Political Rape 209


Nigel Evans is fully entitled to the presumption of innocence; and the media seem more inclined to give it to him than they did to Malcolm Blackman, linked to Anonymous. In this particularly disgusting piece of journalism by Paul Cheston of the Evening Standard, the vicious liar who brought false accusations against Blackman is referred to as “the victim” – not even the alleged victim, but “the victim” – even after Blackman was found not guilty.

The victim, who cannot be named, had lived at home in south London during the week, and slept in the Occupy tent at weekends.

Having been at the Occupy site, where every tent touched at least three others, the idea that repeated rape could be carried out amongst a packed group of people who were particularly certain not to condone it, was always highly implausible. Compelling evidence was given in court that Blackman was not even at the site on one of the two named occasions.

It is particularly sickening that Blackman’s name and photograph has been published everywhere in relation to horrifying and untrue accusations of binding someone against their will with cable ties and raping them. This terrible publicity will follow him everywhere for the rest of his life. The deranged or malicious person who fabricated this story in court continues to have their identity protected.

Blackman’s role within both Anonymous and Occupy has been exaggerated by the media. He was nonetheless associated with the internet and street resistance to the increasingly authoritarian state. The parallels to the Assange case are inescapable.

Returning to Nigel Evans, on the Jeremy Thorpe precedent there is no reason for him to resign his seat before a trial, presuming that he maintains his innocence. Should he resign, this could be one of those small historical chances that has great effects. UKIP will have a great chance of winning Ribble Valley, and the resulting momentum could contribute to a genuine political convulsion in the UK.

Nigel Farage and I were due to have lunch a couple of years ago, but couldn’t get our diaries to match up at the time. Unfortunately, while admiring UKIP’s insurgent spirit, I find myself the polar opposite of their major policies. Distrust and dislike of the political establishment that has failed this country and allowed inconceivable amounts of wealth to be creamed off by the heads of the financial services industry, while ordinary people struggle to get any work at all, is perfectly understandable. The three main parties in England all retail the same neo-con policies, with different packaging. It is inevitable this system must break. That is should break in the direction of right wing populism, is perhaps predictable. But there are worse people than Mr Farage inside all the main parties.

I remain entirely confident that the UKIP surge in England will convince a great many more people in Scotland that they need to break free of the United Kingdom.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

209 thoughts on “Political Rape

1 4 5 6 7
  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella)

    More elegant prose from Doug Scorgie :

    “Your mouth is an anus that spews forth diarrhoea.”

    ——

    By the way, I see that Doug’s been asking a few people for sources and so on.

    My advice to them is not to bother.

    Whren I once went to the trouble of providing him with the sources he requested, he went quiet and then, undee questioning, finally admitted that he “couldn’t be arsed” to read them.

    Probably because his bluff had been called.

  • technicolour

    Habbakuk, how happy you must be with your circle of acquaintances. However, if you know someone who has murdered, bombed and robbed, you have a duty to turn them in, not boast about it on a public forum.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella)

    Doug Scorgie to Giles :

    “Can you name any UKIP supporters of Palestine, especially the person who stood for election who you say is “completely pro-Palestine?”

    ——

    How indiscreet of you, Doug. And how nosy.

    Can you please post your full name, address (including post code)and phone number?

    Thank you.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella)

    Mary apparently takes exception to Giles’ opinion of her, viz.

    ‘If you really cared you would be out there doing something for them instead of spending your entire life on here.

    ———

    Well, for all we know, you might do something practical for them (in that quiet, unsung, under-stated way of yours), but you DO seem to spend an awful amount of time on here, don’t you.

    But never to discuss or argue a point, just as a kind of poor man’s daily Private Eye.

  • technicolour

    From the bizarre to the ridiculous. Why on earth would Doug Scorgie want to give Habbakuk his phone number? Do you have no friends, apart from your psychopath, Habbakuk?

  • Jemand

    Technicolour – I don’t disagree with you enough to object to that comment, except for the fact that you misunderstand what so-called “racism” is.

