can not believe that people are so ill informed. It has been admitted by various sources that the UK government effectively ran the IRA since the 70s. Martin McGuinness was employed by MI6. Although no firm evidence/reliable sources on Gerry Adams have surfaced, the mere fact that all the people who rose through the ranks of the IRA during the 80s and 90s, under Gerry Adams leadership, turned out to be British agents is somewhat telling.”
Which “people” are you referring to here? There is no evidence that the British government “ran the IRA” as you say. Infiltrators, yes, “ran”? Hardly. There were obviously many young men and women who joined the IRA who were not working for the British government. So my question remains.
‘”There is no evidence that the British government “ran the IRA” ‘
I said, and I quote, “effectively ran the IRA”. Martin McGuiness was a British “infiltrator” (your term) and so too, in all likelihood, was Gerry Adams. The agent codenamed ‘stakeknife’, Freddie Scappaticci, was the IRA’s man tasked with uncovering informers and guess who he worked for. This is all common knowledge and has been known for almost a decade now. As I said, ignorant.
[Mod/Jon: posted as Lemon Puffs, but has posted in the past under Ginger Nuts, so fixing]
Many people don’t seem to understand that ‘terrorism’ is actually created by governments to control their populations or effect a geopolitical outcome. With the UK and N.I. it was all about cold war paranoia and needing an excuse to barrack the British Army on Irish soil to deter any ideas of it becoming the UKs own Cuba.
[Mod/Jon: posted as Lemon Puffs, but has posted in the past under Ginger Nuts, so fixing]
“the index number of the MI6 agent, ‘J118’, was the one the security services attributed to McGuinness.
In the brief transcript, an IRA commander tells the MI6 handler about a forthcoming attack at two border checkpoints, one on the Derry/Donegal frontier, the other in South Armagh, on 24 October 1990. Five soldiers and a civilian were killed in the Derry attack.
According to the document the MI6 officer encourages his informer ‘to push this along as quickly as possible’ – in other words, allow the attack to go ahead.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/jun/04/uk.northernireland
[Mod/Jon: posted as Lemon Puffs, but has posted in the past under Ginger Nuts, so fixing]
I’m well aware of those facts. You’re missing the point of my original question, that there was more to the IRA than it’s alleged leaders. Volunteers joined for their own reasons, and it was those reasons that I was asking Craig about.
p.s. Try not to be so rude, which is a form of ignorance.
Let me see if I have this right, you’re aware that the leader of the IRA, the operations commander of the IRA and the head of internal security for the IRA were all working for the British secret services but you still want to argue the toss about who was ‘effectively running the IRA’, i.e. controlling them? I don’t know why I bother.
[Mod/Jon: posted as Lemon Puffs, but has posted in the past under Ginger Nuts, so fixing]
@Kempe
[Goodman was banned for two years, later reduced to one something she and her supporters forget to mention.
What difference would a year make to her “destabilising the whole government system in the UK” I wonder.]
It was only reduced because it became publicised and a MP interceded in the case, maybe they thought by reducing it they could avoid public glare. And after all, you can clean up a lot in a year. For example, between her ban starting and ending, at least one witness has died, the infamous saville.
@Kempe (again, sorry)
and whilst the ban has completed, she still can’t obtain a visa to return to the island.
Lemon Puffs 5 Oct, 2012 – 3:25 pm
“Martin McGuinness was employed by MI6.”
On what do you base your certainty?
The word of a British Army Intelligence Officer, an alleged British Army document and the insinuation of a British MP?
Maybe you can see what I’m getting at.
I haven’t had time to read this thread, so apologies in advance if somebody has already posted what I am about to. It concerns Craig’s points made about Saville. It occurs to me that one reason why people who may have been in a position to know what he was (allegedly) up to, did not dob him in is because he had some dirt on them, possibly relating to his own perverted predilections. It is only after his death that it has been possible to lift the lid on his activities sine he can’t now do any damage by way of retaliation to said important others.
Just speculating out loud…..
Just out of interest, which PM bestowed ‘Sir’ Jim’s knighthood upon him?
Watched his Louis Theroux encounter again at the weekend. With the benefit of hindsight and his victims testimonies, this repugnant creature’s paedophilic tendencies are obvious, as they must have been to many members of the establishment who had encountered him. Those who stayed silent helped provide this man with cover for his vile behaviour.
@ Lemon Puffs: Obviously you can’t read or understand simple English. If you want to try, read my last post again. In any case, my initial question was to Craig, so why don’t you piss off and annoy someone else with your straw man arguments.
SAVILLE – IS THIS YET ANOTHER COVER-UP TO PERVERT JUSTICE
.
It’s not just the allegations of Pedophilia against the late Sir Jimmy Savile that are so shocking, but the fact that these alleged crimes seem to have occurred serially over a 30 / 40 year period that makes them even more appalling. Is this just another example of establishment darkness? One has the impression from the media articles that Sir Jimmy was above the law; and that he knew it too. Given Sir Jimmy Savile’s reported closeness to high establishment figures, including politicians and royalty, and the security services – was this just another cover up to ensure that these allegations of serial pedophilia could not be honestly investigated?
