UPDATE: False Flag is Starting 226


I warned that the security services will turn to false flag events to discredit the SNP. I said this in my talk to Edinburgh SNP Club on 6 March, and repeated it on this blog last week. Well, it is starting.

scum

The reporting specifically blames nationalists. There is something delightfully old fashioned about MI5. Is spraying Q for Quisling not rather an obscure reference to today’s generation?

[UPDATE: I had not taken on board that the racist comments made allegedly by an unidentified SNP supporter to Faisal Islam of Sky News occurred in the same town on the same day. That indicates to me a coordinated security service plan was in progress, and gives some idea how they are operating, probably in a mobile team. That two such improbable and unusual “nationalist outrages” should occur the same day and the same place confounds belief.]

A sweeping SNP victory on May 7 is considered enough of a threat to the United Kingdom for the security services to use up some assets. Long term sleepers within the SNP will now be activated, so expect to find one or two such events traced to apparent bona fide SNP members.

More importantly, a major thrust will be agent provocateur activity. Security service agents within the SNP will be trying to initiate and to egg on (yes, that is a deliberate and relevant Jim Murphy reference, think about it) impressionable members to vandalism or violence. Be very, very wary of such people and do not be tempted.

There are, 100% for certain, MI5 agents online posing as “cybernats” who will be quoted in the media saying outlandishly unpleasant and threatening things. We will also see more incidents like the Murphy eggs or the complete set-up of the “mob” jostling Miliband in the St James Centre, which by chance I witnessed.

The ridiculous “violent nationalist” meme worked well for the unionists in the referendum campaign, and influenced some older voters who trust the BBC and corporate media. So they will play it again for all it is worth. The worry is of course that some manufactured incident will go wrong and somebody will get hurt. The still bigger worry is that, as the security services get increasingly desperate as polling day approaches, they will manufacture a false flag incident in which people deliberately get hurt.

The best defence against that is for ordinary people to be wise to how the real world works. Social media is key. Tweet, facebook, blog, instagram or whatever else you can do to spread this.


226 thoughts on “UPDATE: False Flag is Starting

1 5 6 7 8
  • Hollie greig justice

    The document produced by the Police Complaints Commission for Scotland included the lines. “The position, as far as I can determine it, is that there seems a sufficiency of evidence to accept, on the balance of probability, that X was sexually abused, and that this has included penetration of her private parts. Given that X, because of her disabilities, has been closely supervised throughout her life, the perpetrator is most likely to have been someone close to her who had regular, unsupervised access.”

    THE REST IS HISTORY
    HOllie Greig Abused Paid Off covered up.

    Alec Salmond was asked one question by the FOI commissioner, when were you made aware of Hollies case, he decided he would break the law rather than answer that one small simple easy to answer question…

  • Matt Quinn

    At no point have I suggested Hollie wasn’t abused… Nor, for that matter did Mark Daly…

    But the line you quote simply establishes the familial abuse – the core allegations. And the CICA award was made on that basis and that basis alone.

    The rest – including the lie about Salmond; which is actually the part that is relevant with regard to Craig’s original post – is not by any means “history”. It is sheer, unadulterated fantasy… And a distraction from the truth.

  • Hollie greig justice

    Alec Salmond was asked one question by the FOI commissioner, when were you made aware of Hollies case, he decided he would break the law rather than answer that one small simple easy to answer question…

  • Matt Quinn

    I don’t understand what you hope to achieve with this repeated lie Malcolm.

    Quoting the Scottish information commissioner…

    “The article published by “The Firm” and our letter of 26 May 2014 both refer to the above decision. In that case, a request for information was made to the Ministers on 28 January 2011. Mr R (the requester) sent a reminder to the Ministers on 13 February 2011. Having received no response to his request, he asked for a review to be carried out on 10 March 2011. Having received no response to his requirement for review, Mr R applied to the Commissioner for a decision on 10 April 2011. The Commissioner found that the Ministers had breached sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and required the Ministers to carry out a review. The Ministers subsequently carried out a review and notified Mr R of the outcome on 8 July 2011.”

    What part of “the Ministers subsequently carried out a review and notified Mr R of the outcome on 8 July 2011” don’t you understand Malcolm?

