Wikileaks – Choose Your Side of the Barricade 452

Today Julian reaches precisely five years of incarceration in the Ecuadorean Embassy and I am on the train down to London for events to mark the anniversary. Given that two days ago I couldn’t make it to my balcony, I feel quite chuffed with my powers of recovery.

Yesterday I wrote that Corbyn’s advance has removed the “unelectable policies” excuse from New Labour and they have now to decide whether they are actually socialist or have adopted neo-liberalism out of belief.

Precisely the same faux-left now face precisely the same challenge over Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The “sexual allegations” never stood up to five minutes’ serious analysis, but they served their purpose brilliantly for some years. They enabled the “left” of the political establishment completely to evade the question of whether they supported whistleblowers on war crimes and corruption, or whether they supported official secrecy and the spiralling authoritarianism that defends the neo-liberals.

There is now only one active question with regard to Julian Assange. Do you think he should be extradited to the United States to face espionage charges and life imprisonment for publishing the Chelsea Manning Iraq war crime revelations, and for assisting Edward Snowden to escape? Because that is now the only legal jeopardy he faces.

All the faux-left who dodged that question now have to answer it.

Assange is wanted by the Metropolitan Police for what they themselves have called the “minor charge” of missing a bail appointment. It is indeed a minor charge, normally dealt with by a fine, particularly as the extradition request relating to the bail order is no longer in force. Assange’s defence is that he did not skip bail to run away, but to seek an alternative legal remedy – the political asylum process. That this latter has priority is proven by the fact that there are numerous people granted asylum in the UK who face “criminal” charges in their home country. Fear of persecution – often by unjust prosecution – is of course the basis of asylum.

But even ignoring this solid defence, there are many thousand people in the UK today who have missed bail. Julian Assange is the only one of those thousands with a permanent roster of plain clothes detectives keeping watch 24 hours a day. Why, when there are no longer any allegations for him to face? There is no open and honest logic to it.

The answer of course is that Theresa May and Amber Rudd have plans firmly in place for Assange to be arrested and incarcerated, while extradition to the United States is quickly arranged. That is why a man wanted on nothing but a “minor charge” has more police resources devoted to him than any murderer. Again I ask – which side are you on?

Liked this article? Please consider sharing (links below). Then View All Latest Posts

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>

452 thoughts on “Wikileaks – Choose Your Side of the Barricade

1 2 3
  • Adam Burgess

    It is easy to “free” Julian from “incarceration”.

    All you do is persuade him to come down from his massive ego-trip and walk out the front door.

    • John Carter

      Then the British police would grab him and keep him in a cell for jumping bail. Please try to keep up.

      • duplicitousdemocracy

        Martinned has assured any Assange supporters that the police presence has been removed. However, despite recent high profile events having stretched the services (and not impacted by the 19,000 police officers that Mrs May managed to discard with), I find it highly unlikely that Mr Assange could simply stroll out of the embassy. The cost of the current surveillance will have been shifted to a department that can conceal sensitive statistics much more efficiently. Extradition to the US should only be considered when the US prison system ceases to be the most barbaric institution in the ‘civilised’ world and the death penalty scrapped. Actual evidence of criminality would be nice too.

    • John Carter

      I agree he’s got a massive ego, but I don’t have to like him to consider it outrageous that he is being locked up for something he has been framed for, nor to condemn his persecution by the governments of the US, Britain and Sweden, nor to admire a lot of what he has done. Encouraging whistleblowers is good. The model of every whistleblower sending their info to a central address run by a heroic organisation is shite.

      • Ba'al Zevul

        He hasn’t been framed for releasing thousands of classified documents, though, has he? Or has he? Perhaps US embassies worldwide were instructed to give him what he wanted with a view to advancing the Illuminati/Mason/Rothschild agenda? Maybe not quite…

        The pro-Assange view is that he is a defender of civil liberties and champion of the publc against official secrecy. But looking at it coldly, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the effect of his actions has been to tighten up security – no responsible government would do otherwise – and introduce new constraints on freedom of information. While what Wikileaks has released, when not obsolete or when of any value at all, may principally have been of mild interest to other governments than the US, and to newspaper editors with a penchant for gossip. Seriously. What has Wikileaks achieved, apart from embarrassing US civil servants and a major review of security?

        • Stu

          He published evidence of war crimes.

