Moderation Rules for Commenters 391

I am reposting the rules for commenting, as they were last set out exactly a year ago. I have been most disappointed by the degree of personal insult flying around the comments thread in recent weeks. In general, there is no need at all to address other commenters in your remarks. You can address their arguments, but that is different. Avoid referring to the person of other commenters, whether by name or by any other means of identification.

Address the argument, not the person. To do otherwise will be an immediate warning flag for deletion. Any reference to any commenter which is not courteous will lead to the comment being immediately deleted. This is an expansion of the way we will enforce the “fair play” rule below.

Here are the rules:

This is essentially a free speech forum… There is an important distinction between my writing, and the comments section. The proportion of readers who leave comments is well under 1%. I cannot know what percentage of the readers read comments, but I suspect it is not terribly high.

In social media I find establishment hacks – particularly journalists and Labour Party functionaries – dismiss my thoughts by referring to the comments section. “Craig Murray – have you seen the tinfoil hats comments on his blog!” being a genuine and very typical example. Well, if people wish to damn me by association with the views of other people, that is sadly an example of the low intellectual standards of the British nomenklatura of our time. The only views on here which are mine are those which I write.

I cherish the diversity of the comment threads and am fond of our little community, most of whom I have never met. I do not value people by the standard of how close their views are to my own. I am sometimes saddened by the personal animosities which arise between people.

We state some rules from time to time. This is the current set, which I just made up:

No racism. Any comment which is racist will simply be deleted immediately. The biggest problem we face is anti-Jewish comment, which I will not tolerate. We are not in the business of stigmatising anti-Zionism as anti-Jewish, but there are quite frequently distinctly anti-Jewish comments. I deleted one just an hour ago.

Similarly, no holocaust denial. I do not believe it should be illegal (I am against thought crime) but I do not wish to have it on my blog as those associated with it often have very unpleasant sympathies. That is not to say the subject of the holocaust can never be mentioned – it will never be possible to ascertain the precise number who were killed, and it is important we remember not only the Jews but the Poles, gypsies, gays, freemasons and numerous others who suffered. But the basic facts are not in doubt. It is surprising how often people attempt to insinuate holocaust denial.


It is in practice impossible to outlaw sockpuppetry without a formal registration system, which I do not want. But the adoption of multiple identities within the same thread is not to be allowed, nor the creation of identities of which the purpose is to ridicule, attack or insult another contributor.

Fair Play. Play the ball, not the man. Address arguments, not people. Do not impugn the motives of others, including me. No taunting.


Attempts to keep people on topic are hopeless, but do try.


We don’t discuss 9/11. There are plenty of places on the web where you can do that. It tends to take over threads.


Contributions which are primarily just a link to somewhere else will be deleted. You can post links, but give us the benefit of your thoughts upon them.

No explanation.

Enforcing these rules is necessarily arbitrary and needs judgement calls. Moderators are precluded from explaining decisions online. If you want to complain use the contact button.


We have, and have had, excellent moderators over many years. But almost all have found it not only time consuming but also surprisingly emotionally draining. If you are interested in volunteering and are willing for me to know both your real and online identity, please get in touch using the contact button.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

391 thoughts on “Moderation Rules for Commenters

1 2 3 4
  • John Spencer-Davis

    “Address the argument, not the person. To do otherwise will be an immediate warning flag for deletion. Any reference to any commenter which is not courteous will lead to the comment being immediately deleted.”

    If this rule is consistently enforced then there will be a lot of people on here who will be left without anything to say…

  • fedup

    Dose racism include the tongue in cheek and at times overt anti Muslim and anti Islamic hatred that seems to have been to go on without any let or hindrance?

    Also how about any penalties with respect the one liner/short retorts to various comments that take over the comments section and effectively disrupt the flow of the debate?

    • Resident Dissident

      “Also how about any penalties with respect the one liner/short retorts to various comments that take over the comments section and effectively disrupt the flow of the debate?”

      Please not, rapid deflation of windbags has a long and much respected record in the history of debate, especially when done with a sense of humour.

  • Resident Dissident

    Does the rule extend to personal insults of the recently departed or to those who are living who are not commenters?

    Are collective insults of commenters banned?

  • Resident Dissident

    Does racism targeted against the English/British count as rascism?

  • lysias

    With the absence of certain notorious commenters, it seems to me that the tone of the forum has noticeably improved.

    • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

      Why, have you been absent recently?

      (I have been away and so have not been following who has commented and who hasn’t)

  • Resident Dissident

    When personal insults get through moderation what retaliation is permitted and in what form?

      • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

        I am glad that I can agree with Alan for once.

        I have often suggested on here that people with strong, perhaps even obsessive feelings about one or several issues and who feel that they have something worthwhile to say should start up their own blog.

        This would lead to a cleaner and healthier CM blog where the eggs in the nest are all Craig’s.

  • Resident Dissident

    Are inferences that respected commenters work for GCHQ or other government services permitted?

  • Macky

    There should be one rule only; no trolling

    People come here for honest debate, not for being deliberately messed about by others unwilling or unable to have a rational engagement.

    (and it’s not a social meeting club for the bored, go to the pub instead ! 😀 )

    • Resident Dissident

      The nature of honest debate is that someone else tries to counter/deliberately mess about with the arguments put forward – the correct response is to put forward counterarguments rather than label the opponent. Rational engagement does not mean that the other person has to agree with you. And of course there is social contact – in fact I think the tone is a lot better when people do bring their own personal experience into the debate and wander away from their prescribed ideological lines – not that I have anything against pubs. A lot of the best political debates I see are on the forum of my favourite football team – where there is a lot more sharing of the social side and there is at least one factor that demonstrates our shared humanity.

      • Macky

        RD; “deliberately mess about with the arguments put forward ” !!

        If by “mess” you mean offer rational(/logical) argumentation(/reasoning) to refute a point, then yes, but still worrying you used that word !

