This is a transcript of the evidence I gave, at their request, to the Metropolitan Police. I published scans of the witness statements yesterday, and a commenter has kindly transcribed them to make them web searchable. I was interviewed by the Police both at my home and at their headquarters, and it was made very plain to me that not only Sir Mark Allen, but Tony Blair, Jack Straw and numerous officials in the FCO and the Security Services were in the frame. I confess I therefore always expected the Establishment would have the case dropped despite overwhelming evidence.
I first offered this evidence to the Gibson Inquiry, I was treated by that Inquiry as an important witness and Judge Gibson ordered the FCO to give me full access to all documents I saw while Ambassador, to refresh my memory. No. 10 panicked at this and other evidence that Gibson was doing a genuine job, and the Gibson Inquiry was closed down by Cameron with the active complicity of Nick Clegg. I was then told by the Gibson secretariat that the Metropolitan Police were taking over aspects of that inquiry. I was then contacted and interviewed by the Metropolitan Police and gave this evidence.
The Director of Public Prosecutions having corruptly closed down the criminal case, the matter is now purportedly under investigation by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament – consisting entirely of “trusties” of the security services. They have continually and repeatedly refused requests by me to give evidence. I last heard from them on 15 December 2015, a simple acknowledgement of a receipt of a communication.
As nobody can claim my evidence is untrue due to the amount of documentary report, the Establishment simply ensures it does not get heard by any inquiry or court. When the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee had hearings into extraordinary rendition, they directly asked seven different witnesses – including Jack Straw – whether I was telling the truth, but they refused to call me as a witness or to accept written evidence from me.
WITNESS STATEMENT
CI Act 1967. 3.9: MC Act I980. ss.5A(3)(a) and SB; Criminal Procedure Rules 2005. Rule 27.1
Age if under 18 Over 18 (if over I3 insert ‘over 18’) Occupation: Development Consultant
This statement (consisting of pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false, or do not believe to be true.
I joined the Foreign Office in 1984 direct from University in the ‘fast stream‘ process. I held a number of posts including second secretary in Lagos, then Head of the Maritime section in London and the Cyprus section. Around 1992-l993 I was also head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) embargo surveillance section both before and after the first Gulf War. Its role was to monitor Iraqi attempts of weapons procurement. I then served in Poland as first secretary in the Embassy and returned to London as deputy Head of the Africa Department, and thereafter in Ghana as Deputy High Commissioner. I was security cleared to Developed Vetted level and because of my earlier work in relation to Iraqi arms embargo l was given extra security clearances enabling me to view other sensitive intelligence material up to including various extra codewords over and above Top Secret. I have never worked for either the Security Service (SYS) or Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). I speak both Polish and Russian.
In August 2002 I took up the role as Ambassador, at the Embassy in Uzbekistan. I was given very little formal pre posting briefing by the FCO and met the outgoing ambassador Chris INGRAM only for about half an hour during which we only discussed a staff issue regarding an embassy member called Chris HIRST. Ihe staff at the Uzbekistan Embassy included a Defence Attache, an assistant, a Deputy Head of Mission, a third secretary, a management officer, consular ofiicer and assistant. My number two was an acting second secretary called Karen MORAN. I didn’t have many staff or much ability to discuss matters with them.
After my arrival in Uzbekistan as part of my role I viewed certain intelligence material originating from Uzbekistan. This material came to me from SIS in London and was sent to them by the CIA via the CIA Headquarters in Washington. It was sent to me if SIS thought it appropriate information I should be aware of. The only person security cleared to see such telegrams were I and Karen MORAN in her role as Deputy Head of Mission (DHM).
I was aware even before I arrived in Uzbekistan that the Uzbekistan security services had a terrible reputation for torture that included for example using boiling water on individuals as well as electrocution. I never whilst in Uzbekistan ever had direct involvement with the Uzbekistan security services, SIS officers came out on liaison visits but I don’t recall who they were or who they met.
Page 2 of 5
Continuation of Statement of Craig MURRAY …………………………………………………………………………………….. ..
In my new role I was proactive in meeting local Uzbekistan people and I had only been there a couple of weeks when I attended a trial of dissidents accused of terrorism. More than one witness tried to change their original account claiming it was made under torture. I found them credible that they were tortured to give a false account. The United Nations special rapporteur on torture came out to Uzbekistan to do a special report and we arranged for torture victims to see him.
The intelligence that was sent to me by SIS at this time concerned me on two grounds; firstly it showed how systematic the torture was by the Uzbekistan security services as the intelligence was coming from tortured detainees. And secondly the quality of the intelligence was inaccurate. I knew these from my first hand experience in Uzbekistan and I knew individual facts could be shown to be false.
I came to these conclusions after about three to four months of being in Uzbekistan. This was due to the fact I had been doing some work around tortured Uzbekistan detainees and I could see links with the intelligence I was seeing. Most of the intelligence didn’t name the detainees but it had similar trends such as Al Qaeda (AQ) membership or attending AQ training camps which wasn’t true. I was aware that my defence attache Colonel RIDOUT had been to one training camp location that was cited in the intelligence reports and found they did not exist. I knew that Uzbekistan was getting money and arms from the United States and I believed the Uzbekistan government were exaggerating the AQ threat in response. I believe this was a view shared by colleagues in the Embassy.
My concerns revolved around the intelligence and the cooperation between the Uzbekistan security services and CIA. I was uneasy about what the US were not doing to stop the torture. I decided something was going wrong and London (the FCO) must have not known about the torture. I asked Karen MORAN who had regular meetings with the US mission in Uzbekistan to ask the US about the intelligence flow from torture and to confirm from the US mission that it in fact was not from torture. Karen told me that the US response she received was that the intelligence was from torture however it was justified in the ‘war on terror‘. This response was possibly from the US Mission political counsellor.
On about 17th December 2002 I wrote a telegram back to London setting out my concerns. I have obtained a redacted version of that telegram under a Freedom of lnformation request I made I produce a copy of which as CJM/l telegram number I47 of I7/I2/2002 at 0345. It was addressed to the permanent under secretary (PUS) Sir Michael JAY as he was the head of the Diplomatic Service and Michel WOOD the Foreign Office legal advisor as it dealt with legal issues. I also sent it to relevant UK Missions (UKMIS) who had interest/deal in torture policy, these included New York, Geneva, Vienna and ‘Organisation Security and Cooperation in Europe‘ (OSCE) of which Uzbekistan is a member. lf you send a telegram on policy it is practice that it is also sent to other UK Missions who have an interest as with this telegram.
I don‘t know how I received a response but I got a message back stating that I could discuss the matters with William ERHMAN during an Ambassadors conference that l was due to attend in London in January 2003. I believe this message originated from Sir Michael JAY and I believe it is back referenced as telegram 323 of 2002 which appears on the next telegram I sent.
In January 2003 I returned as planned to London for a few days and could not get hold of William ERHMAN so the conversation I intended never took place with him. I subsequently returned to Tashkent, Uzbekistan and it was around this time I was aware public concern had just started regarding detainee issues in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. I seemed to be the only person within the FCO who was worried about it. I had never done this before by that I mean flagged up these kinds of issues/concerns.
Page 3 of 5
Continuation of Statemait of Craig MURRAY …………………………………………………………………………………….. ..
On 22nd January 2003 I sent another telegram this was addressed to William ERHMAN again I produce a redacted copy that was supplied to me under a Freedom Of Information request I made as exhibit CJM/2 on it there is the back reference 323 which I believe was the response originating from Michael JAY that I previously referred to. ‘The telegram essentially states the same as my first. I did not receive a response to any of the points: this is unheard of because if an Ambassador writes a telegram in relation to a policy matter there is always response. I was frustrated and could not understand why there was no written reply on this policy on torture.
Shortly after this I was asked back to London to discuss the issues I had raised. I can’t recall what method this summons was communicated to me. I believed I was coming back to London to see Sir Michael JAY however I never did see him.
I thought I was in trouble due to the nature of the recall to London and I suspected I was going to be sacked. I returned to London on 6th March 2003 I don‘t recall what dictated the timing but it was two weeks before the war started in Iraq. At that time, with the ‘dodgy dossier‘ going around supporting the war and my concerns regarding the inaccurate intelligence I had seen, the atmosphere was not good at the FC0. It was not the best time to be saying openly that our intelligence was not reliable. A retired ambassador had stated that we should not go to war as the intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was not reliable. From evidence subsequently given in the Chilcott enquiry I believe Sir Michael WOOD had advised Jack STRAW at the time, it was not legal to go to war in Iraq. So all this was going on around my return to London.
I was called into a meeting on the 7″‘ or 8″‘ March 2003 with Linda DUIFFIELD who was the Director Wider Europe (DWE) and my counter signing manager. This meeting took place in her office and she told me Sir Michael JAY wanted to see me but was too busy. With her at the meeting were Michael WOOD and Matthew KIDD who I believe was from MI6 (SIS), he was introduced as being Permanent Under Secretary Department (PUSD) which is a liaison department that deals with SIS. It was a two part meeting with either a private discussion between Linda and myself and then a gmcral discussion with everyone present or the other way around I can’t recall now. She told me that ‘JAY was not pleased I had put things in writing, things like that should not be in writing.‘ In the general meeting with all three she stated Jack Straw had seen my telegrams (CIM/l and CIM/2) and they ‘troubled him and he lost sleep at night over this‘. Also that he had met ‘C’ Sir Richard DEARLOVE and discussed whether, in relation to the ‘war on terror‘ should intelligence from torture be used. Also that Jack Straw made the decision that I should not send over ‘emotional and melodramatic’ telegrams like these and that intelligence and torture were ministerial decisions.
In the general meeting Sir Michael WOOD stated he had looked at the United Nations convention on torture and that it was his legal position that if we didn’t ask someone to be tortured but got intelligence from torture then we were doing nothing illegal.
I asked him about complicity in torture and Article 3 and 4 of the UN Convention on torture. Sir Michael WOOD stated that he didn’t know but Article l6 allowed us to get intelligence from torture but it could not be used in court. Mr KIDD went on to add that intelligence coming from Tashkent was useful to SIS. I told him the intelligence wasn’t true. He disageed with this.
A formal response to my telegrams was read out to me by Linda with everyone present and she told me the response would not be sent as these things were best not put in writing.
Page 4 of S
Continuation of Statement of Craig MURRAY …………………………………………………………………………………….. ..
I produce a copy of the minutes of this meeting again supplied to me under a Freedom of lnformation request I made which 1 exhibit as CIMI3. I do not accept the minutes as a full and accurate account of the meeting. it was not sent to me in draft afierwards for ‘signing off‘ which was practice. It also mentions l was given a revised telegram which I was not. I was shown it but not to keep and it was never sent to me.
Afler this meeting I went back to Tashkent. Later in 2005 I obtained a message dated l4/3/2003 supplied to me under a Freedom of lnfonnation request I made which I exhibit as CJM/4. This indicates Jack Straw saw the minutes of the meeting referred to in exhibit CIM/3. There were hundreds of meetings at the FCO each day and it would be very rare for minutes to be seen by Jack STRAW unless he had previous documents regarding the matter i.e. my original telegrams and an explanatory briefing from Sir Michael Jay or another oflicial. Simon McDONALD was Jack Straw’s number 2 private secretary and Alan CHARLTON was Head of Personnel.