          That is incredibly useful. It is not primarily down to Assange/Wikileaks that the USA and it’s vassals are unwilling to make war directly at the moment but they are a central plank in a grass roots movement which has informed the public about the nature of war and it’s consequences and made it difficult for western politicians to commit significant forces into Syria or escalate with Iran and North Korea.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            He published evidence of war crimes…

            Which we knew about already. Sometimes from the MSM. And given that the usual procedure is to divert the flak to someone lower in the chain of command than the person responsible for giving the unclear orders responsible, as much justice has been done in these cases as ever will be done. So not incredibly useful. at all. It might have been, if, say, the US had remembered that it doesn’t condone barbarity and is hence superior to less ‘advanced’ societies, but instead it was content with ‘shit happens’, a much more rational if less idealistic viewpoint.

            a grass roots movement which has informed the public about the nature of war… People with parents or grandparents who went through WW2, or earlier forebears who went through WW1 -most of them – probably had a sneaking suspicion that war wasn’t terribly nice, without the grass roots movement. I’d suggest that the movement hasn’t grown much numerically for several decades, that mass marches have little effect, and that it wasn’t so much the atrocities that were condemned outside the antiwar bubble, as the expense, and the loss of UK Service lives.

            You may see – I do hope not, but you may – that it is quite easy for western politicians to commit significant forces into Syria or escalate with Iran and North Korea. All it takes is an executive order signed by an egomaniac with an emotional age of three. And he would have significant backing from at least half his public.

            Of course, that same egomaniac is on record as welcoming the damage done to his possibly more rational opponents by ….Wikileaks… and ensuring that he won office.

            # incredibly useful.

  • Hieroglyph

    I know this one!

    Actually, I have 2 answers. Firstly, Assange should never be extradited, obviously.

    Secondly, if he is extradited, then a whole bunch of people should also be extradited to Brussels – namely The Hague. And the relevant charge is war crimes. Can’t apply the law just to Assange, after all, that’s not fair and proper process. So, that would be Blair, obviously. Clinton (Bill) for his crimes in Yugoslavia. Clinton (Hilary) for, well, just everything she’s ever done. Obomber (bit too drone happy). Bush (the dolt) for Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush (the evil Vader one) for being a Bond villian. Cheney, just because he’s Cheney. And I suppose a whole bunch of neocons just so we can point and laugh at their ridiculous, Nazi-esque justifications. And say what you like about Goering, he at least played the part of a villain, hamming it up in castle in France, wearing a dress and being addicted to opium; they surely don’t make ’em like the used to.

    But of course, Assange is ‘little people’ and this subject to arbitrary laws. Neocons are not subject to any laws at all – literally. I bet a fair few are serial killers, too.

    • Andrew Nichols

      The Hague is the place where all the big war criminals (usually white and English speaking send all the little war criminals (usually non-white /non English speaking)

  • glenn_uk

    I also oppose any moves to extradite JA anywhere, and agree that the fact he was forced to seek asylum is a disgrace to the UK.

    However. I do find it gives pause for thought that not one of the leaks concerns Israel, the Saudis, the Republicans (particularly not Trump himself), or official dear friends of the US. Leaks were very helpful to Trump, exceedingly harmful to the Democrats, and what’s this business of Farage hanging around at the Ecuadorean Embassy, right around the time Farage was also regularly palling around with Trump?

    Farage – for his part – told a Buzzfeed reporter that spotted him that he could not remember why he was just there.

    Is Assange entirely neutral, or have an agenda? Did he have a vendetta against Clinton (which is understandable), or does his libertarian view lend support to the crazed ideologues propping up Trump? Do all the Wikileaks presented give the full picture, or are we having a selected view – or is Wikileaks being used?

    This makes Assange and WL less than entirely frank and trustworthy, IMHO, but regardless – extradition threats are an absolute outrage. If the UK wanted to cement its international reputation of being the most craven stooge of the US, it need do no more than keep up this threat and deny Assange his liberty.

    • J

      If I was Trump and I wanted to make Corbyn look really bad, would I think twice about asking Mr Farage to do me a favour and develop a sudden diplomatic interest in Ecuador? Has anyone bothered to ask Nigel Farage what he was doing there?

      • glenn_uk

        “Has anyone bothered to ask Nigel Farage what he was doing there?

        Yes – a Buzzfeed reporter who spotted him coming out of the Embassy. Farage said that he couldn’t remember.

        • J

          Okay. So unless he was operating under hypnosis, we know what he was really implying.

          Does that automatically make what he implied true? If so, how?

      • J

        How did the Buzzfeed reporter happen to be at the embassy? And since he made certain public inferences about Mr Farage being there, shouldn’t he also be asked? Is he often to be found hanging out there?

        Just sayin, everything I’ve seen on this story can read several ways.

      • J

        OP: “..make Corbyn look..” should of course read “..make Assange look..”


        • glenn_uk

          I did wonder. I suppose JA could have cleared it up. If he had nothing to do with Farage and rightfully regarded Trump as a vulgar, corrupt, dangerous idiot, he could have said so. Are people even allowed to enter the Embassy uninvited?

          • Squonk

            Farage was there with Christian Mitchell – Head of Operations at LBC, where Farage has a show (many reports don’t mention that) and LBC later tweeted that you would have to listen to LBC for what it was about (IIRC). But nothing more was heard.