        • Resident Dissident

          I think you will find that arguments as well as being based on logic are often based on a person’s underlying morality – so that it quite possible to have a range of logical responses to any single argument and that the original argument may also still be logical and valid as well. So the end result of an argument does not necessarily have to be one side refuting the other – but it could just be an understanding of the morality/sub arguments underlying the argument or heaven forbid it could even be a dialetic and some form of synthesis between arguments. I fear at times you see debating as something of a boxing match with yourself as the undisputed greatest of them all.

    • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

      I also agree with Macky.

      The problem is that people might disagree about who is and who isn’t a troll.

      I would make the following suggestion for Craig and the Moderators: any post containing the word “troll” (and the inevitable silly-clever attempts to circumvent the word, eg “tr**l”, etc…) should lead to automatic deletion of the offending post. All of it.

      • Macky

        “The problem is that people might disagree about who is and who isn’t a troll.”

        Trolls are rarely subtle, so they normally stick out a mile; even the clever ones who initially evade detection, eventually expose themselves, because the rules of a rational exchange of views are fixed & unavoidable, namely logical commonsense, so in any engagement if one party does not seem interesting in addressing the points at hand, and so chooses instead off in the realms of distractions/diversions, insults, whatabouteries, etc, then you know you are dealing with a troll.

        • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

          Be that as it may, Macky, do you not think that it wold be a good idea – and in the spirit of Craig’s guidelines – if any post containing the word “troll” (or the inevitable silly-clever variants on it) were to be deleted automatically?

          Surely this would be a good thing because it would deter people from throwing out facile insults and force them to refute views they disagree with through reaoined argument?

          • Macky

            No, trolls are the exceptions that need to called out; if somebody uses the word troll as a insult/smear then that person is trolling themselves, but it’s actually a duty to call out real trolls; calling a person a troll is a serious charge, and the person doing so will need to be able to substantiate the charge, which in itself would indicate that the trolling is obvious to others also.

          • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

            “calling a person a troll is a serious charge, and the person doing so will need to be able to substantiate the charge”

            Exactly, Macky. But how often is that done? I feel certain posters – perhaps you? – should set an example…


            ” which in itself would indicate that the trolling is obvious to others also.”


            With great respect, that is a non-sequitur.


          • Macky


            You shouldn’t use terms incorrectly, proving something, and proving something that is also obvious to others, are not conditionally related to each other.

  • RobG


    I think on a political blog each individual commentator should be given full moderation rights, then you wouldn’t have any problems with comments, because there wouldn’t be any comments left standing.

      • RobG

        I’m too tired to remember the quote exactly now, but it goes something like: I might disagree entirely with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

        Free speech, and all that.

    • fred

      We already have full moderation rights.

      You can have no comments any time you want to.

  • Ben Monad

    I’m not sure if this reflects revisions or add-ons from previous rules but I think it is wise to revisit on a post from time-to-time. Oh and thanks for all the posts on Orlando as well.

  • Jeanette McCrimmon

    I cannot know what percentage of the readers read comments, but I suspect it is not terribly high.

    I read all the comments, on all the articles I view – to get a feel for public opinion. So thank you Craig for once again pointing out the rules. It’s tedious when commentators hurl personal insults and abuse to each other.
    Especially, if the subject under discussion is harrowing, which it too often is, inane posts appear more than churlish.

    • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

      As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, I also read all of the comments.

      Once one has weeded out the obvious jokers and the merely bored, it is interesting to see who thinks what and how various individuals react to events as they unfold.

  • Richard S

    A sensible and fair set of rules. I’m surprised to find, though, the 9/11 ban. Not because I have any interest in discussing it, or think it SHOULD be allowed. But simply because I would have thought that there’s nothing more to be said. But evidently I would have been wrong.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    Reality hits home – I get no news for nearly 2 weeks – and now I am home…our son picked us about an or so hour ago…

    its just feels incredibly cold for 18th June

    Now I am really pleased to be home – I think my home and my garden and my wife and expanding family are just so wonderful…

    This reminds me of when I was flying home from Kuredu in 1999 – no news no shoes – (Total Paradise – (seriously))

    As we got on the Plane they just naturally had just left the very latest English newspapers – which none of us had read…

    And We Didn’t Know…

    “We – UK<NATO<USA)Are Bombing Yugoslavia …WTF?

    My EX's Entire Family come from Yugoslavia and They are Nicest People I have ever met

    And we are bombing and killing them..

    who are we ?

    You will see

    And NOW I get this…

    "British MP shot dead"

    Now who do you think I think the people who did it (if indeed she is actually dead) – cos I know the people who do this also pull propaganda stunts and they also dropped Bombs on My Ex Girlfriends Family in Serbia)

    The first thing I thought of at this news was – can it have a propaganda effect on the referendum…

    And I think Craig's Moderators do a fantastic job as do the writers on his blog or he wouldn't have one of the most read blogs in the world.

    A few of you write quite well…. but it is Craig's blog – so conform to the rules…and correct your own grammar and spelling mistakes – and be nice to each other…and don't slag me off either- even though I Know I deserve it.

    I am glad to be home and I am going to vote No – I will Not Tolerate You

    I am going to Vote Out Of The EU…cos I think this is a propaganda job – too close to the date…I reckon The CIA did it,

    I am going to Vote No to The CIA as I hope Americans do.

    This is Real..This Vote is Important



    • Alan

      “I reckon The CIA did it,”

      Why not? The CIA did everything else. It’s also worth remembering that the CIA began as the OSS

    • lysias

      The attack on Serbia was for the sake of perpetuating NATO, an organization that had lost its ostensible purpose of containing the USSR, which had just ceased to exist, but had not lost its real purpose, to perpetuate U.S. power over Europe. I had a part-time job transcribing CNN at the time, and I well remember all the lies Jamie Shea, the chief NATO flack, kept spouting.

      • Herbie

        At that time there was discussion in western msm about Jamie’s lies.