Whilst in Tashkent l was concerned my career was ruined. I had upset my line managers and I decided I wasn‘t going to say anything else as I was extremely concerned about my future.
I was then told that my third secretary Chris HIRST had attacked a blind person in the street with a baseball bat. I had been told by my predecessor that he had been accused of doing something similar before, but that my predecessor had supported him, this was the staff issue I referred to earlier in this statement. I personally had witnessed his verbally violent outbursts in a local bar before. I knew that as a result of this baseball bat incident that he had to go, which he did. After this I then found papers regarding Chris HIRST that had been hidden from me by his partner Karen MORAN and I learnt she had destroyed other similar documents. As a result of this Karen had to go as well.
At this time I was not receiving any replies from London and asked them why they were ignoring me but got no response.
In June 2003 Colin REYNOLDS from the Foreign Office arrived in Uzbekistan ostensibly to find out what was happening at the Embassy with the sudden departure of Karen and Chris. He had been sent out by Alan CHARLTON. All the Embassy staff was seen by Colin and the staff told me that in fact he was asking them not about Chris & Karen as they expected but things about me such as my drinking habits and whether I used prostitutes. The staff were confused and surprised. I let Colin finish the interviews of staff and then l asked him what was going on as it seemed to me that he was investigating me. He told me not to worry and that he had been instructed to investigate allegations raised about me. He would not tell me what those allegations were. He later as I understand reported back to London that the staff supported me and there were no issues. I obtained a copy of his findings dated 26/6/2003 supplied to me under a Freedom of information request I made which I exhibit as CJM/5. This confirms he reported that all the staff supported me. The report has been ec‘d to amongst others Harvey BOWYER of the FCU. This is the internal audit section called the Financial Compliance Unit (FCU) l did‘t know where this fitted into the investigation by Colin REYNOLDS. However a few months later a team fiom the FCU internal audit came to the embassy to go through all our accounts. All they found at the end of their audit was that I owed about $20 for a lunch for which I lost the receipt, this I repaid. It appeared to me that they were plainly out to get me and I thought I had survived: the only criticism of me was the handling of the HIRST matter.
In July after Colin REYNOLDS left I then went on holiday. London then sent out Dominic SCHROEDER from the FCO political Eastern Department who came and interviewed the same staff as Colin Reynolds again after which he came up with some 18 discipline offences against me.
Page 5 of 5
Continuation of Statement of Craig MURRAY …………………………………………………………………………………….. ..
In August I was called back from holiday in Canada to London to see Howard DRAKE the personnel department director. Present at this meeting were Tessa REDMAYNE of the personnel department and Kate SMITH who was my union representative. At this meeting Howard DRAKE asked me to resign and I declined this is detailed in a report he completed dated 27/8/2003 that was sent to me for ‘clearance’. I produce a copy as exhibit CJM/6. During this meeting l was told that if I forgot about Tashkent that I would be offered another ambassadorship, but I declined this. It was at this meeting that I first became aware of the allegations albeit Colin REYNOLDS had previously told me they were nonsense. The source of the allegations was never disclosed to me.
All the disciplinary allegations were false and around this time my security clearance was up for review. My security clearance reviewer contacted me to state my clearance had been passed by him but it had then been sent back to him and he had been put under pressure not to clear me. He said that he was sticking by his recommendation and my clearance was renewed.
l was suspended for four months and sent back to Tashkent and told not to speak to anyone about the outstanding allegations. l was banned from entering embassy buildings and the stress of it all caused my health to collapse. I suffered severe heart and lung problems as a result.
After four months of investigation l was cleared of all l8 allegations: there was a formal hearing in relation to two matters only. These related to being seen with a ‘hangover’ by a local member of staff in Tashkent and secondly misusing an embassy car, l was cleared on both counts and the evidence against me was shown to be rubbish or non-existent.
l was however found guilty of telling someone about the existence of the allegations when I returned to Tashkent for which I was given a final written warning in January 2004.
Later in June 2004 one of the initial telegrams l had written was somehow leaked to the Financial Times newspaper and the Times printed sections of it. This was not done by me and although I denied it I was suspended as a result and in February 2005 I resigned from the Civil Service. I was given six years early retirement severance pay.
I firmly believe that the allegations against me were knowingly false or grossly exaggerated,. and were concocted against me deliberately to silence me after l was the only senior civil servant to enter a written objection to the policy of collusion in torture. As a consequence my career was destroyed and my health permanently damaged.
O/T Labour clears suspended Momentum activist of anti-Semitism and reinstates her
Back when John Mann was trying to ruin the Labour Party’s chances in the local elections so that he could have Jeremy Corbyn kicked out of the leadership, I posted about the suspension of Jackie Walker, Vice-Chair of Momentum and herself of Jewish descent, for alleged anti-Semitic remarks on social media. The complaint was laid by the Israel Advocacy Movement, “which works to counter hostility to Israel in Britain” (The Jewish Chronicle Online).
I am pleased to say that Jackie Walker has now been cleared and her suspension has been lifted.
http://l-r-c.org.uk/news/story/labour-party-clears-jacqueline-walker-of-anti-semitism/
O/T perhaps you can give us a further insight into Trump, is he a “Lodger” ?!! Or just an ornery bodger with a small codger.
Doesn’t seem to have anything to do with my posting. And your general run of comments is so grossly anti-Semitic that I suspect you are an agent provocateur.
So is he a freemason or not?
Oh, is that what “Lodger” meant? No idea.
According to “Sorcha Faal”, yes he is, but who believes “Sorcha Faal”? He/she/it has some very strange ideas.
It’s the poster formerly known as English Knight (among many other nicks, changed regularly), J-S-D. And your suspicion is not unfounded. If it were genuinely Far Right, it would be beasting Muslims, these days.
Oh, blimey, is this “English Knight” back again? Thanks. No doubt shortly to be booted off yet again.
OMG I seem to have two raw nerves at the same time, two bidgers with small codgers !! Is Trump a Freemason thats all we want to know, can anyone help. All his handshaking appears normal?!
An Israeli university prof and members of the Israeli human rights organization the Akevot Institute express concern over the closing off of access to official, archival records concerning the 1967 war and the first years of Israeli military rule in Jerusalem.
– See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-06-09/why-israel-is-blocking-access-to-its-archives/#sthash.PAtEOdZv.dpuf
Jonathan Cook is a journalist based in Nazareth and a past winner of the Martha Gelhorn prize.
About the Martha Gelhorn prize for journalism from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Gellhorn_Prize_for_Journalism
Interesting! Did anyone see the fantastic ‘Storyville’ episode on BBC TV about the tape-recorded conversations of Israeli returnees from the ’67 war. Absolutely shocking testimony which was suppressed for decades. It was State sanctioned mass murder, and the soldiers (now old men) were still traumatised from what they did and saw. Sobering viewing.
The link, although it seems not to be available now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0g85
If it was anything like other productions by the BBC, for example Saving Syria’s Children and the Mavi Marmara distortions, I’ll give it a miss.
An open mind as ever. Any critical opinions on the frequent anti-Semitism and homophobia on this site from certain regulars? Or are you oblivious to anything outside your narrow frame of reference?
At least you’re not blaming Tony Blair though, amazingly enough.
” It was State sanctioned mass murder ”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The definition of all war , surely ?
You’re missing the point Montiverdi, the Storyville was describing the indiscriminate and wholesale slaughter of unarmed civilians and refugees. Anything that moved was killed. The young conscripts interviewed and taped were in a state of trauma from the horror of it all. They went to war thinking they were doing something good and returned a week later prematurely aged. It’s definitely worth a watch if you get the chance.
Tart
Get back to Meysann Giyane, the lizards are missing you.
Collective, self exoneration, just following orders. The mood of the documentary doesn’t strike me as being in a regretable tone.
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v98349470dMBgk5Mh
I have seen it Jim and Israeli behaviour was well documented at the time , the only difference being that in the Storyville programme it was the first time former IDF soldiers admitted it and confronted it , . The same indiscriminate slaughter of ‘ unarmed civilians and refugees ‘ was also part of the 1947-49 Nakba as documented from the Israeli National Archives by Israel’s own historians as politically diverse as Benny Morris to Ilan Pappe . The more recent attacks on civilians in Lebanese wars or assaults on Gaza show little has changed in the Israeli Armed Forces from their creation to this day. After all what other Army openly admits to the ‘ Hannibal Directive ‘ were the slaughter of innocent civilians is justified to save a single soldier ?
My point was to highlight that logically war is State sanctioned murder a point well made by the now late Harry Patch who was at one time Britain’s last surviving WW1 soldier..
Nonsense, that’s a complete lie, but I’ll leave it up to the viewers to decide.
That last reply wasn’t to you Monteverdi. The point of the documentary was that these tapes had been suppressed for many decades by Israel. The testimonies were fascinating and distressing by any standards. The old men re-interviewed were equally fascinating to listen to. I thought it was excellent.
“The Israeli army has long claimed to be the “most moral” in the world.”
One has to remember their war-like roots. But slaughtering Amalakites and Hittites or American Seamen is certainly kosher within that moral code.
Don’t forget the IDF under Ittzak Rabin’s leadership massacring those Egyptian prisoners on the Sinai during the Six Day War which the USS Liberty accidentally witnessed.
http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/rabbi-michael-lerner-brings-down-the-house-at-muhammad-1781776788
An amazing speech at Muhammad Ali’s funeral by Rabbi Michael Lerner that’s worth watching especially Bill Clintons very obvious discomfort when Rabbi Lerner covers the US’s relationship with Israel . A passionate speech that is worthy of further viewing across social media.
Fantastic! What a great speech.
Clinton’s eulogy about Ali’s greatest days as a sufferer of Parkinson’s disease was an obvious cover up since they were when Ali went to jail over being drafted to fight the mindless massacre in Vietnam.
Well, no surprises here – we’re back to Israel again, folks!
As all roads lead to Rome, so all threads lead to Israel.
Not many threads in a Tel Aviv bikini
Alan
Please move up question 2/. to immediately after question 1/. ( of course).
Alan
“Dear Habby, when you are at the tender age of seventeen and a member of the constabulary comes to your house and asks to see your driving licence, and your mother points to the mantelpiece and says “It came this morning”, so you open the envelope and hand it to the constable, and he promptly nicks you for not signing your driving licence, it leaves a lasting impression on a teenage mind”
____________________
The above is, I suppose, intended to explain, at least in part, why you – writing for some strange reason as “Legal Aid” – came out with the astonishing statement that “all coppers are bastards”.
In order to contextualise the event you refer to and to reach a better understanding if whether that event might in effect justify your “all coppers are bastards”, it would be helpful if you respond to the following two questions:
1/. why did that police officer come to your house and ask to see your driving licence – what were the events (if any) that oreceded that visit?