          • J

            “Are people even allowed to enter the Embassy uninvited?”

            Good point. And are they allowed to enter by appointment?

            I have an idea what reaction there would have been had JA denied it, but I’m not making the argument, I’m just pointing out that so far, like the whole Russia leaks story, all we have so far is inference. It’s not as if Trump is not eminently impeachable, just that the Democrats seem to be attacking him with their weakest cards. Why?

            Isn’t it more likely that they control Trump, since he’s continuing everything they’ve been doing from war to pipelines. Look at the Dakota pipeline which was authorised by the Obama administration, paused briefly during the election and then immediately re-authorised. What was the difference apart from the presentation?

            On our impressions of Julian Assange, how did they get there? Did we see or were we told? When gently pushed, most of the main narratives of the last seventeen years have fallen over to be revealed as nothing more than opportunistic lies. Why are we still expecting anything different?

    • Andrew Nichols

      Israel, the Saudis, the Republicans (particularly not Trump himself), or official dear friends of the US
      WikiLeaks is a conduit, not an originator of material. Dig some up and send it and it will be published. That’s the way it works. Even I can work that one out

    • Temporarily Sane

      You are drawing conclusions heavily influenced by reports from the MSM, which isn’t exactly fond of Wikileaks or Julian Assange, and your own admitted bias against them. A lot of “what ifs” and “what abouts” tied together by unfounded speculation. Not very compelling I’m afraid.

      As for leaks concerning Israel, Saudi Arabia etc. you do know that WikiLeaks can only release information that is leaked to them anonymously, right? They can’t just order up a report on this or that country or organization.

      You write a post bracketed with “concern” for Assange’s liberty but have nothing positive to say about him or WikiLeaks whatsoever. That’s a bit odd. And you include speculation about Assange’s “libertarian view” and fantasies about his “support” for Trump and the Republican Party that could have been taken from the anti-Wikileaks polemics run by the NYT or Guardian. It’s clear that your knowledge of WikiLeaks and Assange comes from incredibly biased sources. That’s very strange given that Assange has publicly responded to the accusations made against him and even forced the Guardian to retract one of the more atrocious hit pieces it ran against him. Nonetheless, I am sure your concern for Julian Assange’s liberty is absolutely genuine.

    • Phil the ex-frog

      Glenn UK
      “Is Assange entirely neutral, or have an agenda? ”

      Those who claim to be neutral are blind to their own proclivities or lying. Those who seek neutrality in others are ripe for having the wool pulled over their eyes.

      They’re impartial! They’re fair! They use common sense! The neutral moderates are upon us!

    • Roderick Russell


      As I see it, the MSM ran a one sided propaganda campaign against Trump in the Presidential election. Not that dissimilar to the almost one-sided campaign that the MSM also ran in the UK’s recent election. It seems to me that it would not have been necessary for an anti-Trump (or anti Corbyn) campaigner to use Wikileaks to get their story out. If a story supports the establishment viewpoint (and the Clinton’s had the establishment solidly behind them) the MSM would only have been too delighted to publish it themselves without needing an intermediary. I suggest that this maybe why Wikileaks can appear to be one-sided, since anti-establishment stories need them to get into the public eye, whereas pro-establishment stories don’t.

      I confess to supporting Assange. I also confess to being appalled that the MSM should effectively attempt to decide elections by pumping propaganda at the people, rather than giving them the facts so that they can decide for themselves.

  • Shatnersrug

    Craig please ban martinned – he has derailed the entire thread repeating the same now obvious disprovable rubbish and wasted plenty of posters concern arguing with his nonsense. It’s concern trolling pure and simple and serves no use.

    • glenn_uk

      People don’t get banned here for having contrary views, Shatnersrug. We do get our posts deleted for non-obvious reasons annoyingly often, though.

      • Phil the ex-frog

        Glenn UK
        “People don’t get banned here for having contrary views,”

        Um. Not sure about that. For example, isn’t Bevin banned for being a racist*?

        *Bevin isn’t a racist.

        • craig Post author

          Bevin is banned for advocating that people vote for the fascist Marine LePen. If Bevin is not a racist, he is extremely stupid.

          • mog

            Read hundreds of Bevin’s posts and never saw any sign that he/she was either a racist or ‘stupid’.

          • Monteverdi

            How strange to ban someone for advocating voting for a legitimate candidate in the French Presidential election !!

          • Phil Ex-Frog

            Like many here and elsewhere Bevin’s error, in my view, is to prioritise anti-imperialism over most everything and to feel compelled to take sides when faced with nothing but unbearable shitty choices. This mentality leads people into all sorts of weird places. His judgement was stupid. He seems to me an old school lefty with an unresolved authoritarian fancy. But he is not a racist.

            Anyway, I was merely pointing out to Glenn UK that he was incorrect to say:

            People don’t get banned here for having contrary views

          • Disinterested Bystander

            It’s Craig’s website so it’s up to him to set the rules out how he thinks fit. Free speech doesn’t come into it.