        You don’t get that today, although things in the world are a lot more dangerous.

        Maybe that’s the reason.

      • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

        I had always thought that the purpose of NATO intervention was to get rid of a particularly obnoxious set of characters who were doing their best to turn back the clock of history by reintroducing genocide and ethnic cleansing on the European continent.

        I do not however rule out the possibility that Milosevic and Co. were in reality NATO agents and that their actions were carried out in furtherance of an intervention agenda. I may well be that, in turn, NATO was being manipulated by the Rothschilds and Bilderbergers for purposes as yet unrevealed 🙂

        • Resident Dissident

          We can of course ignore the fact that Milosevic started wars against Croatia and Slovenia, supported war criminals and ethnic cleansers in fomenting civil war in Bosnia and then started his own ethic cleansing in Kosovo – if these represent causes for the perpetuation of NATO so be it.

          • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

            Stop spreading NATO LIES, Resident Dissident!!

            You’re worse than Jamie Shea who, by the way, has a” higher degree” (a PhD, I believe).

          • Republicofscotland


            Excellent counter comment, you’ve made some worthy comments today. ?

          • Macky

            Sorry RD, that’s the NATO cartoon version of what happened; you’ll find that the cause of the conflict was actually the calculated destabilisation of Yugoslavia following Tito’s death, by the encouragement & then the pre-mature recognition of Slovenia and Croatia declaring their independence, notably by Germany & Austria, but the really the West as a whole; followed of course by the West’s encouragement & arming of Islamic militants in Bosnia, which even including the transferring to Bosnia of Western funded/supplied/trained of Islamic jihadists from Afghanistan; the resulting bloodbath was as inevitable as it was planned to be.

          • Why be ordinary?

            Agree – nothing destabilized Yugoslavia more than Milosevic’s attempts to reform the 1974 Constitution. NATO only got involved after the UN had tried and failed.

          • Macky

            Ahmm! In 1974 Milosevic was busy being the chairman of Tehnogas company ! NATO action is notorious infamous for being illegal, and even for being against its own charter; in 2000 even a British parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee concluded with the admission that the NATO bombardment was illegal under international law.

            For those interested I recommend Diana Johnstone eye-openning book called, “Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions”, which destroys the Western narrative myths against the reality of Yugoslav history. For now you can have a look at this interview of what to expect;


  • John Goss

    I’m still trying to work out why my only comment of the day went first into moderation, was then displayed and some considerable time later, deleted. I know the gist of it but would have taken a copy if I suspected it might fall foul of the rules. I hope it was not considered anti-Jewish, though anti-Zionist it clearly was.

    Hey, what, have a good weekend.

    • Alan

      How many times lately has the mod mentioned the filter. You got caught in the filter, but you got through in the end. I hate to sound like Habba, but calm down. LOL

      • Tony_0pmoc

        Blimey you guys are good…

        The holiday was shit except All The British

        They were absolutely Brilliantly Funny (mostly from Birmingham of all places) as Was The Live Rock Music…

        It was just the Local Fascists & Thieves – who seriously annoyed us

        (I am trying to convert this into Craig Murray standard English as I write)

        I am not surprised The British Girls got a Bit Mouthy.

        The Weather was Brilliant.


  • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

    Hardly surprising that RD, a leading troll, gets to advertise here his continuing disruptions, starting with an allusion to my trying to keep the discussion of Jo Cox’s assassination on track which he dismissed on the earlier thread by claiming I would suspect any garden accident in the same manner.

    Apparently, he will only stop when I die.

    And then he falsely claimed that British research into mind control, especially its ability to make Manchurian Candidates, was my invention when I quoted from John Marks’ book about its covert continuance.

    If the mods don’t stop his and others personal insults, I shall leave.

    • lysias

      It’s not the mods’ job to investigate which commenter is telling the truth. The way to fight lies is to deny them and provide evidence that they are lies. Leave the forum, and you surrender victory to the liar.

        • Macky

          Stick with it, things have lot better lately, besides RD is hopelessly harmless 😀

        • Herbie

          Just reference the official sources, in this case, The Church Committee. They can’t dispute the source.

          The great thing about the US, unlike old Europe, is that they love pretending they’re honest.

          Ultimately they more or less tell you what’s really going on under the veneer.

          If you know where to look.

          That’s Chomsky’s approach. Dale-Scott’s approach too.

          There’s the guys who go to the official documents, and construct their narratives from that. Like a proper historian.

          Then there’s msm who are the fiction writers.

          Your more imaginative types.

      • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

        “It’s not the mods’ job to investigate which commenter is telling the truth.”

        Or, for that matter, to investigate which commenter is a fake and which isn’t.

        I therefore agree that those jobs – as some have found out to their cost (and evident annoyance) – are for other posters anxious to preserve the reputation of Craig’s blog.

        • Alan

          Come on Habba, fess-up, you’ve been begging Craig all weekend to make you moderator, n’est pas?

  • Herbie


    The vast majority of those one-liners are a distraction rather than a contribution to debate.

    But the tin foil hat thing.

    Isn’t the West’s main argument that Russia is attacking us, our way of life and our freedoms.

    That’s very tinfoil hattie. Can it actually be demonstrated to any really serious effect.

    There’s a school of realism in IR and there are the ideologists, the revolutionaries.

    Western International Relations is currently run by ideologists, and they really don’t want anyone having any other way of being than they mandate.

    Their ideological dream is perfection, you see.

    They’re the best human beings ever walked the earth.

    And wow.

    Look at their culture.