    Robert Green has LIED about ‘not getting’ that response, and that fact is further corroborated here…

    http://itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201101240.aspx

    …By dint of the simple fact that Green went back to the SIC and complained about the response he’s since been trying to pretend he never got!

    In respect of the particular issue you’re whinging about, the SIC noted:

    “The Ministers contended that it was not possible to identify any actions taken by the First Minister after becoming aware of the allegations, noting that they could not identify when he had become aware of them.They also explained that they had no locus in the investigation or prosecution of crime, and consequently that any information on this or any other criminal case would routinely be forwarded to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (or, as appropriate, the relevant police force) for action.They could not, therefore, be expected to hold information about action taken in response to such allegations, by the First Minister or any other Minister.”

    Now – I appreciate the phrase “They also explained that they had no locus in the investigation or prosecution of crime” is perhaps a little difficult for you to assimilate. It’s a little clearer in the respnse Scott Pattinson got, and as I understand it passed to you, just a month or two back…

    “The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) is the sole public prosecution body in Scotland, responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the public interest. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are responsible for taking decisions and directing the police in relation to criminal cases. The First Minister cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of criminal conduct. No other member of the Scottish Government is able to take any action either.

    Therefore, this is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested…”

    It’s a risible notion that ‘Alex Salmond’ sat in his wee office personally answering letters and emails, and that such work wasn’t carried out by junior clerical staff – but let’s run with it for the sake of amusement…

    So – Malky – while you continue to repeat and repeat and repeat this obviously politically motivated lie; all the public records annd published correspondence – including that which yourself and Green have tried to utilise for the purposes of deception PROVE – beyond any reasonable doubt that ‘Alex Salmond’ DID answer Robert Green’s FOI request, and pointed out to him that, because he could not get involved, the matter was passed straight to the COPFS…

    Which, as we know answered him in 2009…

    “The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”

    … Joseph Goebbels, 12 January 1941. Die Zeit ohne Beispiel.

  • Clark

    Fred, please just say whatever it is you’re trying to imply.

    “Hollie greig justice”, Matt Quinn seems to be making sense and telling the truth. The facts, to me, seem to indicate correct standard procedure rather than any cover-up.

  • Hollie greig justice

    NO LIE

    First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations

    Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services
    59
    The Scottish Government is refusing to disclose whether it has lost or destroyed communications records relating to the Hollie Greig case which may indicate when the First Minister Alex Salmond became aware of allegations of sexual abuse, which Ms Greig claims was carried out against her over many years whilst resident in the Aberdeen area.

    Last month the Scottish Ministers were compelled by the Information Commissioner to address a series of questions put to the First Minister in correspondence in relation to the case in January this year, the first of which was: “When did you first become aware of the allegations made by Hollie Greig about her being abused by members of a high-ranking paedophile ring in Scotland?”

    The commissioner required the Scottish Ministers to respond by today’s date or risk being held in contempt of court.

    It was reported in April 2009 that Greig received a payout of £13,500 from the criminal injuries compensation authority, and was described by Detective Inspector Iain Allen of Grampian Police as “a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim.”

    Two Grampian Police Officers interviewed Greig in September 2009. No charges have been brought against anyone in connection with sexual abuse.

    The Scottish Ministers’ response to the question, issued by the First Minister’s Private Secretary Terry Kowal stated: “Following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established we do not have a record of when the First Minister became aware of these allegations. Therefore, the information you require is not held by the Scottish Government.”

    However, The Firm has seen correspondence from the Crown Office dated 23 July 2009 addressed to the Greig family’s lay representative Robert Green, which suggests that correspondence addressed to the First Minister outlining the allegations was received over two years ago.

    “Thank you for your email of 20 June 2009 to the First Minister in which you raise concerns about the handling of the case involving allegations of abuse perpetrated against Hollie Greig,” the letter says.

    The letter then says that Green’s inquiry was passed to the Crown Office for response, given the nature of the subject matter.

    When pressed by The Firm to explain the apparent contradiction between the two positions, the First Minister’s office told The Firm today only that “we do not have a record of when the First Minister first became aware of these allegations”.

    The First Minister’s office have acknowledged receipt of The Firm’s subsequent query asking whether the records had been destroyed, but have offered no direct response, despite repeated requests.