            I believe Bevin was advocating Le Pen because he felt that she was better than Macron with his monetarist views. However Craig had given fair warning in a blog post that he wouldn’t tolerate support on here for the Fascist Le Pen or her Fascist party. So Bevin has only got himself to blame for pushing his luck.

            I would consider Craig Murray’s politics to be slightly left of centre but he does allow discussion of his articles across a broad spectrum of political opinion for which I congratulate him. Add in the, what I consider, sensible moderation and the debates are allowed to flow without the sheer nastiness which ruins some of the other political websites’ forums and discussion boards.

          • Dave Price

            I greatly miss Bevin’s contribution to the debates. From the many posts of his I read (and which I always looked out for) I would say there was no evidence whatsoever that he/she was a racist. And he certainly was not stupid.

          • Laguerre

            Me, I find bevin entertaining. nice to hear left-wing stuff well-argued. If he supported Le Pen at one point, I wouldn’t say it was his fundamental belief. Lots were against Macron for reasons I don’t quite understand. We don’t know yet what his policy will be. Probably because he is supposed to be a bankster. Some went foolishly so far as to support Le Pen, including apparently bevin.

            Well, in the end Macron won massively. Campaign brilliantly run. We don’t know yet what the policy will be. But i doubt that it will be bankster-puppet Thatcherite stuff. The French won’t accept that. That’s the mistake that bevin made.

          • fwl

            It may be Craig’s blog and he is free to close it down, but so long as it’s open for postings it open for anyone to argue for alternate rules. Whether they are adopted is another matter. I think it was going too far to ban simply for advocating voting for a particular candidate, although banning for droning on about any point of view is fine and given our good host’s FO background a certain occasional capriciousness in the exercise of censorship is to be tolerated.

          • K Crosby

            Haw can someone who votes in a fascist electoral system not be fascist? A few weeks ago, about 2/3 of the British electorate voted fascist.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            @ Disinterested Bystander…you feel ‘freedom of speech doesn’t come into it.’

            Yes, I see your point, and I’ve made it myself from time to time. It is Craig’s blog, and it’s up to him. The referee’s decision is final.

            But it’s a bloody bad decision, and the promotional video doesn’t support it. The video shows Craig advocating freedom of expression at every possible turn, while at the same time describing anyone advocating Brexit, let alone LePen, as a racist. And god help anyone who suggests that what Craig regards as racism is, below civilisation’s veneer and the thin spray-paint of political correctness, inherent to the human psyche.

            I think it is permissible to draw attention to some double standards here. To suppress an opinion clearly indicates that you are scared of it. On your own blog? Anyhoo…

            Bevin isn’t a racist by any criterion, except perhaps the one which deems anyone who voted Leave to be a racist, which I gather applies here, and explicitly to me among several others.

            For either Macron or LePen, you’d have to hold your nose when voting. But there is absolutely no way a Blairesque slimeball like Macron is going to do anything other than promote the globalist agenda in a country which has resisted it better than most so far.

            Any true socialist, racist or not, can see that much. And can be forgiven for advocating the opposition. Which happens to be the only party to notice that free movement of cheap labour isn’t doing the man in the street any favours, and that unassimilated immigrants are a focus for social disorder.

            I’m pretty sure Bevin is a true – if sometimes prolix – socialist. Bring him back, please.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ craig Post author June 20, 2017 at 10:38
            Are you sure Bevin saw your warning?

      • Shatnersrug

        No but they do for repeating the same pathetic non argument like Martinned -Craig has responded anyhow.

      • Monteverdi

        It would appear by Craig’s reply at 10.38am below people do indeed get banned here ” for having contrary views ”.
        I’m really amazed at his given reason for banning a poster on this blog. I’ve read this blog for a couple of years and am surprised and depressed at Craig’s given reason for exercising a ban.

        • Macky

          You would be further sicken if you were here when the Ukraine crisis kicked-off, asa certain Craig Murray was bending over backwards,and shouting people down for mentioning the fascists involved in the Coup, a coup that he supported.

          Back to Bevin, you would have to be stupid yourself to call him either racist or stupid, his real crime was to articulate strong arguments against Craig’s beloved EU fantasy.