  • John Monro

    Thanks, Craig, useful reminders of reasoned discussion and debate. We can all get it wrong from time to time. Cheers. In regard to the EU referendum, I am still a rational agnostic – or in more religious terms it’s like deciding between hell and eternal damnation.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    my girl and me went to stonehenge cos it was free…she borrowed her younger sister’s tent and more or less said come with me. so i did..she’s still here with me. i didn’t do anything wrong..i just let her blame me

    We met in November 1981 – and I Love Her So Much


    • Tony_0pmoc

      We eventually stopped using money – this week…I just gave them a quarter of a sack of potatoes – and 6 cans of beers..

      look it wasn’t like that but she is really nice….but it wasn’t about that either…

      they were just really nice people – ok they come from birmingham,west midlands , englands

      not birmingham alabama

      (I am just trying to explain something nice here about people)

      you see it is the summer festival season coming up here…

      you need to get your camping gear ready


  • Tony_0pmoc

    I don’t know how to explain it – because we got home late tonight – and it was nearly dark and my wife was very tired…but in the early morning sunlight I can see our Garden is a Cacophony of Beautiful Flowers.

    I can’t post a photo yet cos the kids have eaten nearly all the potatoes and are fighting over the cat food…and expect us to go to Sainsburys…but they did look after the house and garden whilst we we away.

    There is Fruit – Fresh Everywhere…and Vegetables coming up…

    We may do chickens next year too – but there is no way I could eat my chicken or wring its neck…but I could happily eat its eggs…

    My Mother and My Daughter have Both Already looked After Hens.

    My Wife wants to Too

    If you go to the supermarket and the supermarket has gone bust – you can always have a boiled egg until you seriously start looking at the Chicken


    • Alan

      Tony said “my wife was very tired”

      Have you tried giving her iron pills? That often helps with tiredness. Of course, I am not a doctor and she should really consult one to help her with this tiredness.

  • fwl

    Mod rules are sensible.

    This post is about Putin’s interesting comment that he does not wish to state his preference on the referendum, but would say that when negotiating he would prefer to negotiate with a strong person, power, EU because if they are strong and you get a deal it may stick, but if they are weak they are likely to come under third party influence.

    I had thought Putin supported a UK out vote because he would prefer a weaker EU with whom he could do deals more beneficial to Russia than they might otherwise be. Now though he appears to say the opposite. Hhhhhmmm.

    Interestingly also in the news on Friday / Saturday (though I couldn’t find a link in a quick google this morning) were the comments of a retired British General, who has changed from Remain to Leave because he fears that if we remain the EU will progress the political facade of a EU army to the detriment of NATO and our own army.

    So perhaps Putin has his eye on NATO not the EU would like a result that will ultimately weaken NATO.

    Now this like all EU propositions has a lit of ifs and so I shall stop now before I start to question everything and turn into the v funny Jonathan Pye (see his brilliant referendum sketch).

    So, in short I would prefer a strong British army, security and diplomatic services over EU ones. I accept a vote to Leave is a step into the dark night but it is time to take it. I’m slightly reassured by British pragmatism over idealism and suspect we will have an interesting muddle of a walk. Avoid big ideas whether left or right. Continue to be sceptical and critical of our own services and elites even as we support them over externals.

  • Celia Fitzgerald

    I couldn’t agree more but perhaps you could add all forms of hate mongering? I think we must all resolve never again to dehumanise or demonise anyone or believe that our opinions are superior to anyone else’s and unite in condemning politicians of all persuasions who do so especially those who deliberately whip up hatred against their critics and opponents. Some things are just wrong. Disrespecting other opinions and beliefs and engaging in personal insults must stop. When it comes down to it, that is just hate mongering and we know what that leads to.
    I’m not thinking of the likes of Farage or Boris who have strong beliefs about the need to control immigration. That’s neither racism nor hate mongering. The people who make them look like bigots and racists and give us carte blanch to demonise them are the real hate mongers. They’re not just teaching us to hate them but also their very many supporters. That’s enormously dangerous. It’s the seeds of war.
    Currently Brexiters are being demonised en masse. There’s a particularly nasty arrogant article doing the rounds characterising them as old, middle class, unprogressive, complacent etc. That’s a whole chunk of society humiliated and dismissed for their beliefs. Not only is it untrue, older people are just as likely to want to remain, but it’s teaching us to hate the older generation thus creating another point of social division. Shame on those who are sharing this article and using it as a weapon to get one over those they disagree with!

    • Anon1

      If you’re not left, you’re far-right.

      They try to portray Leave as extremist but it is support for unlimited mass immigration that is the extremist position.

      • fred

        If someone moves from Cornwall to Devon it’s not immigration. If someone moves from Scotland to England it’s not immigration.

        Vote remain and one day we may have have zero immigration in Europe, people will move as freely in Europe as they do in the UK, there will be no more immigrants because we will be all one people.

        • Vronsky

          Well said, fred. Now there are three words I never thought I’d utter…

          On moderation, suggested rule: only one post per 20-minute period. I know it dulls debate, but it makes you calm down and collect your thoughts. And I think some posters destroy the sense of a thread with multiple short posts – whether deliberately or not doesn’t matter. It should be possible to follow an argument on the screen without burning out the scroll wheel on your mouse.

          • Anon1

            It’s not well said. It is a utopian wet dream. The reality is that even if you live on state handouts in this country, you are in the wealthiest 1% of the global population. People will come to settle here, not the other way round.

          • fred

            You just have a unified welfare system, socialism would work on a Europe wide scale as well as a national scale. If wages and benefits were the same all over Europe there would be no economic incentive to migrate.

          • Anon1

            Do you grow magic money-trees up there or something? The naivety is staggering.

            Or do you mean we should all have Albanian-style levels of pay and benefits and, hey presto, no migration.

          • fred

            I don’t see how people in Albania would be any more disadvantaged than people in the Highlands. In Britain the poorer areas are subsidised by the richer and it would be the same with Europe,. In time the economy of Albania could well grow, the economy of Britain could well shrink as well, who knows what the future might bring.

        • Anon1

          We’ll have to build 5 Glasgows in the next 10 years just to cope with current levels.

          • Republicofscotland


            I have to agree with you, pro-immigration supporters tend to see mass immigration through rose tinted spectacles. The reality however is far more sobering.