    You see, I think the word “racist” is overused and misused to the point of having a diminished and confused meaning. No intelligent conversation can flow when orbiting a term that has a poorly defined meaning. If you have a pair of Irish identical twins, one Protestant and the other Catholic, a scornful comment from one regarding the other’s religion is now considered “racist”. An obviously moronic accusation, but typical these days. I reject that misuse and other ignorant misuses of the word.

    For this discussion, and all previous and future references, you can regard my use of the word racism etc as meaning – hostile to, or regarding as superior, or entitled to privileges over – any other “race”. Most ignoramuses, like Doug Scorgie, are unaware that the AAA (see below) regard “race” as an invention. In as much as “race” is thought of as a physiologically defined sub-species resistant to change, I agree with the AAA. But then, people can reinvent the meaning of words to mean anything at all – cf. “terrorism”. So “racism” has no meaning to me except that it identifies the user of the word.

    Therefore, I often use quotes around “race”, “racism” etc, because I reject the notion of “race”. Americans are obsessed with it, British folk also seem to be, as are aggressively anti-racist people. Suhayl suggested that my statement regarding such people was “weird”. In over two decades of mixing, working and having friendships with “mixed” couples, as is my own situation, none of them has ever got excited about the issue of “racism”. Suhayl’s comment is therefore weird to me. He must hang out with some very angry people. I think it’s a fair question to ask a vocally anti-racist person whether they have ever had sexual relations with someone of a very different “race”. I walk the walk, do they?

    So not only do I dislike “racists”, as I define the term, and the concept of “race” as a self-serving primitive social construct, I also dislike people who define themselves as anti-racist. Not because they are against “racism”, but because they have smugly assumed for themselves a special role in a ‘great’ cause that they use to intimidate, harrass and humiliate people who are definitely not racist. Put simply, anti-racists are very ordinary bullies of a particular type. Compare them to those wretched Chinese cadres in Mao’s Cultural Revolution – same aggressive people, different agenda.

    The thing that really irks me about anti-racists (as described above), is that they have hijacked the moral high ground and have effectively proscribed any open and honest discussion of any issue that is tangentially is associated with this obnoxious term “race”. Hence discussion of immigration is disallowed and ALL attempts to rationally discuss the issue without a preamble that enthusiastically endorses the standard left-wing immigration policy is shouted down with the very same rabid hatred that is ascribed to “racists”. Furthermore, a lifetime of observing people has taught me that these anti-racist types are not very tolerant of people who are different to them. They have a very polarising effect on people.

    American Anthropological Association – statement about “race”
    http://www.understandingrace.org/about/statement.html

  • April Showers

    Sophie It is getting urgent. He has just spewed out four really weird posts in just seventeen minutes. Can you hear the keyboard being struck?

    Where are those men in white coats? Your dad is saying that I am a psychopath now! How long has he been like this? I feel so sorry for your mother.

  • technicolour

    Mr Scorgie, are you aware that your use of insults sometimes makes your posts pretty unpalatable, even if the sense makes sense? Is that your intention?

    Jemand: interesting, if rather confusing.

    “If you have a pair of Irish identical twins, one Protestant and the other Catholic, a scornful comment from one regarding the other’s religion is now considered “racist”.”

    By whom? They’d be wrong, obviously. I’m not sure how quoting hypothetical examples of people getting the definition of the word wrong is entirely helpful?

    You have just defined yourself as disliking racists, as you understand the term, which sounds pretty ‘anti-racist’ to me? Myself, I don’t ‘dislike’ racists, although I object rather strongly to manifestations of racism, or the excuse of racism to promote one’s own personal agenda. If someone wants to sit at home muttering unpleasantly about Andorrans, it might make them rather dull, and hard to like, but I’d try. Equally, I’ll try not to hold that against you 🙂

    Otherwise I don’t quite understand by being ‘anti’, or disliking, or objecting to, some of the tangible manifestations of racism, as I described above, would necessarily imply that one should partner someone of a different ‘race’ (whether they liked it or not, presumably)?