Now then now then now then
@Jon – “No, “Jewish Mafia” is not a reference simply to Mossad. As far as I know, it’s a reference to the theory that Jews run the world, and comes pretty close to all manner of racist tropes – the Protocols etc.”
This was in response to my referring to “the Jewish mafia that controls pop music, most of the entertainment industry, and is increasingly AIPAC-ising both Westminster and Whitehall“.
Jon – your first observation is correct; your second is completely incorrect.
It wasn’t just a reference to Mossad, although the Jewish mafia does work closely with that organisation, all over the world. See for example how the Chabad Lubavitchers, who run a lot of the world ecstasy market, can count on support from Mossad, and how Jewish organised criminals in Tokyo, Latin America, and elsewhere, can too.
I wouldn’t advise getting on the wrong side of the criminal thugs who run your local Chabad House.
See also many accounts (e.g. by Viktor Ostrovsky, former Mossad officer) of the attitude in many criminal Mossad operations which amounts to “if it all goes wrong, at least we’ll make some money”.
You may be unaware that the Zionists don’t extradite Jews for any crimes they are alleged to have committed before they went to Zionist-occupied Palestine. In any sensible language, that makes Israel a haven for any Jewish criminals who need somewhere to run to. If any other country operated such a policy, such an obvious statement to the effect that “A means B” wouldn’t even have to be made, and people would ask why on earth some twit was stating the blatantly obvious. Not that that tells the whole story; but like many policies of the Jewish state, it’s characteristically shameless.
Regarding regional Zionist, synagogue, and Jewish-community organisations and their links to organised crime, you could start by observing that usually it’s a matter of the same people wearing different hats, and then look at various countries of the former Soviet Union, or organ-trafficking in Latin America, or whatever.
Most big charities, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, are as dirty as hell. Sorry, but that’s the reality. Which is not to say that some of them sometimes don’t also do good work.
It is therefore very interesting indeed that Savile, a non-Jewish strong support of Zionism – did some work for regional synagogue organisations. I saw you didn’t pick up my reference to Greville Janner, now Lord Janner. He was President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and is currently a vice-president of the World Jewish Congress and the Jewish Leadership Council. The latter is a UK version of the US Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Oh and he chairs the All-Party parliamentary group on ‘Britain-Israel’.
No the lobbyists haven’t left Westminster. Indeed some things have become even more blatant since the Daily Telegraph did us all such a big favour by exposing some false expenses claims. What’s happened is that it’s become less ‘acceptable’ to talk about them.
Look at say Barry Sheerman, who until recently managed to chair the Education Select Committee at the same time as being a big figure at the lobbyist company Policy Connect, which acted for clients including big players in educational supplies. In any reasonable discourse, terms such as “conflict of interest” and indeed “fucking crook” would be in the air. Why does someone want to chair a public body relating to a sector at the same time as being involved in lobbying for a private company that wants contracts in the same sector? (Correction and deep apologies – I’ve got it all wrong – Policy Connect, although it does lobby for private companies, is itself “not-for-profit”, so it must be as pure as the driven snow).
In most of the world outside of Britain, someone would be considered to be mentally retarded, or at best extremely naive, if they asked such a question to which the answer is so damned obvious.
A similar observation could be made about John Bercow who lobbied for the Speaker’s Office by promising to reach out to “voluntary bodies”. Well there was little old me, thinking his job was to ensure orderly debate among people who have already been elected as representatives of their constituents. Why should that involve any role talking to “voluntary organisations”, or, as one can also call them, lobbyists, behind the scenes?
Don’t forget that Bercow came to office as a result of the “expenses” scandal and shortly after the Gaza massacre and the “London Declaration on Anti-Semitism” and a similar crackdown on criticism of Zionism in the education sector. Everyone in the chattering classes can joke about expenses nowadays (oh how worldly wise they are! oh how terrible things were in the bad old epoch!), but anyone who thinks things have got less corrupt in Westminster needs their head tested. Clever bit of propaganda, all that was. It moved what parliament is about (which has always been about big business and propaganda) into new territory.
And do you see how they do it? They use stockphrases. Examples include:
“credit crunch” (to push the idea that the problem is not enough credit)
“subprime” (which middle class people can use as a vehicle for their snobbery, but which also shows how stupid they are, because any walk down a high street, around a retail park, near a supermarket checkout, or into a post office, will show how huge exhortation to get deeper and deeper into debt continues to be directed at the lowest orders as well as most of the rest of the population)
“expenses” (as if that was anything but a tiny bit of the corruption at Westminster)
“bonuses” (as if anything but a small percentage of the money being piled up by those who control the banks is paid to them in the form of bonuses)
etc.
But back to Lord Janner. He is one of a number of politicians or former politicians in the UK who is widely known to be a paedophile abuser. Others include Lord Macalpine, Margaret Hodge (see Eileen Fairweather’s work on Islington, and how it links to Haut de la Garenne in Jersey), Michael Portillo, and Commons Speaker George Thomas who became Lord Tonypandy. Both Janner and Macalpine have been named by some of their victims in trials and enquiries. Often people who’ve been so severely abused as children over a long period of time have few alternatives other than exposing and denouncing their attackers and putting an end to their misery by means of suicide. Several who’ve had the temerity to speak too loudly about how they have been abused by monsters such as Janner and Macalpine have been killed off without suicide being involved. Macalpine was named by dozens of his victims in North Wales.