          • Macky

            This is the sort of scaremongering rhetoric that inevitably poisons a sensible debate about the issue, and helps lead to extremists murdering MPs. Utterly irresponsible & toxic.

        • Republicofscotland

          “people will move as freely in Europe as they do in the UK, there will be no more immigrants because we will be all one people.”



          I very much doubt your utpoian dream will ever come to fruition, even if all the financial stumbling blocks were to be overcome, human nature and predijucial barriers not mention religious barriers would still remain.

          A one Europe where everyone is content with their lot is a pipe dream.

    • fwl

      Yes, I agree we should up root demonising hate and arrogance that ignores divergence of opinion culture thought and belief. I have noticed that if called upon to justify my loosely held out position I tend to start by self-deprecating for my low brow outlook etc.

  • fred

    “Address the argument, not the person. To do otherwise will be an immediate warning flag for deletion.”

    The problem is that nationalists tend to see any criticism of their country, government or party as personal criticism of themselves.

    • Anon1

      I see some of the imbeciles are holding up banners with the slogan “Refugees welcome here”. They are not refugees. They ceased being refugees when they left Turkey. And it is reported that barely any of them are Syrian.

      What these far-left activists want is for Britain to allow the entire third-world to settle here. Which, granted, if you live in some parts of the country you may think it already has, but it is a mind-boglingly stupid idea even if you do manage to get laid a few times for the virtue signalling.

        • Alan

          Talking of Blair, who has his “Faith Foundation”, what’s that all about then?

          In The Gospel of Wealth (1889) American steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie argues that the wealthy can undermine social protest by donating to worthy causes. Carnegie rejected demands to raise wages and living standards because that would cut into profits. He preferred to create “opportunities for people to better themselves”. Of course, these opportunities should be profitable or promote profit-making.

          Instead of giving money to governments, Carnegie advised the rich to establish charitable foundations so they could shape society in a pro-business direction. Oil magnate JD Rockefeller embraced this strategy, insisting that “the evils of society are not fundamentally economic but are physical and moral. They are to be cured by improvement in the public health and in the public morals.”

          • Ba'al Zevul

            Try the Blair Miles (‘Still Discussing’) thread. Start here for the fullest details I can find on Blair’s varied interests:


            The Faith Foundation exists to promote Blair’s simplistic views on the Middle East and Islam.

            This would be off topic except that lately my posts to the Blair Miles collection have almost invariably been caught by the spam filter (and released, thanks) Not sure what’s tripping the alarms, any chance of knowing?

        • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

          “think Tony Blair should move the refugees into some of his houses.”

          I believe I used to suggest that former commenter Mary should take in a refugee or two on a strictly temporary basis and I also recall that I got ticked off for making that suggestion.

          You will note, however, that I am most definitely not ticking you off. In fact I agree with you.

    • Rob Royston

      Just because they speak funny doesn’t mean the French are stupid. If I was French I would be applauding the police in this instance.

          • Alan

            Why do I say that?

            The capitalist class invented war as philanthropy, also known as “humanitarian intervention”. Expressing concern for those you attack and urging people to rally around that concern channel revulsion against war into activities that support war and those who profit from it. Philanthropy in the form of “international aid” hides imperial exploitation. Poor countries are typically described as under-developed rather than over-exploited. The £89 billion that is donated annually for development is typically invested in opening or expanding markets for the donors.

            Hey, Blair was so big on that humanitarian intervention” wasn’t he? And now the victims pile up in Calais and you want to turn them away?


          • Mark Golding

            Totally agree Alan ‘humanitarian intervention’ is a UK/US/IS excuse to install a puppet government subservient to western interests with the added benefit of war and arms sales.

          • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

            “Lets not call them refugees shall we? How about “Victims of Capitalist Exploitation?”

            That is certainly one possibility.

            In an attempt to get a discussion going, I would propose an alternative definition, viz “victims of a large number of exploitative, misgoverning, tyrannical, corrupt and uncaring African governments”.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    This stuff is real. How come almost no one seems to know, and almost no one seems to care? If no one stops this madness we are all going to be dead.

    “NATO Threatens Europe With Annihilation” By John Scales Avery

    “NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance, whose purpose is to “protect Europe from aggression”; but today it is aggressive tool of the United States. Today NATO is threatening to drive Europe into an all-destroying thermonuclear war with Russia.

    In recent years, participation in NATO has made European countries accomplices in US efforts to achieve global hegemony by means of military force, in violation of international law, and especially in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles.

    Former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Christof von Sponeck used the following words to express his opinion that NATO now violates the UN Charter and international law: “In the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the Charter of the United Nations was declared to be NATO’s legally binding framework. However, the United-Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO doctrine. NATO’s territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its members to include the whole world”

    At present the United States government has forced the European members of NATO to participate in aggressive operations in connection with the coup which it carried out against the elected government of Ukraine. The hubris, and reckless irresponsibility of the US government in risking a catastrophic war with Russia is almost beyond belief.

    According to The Guardian, June 16, 2016, “The largest war game in eastern Europe since the end of the cold war has started in Poland, as Nato and partner countries seek to mount a display of strength as a response to concerns about Russia’s assertiveness and actions.”

    “The 10-day military exercise, involving 31,000 troops and thousands of vehicles from 24 countries, has been welcomed among Nato’s allies in the region, though defence experts warn that any mishap could prompt an offensive reaction from Moscow.”

    “A defence attache at a European embassy in Warsaw said the “nightmare scenario” of the exercise, named Anaconda-2016, would be ‘a mishap, a miscalculation which the Russians construe, or choose to construe, as an offensive action’ ”.

    Do the people of Europe really want to participate in the madness of aggression against Russia? Of course not! What about European leaders? Why don’t they follow the will of the people and free Europe from bondage to the United States? Have our leaders been bribed? Or have they been blackmailed through personal secrets, discovered by the long arm of NSA spying?