    “Put simply, anti-racists are very ordinary bullies of a particular type.” – surely an exaggeration, particularly since you have just defined yourself as ‘anti-racist’…

    “Hence discussion of immigration is disallowed and ALL attempts to rationally discuss the issue without a preamble that enthusiastically endorses the standard left-wing immigration policy is shouted down with the very same rabid hatred that is ascribed to “racists””

    Oh, for rational discussions on immigration, which don’t rely on lies, scaremongering, propaganda, and the singling out of specific nationalities or religions in order to foster a climate of hatred, I so agree!

    What is the ‘standard left-wing immigration policy’, by the way? Must look it up.

  • Roderick Russell

    Just to clarify why it is that I support the independence movement in Scotland. Firstly, I believe that the UK economy (which means everybody’s standard of living) is on an irreversible downward trend. Something similar to what happened to say Spain over several centuries – a gradual downward slide, with the occasional additional downward bump every 50 or so years. And the reasons would also be similar: over centralization, and long established power-elites who are corrupt, dishonest and incompetent – but will resist any change that adversely affects them, as any remedial change must.
    .
    In our lifetime most of us have seen the destruction of the once world leading maritime, manufacturing and engineering industries; with nothing much put in their place; except for the continuance of the City. And with the recent humongous financial bailout of the City, we now know that’s its reputation for profitability and competence is a bit of a myth too. Unlike many of Craig’s readers, I believe in free market capitalism. But we have not had that. What we have had instead is a mix of crony capitalism (the City), monopoly capitalism (think rail), and state subsidies for friends – a system designed to profit power-elites at everybody else’s expense.
    .
    Most people would agree that there is a pressing need for a radical change in direction. My preference would actually be for a reformed UK. But we will never get this change, because our establishment elites profit from the present system and will never allow changes that effect their position as any remedial changes must. Their position will always be to look after themselves first, even at the expense of the country, just as happened in Spain over its centuries of decline. Now Scotland doesn’t have the votes to get rid of this imperious London establishment, but it does have the votes to go it on its own and the oil money to set itself up nicely.

  • Fred

    “But we have not had that. What we have had instead is a mix of crony capitalism (the City), monopoly capitalism (think rail), and state subsidies for friends – a system designed to profit power-elites at everybody else’s expense.”

    You mean like when Brian Souter bungs Salmond half a million quid and he conveniently forgets about his pledges to re-regulate transport and fills buses with OAPs at tax payer’s expense?

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella)

    Mary, at 15h53, complains that I called her a psychopath.

    But read my post carefully (as Scorgie would say) : why is Mary so sure that I was referring to her? Does she know something we don’t?

    BTW : Mary certainly called Beate Zschaepe ( a right-wing terrorist) a pyschopath. Probably correctly.

    I wonder however if Mary would have used the same expression had Ms Zschaepe been a left-wing terrorist?

    Would she, for instance, agree that the members of the Baader-Meinhof left-wing teror gang were pyschopaths?

  • technicolour

    April Showers: I have a window pane in front of me if you would like a description of something equally transparent?

    Habbakuk: you obviously like typing and spelling and stuff. Why not become a secretary? Lots of letters and things, and you’d get paid for it!

  • Evgueni

    Being a naturalised johnny-foreigner myself I find that Giles’s posts do not offend me in the least. Jemand – spot on about the smugness. This political commissar kind of behaviour is very detestable to me. The people should be able to hold effectively their government to account on all issues, regardless of what the moral authoritarians consider right and proper.

  • Herbie

    That’s interesting, Evgueni, though a tad confused.

    Are you arguing that we should scapegoat immigrants for the economic failures of our leaders?

  • Sophie Habbercake

    Dad! I mean REALY Dad!

    While you repeatedly return to giving us the benefit of your psychiatric diagnoses, I’m trying not to call in the white-coated men to deal with you.

