Amelia Hill is a Dirty Liar 1172


The Guardian hit a new low in Amelia Hill’s report on Julian Assange’s appearance at the Oxford Union. Hill moved beyond propaganda to downright lies.

This is easy to show. Read through Hill’s “report”. Then zip to 20 minutes and 55 seconds of the recording of Assange speaking at the event Hill misreports, and simply listen to the applause from the Oxford Union after Assange stops speaking.

Just that hearty applause is sufficient to show that the entire thrust and argument of Amelia Hill’s article moves beyong distortion or misreprentation – in themselves dreadful sins in a journalist – and into the field of outright lies. Her entire piece is intended to give the impression that the event was a failure and the audience were hostile to Assange. That is completely untrue.

Much of what Hill wrote is not journalism at all. What does this actually mean?

“His critics were reasoned, those who queued for over an hour in the snow to hear him speak were thoughtful. It was Julian Assange – the man at the centre of controversy – who refused to be gracious.”

Hill manages to quote five full sentences of the organiser of the anti-Assange demonstration (which I counted at 37 people) while giving us not one single sentence of Assange’s twenty minute address. Nor a single sentence of Tom Fingar, the senior US security official who was receiving the Sam Adams award. Even more remarkably, all three students Hill could find to interview were hostile to Assange. In a hall of 450 students who applauded Assange enthusiastically and many of whom crowded round to shake my hand after the event, Hill was apparently unable to find a single person who did not share the Rusbridger line on Julian Assange.

Hill is not a journalist – she is a pathetic grovelling lickspittle who should be deeply, deeply ashamed.

Here is the answer to the question about cyber-terrorism of which Amelia Hill writes:

“A question about cyber-terrorism was greeted with verbose warmth”

As you can see, Assange’s answer is serious, detailed, thoughtful and not patronising to the student. Hill’s characterisation – again without giving a word of Assange’s actual answer – is not one that could genuinely be maintained. Can anybody – and I mean this as a real question – can anybody look at that answer and believe that “Verbose warmth” is a fair and reasonable way to communicate what had been said to an audience who had not seen it? Or is it just an appalling piece of hostile propaganda by Hill?

The night before Assange’s contribution at the union, John Bolton had been there as guest speaker. John Bolton is a war criminal whose actions deliberately and directly contributed to the launching of an illegal war which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Yet there had not been one single Oxford student picketing the hosting of John Bolton, and Amelia Hill did not turn up to vilify him. My main contribution to the Sam Adams event was to point to this as an example of the way people are manipulated by the mainstream media into adopting seriously warped moral values.

Amelia Hill is one of the warpers, the distorters of reality. The Guardian calls her a “Special Investigative Correspondent.” She is actually a degraded purveyor of lies on behalf of the establishment. Sickening.


1,172 thoughts on “Amelia Hill is a Dirty Liar

1 35 36 37 38 39 40
  • Arbed

    Okkkkkaay, here’s a further hint that Birgitta has indeed cut a deal with the US prosecution:

    https://twitter.com/birgittaj/status/301338605593452548

    No one can be that hopelessly naive. Here’s Kevin Gosztola calling for a Wikileaks subpoena victims support group back in June 2011:

    “Time for Those Subpoenaed in WikiLeaks Grand Jury Investigation to Setup Support Committee?”
    http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2011/06/09/new-subpoenas-issued-in-wikileaks-grand-jury-investigation/

    And here’s the really scary version of that (a very detailed rundown of how Grand Juries work and also covering the current targeting of anarchist and other protest movements):

    http://darkernet.in/obamas-inquisition-style-grand-jury-system-spreads-net-wide/

    And here’s a link to the Grand Jury flowchart mentioned in the above article:

    http://darkernet.in/obamas-inquisition-style-grand-jury-system-spreads-net-wide/grand-jury-flowchart-2/

  • Villager

    Oh well, she’s sold her soul to the devil. And to think of it, Arbed wasn’t she the one writing to nominate Julian for the Nobel Peace Prize. Well, the polarisation continues but thats life. I intuit that in the times we are living in and with all the war and carnage around us, the Universe will step in at some point and support the good. As Einstein said there are only two ways to look at life: one is that nothing is a miracle, the other is everything is a miracle.