  • Madeleine Love

    Well framed article. Indeed I saw the intellectual left’s strangely difficult struggle with the problem here in Australia, in long rambling essays. It was “good” to share the Manning leaks – the circumstances for which Assange was wanted for questioning were “bad”. At that time (2010) I hadn’t yet fully comprehended that the Australian government was a long-time puppet government of the same major forces in the United States. I still thought we were a strong independent human rights country that had suffered one destructive Prime Minister (John Howard), dragging us screaming & kicking into the Iraq War in 2003. In 2007 I’d stood for the Australian Senate for a micro-party, an action Assange tried six years later. (NB – I learnt some Australians found Howard’s rhetorically paternal air comforting 🙁 The party I represented was “What Women Want (Australia)” – naturally issues of sexual assault took a prominant place in the party’s platform. Yet in 2010 it was clear that Assange should be protected, brought back to Australia to keep publishing, and that if he was subsequently found to have done wrong by some women, to be hung by his balls here, while still publishing. Why wasn’t this so obvious to the intellectual left? Perhaps… Manning’s wikileaks cables showed the Australian political left to be profoundly traitorous to the US. So many prominant left politicians were given the [protect] designation by the authors of embassy cables. Strangely I saw none of this for LNP politicians – I decided this right coalition in Australia must be an unashamed direct offshoot of US business interest, but that the major left party had actually been captured, it seems now by the Clinton-related machines.
    So when you ask individuals to choose which side of the barricade I think you ask for a choice between ideology of moral right, and power.

    • Madeleine Love

      re “traitorous to the US” – I mean to say traitorous to Australia in favour of the US.

  • David Venables

    I am not legally qualified to say whether or not JA committed a crime in the US or whether he should face extradition to the US to face trial. The fact that some of our legal minded commenters cannot arrive at a consensus leaves me in a position as a juror to base my reaction on common sense.
    Personally I believe that the actions of Manning and Wikileaks/JA were no different to those of Snowden and The Guardian/GG. Snowdon is in hiding and GG is in Brazil. As a concerned citizen I applaud all their efforts and unselfishness in exposing the brutality of the US military and the endless creeping of state surveillance and invasion of our privacy. No case was brought against the Guardian so no publisher went to jail. Manning has served her time and is now released. I don’t see that Wikileaks did anything different than The Guardian.
    I often admire Freds attempts to counter the indy supporters with facts but in this case believe his arguments to be irrelevant. I therefore find for Assange in this case.

  • giyane

    Iraq, a classic CIA/MI6 stitch-up, firstly placing a ruthless Sunni leader in power with considerable tribal and religious local support, then putting up Saddam to a Nationalist with religious overtones war against its neighbour Iran, then infiltrating the youth of the country with Islamist Jihadism causing a crackdown from Saddam, and finally shoe-horning in the gewads/pimps who could pump the oil directly into the USUKIS bank accounts.

    Yesterday we witnessed MI6’s double act in front of our very eyes when after putting up a couple of their religious extremists to run over innocent non-Muslims bystanders, they got one of their tame army-trained South Wales nationalist fanatics to repeat the process against innocent Muslim bystanders. By MI6 I include the organisations of local politics, local police, army and MI6, the tools of the neo-colonial UK state.

    It isn’t as though skulduggery comes cheap. It’s far more profitable to have peaceful relations with the rest of the world than to have the world squinting down their clothes-pegged noses about engaging at all with our pariah state.

    At this moment in time Russia and China are stronger than USUKIS because they have adopted moralities and principles which have allowed them to be invited into the Middle east, Africa, and Sunni Muslim countries east of the Middle east. USUKIS has blotted its copybook so much it’s extremely hard to see any writing underneath the globs of terror ink.

    No amount of sweet talk from those sweet republican neo-cons can tippex their copybook into the kind of clear, principled world view Russia and China have. It’s hard to see how venting their rage about the inevitable failure of their twisted politics against Julian Assange on a trumped-up sexual charge is going to redress the problem. I suppose USUKIS is young enough a civilisation to still think venting rage is going to change something, instead of much older civilisations that understand that it will probably lead to convulsions or a heart attack.

    While they may huff and puff I doubt this wolf will blow the house down. The world will glide smoothly into Chinese and Russian financial and political dominance. Wise move of Assange’s not to stick his head out the chimney pot, but rather to prepare the boiling cauldron for the descending, rage-blinded wolf.

  • oQ

    Legally he is right as for people’s opinion, that can differ.
    If he leaves free, who will protect him from the nut jobs?

    • Ishmael

      I take it you mean none state ones. Staying out of the US would probably be a good idea.

      Unfortunately the murderers in the state are far more dangerous. Their are lots of them and they have all the taxes they want to enact serial killing with impunity. And let’s be real, they write there own laws so psychopath behaviour is fine.

  • Ishmael

    This is how states corrupt. “ill pick this law, ignore that, make up this one”…These people have no moral centre, it’s clearly all a game to them.

    And that people can just ignore it (Or even worship it, Right wingers) …Naa, there is nothing “legitimate” (what I assume to derive from some biblical concept) about a state.

    A uniform, A “position” makes no difference to an act. Yet it’s wildly out of kilter in this society reflected in outcomes.

    I don’t know how they can all go on as they do tbh.

