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 36 37 38 39 40
  • CE

    Clark,

    Yes,

    If you chose to report the matter to the police in a formal setting, that is in effect initiating a complaint. The wheels have been set in motion so to speak.

    I actually believe the police and prosecutors made an error in that case, as seemingly there was code word which either party could, and did not, utter.

  • Clark

    CE, going back to your comment at 10:26 pm:

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

    No, it’s his discrepancies with the “Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues” that I believe render his views highly suspect.

    “…merely that [DAG] has been helpful is busting pro-Assange myths.”

    I would say that in that article, he has helped to create myths, to the detriment of Assange.

  • CE

    Clark,

    Yes, it was SW’s ex boyfriend who ‘coined’ the pathological fear line. Whether JA knew of this fear is up for debate.

    That she gave her consent for unprotected sex is surely not?

  • Clark

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

    Can you direct me to the section of the J4A page that you’re referring to, please? Or quote it.

  • Clark

    Do you mean this?

    “which penetration was met by consent on the part of SW. “

    Examining the context, that seems reasonable phrased to me, especially seeing as two witnesses have stated that SW didn’t want this prosecuted and that police had taken action that she didn’t want.

  • Villager

    CE

    “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.”

    Oh no, it belongs to this thread, and it belongs to your claim about something being vile and disgusting. It also belongs to who you are and people’s understanding here of the prism through which you make judgments. As for your accusation that i say “Hilary 2016 is a heartless bitch.”, please show me the link to your assertion. Again it reflects on your credibility and how you follow and distill what is being said and by whom.

    MY KEY POINT IS CAN WE HAVE YOUR REACTION TO HILLARY’S COMMENT ON THAT YOUTUBE: “WE CAME, WE SAW, HE DIED….HAHAHA”? I am confident that others here are also keenly interested. So don’t shrug it off as ‘guff’ that easily….

    If you’re unwilling to respond, one shall assume that it is the exact same stubbornness which prevents you from looking at the Assange case with fundamental biases and then coming up here with shit like accusing people of belonging to a ‘cult and the snide ‘St Julian’ digs. So far, so pathetic.

  • CE

    Do you mean this?

    “which penetration was met by consent on the part of SW. “

    Examining the context, that seems reasonable phrased to me, especially seeing as two witnesses have stated that SW didn’t want this prosecuted and that police had taken action that she didn’t want.

    ————————————————————————-

    Sorry Clark, but I fail to see how anyone can describe this deliberately misleading statement as ‘reasonable’. It is a lie. Show where SW says she gives her consent for the act of unprotected sex? She doesn’t. J4A have lied about this and I fear you are not applying the same harsh spotlight to them as you take to some of the MSM.

    It is almost as if you are joining J4A in being obtuse by directly linking SW’s consent with her possible later negative feelings towards the charges she initiated. It is entirely possible, even likely, that SW did not give her consent for the act of unprotected sex, yet still wanted the charges dropped at a later stage. I’m sure we can all imagine a variety of reasons why.

  • Clark

    CE:

    “If you chose to report the matter to the police in a formal setting, that is in effect initiating a complaint.”

    I think that this is not enough. Some sort of statement of intent should be required, such as “I wish action to be taken…” or “I believe I’m a victim of a crime”.

    A “report in a formal setting” could be a witness report of a crime against a third party, for instance. So say I’m with police, describing a group sex encounter where I was behaving masochistically, but I wish to report something inflicted upon some other, unwilling, participant (maybe using a code word that was being ignored), but the police decide to prosecute the person who was giving me pain that I wanted. All very complicated, I admit, but you see what I mean.

    Police are there to serve, not to control. That’s the point. To be a “complainant”, the person should have to have complained.

  • LastBlueBell

    As far as I know, David Allen Green,

    Does not speak Swedish,
    Does not have personal experience working with international law and extradition cases
    Does not have a Swedish degree in law
    Have no experience from practizing criminal law in Sweden,
    Have not lived in Sweden for any extended lenght of time, to have had any reasonble opportunity to learn and understand the culture and the current political situation.

    So what expertise are we listening to, when we listen to DAG?

    Just because somethings sounds good, does not mean it is right, and just because someone is a talented writer or communicator, does not give them authority.

    The question is whether the opinions are supported by objective evidence, and stands up to scrutiny in each and every individual case.

    And to loosely paraphrase the famous physicist and Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman,

    ‘If it disagrees with evidence, it is wrong, It does not matter how beautiful your writings are, how smart you are who made the statement, or how famous you are. If it disagrees with factual evidence, it is wrong, and thats all there is to it.’

  • Clark

    But CE, if we follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, every action we take requires consent. “May I kiss you? May I touch your thigh? May I tickle your ear?”, and so on. Any one of those could be taken as assault.

  • Clark

    CE, 13 Feb, 11:31 pm

    “…yet still wanted the charges dropped at a later stage.”

    There is no indication that SW wanted any charges raised in the first place.

  • Villager

    When JA penetrated Sw while she was half-asleep, she came fully awake and asked him if he was wearing something. He answered, yes i’m wearing you. She said words to the effect you better not have HIV etc. If i’m not wrong she went out bought breakfast, met her brother, asked him if he would like to come back and meet Assange her lover (the rapist? no). They had breakfast and if i remember correctly another round of sex before she rode him over on her bicycle to the station and kissed goodbye. Before that she mentioned that he would have to help her with her student loan if she were pregnant. He remarked that he understood Sweden was a good country to have a baby in and joked that the baby might be named Afghanistan.