    I believe it is already a miracle that Assange is in the safety of Ecuador’s diplomatic compound. I find it difficult to believe that the Americans who are getting more and more desperate and degenerate by the day will ever get Assange to the US. So for the moment i’m happy to cock a snook at Uncle Sam.

    Just to diverge a bit, it also reminds me of one country that has been consistently been able to do that to Uncle Sam since the start of the War on Terror is Pakistan. Not my favourite country, but its a case study of how they have screwed the US. But morally speaking look at the Raymond Davis, CIA contractor/fraud ‘diplomat’ who shot two Pakistanis in broad daylight and then after some months in jail was taken out by the US after bribing their way with blood money. Check it out in wiki. And our Resident Dissidents and CE’s of this blog who like to talk from a superior sense of justice should tell us what they make of Uncle Sam’s methods and the level of their democracy. Corrupt and immoral to the core.

  • Clark

    Arbed, I apologise for my ignorance. Thanks for the links, which I can’t examine in much detail at present. I wish there was some good news.

  • Villager

    well Clark the first piece of good news is that Julian is where he is, under the protection of a sovereign nation. It Is a Big Deal if you think of it. The next piece of good news will be Correa’s reelection. Then the diplomatic manoeuvring will begin in earnest. I bet you Ecuador/Assange have a game plan in place. Don’t underestimate the force of ‘good’. Sleep in peace.

  • Villager

    Einstein (again!) said he lved his life by 3 simple principles: Truth, Goodness, Beauty

    Here’s a song by the beautiful Nico with Brigitta in mind

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exFokKr-WEg

    And what costume shall the poor girl wear
    To all tomorrow’s parties
    A hand-me-down dress from who knows where
    To all tomorrow’s parties

    And where will she go and what shall she do
    When midnight comes around
    She’ll turn once more to sunday’s clown
    And cry behind the door

    And what costume shall the poor girl wear
    To all tomorrow’s parties
    Why silks and linens of yesterday’s gowns
    To all tomorrow’s parties

    And what will she do with thursday’s rags
    When monday comes around
    She’ll turn once more to sunday’s clown
    And cry behind the door

    And what costume shall the poor girl wear
    To all tomorrow’s parties
    For thursday’s child is sunday’s clown
    For whom none will go mourning

    A blackened shroud, a hand-me-down gown
    Of rags and silks, a costume
    Fit for one who sits and cries
    For all tomorrow’s parties

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    Like you, Villager, I am a big Einstein fan.

    I think he was paraphrasing Keats….

    ” When old age shall this generation waste,
    Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
    Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,
    ‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
    Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.’ “

  • Villager

    REPEAT MY COMMENT OF
    12 Feb, 2013 – 5:50 pm
    CE/Clark don’t mean to butt in, but this may be important context–12 seconds

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    And look at her body language, laugh and all. And gosh what a paunch she has acquired with her power and prosperity.

    CE now tell us what is vile and disgusting….

    I was impressed by your communication with Clark, but still curious as to how open-minded and objective you really are.

  • Arbed

    Justice4Assange has just issued a very detailed, multi-page rebuttal of the lies in David Allen Green’s Legal Myths of the Assange Case. Some of the pages are particularly interested, such as this one which details very clearly how the hearings and judgments in the UK courts were highly politicised rather than legally sound:

    “The allegations would not be crimes in England”
    http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#ALLEGATIONS

    An excerpt dealing with the High Court decision to review the women’s police statements de bene esse (temporary and conditional examination) and offer an opinion obiter dictum:

    “The decision the High Court made did not rely on this opinion. It was unnecessary for the High Court to voice this opinion.

    By engaging in this lengthy and unnecessary diversion, which had nothing to do with the decision, the High Court made it much more difficult for Assange to appeal the court’s choice to stick to the Trumped Up Allegations written on the EAW.

    This is the only discernible purpose for putting these comments in the judgment: preemptively denying an avenue of appeal.