_____________________
On a technical level, a question iro chronology (in view of your age now and, therefore, the year that this happened): can you confirm that this incident took place at a time when driving licences were no longer issued over the counter at Post Offices (against production of the requisite certificate from the driving examiner) but sent out from some central point (eg, DLVA)?
*********************
I look forward to reading your answers in due course. I hope you won’t find them too personal, but you did mention the incident yourself, entirely volontarily.
2. were you already “known to the police” (as the saying goes) before that visit?
My pet asks: why did that police officer come to your house and ask to see your driving licence – what were the events (if any) that preceded that visit?
That’s easy, I was carrying an unauthorised passenger (Loretha) on my motorcycle while still a learner. I did wrong and I was punished, fair enough, but for that copper to watch me tear open an envelope with DVLA all over it, and hand him a brand new licence and then nick me for doing exactly what he asked me to, well it leaves a bad taste that will never go away. It was in the days when licences were little red books sent out by the DVLA. You paid at the P.O. and the licence came through the post.
No, I wasn’t known to the police as you so delicately put it. A minor traffic violation so we could get to Northampton to see Free.
Alan
Thank you for that prompt reply. Can you bear with me for a moment while we attempt to clear up a slight confusion which remains?
You have just said that you were nicked for carrying an unauthorised passenger on your motorcycle when still a learner. You admit that this was fair enough for it was (and I suppose remains) a road traffic offence.
But yesterday you seemed to be saying that you were nicked for not signing (or not having signed) your full licence which had just arrived ; “..and he promptly nicks you for not signing your driving licence”. You in fact repeat that in today’s earlier post : “…but for that copper to watch me tear open an envelope with DVLA all over it, and hand him a brand new licence and then nick me for doing exactly what he asked me to..”.
Could you therefore clarify: were you nicked for two separate things or were you nicked only for a road traffic violation (carrying an unauthorised passenger while a learner driver)?
Thanks.
My Little Pet says: “Can you bear with me for a moment while we attempt to clear up a slight confusion which remains?
No! Getting back on topic, this is why you should never trust the police.
http://crimebodge.com/why-you-should-never-trust-the-police/
As kids, many of us were told that if we were ever lost or in trouble, to find a policeman. How many of us tell our kids that today?…
I know I don’t. I tell my child she’d be better off finding a cab office than a policeman. At least that way she’ll make it home without a gaggle of social workers straggling behind in the desperate hope of a prosecution.
I agree with that 100%. If you disagree, TOUGH!”
OK, you don’t want to answer. I have obviously embarrassed you by pointing to the slight contradiction between your ywo posts.
The conclusions which has to be drawn are::
1/. You were nicked not for having left your driving licence unsigned but for having committed a traffic offence (carrying an unauthorised passenger on your motorcycle while you only had a provisional licence);
2/. The reason you gave for stating that “all coppers are bastards” was therefore false;
Case dismissed. Move on.
Trolls pouting for business in fish-net socks. Punters beware they’re GCHQ trannies, without f***ies.
So engage at your peril. You have been warned.
The real trolls have been ‘outed’ by the mods in case you missed it last night. Quite embarrassing, but they have rhinoceros hides and know no shame.
No trolls were outed, only sockpuppets, although I would argue that having an online conversation with your wife is not sock-puppetry.
We all know something else that have rhinoceros hides, know no shame, and occupy a place in the M.E. just because of some religious crap.
In translation: “It’s OK for me to sock-puppet because I don’t like what the Israelis are doing in the M.E.”
Comedy gold!
http://www.voltairenet.org/article192212.html
“Poland is living today, and with some delay, a political development comparable to that of Turkey. These two States, members of the Atlantic Alliance, militarized and conduct extensive political repression. Given the involvement of Turkey in the war against Syria and Poland in that against Ukraine, we can logically deduce that these abuses are not national events, but the result of the Nato policy.”
It wos Israel wot dunnit. or It was Turkey wot dunnit or it was Poland wot dunnit.
NATO is the great benign custodian of world peace and order. I blame China.
There is nothing “logical” in that deduction, Giyane.
It is all in Monsieur Meyssan’s strange mind.
Clue: “extensive political repression” in Poland.
Giyane
Please stop diverting.
It’s all Meysann-inflected guff from his ‘Voltaire’ site. Meysann has as much credibility as David Icke :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11:_The_Big_Lie
The point by point rebuttal source to Meysann’s dribble :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Dasqui%C3%A9
Thierry Meyssan is an accredited nutter.
If anyone doubts that I advise them to read the Wikipedia article on him (which, if inaccurate, Monsieur Meyssan has not yet got round to modifying).
And people slag me off for not providing “links”! 🙂
All in the best possible taste.
Keep your legs shut Kenny, I’m eating lunch.
Showing your age there Jim. Kenny Everett died 21 years ago.
Well I never! Really?
Meysann like anyone else has as much credibility as the evidence he adduces has. You really must grow up and learn to make your own judgments on the basis of evidence. You appear to yearn for a list of those who always know and tell the truth and those who do neither. There is none. Sometimes the truth can be pieced together from The Guardian and RT together. Sometimes the New York Times provides information which Haaretz confirms and, read in the context provided by an article at PressTV or the Sunday Herald, is very useful in discovering what is going on.
Mummy and Daddy can no longer be relied upon for instructions. Sorry.
You of all people have the gall to be lecturing on veracity? Christ, you know no shame. Incredible.
Why are we supposed to be feeling shame? It’s not we who are the “miserable sinners”. We are “The Other People”.
http://caw.org/content/?q=node/65
Meanwhile in the Syrian desert UK generals pimp the Daesh and Al CIAda bunnies. You go over there darlings, you pretend to retreat down here darlings. Don’t worry the BBC will make up all the details to convince the world that USUKIS is fighting Daesh.
Baghdadi is no more than gay ballet-dancer in a short dress. Celebrity culture rules ok.
You’ll be giving links claiming Peter Tatchell is advocating for the arming of Isis next, just as your chum ‘Macky’ did last week. Persistent little buggers aren’t you?
“Persistent little buggers aren’t you?”
Is it not homophobia of the crudest kind?
No, only in a pathetic grasping at straws kind of way. Buggers in common parlance as I’m using it has no connotations of anal sex or homophobia whatsoever. Nice try though.
Have ISIS got a contract with Toyota supplying them with pretty white pick-up trucks, that what I want to know?
Yes Jim, but he’s got a nice bum. Come on Habba , say something really nasty. Like Oxford, or lunatic.
It’s a long time since Hubble and Bubble got under any commentators’ skins.
And I notice the persistent strain of barely suppressed homophobia creeping in again from you types.
Did I say barely suppressed? Christ, it’s overt and repulsive. At least it’s on public display to give people an accurate impression of your personality.
Jim
June 11, 2016 at 12:02
“Interesting! Did anyone see the fantastic ‘Storyville’ episode on BBC TV about the tape-recorded conversations of Israeli returnees from the ’67 war. Absolutely shocking testimony which was suppressed for decades. It was State sanctioned mass murder, and the soldiers (now old men) were still traumatised from what they did and saw. Sobering viewing.”
This is Jim ( ageing wannabe James Bond ) touting for business by pretending to be shocked at Israeli apartheid crimes.
This is a political blog so any references made to prostitution or transvestites is a metaphor for Jim blatantly ‘trolling’ i.e. trying to engage serious commentators by pretending to have opinions and diverting the conversation to safer ground than the UK establishment’s unspeakable war-crimes..
If anyone doesn’t do irony or metaphor, then Thierry Miessan is your man. He tells it how it is.
USUKIS i.e. NATO have engaged the services of political Muslims to destroy the Muslim world and colonise it, by offering the usual colonial bangles which Allah calls ‘ thamanan Qaleelah’ / a miserable price to any who are prepared to sell their religion and /or Brothers and Sisters in humanity or in Islam.
When captured Daesh are asked why they are terrorising people, they reply that all they know is that the world has got to be brought under shari’ah law. So a good place to start might be to stop raping and killing people. Therefore one concludes that the reply is a lie, and that the USUKIS Daesh and Al Qaida combatants know full well that they are fighting colonial war for Saudi gold.
For those who do do irony and metaphor, I’ll continue to use the political metaphor of buggery, a time-wasting occupation in my opinion if ever there was one. After all Craig compared the need for political correctness towards Islam to what was required for homosexuality. Why shouldn’t I turn that 180 degrees round?
It’s a political metaphor for wasting time. The whole EU referendum is a time-wasting exercise by NATO to give it time to finish off Syria by deceit and ground forces.
Unfortunately for NATO the Muslims people of Syria will not submit to them or their Saudi catamites.
Never Amen. Not sure which side Craig is on about the colonisation of Syria by NATO. The fact that the last colonial putch,, the takeover of Eastern Europe , NATO succeeded allows the PTB to think that Muslims cannot see through their evil political scheming.
Thankfully analysts with their finger on the pulse like Thierry Miessan are able to provide insights into the disgusting evil minds of USUKIS war-criminals, and to illuminate to us the whole history of colonialism and its pervasive destruction of foreign peoples and lands.
What a load of incomprehensible gibberish! My mentioning an excellent BBC Storyville on the hidden side of the 6 day war is some sort of ‘diversionary tactic’ to deflect from the important points made by the ‘French Icke’?
My referencing the Israeli army’s historic hidden crimes is a diversionary tactic, deflecting from your more serious homophobic metaphors? Er, ok. The nice men with the big jacket will be along soon Mr Giyane, you’ll find the rubber room is very comfortable. Mr Meyssan is already there to keep you company.
Why have you started calling male contributors “darling”, Giyane?
There is no connection to your apparent rejection by the Tel Aviv bimbos, I trust?
“There is no connection to your apparent rejection by the Tel Aviv bimbos,”
___________
Habb.
Just like there’s no connection between you and the mods on Craig’s excellent blog, and there never will be, you a wannabe mod, would know all about rejection. ?
“…all threads lead to Israel.”
Because:
1/ The UK, largely responsible for midwifing the Arab Revolt and driving the Turks out of the Levant, was mandated by the League of Nations to administer Palestine, inter alia, and prepare it for independence under the rule of its inhabitants.
2/ The Balfour Declaration, best remembered for the astonishing arrogance of its promise to assist zionists in establishing a ‘national home’ in the mandated area, categorically stated that the British Government would do so without prejudice to the rights of Palestinians:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
3/ Britain and the British people have a special responsibility towards Palestine, having reaped enormous benefits-particularly in geo-strategic terms and particularly in 1939-45, from their mandate.
4/Since 1948 and the establishment of the State of Israel, consequent upon Britain’s cowardly abandonment of its duties, Zionist militias have terrorised the indigenous population, murdering tens of thousands, driving communities from their settlements, families from their homes and millions into refugee camps.
All these things have been exhaustively documented and recorded by the UN and the international community.
5/ Millions of acres of land have been stolen from Palestinians and handed over to colonists. Hundreds of villages have been demolished and effaced, as if they had never existed. Millions of pounds worth of Palestinian property has been stolen and disposed of in various markets, no compensation has been paid or proffered to the dispossessed.