  • Ottomanboi

    Wikileaks…the org. manage by Assange which contrived to release the names and addresses of the few remaining Jews in Iraq, thus putting their lives in danger, with apparently no regrets.
    What did the republic of Ecuador hope to gain by offering ‘sanctuary’ to this Walter Mittyesque person. Assange the man needs to be disentangled from the wider issue of informing on state terrorism, national security and individual rights and responsibilties.

      • Tony_0pmoc

        J, copy and paste the relevant parts of Ottomanboi’s first sentence into Google to find the original wikileaks cable and the press reports at the time.

    • Ishmael

      Are their lives in danger as a result of those releases?

      Why is it different when “Assange” wikileaks (& that’s what really needs disentangling here, This clear identity “issue” people always float) prints stuff that’s “potently harmful” yet when other news outlets help war happen? With all the consequences that entails, That’s all fine.

      • Kempe

        I should imagine they are especially as the leak revealed they’d had contact with the US embassy.

        That isn’t the point though, Wikileaks should be guided by the public interest and how was it in any way in the public interest to reveal the names and addresses of these people?

        • Ishmael

          I don’t care what you imagine, I care what the real risks people face are. In that I’m not saying there might not be issues worth considering, but what were actually taking about is the means to find out about someone, not something that’s a motivation.

          If this is the case (and I believe it is) then not only should roots be considered more than means, but jeez, Check out Facebook, google, the NSA. They can’t keep anything safe and are working hard not to, must put countless people at risk every day. Let alone as I said, the press helping making war.

          This is not some proportional highlighting of an issue (if there is one) it’s simply used like many other assumptions, as a stick to beat Assange and wikileaks as a legitimate organisation altogether. Given the state of most the press nowadays this is an absurd twisted attack.

          • Kempe

            ” Check out Facebook, google, the NSA. They can’t keep anything safe and are working hard not to, must put countless people at risk every day. ”

            The whole thrust of your argument is that because you think other organisations betray confidences it’s OK for Wikileaks to do likewise. Sorry but this is rubbish.

    • Ishmael

      For those who identify as a jewish id be more concerned about the right wing. In the face of racial tension expansion by them, wilfully, purposefully, I think any potential issues (and I’m sure these things are considered by wikileaks) pale in comparison to the feeding of underline motivations for people to segregate themselves in some kind of “racial” safe space. And that of course the “other” is an enemy and who’s interest are at odds.

  • reel guid

    Assange’s political views aren’t relevant. Fine legal quibbles aren’t relevant. The United States is a criminal state that wants it’s UK sidekick criminal state to extradite someone for exposing the truth. It’s a moral matter and not a political or legal one. And it’s profoundly immoral to hand over an individual to a rogue state. Julian Assange’s extradition should be opposed.

    • frankywiggles

      People of conscience will instinctively oppose it. Sadly there’s no chance of that including the PM: evidenced by those she genuflects to abroad – Saudi and America’s racist robber baron; by her extension of austerity even to her core support; by her alliance with extreme loyalist bigots; by her instinctive reaction to the London tower block survivors. No matter how many people oppose Assange’s extradition, or how loudly, he’ll have to hang tough until the Tories’ immoral misrule is ended.

  • Stu

    The SNP which Craig told us are as radical as Corbyn are now proposing to cut Air Passenger Duty tax.

    Talk left, govern right. The SNP secret mantra.

    • reel guid

      Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary wants to greatly increase his airline’s presence in Scotland providing something is done about APD. If the SNP did nothing in light of that then you and all their usual detractors on this blog would be accusing them of failing to create jobs.

      • Republicofscotland

        reel guid.

        Yip, a cut in APD will help create more tourism, and more jobs in Scotland as well. It might even boost the flagging fortunes of Prestwick airport, if it doesn’t win the space race.

          • fred

            Saying that right wing policies will create jobs does.

            As a working class man I don’t travel by plane, I catch the bus from Inverness as it passes. A reduction in airport duty is going to mean a reduction in the number of buses and an increase in fares. What about the bus drivers losing their jobs? Or the people who drive the Edinburgh London trains?

            The reduction, even possible abolition of airport tax, will benefit the airline owners and benefit the rich who can afford to travel by air but there is no evidence it will benefit jobs or the budget and it certainly won’t benefit the environment.

          • reel guid

            I don’t see how having more Ryanair planes at Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick is going to affect rural bus routes.

            You also contradict yourself by saying that it’s only the rich who can afford to travel by air. Yet somehow this will result in fewer passengers on buses and trains.

          • Republicofscotland

            Poor Fred always bleating about services in the Highlands, yet he’s determined to remain in Scotland, even though he doesn’t really like Scots.

      • Stu

        Reel Guid….. Is there a single thing that the SNP could do which you would not approve of? Reading your extremely defensive contributions here it seems like you don’t actually have any opinions beyond SNP good. Support for independence shouldn’t mean support for any policy that the SNP think up.