If you don’t have a problem with references to the Maltese mafia (once pretty strong in London), the Sicilian mafia, Sikh mafia, etc., is it because you don’t interpret them as hinting at a “theory”? 🙂
But it’s not a reference to any “theory”; nor is it anything to do with racism, except insofar as Jewish racism is a tool wielded by the Jewish mafia; insofar as the Jewish religion is deeply racist; and insofar as, after an increasing number of generations (different numbers of generations in different parts of the world) in which people born into Jewish culture have been able to leave it, it is increasingly the case that Jews who do not want to be racist, walk out of the said culture and chuck their “Jewish” identity into the bin, whereas those who remain in it, root themselves ever more firmly into racism.
“Don’t be a shanda fur die goyim” works similarly to “omerta”.
If you consider how political leaders in the US, Germany, France, and the UK all got up and sang the “Israel has the right to defend itself” song during the Gaza massacre (and the US Congress passed a hasbara resolution saying exactly this, with less than 10 votes against), you might give more credence to the view that Jewish money does control the west.
As for the Jewish mafia controlling the pop music industry, I wonder what planet someone might be living on if they are unaware of this…
I wrote: “Most big charities, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, are as dirty as hell. Sorry, but that’s the reality. Which is not to say that some of them sometimes don’t also do good work.”
Actually I take some of that back. I don’t know of any Jewish charity organisation that would do good work if the potential recipient of its charity made it clear that although from a Jewish family background, they themselves rejected the Jewish religion and the anti-assimilationist Jewish identity as racist.
I know of one Jewish charity that was shameless enough to support only Jewish children who were victims of the Chernobyl meltdown, Frankly if that’s not racist, what is?
Of course, if an organisation supported only white children who were victims of the New Orleans flooding, or for that matter only black children, the point would be obvious to almost everyone.
It’s an old slogan but it remains true: ONE RACE, THE HUMAN RACE.
Roderick Russell, at 5:13pm, on 9.10.12:
I agree. It seems incredible that so many (adults) knew exactly what was going on and said, and did, nothing. The allegations are all shocking and especially perhaps those that involve him trawling hospital wards for physically – as well as politically and economically – powerless victims. I mean, if you, as a health professional, saw someone doing that to a child in a hospital bed, no matter who they were, you’d drag them off, punch out their lights, knock their block off and call the cops, no?
It is intolerable that we, the public, were not told of this and so watched/listened to all those TV/radio programmes, etc. without knowing anything of his alleged proclivities, his alleged abuse. Yes, I think it likely he was being protected for decades; the alleged behaviour was beyond even the normative dissolute actions of the showbiz ‘set’ and though it was facilitated hugely and systemically by the patriarchy, seems by any standards, to have been extreme. One senses a very deep cesspit.
The biggest scam of the century – Harry Potter-J.K.Rowling is right under your noses and NOBODY has bothered to investigate…. who is behind it? What are they really up to? Why was the Willy the Wizard case stopped dead in London’s High Court? What lies have been disseminated by Rowling’s PR boys? What lies have been used to protect the myth. Why should Rowling have tight links with Gordon Brown and Tony Blair and their wives? What work does the criminal organization known as Schillings law firm diligently pursue in court and out of court on hehalf of these rogues? Why has NOBODY in the media asked a serious question about any of it and its possible links to Freemasonry in England, particularly in the justice system. Who is getting rich on the back of Harry Potter…. begin there! If you are allowed.
Note, apart from the general ‘establishment darkness’ exemplified by the generals, the specific reference to an Israeli arms deal in related which the UK parliament reportedly needed to be swayed. Think of Werrity-Fox.
There is most certainly a state-within-the-state and occasionally, we gain glimpses of its workings. For reasons known to themselves, someone within the media/security apparatus is likely to have decided to ‘out’ the generals at this time, via the MSM. But the point is, this is systemic, it is not ‘few bad eggs’, it is normative.
One of the most telling comments, it seems to me, was this:
“Lord Dannatt, the former head of the army, also talked about ignoring a ban on discussion of a £400m contract by “targeting” the MoD’s top civil servant, with whom he went to school.” The Sunday Times.
This type of process is prevalent in every walk of life in this country and is a direct reflection of the class system that actually is the major determinant of most of the UK population’s stats – i.e. lives. It is also a matter on which most in the MSM seems in denial, so that instead of systemic debate, it is sublimated into comedy sketch cartoonistan as exemplified by the ‘Andrew Mitchell-Police Constables’ Show’. The only way discussion of the structural inequalities in our society (yet no exploration of the way that is linked instrinsically to imperial domestic and foreign policies), is permissible, it seems, is in a scenario which entails defending the honour of the police who, in this absurd vignette, become representatives of working class struggle.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/military-officers-arms-deal-investigation-220758402.html