6/ In subsequent years the Israeli state has engaged in a succession of wars of aggression, killing tens of thousands, plundering more property, annexing further lands, repeating the crimes of 1948 on an ever larger scale. It has annexed, for example, the Golan Heights from Syria and now offers mining concessions to those ready to become accessories in its crimes. It has annexed the city of Jerusalem and large regions of land adjoining it. It has established settlements in the Occupied Territories, against international law and in defiance of the UN.
All these things lie upon our collective conscience.
In general terms Israel serves as the only current example of the worst kind of historic imperialism, a re-enactment of the genocidal crimes committed, most notably, in America, Australia and south Africa. It defies the world as it attempts to redress the historic wrongs of imperialism and to prepare for a future in which racism and piracy will come to an end and humanity will strive together to deal with the problems that face it.
Israel’s continued existence is based upon its serving as an advance base for imperialism in an area vital to its control of energy resources, a strategic outpost, and the war to establish US hegemony.
These are some of the reasons why the question of Israel is so important; it exemplifies a range of other more abiding questions. For British people it is a badge of shame a reminder of betrayal and failure of will. A brand of foreign ownership following the year of submission 1948, in which the country became a satellite of the US Empire, Airstrip One. Israel is the apotheosis of an Empire in which every colony is built upon the ruins of a destroyed nation, a genocide. This is true of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and, in less dramatic fashion, every other former colony.
Israel stands out because the wrongs, that even Empire’s apologists are wont to wring their hands over and blame upon a different age and lower standards, are being repeated daily, in full colour and before our eyes.
The world understands that Israel, in the form of a state with racist and criminal objectives, cannot be allowed to thrive. That it must be brought to account and its future made contingent upon reaching a fair and permanent agreement between the dispossessed and the millions of Jewish refugees who have been lured into Palestine. Such an agreement is by no means impossible; with the exception of a thin layer (1%) of Israeli society the benefits of the plundering of Palestine have not been widely distributed. Israel is a society the majority of whose citizens have much in common with their non-Jewish neighbours- there is no reason why what is currently an offence to the world should not become an example of the benefits of post racist communities in which ancient superstitions become private and family traditions rather than justifications for pogroms, massacres and wars.
There is much more to it, of course. But there should be no mystery as to the importance of Israel in British culture today- it is one of those things which have to be accounted for before the future can be grasped. So long as Israel in its current form exists it is a barrier in the way to a better world. It must be dismantled, carefully and with respect for human life and the environment (appallingly compromised by Israel’s vandalism) and replaced by the sort of community which the wording if not the spirit of the Balfour Declaration hinted at: one in which the best of the post colonial future, rather than the worst of the imperialist past, multi-culturalism and harmony replaces hatred, greed and genocide as state policy.
There are some things in history which can never be left un-redressed, the Holocaust is one of them, the state of Israel, not coincidentally, is another.
And we have to begin by attempting to understand them, to ‘think them through.’ Not to accept the first rough drafts of analysis, crude propagandising and partisan apology, but to look at them objectively, weigh the facts and understand the roots of the problems.
Nothing is more shameful than to use this tragedy, in which our fathers were often, as was mine, intimately involved as an occasion for exchanging juvenile witticisms, bathing ourselves in crocodile tears, affecting synthetic emotions and rehearsing threadbare talking points. We are irresponsible spectators but deeply involved as our governments’ disgraceful actions implicate us in every killing, beating and other crime which takes place in the former League Mandate.
And lo! As the Mighty Amazon doth flow through the barren sands of Saudi Arabia, so doth the word of the prophet Bevin resound throughout the lands. His wisdom surpasses all, even the Mighty Pot shall tremble and bow low before his shimmering majesty!
Was that all your own work, “Bev” (perhaps pre-prepared for use whenever “necessary”) or have you lifted it from somewhere?
Clue: use of words like “we” and “our fathers”, the curiously clonking tone, etc…..
Bevin clearly got his techniques of re writing history so that there is a single version which entirely supports his ideology from his hero. You will look in vain for any areas of doubt or nuance or a glimmer of an acknowledgement that different interpretations are possible.
Debate is nigh on impossible and disagreement is just insolence – even if it comes from one’s father. I suppose Bevin has to accuse the collective conscience because I see precious little evidence on his part of an individual one.
You also referred recently to the “Lithuanian” from Pentlands (or something similar) – presumably meaning Malcolm Rifkind.
Are you “English Knight” back again?
It’s fascinating, and immensely entertaining, watching Habb, scurry around, like a rat trapped in a laboratory maze, as he frantically tries to defend and decry, comments denouncing Israel.
His fervoured brow, strewn with sweat beads, and eyes bulging, he desperately scans the comment of a unknown assailant on Israel, hoping to unmasked a modicum of evidence that will betry the posters identity.
Drivel, I referenced a damning BBC Storyville and there was none of what you describe. Perhaps you can provide a Guardian link to back up your argument?
And the horrendous BDS character you appear to be defending is a loathsome anti-Semite in case you didn’t notice. Nice company you choose to keep as usual Scotland.
Is there any purpose to your comment?
It would appear to be driven by an egotistical need to publicly affirm your desire to be seen as morally pure. People have opinions. Sometimes, perhaps often, those opinions may be unpleasant. Confining yourself to describing people as “horrendous” and “loathsome” is surely not calculated as a strategy to encourage people to moderate or alter their opinions.
Your interest in your own moral purity is most likely resulting in the hardening of opinions that you describe as horrendous and loathsome which cannot be beneficial for the public good.
Anti-Semitism and homophobia, smears of paedophilia are loathsome, there is no other word. You have some sort of problem with that? My combatting them is more pernicious than their expressions of hatred? An odd choice of target for your irritation I would’ve thought.
No romping in the Rhondda this weekend Jim ?
As for defending characters, I think not, I merely pointed out Habbs, well known behaviour.
Speaking of behaviour Jim, I haven’t noticed you bleat on about any other humanitarian travesties, of late, even though there’s a plethora to choose from, of course they probably don’t meet the necessary criteria.
Strange really for one so immersed in the wellbeing of the less fortunate, however I have noticed you’re quick to comment, adversely off course, on any commentor who criticises, Israeli actions as anti-Semitic.
I’m sure Jim our keyboard humanitarian, will want to clear the latter point up as quickly as possible. If not one might think our heroic humanist, might have a alternative agenda.
You are not combating them – you are encouraging them. The question is why would you do this?
Guardian links to supression of Chinese human rights activists yesterday, Einstein. God it’s frustrating arguing with morons. They’re so thick they don’t know they’re stupid.
Loony : why don’t you ask them? You’re more interested in getting me off their backs, and trying to smear me as virtue-signalling or something, than the issue of their abuse itself. I wonder why?
It is “English Knight”, who is, I believe, still banned by Craig.
By rights the rat is dead, the eyes bulging under the zonk of the trap mechanism.
The fact that the rat continues its business with the trap firmly clamped down over its skull suggests that it is a GCHQ zombie rat, i.e. a mechanical Zionist clone.
“The Russian Foreign ministry said Moscow would respond to a U.S. naval ship’s entry into the Black Sea with unspecified measures, saying it and other deployments were designed to ratchet up tensions ahead of a NATO summit, the RIA news agency reported.”
“Russian state media reported that the USS Porter, a U.S. naval destroyer, entered the Black Sea a few days ago on a routine deployment, a move it said raised hackles in Moscow because it had recently been fitted with a new missile system.”
http://www.rdm.co.za/politics/2016/06/10/russia-threatens-response-as-us-warship-enters-black-sea
___________________
Sounds like a little tit for tat, if you take into account the Russian sub, lurking in the Strait of Dover. Though I can’t seem to find any bedevilment of the US ship by Russian forces in the Black sea, not yet anyway.
Interestingly Wiki has this to say about the Black sea, and its connecting strait.
“The 1936 Montreux Convention provides for a free passage of civilian ships between the international waters of the Black and the Mediterranean Seas. However, a single country (Turkey) has a complete control over the straits connecting the two seas. The 1982 amendments to the Montreux Convention allow Turkey to close the Straits at its discretion in both wartime and peacetime.”
“The 1936 Montreux Convention governs the passage of vessels between the Black and the Mediterranean Seas and the presence of military vessels belonging to non-littoral states in the Black Sea waters.”
You really are just anti-Semitic scum – if there is a God I very much doubt he will help you from anything.
Hey you rubbish, use capitals next time “He” not he.
“it” would probably be more appropriate since it probably has no gender and I doubt it worries about capitalisation if it exists.
A gayboy in bed with the two God deniers, its a tightly knit trio here !
Yeah. it was Turkey wot dunnit!
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/noam-chomsky-supports-hillary-clinton-218192
I look forward to the time when I can vote FOR someone rather than against.
Don’t Talk To The Police!
http://crimebodge.com/dont-talk-to-the-police/
No matter where you are, no matter what the situation, when it comes to talking to the police – as suspect or victim – it always pays to say as little as possible.
Here are some important reasons why…
What have you got to hide? Apart from your multiple personalities and complete lack of embarrassment?
The Police are fine if you talk to them respectfully and politely.
I should think our friend ‘Alan’ greeted them with a torrent of abuse, and then wonders why they nicked him for a minor offence.
They run the whole spectrum like the rest of humanity, from the Hillsborough and Orgreave disgrace, or the undercover scum who ruined those mildly left-leaning female activists lives, to wonderful selfless individuals at the other end. At least we don’t have death squads ‘liquidating’ street children in the UK. Count our blessings.
What an extraordinary comment. “at least we don’t have death squads liquidating street children”
How is this remotely relevant to acknowledged failings of the police and the accepted legal principle that it is inadvisable to talk to the police absent legal representation.
What is the implication here? That if you refuse to talk to the police or if the police are investigated then they will retaliate by liquidating street children?
Or is that whatever their shortcomings or crimes things could always be worse? Ah poor Peter Sutcliffe a man with a passion for murdering women, but at least he was not involved in the organized liquidation of street children so maybe we should show leniency?
Jeez, you’re about as dense (and persistent) as RoS. It should be plain enough that I was saying that the police are generally no better or worse than the rest of us mortals, but compared to some countries, our very worst (Hillsborough, Orgreave, Special Branch undercover thugs) pale into insignificance. Is that so hard to understand? I was not addressing the pernickety and relatively trivial issue of Alan’s beef over a historic motoring infraction or the advisability or not of having legal representation during police questioning. The answer to that one is glaringly obvious to a complete moron.
Well done Jim. According to you the police in the UK are no better and no worse than the rest of us mortals (mortals in the UK that us)
However, according to you the shortcomings of the police and by inescapable inference the rest of the population, pale into insignificance compared to the shortcomings of people in foreign lands.
Well Jim that kind of comment makes you a self confessed racist.
How strange then the need to reconcile you outrage with alleged homophobes and anti-semites with your own admitted racism.
Alan’s beef is not a trivial issue over an historic motoring infraction, it is a wide ranging entreaty to obey and respect the rule of law.
Absent the rule of law there can be no effective protection afforded to the classes of people you claim to be so keen on defending
You are not a serious person are you?