    To save itself from the danger of nuclear annihilation, Europe must declare its independence from America, just as the United States once declared its independence from Britain.”

    • RobG

      In the debate about Europe there’s also no mention of the TTIP trade deal, which has been described as the most egregious assault on civil liberties in history. There’s no discussion about why Europe is experiencing the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War (American-led wars in North Africa and the Middle East); and of course there’s no debate about the EU’s relations with Russia, our nearest big neighbour and natural trading partner.

      Cameron, Hollande, Merkel, et al, are all bought and paid for by Washington.

      • Mark Golding

        ..with the added dividend of a United Kingdom within the EU influencing supranational and intergovernmental decision-making by the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council and the Court of Justice in favor of American interventionism or preemptive war; or in my terms a pragmatic US cyborg entity designed to see the world in binary good/evil terms, a low tolerance for diplomacy, a readiness to use military force, an emphasis on US unilateral action, a disdain for multilateral organizations (such as the EU) and a focus on disintegrating the Middle East into a major consolidated ISIS threat that will prevent Britain from developing a more constructive relationship with Iran(in the late 70’s I trained Iranian naval officers) and the worst refugee crisis in the recent history of man-kind that will further destabilise a rotting EU too boot.

        Use your intelligence & VOTE week.

  • Node

    I’ve got so much out of this blog over the years and I’ve tried to contribute in return. I haven’t complained (much!) when I’ve had posts deleted, sometimes justifiably, sometimes unfairly. However I am not a fluent writer – posting takes time and deletions hurt – so after a recent massacre of my posts by Craig, I’ve stopped trying. [Rebutting Anon1’s claim that Israel doesn’t kill Palestinian children with the statistic of 3 per week this century was deemed provocative]. I understand why a blog like this has to be careful but this was lazy contemptuous moderation. Respect needs to go both ways.

    I’ve never been one to cut off my nose to spite my face. This blog is still a valuable resource for me and I’ll continue to visit, both for Craig’s opinion pieces and the insights and links of some contributors, but I am no longer inclined to stake time and effort against Craig’s arbitrary whims.

    • John Spencer-Davis

      Sorry to hear it – you are a thoughtful and interesting commenter and I always look forward to reading your posts.

    • glenn_uk

      I’ll be sorry to see you go too, Node.

      Personally, I bang out the rubbish I post without having spent too much time, so the deletions aren’t any great loss. All the same, I don’t like to see thoughtful posts disappear just because the top post was deleted. Seems a bit unfair.

  • Republicofscotland

    “Thousands of Britons have signed a petition to cancel the upcoming referendum on the UK’s membership in the European Union in the wake of the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox.”

    “About 27,000 people have signed the petition on the Parliament website as of Saturday. The statement asked the British government to call off the vote due to be held on June 23.”


    I bet David Cameron is secretly or not so secretly for that matter, hoping the EU in out referendum does get cancelled.

    I for one think the in out referendum hasn’t a snowballs chance in hell of being cancelled, and if the in camp loses, David Cameron’s reign as PM could be over, and the Tories will go into full scale melt down.

    • Itsy

      “About 27,000 people have signed the petition on the Parliament website as of Saturday. The statement asked the British government to call off the vote due to be held on June 23.”

      I don’t see any logic in the death of Jo Cox producing that result. And I find it very suspicious given that Brexit were said to be firmly ahead.

      • Republicofscotland

        “I don’t see any logic in the death of Jo Cox producing that result. And I find it very suspicious given that Brexit were said to be firmly ahead.”



        Would it be reaching to think one thing is linked to the other? The untimely and tragic death of Jo Cox, with the backing of some of the press will undoubtedly change some folks votes from out to in.

        • Itsy

          But it doesn’t make sense, RoS. If a person was thoroughly convinced that ‘out’ was better, I don’t see how that death (no matter how tragic) would change someone’s mind. I just don’t see it.

          • Republicofscotland


            It’s amazing the the power the media hold over the populus, during the Scottish referendum of 2014, the media carried all sorts of fanciful stories from mobile phone charges going up to, Scotland would be open to attack fro m outerspace, Lord Robertson even had the audacity to say Scottish independence would lead to the Balkanization of Western Europe.

            It’s not the tragic death of Jo Cox, per se that will swing votes in favour of in it’s the accompanying media propaganda frenzy that has followed it, that might change minds.

          • Mark Golding

            MP Jo Cox murderer Thomas Mair arrested by armed police:


            I have noted the intelligence services presence. Witnesses confirm Mair did not shout ‘Britain First’ (a BREXIT group)

            Jo Cox opposing Israeli war crimes:

            The MP was an advocate for Palestinian rights and statehood. She advocated on behalf of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, as well. When a proposed BDS ban was brought to Parliament, Cox said, ‘I believe that this is a gross attack on democratic freedom …’

            Jo Cox, who has visited the West Bank and Gaza, said: ‘Like many I am deeply concerned about the large loss of life in Gaza, now into triple digits and rising by the day.’

            We love & miss you Jo

        • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

          I agree – along the lines “look at the hatred that the notion of Brexit engenders”

          • Anon1

            Cameron tweeted today: “Jo Cox’s strong voice in the campaign to remain in the EU will be badly missed.”

            Shameless use of the corpse of this poor woman for political purposes.

          • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

            Yes, Anon, that was rather surprising. I was rather expecting Remain politicians to put up a few “men in the street” to come out with that line.

    • Republicofscotland

      Police and FBI leave (alleged ) Orlando shooter Omar Mateen’s doors and windows of home wide open 24 hours after shootings. Press wander in and and out freely copying documents and taking photographs in unsecured flat.

      How could the police and the FBI, manage to leave the doors and windows opened of the (alleged) Orlando shooters flat and forget to secure them? You’d think that securing the (alleged ) shooters abode, and, one of the largest mass murders in US history would be a priority for the police and FBI.