    Russell Fallis of the Scottish Government communications team issued a statement to The Firm that said the First Minister’s office “receives a large volume of correspondence on a wide range of subjects, which is answered by that office or by relevant officials” , and added that the Government does not have “any indication that this information was recorded.”

    Pressed to confirm whether the correspondence was destroyed or lost, the First Minister’s office has provided no response.

    The correspondence questioning the First Minister was sent on 28 January and had received no response, despite a series of reminder letters. The Information Commissioner later ruled that the Scottish Ministers had failed to comply with their obligations under Sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act.

    This afternoon the Information Commissioner confirmed he is now considering whether “further action is required” against the Scottish Government in respect of their handling of the original correspondence containing the six queries.

    In May, Andrew George MP wrote to Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland asking him to outline the options available to “those many people who remain concerned” about the “unsafe” investigations into the Hollie Greig case.

    “There appears to be a lot of evidence and allegations which point in one direction and indicates that this whole case deserves a through review,” George wrote in constituency correspondence.

    He adds that “many of the professionals with whom she came into contact…have allegedly failed in their duties or even covered up important facts.”

    George was the second Westminster MP to raise concerns about the case, following David Ruffely MP’s intervention earlier this year.

    No doubt the Firm are lying or wrong too , in fact the whole world is apart from Q

  • fred

    ‘“Hollie greig justice”, Matt Quinn seems to be making sense and telling the truth. The facts, to me, seem to indicate correct standard procedure rather than any cover-up.’

    And they wonder how Jimmy Savile got away with it.

  • Hollie greig justice

    Hollie Greig/FOI/First Minister Up-date (9th July 2011)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> by Ian McFerran
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Dear Scottish Information Commissioner,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You are no doubt aware by now that I have received a response from the
    >>>>>> Private Secretary of The First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond; the full and
    >>>>>> unedited text of which I copy below for you, along with the full and
    >>>>>> unedited text of my original Freedom of Information request to his
    >>>>>> Office on 28th January 2011. This is not a response to my FoI but
    >>>>>> rather a reaction to the threat of legal action from your office
    >>>>>> against the First Minister.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Firstly, I must point out that, after speaking with members of Hollie
    >>>>>> Greig’s legal team, I am now cleared to make this public. Therefore,
    >>>>>> it is of paramount importance that ANYONE and EVERYONE reading this
    >>>>>> knows and understands that the ‘Justice for Hollie Greig’ campaign and
    >>>>>> the legal team feel that the English and Scottish Information
    >>>>>> Commissioner’s Offices have both acted with genuine independence
    >>>>>> throughout and are to be commended for their objective and fair
    >>>>>> approach at all times!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Now, I turn to the matter in hand, which I am 100% NOT happy with and
    >>>>>> request that your office take this matter further.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I am informed in the preamble of the response that, in effect, the
    >>>>>> reason I was ignored all the way up to and until your office
    >>>>>> threatened legal proceedings against the office of the First Minister
    >>>>>> was that they had lost the paperwork so were not in a position to
    >>>>>> answer (although they word is differently, this is, in effect, what
    >>>>>> they are saying). Sir, this is not acceptable for such as office
    >>>>>> holding the rank and stature that it does! EVIDENCE exists that
    >>>>>> PROVES the First Minister’s office was in full knowledge of the facts
    >>>>>> about Hollie’s case as well as the illegal actions of his Lord
    >>>>>
    >
    > —
    > Steven Raeburn
    > Editor & Publisher – The Firm
    > Red Cloud Legal Publishing Limited
    > Standard Buildings
    > 94 Hope Street
    > Glasgow G2 6PH
    >
    > Tel 0141 404 3468
    > [email protected]
    > Web: http://www.firmmagazine.com
    >
    > The information contained in this email including any attachments is
    > confidential, subject to copyright and for the use of the intended recipient
    > only. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are
    > not the intended recipient please delete this message after notifying the
    > sender. Unauthorised retention, alteration or distribution of this email is
    > forbidden and may be actionable.
    >
    > Attachments are opened at your own risk and you are advised to scan incoming
    > email for viruses before opening any attached files. We give no guarantee
    > that any communication is virus-free and accept no responsibility for virus
    > contamination or other system loss or damage of any kind.
    >
    > Registered Office: 94 Hope Street, Glasgow G2 6PH
    > Company No.: SC0371459

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    HIJACK ALERT !!