@Loony, I know it’s fun toying & tormenting our trolls, but just in case you didn’t see it, I posted a question to you here;
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/uk-illegally-harasses-russian-submarine-engaged-lawful-passage-english-channel/#comment-602146
When you have the time, it would be nice to have a decent engagement for a change, (in between the troll bashing of course ! 🙂 )
‘Macky – Apologies I did not see your comment.
I have now attempted to provide an answer to your question. I hope it is helpful.
Loony :
Perhaps you need to see just what sort of depths police forces are capable of sinking to.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/death-to-undesirables-brazils-murder-capital-1685214.html
Loony
“Alan’s beef is not a trivial issue over an historic motoring infraction, it is a wide ranging entreaty to obey and respect the rule of law.”
_______________________
Comedy gold yet again.
That is about as foolish as believing the burglar who justified his activities by saying he was only doing it in order to redistribute wealth.
Anon1
I think I’ve managed to tease out why Alan/Legal Aid got nicked (for a road traffic offence) but you may well be right, perhaps he got nicked a second time for the reasons you indicate.
We shall of course never know as Alan/Leqal Aid is apparently unwilling to clarify.
Best therefore to cease paying attention to him.
Actually, the police who stopped me were very nice people. They even gave me directions. My complaint was about the pig who came to my house.
You still have not told us why the police came to your house.
Was it in connection with your road traffic offence or not, and if not, what was the reason for their visit?
And were you nicked for anything other than your road traffic offence?
If yes, for what exactly – what was the charge? (Don’t tell us it was merely because you hadn’t signed your full licence.
Exceptions then to the general proposition that all coppers are bastards who would nick their own grandmothers for a promotion??
“Don’t Talk To The Police!”
______________
More like don’t talk to Jim, you never get a straight answer. ?
Chinese human rights activists profiled :
http://gu.com/p/4kt2n?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Straight enough for you?
I wonder how Jim, our passionate lover of all things humanitarian, feels about this. Should they be welcome in the UK or repatriated.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/11/iranian-nationals-rescued-in-the-english-channel-believed-to-be/
Of course I hasten to add, that the men are neither Chinese nor pro-Assad, so Jim, should be able to answer without any conflict of interest.
Still Jim might remain taciturn, as he did on the question regarding Israel, I posed to him at 17.15pm.
Jim appeared to dodge that particular request, which leads me to believe, that I already know Jim’s decision on the Iranian peoples dilemma.
You didn’t ask any specific question about Israel at 17.15. You merely made an inaccurate assertion that I characterised any criticism of Israel by posters on here as anti-Semitic. That is a palpably false assertion. There have been numerous blatantly anti-Semitic postings on this site by people you seem to count as political bedfellows. The charming Macky for one.
You have not had the grace either (gross stupidity aside) to acknowledge that I did refer to other ‘humanitarian’ causes as you so disparagingly refer to them, and showed you the evidence. Now fu…go away, and join Macky and Giyane in the dunces corner.
Now, now Jim, calm down we don’t want you bursting a blood vessel, then you’d be of no use to the boys at Denison Barracks. ?
In fairness to Jim – while I might not agree with him on a great deal, he has shown himself capable of criticising the actions of Israel and expressed sympathy with the Palestinian people. That is far more than the Israel-first crowd (like Anon1, for instance) have managed.
@Glenn, and Peter Tatchell claims he’s “anti-war” ! I know your’re now pally with Dim Jim because of your shared running passion, but you are perhaps being too generous & premature in giving him a green light on I/P because of this comment;
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/listen-leanne-mohamad-listen-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-601277
Rather unconvincing as I don’t recall his “multiple times” criticising Israeli crimes, but I do recall his numerous attempts to smear people as anti-semites; and unless I’ve been missing it, he carefully avoids commenting on BSD & whetever Israel is an apartheid state, when these topics come up.
You commenced your homophobic smearing on May 31st at 18.16 in the ‘I, Daniel Blake’ thread. It started as an obvious insinuation of ‘intimacy’ between myself and Peter Tatchell formulated as a question. This first attempt degenerated over the next day to attempted insinuations if paedophilia against Peter Tatchell, all there in the thread for anyone to read.
My very first post to this forum came via a link to one of your beloved russbot sites, the Saker, and I posted then that I condemned the actions of the Israeli state against the Palestinians. Craig or his moderators can easily provide the evidence. You, like Bevin, are a pathological liar.
@Dim Jim, i know it doesn’t suit your agenda to have the truth revisted, but here it is;
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/05/i-daniel-blake/comment-page-5/#comment-600238
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/listen-leanne-mohamad-listen-everybody/comment-page-1/#comment-601226
Not for me or the Mods to prove your assertions about what you have stated on Israel, but for the record, do you support BDS, and do you agree that Israel is a State that practises Aparthied ?
Your links take one merely to your denials, conveniently not to May 31st at 18.13 where your insinuations commence. Awkward for you that they are still there, with all the denials and paedophilia smears following on.
@Dim Jim. you are an exceedingly thick even by troll standards !
My link actually contains my original question to you that have decided to effected your POUTRAGE on! 😀
If somebody was passionately defending somebody of the opposite sex, and kept claiming how “superb” the person was, it can certainly implied both a vested personal interest & personal knowledge, and if that person was asked “how do you know this person so well, that leads you to defend them so passionately, it is because you have a close relationship with them ?”, would you then start shrieking about “Heterophobia” ! 😀
I still think you might be Tatchell himself, as you sure do know a lot about him, or maybe you are somebody close to him, which would also explain your hysterics ! 😀
Save it for the judge, thicko. All anyone has to do is go to ‘I, Daniel Blake’, Msy 31st, 18.13 and keep reading. It must pain you, but it’s all there. Sleep well, sweet prince!
@Dim Jim, it’s you that being judged & on your own self-incriminating & laughable POUTRAGE !
Only your fellow trolls are pretending not to see through it ! 😀
‘I, Daniel Blake’.
May 31st 18.13 onwards.
Nighty night!
@Dim Jim, hey Dumbo you didn’t answer about BDS or Apartheid Israel ! 😀
Yes, a real dilemma ! Do you upset your Troll Mate the Habba_Clown, or you do make a mug of your new friend Glenn ?! 😀
It’s so difficult to be unprincipled sometimes, and I still take your self-acclaimed pro-Palestinian support with a giant slab of salt !
Macky: “Yes, a real dilemma ! Do you upset your Troll Mate the Habba_Clown, or you do make a mug of your new friend Glenn ?! ?”
Appreciate the concern, Macky, but not to worry – I’ve been made a mug of before and have long since learned to roll with the blows, so please don’t concern yourself too much.
For example, I had actually thought – in the past of course – that you yourself were on the up-and-up.
@Glen_uk,
Oh dear, sorry to remind you of previous embarrassing episodes; still it’s good to know that you have “learned to roll with the blows”, but wouldn’t that imply that you are still not smarting enough to engage in petty little “up-and-up” digs ? 😀
Jim says “Straight enough for you?”
Do I detect a note of homophobia in that statement Jim?
A bent spook should cancel out and be straight.
Special cases have to screw their pants on every morning.
Well, Craig talked to the police and that is better than nothing. The fact that 27 years after Hillsborough a court found that the police lied and buried evidence is a good sign. I hope Craig lives to be 86, like my lovely mum who has just died. RIP.
Sincere condolences. A life of almost any length is full of ….living. Eighty six years is a lot of time. May God be with her spirit.
Sorry to learn that, and I echo Bevin’s condolences; (let myself get distracted by troll attacks that I overlook the real things that matter).
The real things that matter like your homophobic insinuation from May 31st at 18.13 in the ‘I, Daniel Blake’ thread? And persisting thereafter into paedophilia insinuations and attempted smears? Such a humanitarian!
Save it for your fellow trolls Dim Jim, only they have a vested interest into not seeing through you & your cheap poutrage.
No, I’ll rub your lying little face in it Macky. How’s them apples?
Why dontcha just tell the people why racism is so much more acceptable that homophobic insinuation? C’mon Jim tell us all the answer.
Racism acceptable? Maybe in your twisted mind it is.
Jim, your racism is not in my mind it is all in your mea cupla post timed at 1908. Unless you can persuade someone to remove your post then your overt racism is plain for all to see.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/death-to-undesirables-brazils-murder-capital-1685214.html
Spare me your dissembling drivel, your arguments are as impressive as your bosom pal Macky.
It is not an argument Jim. It is much more straightforward. It is reading and comprehension.
Why don’t you quit the evasion and just tell everyone why racism is so appealing to you.
Explain why you are attempting to insinuate racism from a simple statement that compared to Brazilian police death squads, we in the UK are thankfully spared such horrific brutality, no matter the justified anger at any manner of British police malfeasance? You conveniently omit to check the record to find out the truth regarding the views of your little mate Macky, but strain every sinew to insinuate racism where none exists. Remarkable.
And did even bother to read the link? Is this stuff news to you?
Well?
Jim -Your post timed at 1908 clearly compares both the police and the average person in the UK favorably with the police and the average person in other countries. Implying some munificent, but otherwise unspecified, characteristics to a single nationality is manifestly racist. Thus it follows logically that you are a racist.
There is an alternative explanation. Namely that your comment was loosely worded and whilst I interpreted it accurately from a literal perspective, the words did not constitute what you intended to say. This would not make you a racist. it would simply make you someone who writes in somewhat loose language.
Do you think it at all possible that perhaps the people you are branding as anti-semites, homophobes and pedophile supporters are in fact nothing of the kind. Perhaps their language was loose. or perhaps you are determined to find the most unpleasant interpretation possible. Is any of this possible?
No, in a word. The evidence is there for all to see. You just don’t want to see it. Nice try though, and the strangulated language you use to try to make your non-point is amusing.
More on the nice Brazilian police from the obviously racist and loose-languaged Guardian :
http://gu.com/p/4aqdq?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
@Dim Jim, There you are ! Still waiting for examples of my homophobic & anti-Semitic comments, & your views on BDS & Apartheid Israel !
Come on don’t be so shy ! 😀
Fair enough Jim I take you at your word – you are racist. I hope that you are proud of your racial purity. How do you feel about your fellow racist bigots getting their heads kicked in all over France – maybe you should go and help them – after all you will only be facing the defective foreign man.
So, Loony. An obsessive focus on the crimes of the Israeli state, couched in anti-Semitic language, is not racist and bears no scrutiny? And conversely, a single statement of relief that in the UK we don’t suffer the horrors of police death squads such as those in Brazil, is racist.
A wholly convincing stance, any impartial observer would surely concur!
I’m sure Bevin, with his ‘nostrils full of the stink in the worlds nose’, or Peter the trade unionist, with his bitter hatred of ‘International Jewry’ (but some of my best friends are Jews, your honour!), would fully agree with your cogent and impartial analysis.
Oh Jim, say it aint so Jim.
I have no obsessive focus on the crimes of the Israeli state and I do not use anti semetic language.
My analysis of your comments is not impartial. I have explicitly stated that. I provided 2 alternative explanations for your remarks concerning the superiority of the British Police and the general British population. One of those explanations was that you were racist the other explanation was that you were not racist.
Your response was clear, you rejected out of hand and without caveat the explanation that you are not racist.