    After departing Julian didn’t ring SW nor did he take the by-now pregnant Sw’s calls. Very bad form indeed. Meantime the two women had spoken, exchanged notes and fanned their jealousies and decided to get him to get a test done. Despite the advice of friends, Julian was too busy, nonchalant and did not act quickly–very poor manners and equally poor judgment. Meantime their connivance resulted in a trip to the police station where things went out of control. Quite possible that AA was putting into practice her how-to -each-a-lesson-to-an-ex-lover.

    As Galloway says very poor etiquette on Julians part–Saint, not….he’s a normal fallible human being. Rapist, NO!

    But those of the Establishment with a prior bias against wikileaks would of course carry that bias over. Perhaps a little moral judgment too about this guy sleeping with two girls within days especially while still staying at the home of the other. From the women’s pov it was obvious that Julian was a free-wheeler that was not going to fulfil any longer-term romantic notions they may have held.

    And lets not forget AA’s tweets about sitting with the coolest people in the world stuff which she then tried to delete. Bitch.

  • Villager

    After departing Julian didn’t ring SW nor did he take the by-now pregnant Sw’s calls.

    s/b the by-now potentially pregnant sw’s calls.

  • Clark

    Maybe JA and AA should both be extradited to Ecuador for a shotgun wedding. Get them safely paired off so they can’t make any more trouble.

  • CE

    Yes Clark, your somewhat tortured example is somewhat complicated, but I do know what you mean! 🙂

    However, I do think my general point on the wheels of justice being set in motion by a complaint recorded in a formal setting stands. You don’t go into a police interview room for a chat about your sex life. An adult of reasonable mind knows the consequence of the actions they are undertaking in matters such as this.

    “There is no indication that SW wanted any charges raised in the first place.”

    Surely the fact she went to the police to record a statement is an indication of some kind?

    I do fear some of us never be able to appreciate differing views on so many matters of this case despite what we see as clear evidence.

    What cannot be in doubt is that neither JA nor the alleged victims have been well served by this matter.

    Signing off soon.

    Goodnight Clark.

  • Villager

    Sw may be naive but its said she went for a chat to find out her rights to get the man to take an hiv test.

    “Surely the fact she went to the police to record a statement is an indication of some kind?”

    Assumption, NOTHING SURE about it.

  • Villager

    Good lateral thought Clark. But then why go to Ecuador? They could stay put in Sweden and reform the blessed little country.

    I’d prefer it it if a Swedish whistleblower, along with SW, would blow this whole charade out of the water.

    At any rate, i think Julian and Ecuador still have options.

    Sweden’s looking worse by the day.

    VOTE FOR TRUTH

  • Clark

    CE:

    “What cannot be in doubt is that neither JA nor the alleged victims have been well served by this matter.”

    Well I suppose that depends on what each of them was hoping for in the first place.

    Whatever, the US has been served very well indeed. Their current “most dangerous man in the world” is pinned down, whether he stays in the Ecuadorian embassy or comes out. His reputation is in tatters, and the minds of the people are off US foreign policy, and very much on the favourite subject of the gutter press, sex. And all at the cost of UK and Swedish taxpayers, and, I suppose, Wikileaks.

  • Kempe

    “As far as I know, David Allen Green,

    Does not speak Swedish,
    Does not have personal experience working with international law and extradition cases
    Does not have a Swedish degree in law
    Have no experience from practizing criminal law in Sweden,
    Have not lived in Sweden for any extended lenght of time, to have had any reasonble opportunity to learn and understand the culture and the current political situation.”

    The same could probably be said of the contributors on J4A who of course can absolutley be relied upon to produce an unbiased and objective opinion.

  • Villager

    And maybe Julian was half-asleep too when he penetrated her. So where does that leave us.

    Fact is the Swedes refuse to get off there butt and visit him to interrogate. LIARS.

  • Villager

    CLARK, “His reputation is in tatters,”

    I wouldn’t accede to that so easily. Its being questioned, yes, but that is all. Apart rom his supporters i imagine there area lot of fence-sitters out there.

  • Villager

    Kempe, the same can probably be said for you too. Shall we take it that you are one of those fence-sitters then?

  • Clark

    Villager:

    “I wouldn’t accede to that so easily.”

    You’re right. I just get waves of cynicism occasionally.

    “Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun” seems to be the motto of our “leaders”.

  • Mary

    Jemand

    It was those pesky tear gas canisters that did it!

    ‘It is not clear how the blaze started, and Sheriff McMahon said officers had not “intentionally” set fire to the cabin.

    But he acknowledged the pyrotechnic tear gas canisters “generate a lot of heat”.

    “We introduced those into the residence and a fire erupted,” he said.

    “The pyrotechnic-type canisters are commonly referred to as burners.”‘

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21454483

    On the World Service this morning one of Dorner’s college friends said that Dorner was a decent kindly man and that when he last spoke to him a few years ago, he mentioned that he had some problem with the LAPD. This friend is deeply shocked at the terrible series of events and outcome and thinks it probable that his obvious and untreated depression tipped him over to act in this uncharacteristic way.

1 36 37 38 39 40

Comments are closed.