    Holly Greig supporters in hijack attempt on Craig Murray’s blog!

    Please desist!

    ++++++++++++++++

    MARY – DO SOMETHING!!

  • Matt Quinn

    With respect to the ’email’ pasted above – and assuming these actually are Steven Raeburn’s words… Frankly, it’s a wonder Raeburn is able to hold down any sort of position relating either to the practice of law or the media!

    One of the first things media students learn about is the structure of the legal system and how it relates to government. Whether his rant reflects incompetence rather than disingenuity is not clear. However it does seem to indicate that the writer has a painfully inadequate grasp of the constitutional roles of and relationship between First Minister and Lord Advocate. – As well as a tenuous grasp of the defamation act!

    – Possibly why his magazine letar faced censure in that respect.

    As Lincoln noted – You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time… The fact that Green has managed at various points to ‘pull the wool’ over various politician’s eyes such that THEY started firing letters off to various individuals is of no consequence whatsoever…

    The facts remain as previously stated and are corroborated by public record.

    “No doubt the Firm are lying or wrong too , in fact the whole world is apart from Q”

    – Yes indeed… “The Firm” would appear to be SPECTACULARLY wrong! And in fact “the whole world” – assuming you’re talking about the real world as opposed to some fantasy land – seeems to hold records which prove only that Robert Green is a liar, but that his attempts to discredit Salmond are entirely baseless, dishonest, and exploitative of an innocent and vulnerable girl’s suffering; something which is quite disgusting.

  • Republicofscotland

    “And they wonder how Jimmy Savile got away with it”

    **********************************

    Jimmy Savile got away with it because,Westminster covered it up,Savile spent many Christmas days with Thatcher,even someone as naive as you,can’t say oh the security services didn’t know about Saviles activities.

    Westminster is the den of iniquity.

  • Clark

    Fred, I just can’t work out what motivates you. Considering our final face-to-face conversation, you seem to be tempting me.

    If you have any evidence about Hollie Greig, post it. Otherwise, your innuendo is hollow. Likewise your innuendo regarding the absence of this case on Wikipedia.

  • Utterly Astonished

    This is a one time only post in the interests of the Truth.

    Clark said: Fred, please just say whatever it is you’re trying to imply.

    “Hollie greig justice”, Matt Quinn seems to be making sense and telling the truth. The facts, to me, seem to indicate correct standard procedure rather than any cover-up.

    Clark, please understand that MQ is a fully paid-up Government Agent and it is his job to spend hour after hour on the Internet trying to dupe good trusting people into believing the Government’s Case, which is that there is nothing to see hear, please move along.

    If he manages to convince just one person of his lies, then he considers it a success.

    Unfortunately, it is a singularly useless endeavour because there is only one TRUTH and the day that truth is uncovered will be sooner than you think.

    Anyone reading MQ’s maniacal rantings would do well to reflect on why he is trying so hard?

    Would an entirely innocent but well meaning person (lol) spend hundreds of hours a week online trying to convince people to believe him? Really? Doesn’t make sense does it?

    Surely only someone who is being richly paid would do such a thing?

    The ironic thing is that he talks the biggest load of rubbish, packaged up in I admit an almost respectable package of deceit that is designed to place a tiny doubt in people’s minds and then he embellishes this seed of doubt into something called a lie. Then he perpetrates this lie as reality. Bizarre!

    Very skilful in many ways but most intelligent people who have researched the facts and seen the paper evidence know that MQ is manning a tawdry side-show-stall at a grubby fairground attraction.

    As far as Republicofscotland 13th April 2015 @ 10:45 comment about Jimmy Savile is concerned, it would not surprise me if MQ tells us all that this the Jimmy Savile thing was just a fairy tale of the mischief making Press’s actions and that Uncle Jimmy is the salt of the Earth?

    Sad little man:(

    PS: If MQ responds to this final rebuttal post then does it not confirm my point? There again, he just cannot help himself…

  • Clark

    “Utterly Astonished”, the way to convince me is to post evidence, as Matt Quinn has done, rather than trying to convince me that Matt Quinn is paid to be a shill. On the face of it, it seems equally likely that you yourself could be being paid to shill, and indeed it wasn’t Matt Quinn who raised this issue on these threads – what exactly was the relevance of this issue to Craig’s original post?