If you now think that you are not racist then your argument is not with me. It is with yourself. I cannot help you in an argument with yourself.
A reminder of the cover-up of another notorious case;
https://shadowproof.com/2016/06/09/ten-years-ago-i-saw-the-real-guantanamo-and-it-changed-my-life/
There’s so much bickering on this thread it’s doing the head in of me and little Johnny; and this during the glorious weekend of the 90th birthday of Her Maj!
Little Johnny has had a tongue extension operation and has volunteered to clean Her Majesty’s sewer system; whilst I have volunteered to keep all the maimed soldiers indoors and out of sight.
Oh happy days…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLocKzC80gk
Awesome! Cheers Rob ?
Clean for the Queen website, 17/02/2016:
Over 70 MPs attend parliamentary launch of Clean for The Queen
“More than one million people are expected to join the UK’s largest litter pick over the Clean for The Queen Weekend over 4, 5 and 6 March.”
Clean for the Queen website, 16/03/2016:
Britain’s biggest litter pick a huge success
“A quarter of a million litter-pick heroes took to the streets, parks and beaches over the weekend of the 4-6 March, for the biggest anti-litter campaign the UK has ever seen.”
http://www.cleanforthequeen.co.uk/over-70-mps-attend-parliamentary-launch-of-clean-for-the-queen/2631/2/15/2361/159
http://www.cleanforthequeen.co.uk/britain-s-biggest-litter-pick-a-huge-success/2648/2/15/2361/159
“The Air Force now trains more drone pilots than it does fixed wing air craft pilots. ” !!
Good comments also beneath this report;
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/08/calling-out-drone-war-as-a-war-crime/
“DHAKA, BANGLADESH—Authorities have rounded up about 1,600 criminal suspects, including a few dozen believed to be Islamist radicals, in a nationwide crackdown aimed at halting a wave of brutal attacks on minorities and activists in Bangladesh, police said Saturday.”
“The attacks — including two Hindus in the last week”
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/06/11/bangladesh-detains-1600-in-crackdowns-hoping-to-stop-attacks.html
_________________
So it has taken the deaths of two Hindus, for the authorities of the quasi-lawless state of Bangladesh to make inroads with regards to, religiously and racially motivated murders in the country. Even then the article claims that those arrested are petty thieves and criminals and not notable person involved in such murdrers.
Still I’m sure the Bangladesh war of Independence of 1971, still looms large in the minds of the authorities, in Bangladesh, and it wouldn’t do to upset the Hindu population, nor India, who fought against Pakistan.
THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS
As children, we were taught that the police were our friends. We could go to them, confide in them, if we were lost or in trouble, and they would help.
Although I have been practicing law more than 25 years, I never cease to be amazed at the number of people, accused of a crime, who seem to cling to that childhood belief and who actually believe that they can confide in the police, and that if they just cooperate with the police, the police will help, and protect, them and everything will be just fine. A lot of them actually believe that the police will work for them — to prove them innocent.
Today, many police departments resemble para-military organizations. They are like “little armies”, although in major cities like New York, Chicago, Houston or Los Angeles, they are not very “little” and can rival the manpower of an army combat division!
They tend to be staffed by former military personnel and they operate with the organization, the discipline, the training, and, most importantly, the mentality of an army.
Don’t get me wrong. The police are necessary and provide an invaluable public service. We all need them. We all depend upon them. Further, a good, honest, professional, well-trained police officer is worth his, or her, weight in gold and is an invaluable asset to any community.
There are, however, good cops and bad cops just like there are good doctors and bad doctors, good lawyers and bad lawyers. And, even bad cops are not necessarily “bad” every moment of every day.
Unfortunately, some police officers these days seem to share the belief that they are engaged in a “war”: a war against crime. They tend to share the view of the soldier; that it is “us against them”; that they are the good guys and that the “enemy” must be defeated, must be destroyed, at all costs; otherwise, civilization, and life as we know it, will be destroyed!
The problem with that approach, of course, is that in a war there is really only one rule, “Win! Do whatever it takes to win!” It suggests that the end justifies the means; that the police are above the law; that the police are the law; that it is alright for them to break the law, or do whatever it takes, to accomplish their mission which is to suppress crime.
One of the great legal scholars, and appellate criminal lawyers, of our time, Alan Dershowitz, created a fire-storm of controversy a couple of years ago by stating the obvious truth that many judges, and prosecutors, police and defense attorneys, know, from first-hand experience, that the police, on occasion, lie.
Does that mean that every cop is a bad cop or that even every bad cop lies about everything every day? Of course not and that is not what Professor Dershowitz was suggesting! Nor am I.
http://www.lawinformation.net/criminalreport3.html
What he was simply acknowledging was that, everyday, in communities across this country, some police officer makes the judgment that some person, who he, or she, believes to be guilty of a crime, is going to “get away with it” if the officer plays by the rules, and obeys the law himself, or herself, and, faced with that prospect, makes a conscious decision to lie, or to plant evidence where none exists, or to hide, or destroy, evidence that, if found, might undermine the case by showing the person to be innocent.
However, there is something more disturbing than the fact that some police officers may lie, or occasionally plant evidence, or suppress favorable evidence. It is that all of that seems to be increasingly alright with the public in these days and times!
As a society, we seem to be approaching a point where we want the police to suppress crime at all costs and increasingly don’t much care what they do, or how they do it, so long as they get the job done.
If people were not so afraid, if they were not so angry, perhaps, they would see the danger inherent in that attitude and realize that it’s their rights, not just those of “criminals”, that are being sacrificed in the “war on crime”.
Sounds to me as if you’re backing away from your “all coppers are bastards” meme.
Got cold feet?
You should.
Why’s that habby.
Will the police take offence and beat the shit outta him and then fit him up.
Contempt of cop, eh.
I have nothing to say without my lawyer present Pig-Lover
Dim Jim; ” There have been numerous blatantly anti-Semitic postings on this site by people you seem to count as political bedfellows. The charming Macky for one.”
I challenge you to produce even one “blatant” or otherwise anti-Semitic post of mine, as you are a serial lying smearer.
Get a life you low-life.
Sure is.
These goons are here simply to disrupt, with the ultimate aim of closing down discussion.
So you enjoy the elevated level of discussion as exemplified by the delightful Macky? Nice company.
It’s difficult to have a sensible discussion when you’re flinging around allegations.
Where’s the antisemitism?
Where’s the paedophile allegation?
Where’s the instance of homophobia?
Produce them and then everyone can see for themselves whether your allegations are reasonable or spurious.
That’s the way to sort it out.
Go back a week and read every post Macky made. Simple stuff, there’s tons of it, don’t play dumb.
You’re making the allegations.
Up to you to produce the evidence.
If there is any.
I, Daniel Blake thread. May 31st 18.13. First homophobic insinuation. Continues in the thread into insinuations of paedophilia against Peter Tatchell.
How about your attempt to smear Peter Tatchell by quoting a statement of his about the bible out of context, to insinuate he was denigrating the memory of the Holocaust? To add to your multiple homophobic smears and attempts to portray him as a paedophile? There was days worth of this stuff from you a week or so ago. All there on the record you lying little toe rag.
@Dim Jim, LOL ! That’s it ?! “blatant” & “numerous” you said ! 😀
You are been here what ten weeks ? I have been posting here many, many years, if I was a “horrendous homophobe”, or some sort of anti-Semite, you would of thought it would have been noticed & called out before, so why don’t you enlist your fellow trolls to help you find something homophobic or anti-Semitic ? They will have as much luck as you, ie none, zilch.
Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were the sole Holocaust survivors on both sides of their families, has stated that there is nothing more despicable than using the suffering of the victims of the Holocaust to score political points, Tatchell shamelessly used the memory of the Holocaust to promote Gay Rights, with his “The Bible is to Gays, what Mein Kemp was for the Jews”; my object is exactly the`same as Finkelstein’s, not that Tatchell is an anti-Semite; you are so into virtue-signaling with your ID politics, that you can’t see that you keep making an idiot of yourself, but than again for somebody who deliberately misquotes people’s words to smear them, I guess expecting you to have any sort of principles is expecting much too much.
“but than again for somebody who deliberately misquotes people’s words to smear them”
Did you really write that with a straight face? For someone whose only contribution is to dish out abuse might I suggest that you might me a little less thin skinned. For the record I do believe that you are a homophobe, a bigot and a thoroughly obnoxious individual with little to contribute but if you are an anti-Semite I do think you have kept it very well hidden.
No Res Dis, he did attempt to smear Tatchell, using a tenuous to non-existent link to the Holocaust from an out of context quote Tatchell made about the bible being like Mein Kampf for gay people. Which, as I pointed out to out friend, would be perfectly accurate to describe the plight of an African gay person facing the death penalty for their sexuality, with the bible being used as evidence against them. It’s a good analogy, and has no reference to the Holocaust. Macky’s attempted smear is the actual denigration of the memory of the Holocaust. Ergo, he has no respect for the memory of it himself, and is prepared to use it to further his smears. That seems pretty anti-Semitic to me.
Res Diss
You forgot to mention that “Macks” is also very familiar with Putin’s fundament, into which he crawls every evening upon retiring! 🙂
Hence the rather curious odour which emanates from his “comments”.
@Resident Dumbo, “thin skinned” because Dim Jim malicious misquoted my words in order to smear me ! 😀
I think the only troll that ever got permanently banned from here was a certain Larry from St Louis, and reason was he kept claiming that Craig had stated things that he hadn’t.
Your post is just empty smearing abuse, so same challenge you to produce even one “blatant” or otherwise anti-Semitic or homophobic post of mine, otherwise it will be clear to everybody that you are as dishonest as Dim Jim, ie serial lying smearer. (tip to same you time, you’ve had this challenge before from me, one than once actually, and each time you fell flat on your face of course, but do feel free to try again ! 😀 )
Dim Jim; “he did attempt to smear Tatchell, using a tenuous to non-existent link to the Holocaust from an out of context quote Tatchell made about the bible being like Mein Kampf for gay people.”
“The murder of queers in the name of “God” is comparable to the Nazi extermination of Jews. Both Christianity and Nazism demonised, scapegoated and murdered minorities. Nazi anti-Semitism parallels Christian homophobia. The Bible is to gays what Mein Kampf is to Jews. It is the theory and practice of Homo Holocaust.”
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/2000.htm
“a tenuous to non-existent link to the Holocaust ” v “Homo Holocaust” ! 😀
Not the out of context quote you gave last week is it? And for many African homosexuals the analogy is pertinent as I pointed out. You have zero empathy for either gay people persecuted for their sexuality to the point of statutory murder, or for the victims of the holocaust. In fact the exact opposite of empathy, outright hatred. Deny all you like, all is down in the archives on here, unfortunately for you.
Dim Jim; “Deny all you like, all is down in the archives on here, unfortunately for you.”
So you will have no trouble to produce even just one example then, unless you are a lying troll; go on prove me wrong, you know you really want to do !