    This is an intensely political thing for a court to do”

    This is correct. As most of you probably realise by now, I have followed this case in great detail from the very start and I have personally attended all the higher court hearings in the UK. I therefore know how very much the judgments handed down – months after the event, mind – diverged from what was argued on the day. I am not naive about the true purpose of the ‘law’ in terms of its function to coerce social control and maintain the status quo, but when the judgments of both the High Court and Supreme Court were handed down I was left profoundly shocked by how Assange’s extradition case revealed the full extent to which our courts’ decisions are politically driven and corrupt. I remember Craig’s post about the Supreme Court judgment reached more or less the same conclusion.

  • Clark

    Arbed, 13 Feb, 11:19 am, thanks for that link:

    http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html

    I’ve been hoping for a concise summary of events, statements, and court proceedings for some time. I’m still reading it, but it is very clear and straightforward.

    CE and others, I strongly recommend that you read this. The misrepresentation of events on the European Arrest Warrant as compared with the actual statements is utterly shocking. Can you really feel safe if legal authorities exaggerate matters like this?

  • CE

    Clark,

    I will, although Justice4(I hate the use of numbers over a word)Assange has a bit of a track record of providing false information. It is not what you would call a reliable source of information.

    Saying that, I haven’t even looked at the link yet, I will after football! 😉

  • CE

    I’m afraid it doesn’t start well,

    slating DAG for being nonobjective and biased, completeley unlike J4A of course. 🙄

  • LastBlueBell

    Rumination concerning law and David Allen Green,

    Law is by its very nature today an enormously extended subject that by necessity is split up into many widely diverse sub fields, since the amount of time required to professionally master even one such sub field, often are greater then any individual human have to her disposal in a single lifetime.

    Another division is the fact that there exist different solutions how to implement the judicial system in different countries, and as such, requires tailored expertise and understanding of the specific type used in the country of interest.

    A third fact is that it requires significant skill, knowledge and expertise in the language the law is written in.

    And not least, it also often requires deep cultural understanding of the country involved, and the practical and established guidelines that exists. Practices which of course also changes with time, and that demands constant revisions of ones knowledge framework.

    This means that just because you have studied one subfield of the law, in one country, does not by itself make you suitable, or even eligible, to comment or practice upon questions regarding even the same sub field in another country.

    Just to underscore excatly how ridiculous i think that thought is,

    Who would want to undergo open heart surgery or a heart transplantation, performed by a dermatologist, even though he is a physician?

    Which brings me back to David Allen Green, and exactly what expertise he does have, in regard to what is relevant to Julian Assanges?

    I can not help but wonder that in listening to DAG, you are at best listening to other peoples opinions, because he does not appear to have sufficent expertise nor competence to write and truly comment on them by his own merit.

  • Clark

    CE, to start you off, just compare the allegations on the warrant with the actual statements from AA and SW. None of that involves Justice for Assange at all, just the original documents. Both statements, in full, are on this blog.

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/anna-ardins-police-statement/
    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/statement-of-irmeli-krans/

    Legal matters should NOT proceed like this. If it was happening to me, I’d be terrified. And that’s without even considering the malevolence of the US, looming over all the proceedings.

  • CE

    LastBlueBell,

    I appreciate the sentiment of your thoughtful post. There is certainly a danger of bestowing too much respect to some commentators merely because they have attached the vague ‘Legal Expert’ or ‘Lawyer’ label to their views. Glenn. Greenwald is another example of this phenomenon.

    Bearing all that in mind, I still believe DAG to be a fine legal writer with a respected and independent voice, whose work on his ‘Jack of Kent’ blog, and ‘The Zombie Facts’, was important in dispelling many of the myths promoted by JA and his followers.

  • Villager

    CE with the new tone of civility that has descended over the blog in recent days, i take back any negative remarks i attributed to you.

    Still if you would care to, i will appreciate a response on an earlier comment with link, in the context of your reaction to a remark on the Ankara bombing. Here it is again (bear in mind that you are hearing this from the horse’s mouth and no opinions or third-part interpretations are involved):

    12 Feb, 2013 – 5:50 pm
    CE/Clark don’t mean to butt in, but this may be important context–12 seconds

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    And look at her body language, laugh and all. And gosh what a paunch she has acquired with her power and prosperity.

    CE now tell us what is vile and disgusting….

    I was impressed by your communication with Clark, but still curious as to how open-minded and objective you really are.