  • Matt Quinn

    “PS: If MQ responds to this final rebuttal post then does it not confirm my point? There again, he just cannot help himself…”

    This is literally the sort of logic one might expect from a child under the age of 10… I suspect, ‘Utterly Astonished’, that most people will see your post for the childish rubbish it is. And No, I’m not known for letting bubble-headed prats off the hook.

    “Clark, please understand that MQ is a fully paid-up Government Agent and it is his job to spend hour after hour on the Internet trying to dupe good trusting people into believing the Government’s Case, which is that there is nothing to see hear, please move along.”

    Really? Perhaps you could have a word with personnell for me as they seem to have forgotten where to send the cheque…

    “Would an entirely innocent but well meaning person (lol) spend hundreds of hours a week online trying to convince people to believe him? Really? Doesn’t make sense does it?”

    Not it doesn’t – you should have a word with Ogilvy, McKenzie,Gerrish Green and a few others about that…

    Incidentally, you’ll find there aren’t “hundreds of hours” IN a week – And though, as a legitimate media professional I work on average 60-70 of them, only about a third are spent online…

    Please DO feel free to reference the screeds of material originated by me – in any context – that would support this daft assertion of yours…

    “The ironic thing is that he talks the biggest load of rubbish, packaged up in I admit an almost respectable package of deceit that is designed to place a tiny doubt in people’s minds and then he embellishes this seed of doubt into something called a lie. Then he perpetrates this lie as reality. Bizarre!”

    So… Actually referencing legislation that anyone can cross check, the SIC decisions that anyone can cross-check, copies of the relevant correspondence that people can cross-check with the SIC – All that is “bizarre” – Whist simply regurgitating an unsubstantiated fairy story that falls apart with the slightest objective examination is not. – Very rational!

    I note that not one of you conspiritards have provided a single cogent rebuttal to any of the points I’ve made…

    “As far as Republicofscotland 13th April 2015 @ 10:45 comment about Jimmy Savile is concerned, it would not surprise me if MQ tells us all that this the Jimmy Savile thing was just a fairy tale of the mischief making Press’s actions and that Uncle Jimmy is the salt of the Earth?”

    And there’s the straw man just for good measure… Risible…

  • Matt Quinn

    To at least try to return to the original point Clark…

    Craig’s original post highlights a somewhat puerile act which ultimately he attributes to the ‘security services’ as part of a low level strategy in defence of the ‘establishment realm’. And perhaps it is surprising to some that the MI5 we’ve all read about in ‘Boy’s Own’ type comics isn’t the slick, glamorous operation it’s painted; but rather grubby and tawdry…

    We saw the comments thread hijacked by certain unionists keen to promote a particular lie that strikes at Salmond.

    As much as it’s important to debunk such casual lies anyway, when you drill down into this one it has some deeply disturbing features; not the least of which of course is the balatant exploitation of a very vulnerable young woman and her tragic history. This is particularly disgusting given that the objective is political gain…

    Drill down further still,and the entire matter can be tied back to chracters that have clear links to the security services; rather echoing Craig’s point… Take a slightly wider view and you might start to see how – on a wider basis – their agenda is to infiltrate and discredit the alternative media.

    I think the ‘common thread here is the way in which the security services operate at such a ‘low level’ to influence the media and thereby public opinion.

  • fred

    “Jimmy Savile got away with it because,Westminster covered it up,Savile spent many Christmas days with Thatcher,even someone as naive as you,can’t say oh the security services didn’t know about Saviles activities.

    Westminster is the den of iniquity.”

    While the Scottish establishment are all veritable angels who would never do such a thing and if they did they would be so racked with guilt they would immediately hand themselves over to the law rather than cover it up.

    Strange how living different sides of an imaginary line on a map can make people polar opposites isn’t it?

  • Matt Quinn

    I do hope there is a smoking ban in force; what with all these straw men walking about…

    Actually my own view is that the Scottish establishment are far from all being veritable angels – quite the reverse. The big difference between the Savile case and that of Hollie Greig is that there is a corroborative chain of evidence… Dates, places, times and events bear each other out – accounts, particularly those that are independent of each other, are coherent and consistent etc etc…

    In respect of the Hollie case (and a couple of others involving this particular group) we find that just isn’t the case. ‘Fantasical’ being their usual standard.