    Why do you write all that stuff? Your posts really would embarrass anyone seriously trying to promote your unpleasant and inhumane opinions. They used to cause such havoc here. Now they are hardly an irritation and I’m beginning to feel bad even making fun of them. They just aren’t worth the effort. I think I might retire.

    Please take a long walk and listen to the birdsong. I don’t know anything about psychiatry but I’m sure that would be a good start.

  • technicolour

    “…burn down mosques or synagogues or homes, or stamp on/stab/imprison/torture/demean/lie about/discriminate against/deport/kill the ‘other’ they are scared/jealous of, or deceived about…”

    I suppose one could try feeling ‘smug’ about such manifestations, Evgeni, but probably not if you’ve been on the receiving end, or even recognise that it exists.

  • Bena

    Even if the majority of accusations of rape are true, nonetheless those which are false impose unjustified stigma on the men wrongly accused. How can it be right that a man can have his reputation shattered, while those making the accusation (which are either false or not provable) enjoy a right to legal anonymity?

    In the Blackman case, Craig suggests that the prosecution and media treatment might be politically motivated. To decide whether that is so or not, we would need to know more details of the case including the identity of the accuser.

    I am not a lawyer, but my assumption is that the law prohibiting the publication of the names of those making accusations of sexual crimes can only be valid in the United Kingdom: i.e. if the server containing the information is UK based or the person publishing the information is in the UK. That said, to date I have seen no further informative discussion of this case on the internet.

  • April Showers

    The Revolving Door: from the Ministry of Defence to an aerospace and defence technology company

    Senior civil servants and government ministers move into business – overseen by ACOBA
    http://political-cleanup.org/?p=7143

    May 5th, 2013

    Who is at fault? Why! It’s our damned ‘legislators’. They cannot see the corruption while their snouts are down in the trough. Furthermore, their brains – smaller than those of dear pigs, are dulled at any one of the 19 subsidised bars, and at those trougheries in Inner London. And again – incest works. Let’s ask for the apple cart to be upset and those nice directorships will not be available.

    Each one of them in turn says:

    I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

    Of course they do.

    PS Hoon went off to Agusta Westland.

  • evgueni

    Herbie,

    No, of course not. That is quite an extrapolation I might add! I am arguing, as always, that (true) democracy trumps the contested moral high ground. I am quite convinced incidentally that the scaremongering with regard to what might happen if the people were allowed to exercise their sovereignty, is just that – scaremongering. All the evidence points to the people, in general, being more progressive than the ruling classes, including in matters of immigration and in spite of considerable propaganda (ref. Chomsky, on public attitudes vs gov. policy in USA, also the living example of Swiss ‘direct democracy’).

    Technicolor,
    ? I am confused by your last post.

  • technicolour

    Evgeuni, what has confused you? the idea I was addressing was that there is necessarily something ‘smug’ about objecting to the real world manifestations of racism? or ‘racism’ if you prefer.

  • Herbie

    Evgueni

    The background to the discussion is one of Giles cheering on UKIPs success at the polls, and the implications of that, one of which will be scapegoating immigrants for the economic failures of our leaders.

    That’s what being served, so you either accept it or reject it.

    It wasn’t an abstract discussion about what you call “true democracy” and the people’s sovereignty.

    Lovely as that would be I’m sure, it ain’t currently on the menu of any of the parties vying for power.

    So we’re back to charlatans scapegoating immigrants, I’m afraid.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    “Most people would agree that there is a pressing need for a radical change in direction. My preference would actually be for a reformed UK. But we will never get this change, because our establishment elites profit from the present system and will never allow changes that effect their position as any remedial changes must. Their position will always be to look after themselves first, even at the expense of the country, just as happened in Spain over its centuries of decline. Now Scotland doesn’t have the votes to get rid of this imperious London establishment, but it does have the votes to go it on its own and the oil money to set itself up nicely.” Roderick Russell, 6.5.13, 5:15pm.