“Just do it !” 😀
Dim Jim; “Not the out of context quote you gave last week is it? And for many African homosexuals the analogy is pertinent as I pointed out”
The quote was taken from a Quote Site, and I gave the link; now that I’ve looked-up the complete article that Tatchell wrote, it really obliterates your idiotic excuse smearing case, “Homo Homosexual” indeed ! 😀
And the cherry on top is that Tatchell doesn’t even mentions anything about African homosexuals, so you trying to excuse him on that ground is as funny as it’s pathetic ! 😀
Incoherent semi-literate garbage as usual, and blant lying again. You’re a waste of space.
Dim-Jim living up to his name, & exposed as a shameless liar & smearer ! 😀
Incoherent!!! ?? drivel!!??? as usual!!! ??? from an obnoxious!!?! ! Thicko!! ??
LOL ! Fingers in the ears infantile Dim Jim goes into online meltdown when his fantasy la-la world hits concrete reality ! 😀
Reality? Christ the word is meaningless to someone like you. You take after Bevin, just staggeringly more obnoxious.
“obnoxious” says the abusive lying smearing Dim Jim troll, who deliberately misquotes people’s word. 😀
I, Daniel Blake thread. 18.13 onwards. Homophobic smearing, degenerating into insinuations of paedophilia. All there to be read.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leU1kbtIZUI&list=PLEOT0ddFGuQ6wltxXzQlfDlwJoH0D755a
” I have been posting here many, many years,…”
Except for the time you flounced off to Squonk’s website after Craig gave you a well-earned ticking-off.
Would you consider flouncing off again, without a ticking-off, and stay away a little longer?
You know it makes sense, “Macks” !! 🙂 🙂 !! ! 🙂
@Habba-Troll Clown,
When you cannot refute or find counter arguments against me, you then repeat the same old lies, hoping to influence any new people, as everybody else knows that every word you utter is a lying distortion of the truth. However you are out of luck, because I will keep on your case here on this blog, calling you out for what you are & all the nonsense that you post. That you have hounded other posters from this blog, and caused some to leave in sheer frustration at your excessive trolling, is a fact, so think of me as the unending payback ! 😀
Tell me, “Macks” –
do imagined triumphs in the blogosphere make up for the failures in your everyday life?
Yours in sorrow,
Habbabkuk
A Rough Guide to Filming the Police during a Stop & Search
Nowadays with most of us having a camera on our mobile phones, more and more people are able to film the actions of the police during a stop and search and are choosing to do so.
However, there are a few basic suggestions that may help you to be better prepared, can ensure that deciding to film the police makes a difference and can mean any footage has genuine value as possible evidence.
Why stop and film?
Ordinary people stopping and filming the police can mean that officers behave differently than they would if no-one was watching and recording their actions. This might make the experience for the person who has been stopped far less intimidating or threatening.
The more often the police are filmed stopping people, the more officers may come to expect that they may be filmed in the future, which can influence the way they generally treat people and whether stop & search powers are routinely used indiscriminately.
If police officers have acted unlawfully, filming them can help provide evidence if there is a formal complaint or if someone is arrested.
Can I legally film the police?
There is no law stopping anyone filming in a public place, so if you are on the streets you can film without asking permission – the Metropolitan Police’s own guidelines (adopted by all police forces in Britain) make clear that “police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel”.
There is a law – Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 – that says police officers can stop you filming them if they believe that the video will be used for purposes of terrorism. However, police guidelines state that:
“it would ordinarily be unlawful to use section 58A to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities… An arrest would only be lawful if an arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion that the photographs were being taken in order to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”.
This does not apply when you stop to film the police stopping and searching people.
What to remember when filming
A stop & search is already a humiliating experience for the person who has been stopped, so it is worthwhile asking them if it’s OK to film and assuring them you are just filming the actions of the police. Sometimes the police will try and stop you filming by saying it ‘breaches the privacy’ of the person being searched. You can get round this simply by asking the person who has been stopped, “I’m here to make sure the police don’t do anything to you they are not supposed to. Is it OK if I film what the police are doing?”
If there are two people with cameras, it is worthwhile both of you filming. Either both film the officers conducting the stop & search, or one person can focus on filming the other person with a camera if the police are harassing them.
Remember, police officers don’t want incriminating footage of them if they are acting unlawfully. This can sometimes leave you as a target so be mindful of what this when you are recording in case they try to arrest you.
Keep calm and focus on recording what you see, rather than getting involved in what you are filming.
If police officers try and say you are obstructing them in their duties, simply step back but hold your ground and carry on filming. Remember that legally they have no power to stop you from doing so.
Focus on the actions of the officers. Your priority is to collect evidence. Make sure you record police abuse, threats or orders. If nothing interesting is happening, it might still be important to keep the camera rolling, but keep it focused on the police.
Film the officers’ numbers: police officers are supposed to wear numbers, which are usually on their shoulders and will help identify to them. As well as filming their numbers, you can also read out their numbers on camera, which can help pin officers down later.
Don’t film the person being stopped & searched unless it is absolutely necessary to show what officers are doing to them. You want to avoid becoming a police evidence-gatherer, even inadvertently. Even if the person being stopped & searched is happy for you to film them, it is best not to film their face or any identifiable clothing. It may not be in that person’s interest to be identified on YouTube undergoing a stop & search.
Don’t film/upload anything that the police can use against the person being searched, such as swearing.
It’s important to try and film some sort of landmark, such as a street sign or major building after the event but before turning off the camera. This will prevent the police from saying that your video is of a different event.
Using your camera / camera phone
These are some really basic tips to remember that will help you capture better video footage:
Keep the camera still! Don’t move it around all the time, you need a clear and steady shot of important events. If you are having problems with this try focusing your eye on something in the top corner of the screen, this should help.
Don’t zoom in and out all the time. However when you have filmed something important (like police numbers) make sure you zoom out afterwards and film landmarks around the incident, this will help prove exactly where the incident took place.
After you’ve finished filming
Keep the footage safe and back it up as soon as you can.
When the person who has been stopped & searched is hopefully let go by the police, it’s worthwhile asking if they want to swap details so you can pass them the footage if they need it.
If you are uploading it to YouTube or Vimeo, then let us know. E-mail [email protected]
There used to be an inspector who had his own blog, Nightwatch or something. He had to take it down when he was outed.
He used to say that decent people who had no experience of dealing with the police always came off worse than the thugs who knew the game. They’re not your mates, was what he was saying.
Say absolutely nothing, and never reveal your defence, even if completely innocent.
There are plenty of thus in the police. We’ve seen plenty of that. People dying in custody, fitted up, massive violence against peaceful protestors etc.
It ain’t a good cop/bad cop thing.
It’s an institutional and procedural problem that is further undermined by the many bent cops in the force.
They know they can get away with it, you see.
And we’re way past the days when journalists like Ludovic Kennedy or Paul Foot were around to highlight their crimes.
Bob Woffinden is still around, and he’s a terrific guy. I have a couple of his books.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jul/03/haulier-sentenced-drugs-raid
“in this instance they displayed no interest in netting the larger fish. The men who had set up the drugs run evaded capture without difficulty.”
This kind of thing is better known in the US.
The FBI, DEA, Cops whatever are working with the main gang and every so often a few lower members of the gang are presented for prosecution.
This one is much dirtier than simply fitting up an innocent man.
Anyone remember the time they had to disband the whole of the West Midland Serious Crime Squad, they were so corrupt.
Or Sir Robert Mark in the 70’s when he came on TV to announce that he’d have to sack maybe up 1000 Met detectives.
That was after years and years of their corruption in vice and drugs.
There has been considerable suggestion (including by Gareth Peirce) that something of the sort was going on when the Luton post office murder happened in 1969.
Senor investigating officer was the notoriously corrupt DCS Kenneth Drury, later imprisoned. Robber Alfred Matthews “confessed” and implicated three other men in the murder, petty criminals who were given life sentences, but all have now been set aside as unsafe and unsatisfactory. Peirce is of the opinion that big robberies were planned with the collusion of the police, who shared the proceeds, and that when the murder happened it was necessary to find scapegoats. Matthews received thousands of pounds in reward money for his evidence, much of which was apparently later pocketed by Drury. The case is examined in Woffinden’s Miscarriages of Justice.
It should be said that the vast majority of the corruption is within the Detective Branch. Always has been
Uniform isn’t so bad generally, at least when they’re performing normal beat duties in their own area.
There have been suggestions for years that we employ specialist forensic civilian investigators for detective work.
Your plod isn’t so good at that. Maybe that explains a lot.
It was called Nightjack
That’s it, and there was another one got taken down as well.
Very informative stuff from the coalface.
“Don’t film/upload anything that the police can use against the person being searched, such as swearing.”
_________________________
In other words, film selectively (=only to the detriment of the police).
Says it all really, doesn’t it.
Surely it is merely sets out a series of actions that can be undertaken whilst remaining within the law.
Why would anyone pay the slightest attention to an self confessed anarchist who manifestly despises any law that interferes with the advancement of their own personal prejudices?
What does say it all is your dripping contempt for the rule of law which is evident in almost every word you write.
Why would filming the searched person’s swearing at the police be outside the law, Loony?
Filming a searched person’s swearing at the police would not be outside of the law. No-one has suggested it would be. Your question would appear to be the product of extreme stupidity. I assume this stupidity to be largely manufactured – it being the only viable technique to promote your campaign to destroy the rule of law.
No, Loony – my question was prompted by your attempted defence of the advice cited by “Alan”, advice which appears to recommend that bad behaviour by the police should be filmed but bad behaviour by the person being stopped and searched shouldn’t.
Your silly insults do not constitute an adequate answer, I’m afraid.
Your question related to something that no-one had either claimed or suggested to be the case. Something which you most certainly know.
I did not provide any form of defense, attempted or otherwise to any claim made by Alan, since the claim in question needs no defense as it is true and is itself woven into the fabric of the prevailing legal system.
It is an accepted and undisputed principle of law that a person suspected of any offence is not obliged to incriminate himself. In other words it is up to the prosecuting authorities to prove guilt. A suspect does not have to prove his innocence and neither is he required to collaborate with the prosecuting authorities to prove his guilt. If someone murders someone then he can be prosecuted, and if found guilty convicted of murder. He cannot also be charged with a crime of “failing to film himself committing murder”
Do you see how asinine and puerile your ludicrous questions really are? It is for this reason that I am having difficulty accepting that your apparent stupidity in regard to this matter is genuine.
Loony
All very true, Loony, but I fear you’re still a little confused about this.
Alan, aka Legal Aid was writing about the following:
“A Rough Guide to Filming the Police during a Stop & Search
Nowadays with most of us having a camera on our mobile phones, more and more people are able to film the actions of the police during a stop and search and are choosing to do so.”
In other words, he was talking about a third party filming the police while they carry out a stop and search operation – not another police officer doing the filming, not yhe person neong stopped and searched; but a presumably neutral third party.
With me so far?
So : why should that same post/guide suggest that that neutral, their party should not ” film/upload anything that the police can use against the person being searched, such as swearing.” ?
Why, in other words, should that neutral third party engage in what in effect amounts to doctoring/censoring the film?
Have you understood now?
Are you in love with “Alan” or just an ornery cop-hater?
I think you will find the answer to your latest question is embedded within the post you rely upon to derive your questions from.