      But then again I did read a similar cock-up, if that’s what it is? Regarding the San Bernardino shootings.

      • Republicofscotland

        “Hardware security export Damien Zammit revealed some startling revelations in a recent SoftPedia about the secret backdoor built in to new Intel CPUs that no one can touch or disable.”

        “The backdoor, called the Intel Management Engine (ME) is works as a secret subsystem inside your computer’s CPU and runs constantly even when your computer is not turned on.”

        “It works but setting up a TCP/IP server and since the subsystem has complete uncontrolled access to your computer’s hardware, including the network card and memory, it works without the knowledge of your computers operating system and can not be disabled by the OS or by your computer’s firewall.”

        “No one outside of Intel has seen the ME source code and security experts are warning the built-in backdoor has the potential to explode into the worst root kit ever with every modern Intel based CPU becoming compromised.”


        I recall reading a article that some firms were relucant to include a “backdoor” into their hardware, as it would compromise their security. Also recently Apple refused the FBI’s request to unlock a suspects iPhone, the FBI however managed to gain access to it, for what intentions to collect data? Or to to pant data? We’ll probably never know.

        If the above article is anything to go by, then online security or privacy will almost certainly be a thing of the past, add in the beefed up Snooper Charter, and we’re only a few steps away from thought crime.

        • Republicofscotland

          Crushing EU austerity is taking its toll on the Greek population, with some not eating properly others not receiving vital medication, and others feeling suicidal, due to decreasing income and high unemployement. There’s also been a sharp rise in infant mortality and mental illnesses.

          Yet the unrelenting EU pressure to pay back huge debts continues, would the Greeks be better off out of it ?

          • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

            Greece’s economic woes predate the 2008 financial crisis.

            The inevitable medium-term effects of profligate and clientelist public spending by successive govts on the one hand and parallel unwillingness to gather revenues due on the other were merely postponed for a while by the ability of Greeks govts to borrow at low interest rates as result of being in the Eurozone.

      • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

        Didn’t Hoover’s FBI and local police in Milwaukee leave the apartment of Arthur H. Bremer open after he assassinated former Governor George Wallace?

        It was to contaminate or lose any evidence which would show that the White House Plumbers, led by William King Harvey, and with E. Howard Hunt attempting the cover up, was involved..

        Was the Orlando shooting any inside job too?

        • Republicofscotland

          “Was the Orlando shooting any inside job too?”


          Good question Trowbridge, there are those who think so, as for my opinion, I’ll keep an open mind.

          There have been other staged events though in recent years, of which I won’t mention, which have been solely aimed at disarming Americans. A movie theatre and school spring to mind, in my opinion the authorities are capable of anything, but I’m sure you already know that. ?

        • Ben Monad

          “Was the Orlando shooting any inside job too?”

          The arrogance of power was ‘pantsed’ with the Church Committee so much that they had to unravel it after 9/11. They didn’t tamp down the arrogance for themselves; just went more underground.

          You mentioned MK Ultra and how it could have been revived, but why did they need to? All they have to do is provide suggestions, then leave the lock off the gun cabinet. They just point the subject in the right direction. They don’t care who or what locale is chosen but they hope enough public outrage will push the needle into the correct position. It’s more art than science, but it’s plausible deniability.

          • Ben Monad

            How many domestic jihadists involved in US incidents had no contact from FBI before the fact?

          • Republicofscotland

            According to this report Mateen’s father worked covertly for the US. I’ve read other reports claiming this as well.


            “Seddique Mir Mateen, father of Omar Mateen (the individual that killed around fifty gays in Orlando in the name of Isis), worked for the US secret services in Afghanistan during the war against the communist government and its ally, the Soviet Union (1979-89). After that, he migrated to the US where Omar was born.”

        • Resident Dissident

          Just because you refer to one conspiracy that may hold some water it doesn’t provide a shred of evidence to make a claim that Orlando 43 years later was of a similar nature.

          BTW it was not an assassination of George Wallace but a failed assassination.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

            Wrong again, RD, as Governor Wallace was rendered incapable of carrying on as an important politician because of the injuries he sustained.

            You don’t have to kill the target in an assassination. You just have to render them useless.

            Why don’t you do some research before just making a wild claim which is wrong?

          • Resident Dissident

            Might I suggest you look at the dictionary definition of assasination- what happened was a failed assassination attempt. Wallace lived another 20 years and although in a wheel chair continued to be politically active – including as Governor of Alabama.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

            Just another example of your mindlessness.

            One does not have to kill someone to assassinate them. You just have to injure them most seriously which happened in Wallace’s case.

            One can even assassinate one’s character.

            Check your dictionary rather than just mouth off again.

          • Resident Dissident


            Check your dictionary – the main meaning in mine (the OED) was to kill.

          • Resident Dissident

            I also note you have moved from “render them useless” to injure them seriously”

            And even your Chambers has

            “assassinate verb (assassinated, assassinating) 1 to murder, especially for political or religious reasons”.

            So it is not an English – American thing either. My reference to a “failed assassination” was undoubtedly correct.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

            Never said it was main meaning. Just said it was a meaning, along with assassinating one’s behavior, like one’s character.

            One could almost say that Reagan was assassinated, as he was never really with it after John Hinckley, Jr. assassinated him for being behind Lennon’s assassination.

            Do you really think most words only have one meaning?

          • John Spencer-Davis

            If someone wrote that “Ronald Reagan was assassinated”, I would assume that the act left him dead. I think anyone would.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

            Certainly, I don’t think so, J S-D, as Governor Wallace was assassinated, but he didn’t die, just left so incapacitated that he could no longer seek the Democratic nomination, much less run as a third party candidate.

            Still waiting for your synopsis of my work on man-made earthquakes and weather modification of military significance.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            I have just looked at a dozen or so sources online. None say Wallace was assassinated. They either say “attempted assassination”, “would-be assassin” or some variation thereof, or that he was shot and paralysed. I know that there is no point arguing about it with you, but I would be very interested if you could post any link at all that says George Wallace was assassinated. I doubt that you will find one.