    Yes, that’s more-or-less my position now, too. In fact, I argued precisely that (and also your point about the economics being the crucial thing – but my words – about ‘if the economics doesn’t work, then independence is a dead duck’) in an essay published in a book on the topic in November 2012. Lots of good essays in it, most by people who know far more on this subject than I. I don’t think it’s available on-line, just in hard copy. Check it out!

    http://www.word-power.co.uk/books/unstated-I9780956628398/

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Recently, I read a really brilliant book, ‘Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides Are Wrong in the Race Debate’, by Kenan Malik. It touches on some of the points raised in this, and some other, threads. I agree that Jemand (6.5.13, 6:47pm) raises some pertinent points. I’d thoroughly recommend the book. Usual prefix. I think we need to focus on economics and thereby on the things that unite us, and now allow the various elites to divide-and-rule (always their modus operandum, as it would be, wouldn;t it?):

    http://www.kenanmalik.com/top/books.html

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenan_Malik

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Correction: 7.5.13 (7:26pm): 2nd bottom line should read

    What (I think) Jemand is talking about in that post to which I referred (6.5.13, 6:45pm) and what Giles always talks about (thought it’s good, actually, that with Giles there is no pretence, he’s open and obvious about his views) are two very different things and should not be conflated.

    Jemand, I do know what you mean about (my interpretation of your words) the tendency known as the ‘identity politics thought police’ and so on. Actually, I’ve met one or two of these daunting individuals and it can be quite stifling. One, though, was married to a white English chap. So I don’t think one can move from the specific to the general (or vice-versa) on matters of the heart, or indeed anything else.

    Obviously, anything that becomes rigid dogma is undesirable and often, as we know, people use dogma as an easy substitute for thought. I tend to resist getting tied-up in mutual recrimination about who is the bigger ‘victim’ or the pathological OCD obsession with (often falsely construed) language. I think such dynamics represent a substitute for building a progressive political movement based on economics right ascross the community; tactics like these often are used by hyper-managerial types and various US-style consumer-like pressure groups and they have the effect of dividing ordinary people, one from another. Indeed, it’s really a US import; the same thing happened over there during the late 1970s/1980s. I also do not agree with pandering to religious extremist ideologies and colluding in the invented nativism based on mendacious historical narratives that parades as ‘tradition’ or indeed to regressive, reactionary traditions. These things need to be fought.

    Equally, Evgueni, as not-a-foreigner but a Scot, I would suggest that attitudes such as those evinced by Giles which portray Pakistanis and Bangladeshis as “drains” on society (it’s good to know that even though I pay my taxes and work like a fucking Trojan, mostly helping people, sometimes even saving their lives, I am a “drain” on society) and which refer to “filthy rich Indians” (are there no filthy rich Frenchmen, one wonders? The alliteration is superior) also need to be fought.

  • doug scorgie

    Technicolour
    6 May, 2013 – 4:29 pm

    “Mr Scorgie, are you aware that your use of insults sometimes makes your posts pretty unpalatable, even if the sense makes sense? Is that your intention?”

    I do have a way with words I suppose but now that I have been “moderated” I will try to refrain from my Shakespearean quips.

  • doug scorgie

    Evgueni
    7 May, 2013 – 2:15 pm

    “I am arguing, as always, that (true) democracy trumps the contested moral high ground.”

    Evgueni,

    What do you regard as “true” democracy as opposed to what we have at the moment?

  • technicolour

    You know, I think it’s clear that a society which uses legal proceedings against people calling someone an ‘English cow’ or ‘Welsh sheepshagger’ (David Mitchell’s latest report in the Guardian) is clearly a society trying to foment insanity. I am just about to go and call a sheep ‘an Essex cowshagger’ – and they can take me away for it, I just don’t care.

    But then calling a policemn a ‘wanker’ has also been a recent criminal offence – presumably he had to prove he didn’t, in court? I didn’t follow it up.

    “I tend to resist getting tied-up in mutual recrimination about who is the bigger ‘victim’” – well, the person whose head is being kicked in, presumably.

1 4 5 6 7