    Another difference is that the extended allegations with respect to the Hollie case – i.e. that Hollie was passed around a high level Masonic paedophile ring. One which, incidentally, has in the past few months morphed’ into a ‘Satanic ritual’ paedophile ring – These fantastical tales which just do not stand up to the most basic rational scrutiny have actually DISTRACTED from the core allegations and the people behind them.

    We’re focused here on the particular lie that Alex Salmond is involved in a ‘missing records’ riddle with respect to Hollie. And the implication that he was influential in the alleged cover-up.

    Factually – and inconveniently for some – the very correspondence these people seek to rely on as ‘proof’ of this cover-up reflects the easily-checked constitutional position in Scotland. – i.e that neither Alex Salmond nor any other Scottish minister is in a position to take any action in respect of any specific criminal allegation; and consequently the matter was passed on to the COPFS – Elish Angiolini’s fiefdom.

    Likewise the chain of correspondence – which is now easily-accessed public record – reflects the FACT that Robert Green and others have been openly lying about ‘alex Salmond’ – or more accurately his office – disregarding the FOI request…

    Angelic you suggest Fred?

    One might take the view – as I certainly do – that issues such as the Purcell and Mathieson case reflect a level of blatant corruption and cronyism within vatious quarters of the Scottish establishment.

    I do also take the view that Robert Green’s treatment was extreme and not in the public interest ( but perhaps in certain political interests) and that far from being ‘angelic’ the COPFS is completely out of control, not fit for purpose, and that many Scottish lawyers long-ago gave up practicing law for playing poker!

    But a lie’s a lie for a that! – And the particular issue in hand, i.e. that Salmond ‘hid vital evidence’ in respect of the Hollie Greig case is easily demonstrated and proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be just that…

  • old

    Its amazing to note how every one is wrong apart from Q…a narcissistic personality disorder if ever there was one.

    George Laird has made some telling comments about the SNP.

    The belief that only nasty Westminster is the only one to engage in cover ups is risible.

    They are all at it and here Mr Salmond has been shown to be complicit in a rather hamfisted cover up.

  • Matt Quinn

    “Its amazing to note how every one is wrong apart from Q…a narcissistic personality disorder if ever there was one.”

    Thank you Greggy (for it IS he I’m almost sure) for that amusingly lame piece of cod psychology…

    Factually Greg, the Scottish Information Commissioner’s publically available records prove that Robert Green has been lying for almost four years about ‘not getting’ a response to his FOI request.

    http://hollie-greig-book-closed.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/9-first-minister-in-missing-records.html

    Factually the legal position of the Lord Advocate and their relationship to government is easily researched via a number of independent academic sources – DYOR; if you’ve a cogent counter to the points I’ve made in this respect, by all means make it…

    No? thought not…

    If by ‘every one'[sic] you mean the group of people living inside your own head – or perhaps the wee clique of damaged, dysfunctional and dishonest individuals trying to make the lie fit around their own agenda – then you really ought to get out more!

  • Clark

    Matt Quinn, I find your case convincing. Do have confidence – you’ve no need to respond personally to anonymous opposition commenters, though clearly it is correct to expose motives behind people’s public actions with respect to the case.

    Matt Quinn’s opposition, your arguments are ad hominen, straw man or seem incoherent.

    Fred, you still haven’t run those self-diagnostics I suggested, have you?

  • fred

    “Fred, you still haven’t run those self-diagnostics I suggested, have you?”

    Fuck off Clark.

  • old

    Right on Q up pops Clark…i agree with the previous contributer re Clark.

    I am surprised that Q who has such a thriving business can spend so much time on here smoke screening for such an obvious case of administrative cock up and cover up. Why do I get the feeling that if it had been any other administration Q would be no where to be seen hmm ?

  • Clark

    Fred? You sure you’re not making a mistake here? These people you’re agreeing with aren’t offering me any evidence, and this one has just implied that the arrival of my comment was choreographed. Now, I think you’ve made some wrong decisions, but I respect you as a person and I’d be glad to spend time with you despite disagreement. I think you’re compounding earlier mistakes and urge you ro contemplate and reconsider.

1 5 6 7 8

Comments are closed.