        Cutting a tax which will benefit the rich at a time when a public pay sector freeze is in action and council services are being cut should be anathema to anyone considers themselves left of centre or progressive never mind a socialist. Any policy which is essentially dependent on significantly raised carbon emissions is also highly objectionable.

        If Ryanair are behind this is it is disgusting. They are a company who have no regard for the environment or their workers. We saw the SNP lick the boots of Trump. Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos seems to be influencing their fracking policy. The SNP bottled land reform. They were ready to let the Crown rewrite legal statues to get rid of corroboration until a huge public outcry. Removing local authority oversight from education reeks of the Academy/Charter School movement which is in the ascendancy in England and the USA.

        It seems like the SNP’s ideological framework is so weak that any kind of moneyed interest can buy whatever policy they choose.

        • reel guid

          There’s a great difference between being perennially in favour of low taxes and pragmatically reducing a specific tax in order to create jobs. Most governments of the genuine centre left are prepared to sometimes reduce a specific form of tax if it reduces unemployment. The SNP are not ideologically hard left and neither do they delude themselves that a perfect world is within their reach.

        • Republicofscotland

          “They are a company who have no regard for the environment or their workers. We saw the SNP lick the boots of Trump. Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos seems to be influencing their fracking policy. ”



          I must have missed that, or you’re ill informed.

          Indeed Stu, it was Labour’s Jack McConnell, who coveted Trump, not Salmond. McConnell, even used a helicopter to fly Trump around Scotland, breaking parliamentary rules.

          As for fracking in Scotland I’m under the impression, there’s a moratorium in place over fracking in Scotland.

          Of course Stu, Radcliffe employs many people in Scotland. It sounds as though you’d apply a tackety boots approach and stamp all over those jobs and Radcliffe, just to prove how left of centre you are. In the process you’d lose thousands of jobs.

        • Republicofscotland

          “The SNP bottled land reform.”


          The SNP are trying to change centuries of private land control in 10 years of tenure, it’s just not possible, unless they bring in the army and evict the powerful lairds, Scotland isn’t the Chagos island where Westminster evict on a whim.

          Though in the SNP’s defence they have made moves in the right direction.

          Of course Stu, if you have any better ideas I’m all ears, or I should eyes. Just remember those who own the lands absent as they may be, still have very powerful and skilled lawyers who could tie up the Scottish government, and taxpayers funds for decades. Before a decision is reached.

          Take heed, this is how easy it it is to fall foul of powerful lairds and absent land owners in Scotland.

          • Stu

            Applying Andy Wightman’s proposals would be a good kick off to land reform. Land owners attempting to silence him through threats of expensive litigation has no bearing on the position of the Scottish government.

            As for Ratcliffe I have no idea where to begin… Saying that Ineos employs lot of people in Scotland is about as relevant as saying the Duke Of Bucchleuch grows a lot of trees in Scotland. Ratcliffe/Ineos owns a refinery which was built up the British state before being sold off to private capital by Thatcher at an incredibly low price. The refinery relies on natural resources which used to belong to all of us before Thatcher sold them off cheaply. The work force was paid for the Scottish education system. Ratcliffe/Ineos own and control Grangemouth due to poltical and financial machinations but they are in no way responsible for it’s productive output any more the trees on his estate depend on the Duke Buccleuch.

          • Republicofscotland


            So you’re comparing trees with jobs, jobs that support families and communities-interesting. I wouldn’t go
            around Grangemouth espousing that mantra if I were you.

          • Stu

            No, I am comparing Ratcliffe and the Duke Of Buccleuch.

            I can understand why you will find it difficult to understand that although Ineos are the legal owners of Grangemouth they are largely irrelevant to the actual production of the site so I tried to use a simple analogy to help you out.

            Your ignorance about ownership and modes of production actually ties nicely to your party’s ideological vacuousness.

          • reel guid

            Just think Stu. The Duke of Buccleuch’s trees provide the paper for the Morning Star that you so avidly devour. Hope that doesn’t mean there’s going to be ideological contamination of your favourite read.

          • Republicofscotland

            “Your ignorance about ownership and modes of production actually ties nicely to your party’s ideological vacuousness.”

            That’s rich Stu, coming from you who thinks the Scottish government should charge and make sweeping changes without first weighing up the consequences of those actions, ie jobs communities etc.

            Still you dodged the trees versus jobs question quite adeptly.

            “although Ineos are the legal owners of Grangemouth they are largely irrelevant ”

            So in your opinion the owners of Grangemouth are irrelevant, first trees, over jobs, now owners are irrelevant.

        • J Galt

          You’re a wee bit behind the times if you think that the average crowd on a Ryanair flight are the “Rich”!

      • Kempe

        So O’Leary shouts “jump” and the SNP ask “how high?” and not for the first time.

  • Republicofscotland

    Julian Assange has called off an announcement he was due to make, on the Ecuadorian balcony. Following news of a imminent meeting with the British authorities.