  • CE

    Hi Clark,

    Two points;

    1) As far as I’m aware JA’s UK Court cases(0-3) only concerned the validity of the EAW, not the evidence itself.

    2) I do not find the idea that victims should decide upon if, or what, charges are brought against the accused as valid or logical. If They choose to approach the police and make a statement, then the police and prosecutors decide what charges are brought. This is the way things should work in a civilised country.

    —————————————————————————–

    Villager this is OT guff, but you say Hilary 2016 is a heartless bitch! 😯

    Quelle surprise. Apologies but I will not continue this line of conversation. Thanks.

  • Clark

    CE, I find David Allen Green’s article:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/09/assange-and-legal-myths

    inconsistent with the “Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues”:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case

    David Allen Green’s inconsistencies are, however, consistently detrimental to Assange. I also find his article biased in its language, also to Assange’s detriment. The chance of him accidentally erring in the same direction every time seems negligible, so I conclude that, with high probability, he is biased against Assange.

  • CE

    Clark,

    I fear it is J4A’s interpretation of the statements that has been loaded and contorted, not the EAW’s.

    Look for example at J4A’s misleading and belittling interpretation of SW’s statement;

    Alleged “lesser rape”

    A fair and accurate summary of the conduct would also have included reference to text messages (shown to the Appellant’s counsel but not copied to him) and evidence in which SW states that she was ‘half asleep’ when the sex began, which of course also means ‘half awake’ or sleepy. SW was re-interviewed concerning these and confirmed that ‘…she wasn’t fast asleep but wasn’t awake either…’ . The summary contained within the EAW (‘deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state’ ) is not accurate. Accurately described, in the context of repeated acts of consensual sexual intercourse, the Appellant penetrated SW whilst she was ‘half-asleep’ , which penetration was met by consent on the part of SW.

    ——————————————————————————

    A Lie and a fine piece of whatabouttery. JA knew explicitly that SW had a pathological fear of unprotected sex and would never give someone consent for that act. Yet he proceeded to do so. That is a crime, and a serious one whether she was ‘half-asleep’ or ‘half-awake’.

  • CE

    Clark,

    I would say it is obvious that DAG has personal dislike for Assange, yes. Should that automatically render his views invalid, I think not.

    I not claiming his work as Gospel, merely that it has been helpful is busting pro-Assange myths.

  • Clark

    CE:

    “I do not find the idea that victims should decide upon if, or what, charges are brought against the accused as valid or logical. If They choose to approach the police and make a statement, then the police and prosecutors decide what charges are brought. This is the way things should work in a civilised country.”

    Is this an absolute position, so far as you are concerned? So, if you happened to give a statement to police for any reason, a prosecutor could declare you a victim of a crime which, in your opinion, had never occurred? That thus, the prosecutors have the right to declare your status as a victim?

    So for instance, if I had been involved in consensual sado-masochism, as the masochistic party, and I described my experience to police, they would have the right to prosecute my partner, even though I’d wished for and enjoyed my partner’s behaviour?

    There seems something very wrong about that. The authorities are not there to “protect” me from things I want to happen. This seems like the past, when gay men could be prosecuted for consensual anal sex as the crime of “buggery”.

  • CE

    mmmmmm,

    It’s certainly a tricky one Clark, I was thinking about the extremes too after I posted that! 🙂

  • Clark

    CE, sorry, what is your evidence for this statement:

    “JA knew explicitly that SW had a pathological fear of unprotected sex and would never give someone consent for that act.”

  • Clark

    CE, as best I remember, the “pathological fear” statement about SW came from a completely different witness, during questioning after the event.

  • Clark

    CE, regarding your telegraph link, at least one of the participants had made the complaint. In the Assange matter, that very strongly seems to be not the case, and the complaint was pursued by the police when the “victim” didn’t want it so.

  • CE

    Clark,

    The statement?

    Maybe he wasn’t sure it was pathological, but he would certainly be able to tell there was a fear judging by how often she mentions Condoms in her statement alone. And he must have known he didn’t have, and wasn’t getting, consent for that act.

    Will you admit that J4A has lied in saying that SW gave consent for the act of unprotected sex?

1 35 36 37 38 39 40

Comments are closed.