            “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

            “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

            “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

            Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871)


            I know you are, and I’m sorry: I haven’t yet summoned the energy to do it. I suppose if you wish to believe that two aeroplanes fell out of the sky because someone shot a hand-held laser on each and it summoned a lightning bolt which set the planes on fire, you’re welcome to do so. But I haven’t forgotten.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

            Just because Anglo-American political correctness prevents individuals and the media from describing the assassination of George Wallace is not my doing, but his murder is the best example I can think of in history where an important politician survived his assassination.

            I have written about the assassinations that Nixon et al. arranged, and I rightly called the shooting of Wallace by The Plumbers an assassination. No one, not even Woodward and Bernstein, are even in the ballparks when it writes about their assassination.

            I didn’t make up this definition of assassination as it was around well before I was born.

            As expected, I shall be waiting forever for your summary.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Murder, too? So he was murdered, as well as being assassinated, and yet he was alive at the end of it, is that correct?

            I wonder if you could then post a link, or any reference at all, in any written work, to anyone who was still living after an assassination, and yet the reference describes the act as an assassination, apart from your own usage. If the definition has been around well before you were born, then surely that should be an easy matter.

            Well: time will tell, but I am afraid it isn’t a high priority at the moment, sorry.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

            I’m sure that if you consult historical works, you can find examples of kings or important political figures who suffered assassination, but survived it.

            Just think of the Byzantine emperors who were butchered in various ways, and then exiled to the boondocks for the rest of their days.

            Or look for what the Assassins did during the Crusades in Steven Runciman’s three volume history..

            Can’t waste my time either to find other examples which fit the definition of what happened to Wallace.


          • John Spencer-Davis

            No: I’m sure, as with my search for descriptions of what happened to Wallace, that what I would find would be examples of attempted assassination.

            You did not answer my question regarding whether or not Wallace was murdered, since you just referred to “his murder”, two postings back. Given your current position that he was assassinated, I have no idea whether or not you think he was murdered as well. Surely it won’t take you very long to clear that point up. Thanks.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

            Wallace was politically murdered as Bob Haldeman put it when he prepared his complaints about the politics of the time for publication: “We see Nixon tell the IRS to start doing audits on Democratic campaign contributions: Nixon manipulating George Wallace before and after he was shot, using money and IRS threats to keep Wallace out of the 1972 race.” (Qouted fromThe Haldeman Diaries, p. 2)

            This is a political assassination where the target survives as a basket case.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            “Politically murdered” and “politically assassinated” are different phrases to “murdered” or “his murder” and “assassination”. It’s obvious at once that the murder or assassination is not intended literally, since it is qualified. I suggest that if that is what you mean, then you say it, because otherwise you are implying that the victim has been killed.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

            See that the investigators of the MH370 crash are giving up on their search for its wreckage, settling for the original theory that a ‘rogue pilot’ did it rather than those two Iranians with their stolen passports, and their hand-held laser.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Could you please quote a dictionary definition which shows this. Thanks.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            These nested comments don’t go far enough. We need 128 response levels at least…From Trowbridge AKA The County Town of Wiltshire –

            Still waiting for your synopsis of my work on man-made earthquakes and weather modification of military significance.

            There is a single word which covers this ‘work’ in its entirety. It is not a polite word.

            Points to RD, though, for getting the ol’ hand-held laser another outing. And what do points mean? No, they’re the basis of the Australian immigration system. Sorry.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Not at all. Here is the Free Dictionary:


            tr.v. as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing, as·sas·si·nates

            1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.

            2. To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival’s character.


            Do you see the word character? That demonstrates that “assassinate” here is being applied to an abstraction, not to a person. That is underlined by the word destroy, because you can destroy an abstraction in the same way as you would murder a person, in the sense of extinguishing it. Furthermore, if assassination could be used in the sense you imply, then definition one would read like this: “To murder or injure treacherously (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons”. Do you agree with that statement or do you not?

            I would like you to quote a dictionary definition which shows that you can assassinate a person in the sense of injuring them treacherously. Can you do this, please? Thanks.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

            Your Dictionary gives this definition of the word assassinate:

            “2, (figuratively) To harm, ruin or defame severely or destroy by treachery, slander, libel or obscure attack.”

            It’s talking about harming someone severely, you pointless quibbler.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Do you see the word figuratively? That means not literally, so it is not talking about physical harm. That is also made obvious by the nouns used to describe the harm: “treachery, slander, libel, or obscure attack”.

            You need to quote a dictionary definition which applies to harm done by literal attack. Please could you do this? Thanks.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford aka The Biscuit

            You are the one who is confusing literal as opposed to the figurative meaning of a word, like I could literally eat a horse or my hand is frozen.

            I am not going to look further for examples of the meaning of assassinate which suit your confused quibbles.

            George Wallace was assassinated in my book.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            The definition you yourself quoted said the meaning was figurative. If you do someone literal harm, that means injuring them physically. If you do them figurative harm, it means injuring them in a non-physical way.

            Of course you are not going to look for further definitions – it’s obvious why.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            You are absolutely right. If someone says he is literally going to eat a horse, he means exactly that. Didn’t you know that?

        • Ba'al Zevul

          Simple question, T – when you hear someone’s been assassinated do you have any expectation at all that they’re going to get better?

  • Abdussattar Chhipa, Dishonorary Consul

    Per moderation parameters, this is not repeat NOT about 9**, but rather an interesting general insight into the way intelligence agencies collude in a ‘Safari Club’ arrangement, with one intelligence agency using a foreign agency’s assets as cutouts.

    US and Saudi officials cooperating to flout the Vienna Convention on Consular relations and its provisions on foreign interference and incompatible usage, then using freedom-of-movement provisions to exfiltrate joint agents.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.