This post advises that a neutral third party should avoid filming things that can be useful to the police, since to do so would effectively make them unpaid police evidence gatherers.
It is entirely up to the individual as to whether he/she chooses to film evidence that would be useful to the police. The law does not require anyone to do so, and neither does it prohibit anyone from doing so. As it is manifestly impossible for anyone to film everything it follows that all films in all contexts are “doctored or censored” according to your somewhat implausible reasoning.
It may well be that the recognized impossibility of filming everything explains why there is no provision in the law for for any crime related to “selective filming”
I am not in love with “Alan” and I do not hate the police. I believe in the rule of law, and am somewhat saddened that a belief in the rule of law is considered by some as constituting an extreme view.
I’m afraid that won’t do, Loony. Good try though.
Let’s look at your response in detail.
**************************
“I think you will find the answer to your latest question is embedded within the post you rely upon to derive your questions from.”
_____________________
Actually, no. See next point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~”This post advises that a neutral third party should avoid filming things that can be useful to the police, since to do so would effectively make them unpaid police evidence gatherers.”
______________________________
Actually, it doesn’t.
The post advises as follows : “Don’t film/upload anything that the police can use against the person being searched, such as swearing.”.
The justification for that – starting with the words “..since to do so..” – is not in the advice, it’s your addition, your words.
So you have either not read the advice properly or you are misrepresenting. Good try 🙂
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“It is entirely up to the individual as to whether he/she chooses to film evidence that would be useful to the police. The law does not require anyone to do so, and neither does it prohibit anyone from doing so.”
_____________________________
Straw man point. Who said anything different?
The point is that if that third party does not film all, he is not presenting an authentic record of the entire incident.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
” As it is manifestly impossible for anyone to film everything”
_______________________
Really? ~You can film quite a lot on mobile phones these days, you know. Keep up. What you say is an unverifiable a simple assertion merely designed to bolster your case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“it follows that all films in all contexts are “doctored or censored” according to your somewhat implausible reasoning.”
__________________________
see point above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~”It may well be that the recognized impossibility of filming everything”
______________________
Similar unverifiable assertion to that demolished above. The only person who has “recognised” it is you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“explains why there is no provision in the law for for any crime related to “selective filming””
________________________
Otiose in the light of the above. Also a straw man argument- no one claimed there was or should be such a provision.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~”I am not in love with “Alan” and I do not hate the police. I believe in the rule of law, and am somewhat saddened that a belief in the rule of law is considered by some as constituting an extreme view.”
_______________
That may perhaps all be true – as true as it is that you have spent a lot of time and effort mounting a defence of “Alan”s idiotic statement that “all coppers are bastards”.
If you disagree with “Alan”‘s view that “all coppers are bastards”, feel free to say so.
Thank you for your latest stream of irrelevant, inaccurate, misleading, and nugatory points.
You quote directly from the advice cited by Alan, namely: ““Don’t film/upload anything that the police can use against the person being searched, such as swearing.”
You conveniently omit to quote another sentence embedded in that advice, namely: “You want to avoid becoming a police evidence-gatherer, even inadvertently.”
I wrote “This post advises that a neutral third party should avoid filming things that can be useful to the police, since to do so would effectively make them unpaid police evidence gatherers.”
I am content that my summation is an accurate reflection of the advice proffered by Alan – when that advice is read in its totality and not selectively quoted.
It is true that if a third party does not film all then he is not presenting an authentic record of the entire incident. So what? The point is that a third party is under no legal obligation in this respect and is entirely free to film all, none or parts of an incident. It is the responsibility of the courts to draw inferences from any incomplete recordings.
I suppose incomplete recordings are analogous to people who provide selective quotations and draw inaccurate or misleading conclusions based on their own omissions. The problems presented are not insuperable.
It is true that you can film quite a lot on mobile phones. It is also true that you cannot film everything. All films have a start point and an end point this fact alone is sufficient to verify the statement that you cannot film everything. Clearly something happened prior to the commencement of any filming and something happened after the cessation of any filming. To suggest otherwise is so inane it is not even arguable.
You appear obsessed with the phrase “all coppers are bastards” This has been explained to you many times, but I will try once more:
The human condition is not perfect and it is highly probable, if not inevitable, that some members of the police service will be corrupt or maliciously disposed toward the public. If you are speaking to the police then you likely have no means of determining the motivations of the policeman in front of you. Therefore a persons best interests are served by assuming that the police are seeking to procure either evidence or an admission of guilt by whatever means possible. This is explicitly recognized in law – hence the undisputed legal advice never to talk to the police without legal representation.
The phrase “all coppers are bastards” is a crude over generalization of reality it is designed to be a useful shorthand to remind people that the law advises them that that it is inappropriate to trust the police.
“The phrase “all coppers are bastards” is a crude over generalization of reality”
___________________
Exactly, Loony.
And, being less tolerant than you, I would add the adjective “idiotic”. Which I did.
So we got there in the end! 🙂
We have “only got there in the end” because you continue to cling to your penchant for selective quotations of other peoples thoughts.
Describing the phrase “all coppers are bastards” as idiotic, is itself idiotic if you accept that “it is designed to be a useful shorthand to remind people that the law advises them that that it is inappropriate to trust the police.”
Co-incidentally these are the very words that immediately followed that part of my sentence that you chose to quote. Who’d a thunk it?
My little pet says “In other words, film selectively (=only to the detriment of the police).”
As if the police would ever be filming you in order to prove your innocence. You are somewhat dim aren’t you Habba?
“Alan” – we are not talking about the police filming, we are talking about the police being filmed by members of the public.
What should I do if there is an unmarked police car travelling behind me flashing me to stop?
The following advice is for anyone who feels vulnerable were she (or he) to stop. In many cases there may be several of you in the vehicle or you are confident you can deal with the situation, in which case this advice may not be for you.
An unmarked police car can stop vehicles, but it must contain a constable who MUST be in uniform in order to carry out the stop.
If a car flashing for you to pull over or stop is unmarked, unless you are 100% certain it is the police, do not stop. Drive steadily to the nearest public place (for example a petrol station where they are open till late, a police station or somewhere there are a lot of people) and then stop. If you are in a relatively deserted area, as a last resort, consider looking for a house that is obviously occupied and pull into the driveway. You can always apologise to the householder afterwards.
Try and signal that you have acknowledged the request to stop and indicate the action you are taking (put your flashers on or signal by pointing from the driver’s window etc.). Don’t drive off at great speed making the police think you are trying to get away.
Keep the doors locked until you are happy it is the police. Have your mobile at hand just in case. You can ask to see a warrant card, which should carry the police officer’s name and photograph, through the closed window.
Incidentally, if you are suspected of drink/drugs driving none of these actions would invalidate an officer giving you a preliminary test as you have only temporarily interrupted your journey and are still driving for the purposes of that law.
H.T.H.
Alan.
You wouldn’t by any chance be directly quoting from these sites ?
https://netpol.org/2012/07/27/a-rough-guide-to-filming-the-police-during-a-stop-search/
https://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/contact/ask-the-police/results.aspx?type=q&id=Q587
I wonder if you’re a resident of Devon or Cornwall ?
I did quote from netpol, and Pirate FM has to be one of the best radio stations in the country 😉
I spent some time on Dartmoor breaking rocks ROFL
That’s gonna make Habba cackle ROFL
Thank you Alan for your frankness.
One thing is sure, RoS – he’s not an Scotsman (allegedly), living in England.
White Liberals: an obsession with identity nonsense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw5Dzt09a3Y
On the subject of low-lifes;
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/what-tony-blair-accidentally-revealed-about-iraq-during-his-criticism-of-jeremy-corbyn-was-very-a7074631.html
An Anarchist Guide to… ACAB
http://strikemag.org/an-anarchist-guide-to-acab/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6QugnLYuZ0
For English resident RepublicofScotland, Big Picture Herbie, Giyane Khan, the aptly-named Loony, “All coppers are bastards” Alan and anyone else in need……
…..a little song to soothe your troubled souls (sorry, soles) and quell your inner demons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leU1kbtIZUI&index=1&list=PLAJdBARKatgE6qrdKm9sfJ6FASiR9D8m6
Enjoy! 🙂
Many people laugh at me when I tell them that the UK is a police state; ie, all information is tightly controlled. We’ve now had a third night of rioting here in France from England football fans (please note, not from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland). These dipshits buy into the propaganda that’s universally pumped out in the West.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jun/11/euro-2016-french-police-tactics-raise-fears-of-more-clashes-with-england-fans.
I should imagne most people laugh at you no matter what you tell them
C’est le guignol anglais!
Is being a laughingstock a disincentive for commentary?
If so, you should henceforth gradually disappear like the smell from a fart.
I’d wager that RobG’s French neighbours have no idea of his internet and blogging activities.
So it is difficult to say whether he’s the local laughing stock.
How are the Dam Busters doing, Habba?
It’s not always easy to disguise an organisation that’s a criminal enterprise, but you lot have done a pretty good job of it.
Keep giving us the total bullshit.
Probably better to laugh than to cry
Viva la revolucion
Of course, Scottish fans never riot. What was all that in the cup final the other day?
And do try to keep up. Russian and French fans are involved in the Marseille riots. Two England fans are currently fighting for their lives after being attacked by Russian thugs.
Yes, it’s all the fault of the Russians. Da, Da, Dah!!!
And of course England fans never cause any trouble in your totally wacko view of the world.
Go on, give us some comic book stuff about how ‘our boys’ saw off Russkie ships or airplanes just recently.
You’re like children.
Worse, you are criminal scum who will be held to account.
I didn’t say it was the fault of the Russians. There are English, French and Russian fans involved. You said it was English fans and made an ignorant point about the rest of the UK being above such activities. You obviously weren’t watching the Scottish cup final a few weeks ago.
Now open another bottle Rob because that’s all you have in your empty gite. You, the vino, and the online death threats. What a sad, sorry state you are.
Perhaps you can supply news links to the French and Russian fans who are rioting? you little prick.
In RobG’s eyes they will be freedom fighters rather than rioters. So sad that anyone uses sport as a justification for violence wherever they come from.
This kind of breakdown in law and order must surely be pleasing to your linguistically versatile anarchist friend.
An old revolutionary slogan might well apply to the fighting English that must make their anarchist masters proud:
Lucharamos hasta la ultima gota de sangre!!
Sure as hell I don’t. The silence has been deafening as on much else year on year now. But I do love to laugh at the odd persons on here who collectively like playing the part of “James Pond”.
Felling sorry for all the troubled souls on here this evening, here is a little something to lull them to sleep. May their incubi, succubi and inner demons give them rest
(for the particular attention of English resident RoS, the aptly named Loony, cop hater cum urban guerilla Alan, Big Picture ‘Erbie and anyone elsde whose need is great).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leU1kbtIZUI&list=PLEOT0ddFGuQ6wltxXzQlfDlwJoH0D755a
Enjoy! 🙂
Sorry, my little pet. I was watching “The Disappearance” on BBC4. Had I known you were pining for me I would have popped in to say “Goodnight! Now get back in your box by the back door!”
What’s the obsession with the Eton Boating Song?