    Hopefully it will go well in Mr Assange’s favour, and he will be able to leave the embassy unhindered by the authorities.

    Meanwhile we’ve moved one step closer to war with Russia, as the US and its coalition forces shot down a Syrian government fighter jet yesterday.

    That action stirred the Russian government into action, by declaring any coalition fighter jets, drones etc, West of the Euphrates river, will be treated as a ligitimate target.

    I presume they mean they will shoot them down.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      What could be more pie in the sky than your seeing Assange’s cancelled press conference still indicates anything but his standoff with the aurhorities continuing?

    • Kempe

      More likely he realised that after the Grenfell Tower fire and the Finsbury Park attack he wasn’t going to get the attention he thinks he deserves.

    • Republicofscotland

      On the contrary Trowbridge, we learn a lot from each other and information we never knew, simply by discussing matters.

      Craigs often excellent articles are a testament to that.

      I’m sure most in here would agree. ?

        • MJ

          I didn’t know Bevin was banned. I thought his posts were generally thoughtful and well-written. I can’t believe he was banned for racism. He was patently less racist than many here who have not been banned.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            According to Craig Murray Bevin was not banned “for racism”. He/she was banned, specifically, for supporting Marine Le Pen in the French election (see post 10:38 am). Craig Murray regards that as support for fascism. As I recall, he put up a separate post to tell all contributors that support for Le Pen on here would result in a ban. J

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Well. I don’t want to quarrel about the matter. If you want to say that “being banned for supporting fascist Marine Le Pen” is exactly the same thing as “being banned for racism”, go ahead. I don’t know enough about Le Pen to judge. J

        • Republicofscotland

          “Is Bevin then stupid, a racist, or both, and his banning deserved?”


          It’s not my blog, it’s Craigs blog, I think you’d better take the banning matter up with Craig.

          However Craig did give us all fair warning, promote Le Pen and your banned. Bevin knew the consequences as did we all.

          Le Pen, aside, I found Bevin’s comments interesting at times, and we had a few verbal jousts, but we also agreed on other matters as well.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford

            I’m just trying to figure out facts, like the real meaning Assange’s cancellation of the press conference.

            More likely to ask CM if that was the cause of his being so out of sorts after returning from London.

  • Stu

    It seems unlikely that the Americans would welcome any trial which highlights their actions in Iraq.

    Assange being trapped in the embassy suits American interests. They will seek to keep him there for as long as possible. Given the risk of super max confinement leaving the embassay is too big a gamble for Assange. For the USA it’s a happy stalemate.

  • mike

    She’s grave. She’s steadfast. She wears black and stands in front of 10 Downing Street. She is strong and stable. Some have called her the Prime Minister, but even the dogs in the street know that’s a short-term appointment.
    It’s like she keeps practising being human – the horrors keep coming at remarkably timeous intervals. Corbyn surge? Bang ! Grenfell horror? Crunch !
    And there’s Theresa, in black, Our Lady of Sorrows, reading her lines.

    We’re being played like fiddles.

    The death toll from Grenfell, I would suggest, is MUCH higher than 79. And the authorities know it.

    Meanwhile, in Syria, WW3 is coming along nicely. Uncle Sam is again shitting all over the UN and Nuremberg, and the dummies say nothing apart from how it’s Russian aggression.
    The US are building THREE bases on sovereign territory – at Kobani, Al Tanf and Tabqah – and have just shot down a Syrian jet in Syria, but it’s Russian aggression.

    We are just a shot away.

      • Michael McNulty

        I noticed too how the Australian government was happy for their pilots to kill for the US but not die for it. Withdrawing only after war gets messy shows just how cowardly they are.

          • Michael McNulty

            @Trowbridge. The Aussies were making a show of force to China recently, no doubt after being told to by the US, so it will be interesting to see if they draw back from that pending conflict.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford

            I really do think threads serve a better purpose by discussing what is other side irying to do than asking people which side are they on.

            I have leaned this by seeing the West going after Russia for years.

        • Dave Lawton

          Aussies cowardly Not so they did the right thing.Have you served with them?How do you know?

          • Michael McNulty

            I distinguish Aussie forces from politicians. I don’t doubt the fighting spirit of most armies. It’s the politicians who are the girlies.

        • Hieroglyph

          There is almost no anti-war movement in Australia, and all sides agree that bombing for the USA is an act of self-defense. Best Democracy the globalists can buy …

          Mind, we have relentless Rupy-vision 24/7, so much so you could forget that Australia is at war with two countries, neither of whom did anything to Australia. Occasionally, there is a Stop The War march, which is well-meaning, but generally apathy rules. I think politicians are skilled indeed at engineering apathy, personally. Their rote refusal to entertain a subject, coupled with the media’s Rupy-vision makes any public discussion of withdrawal all but impossible. We can still go to our various silos on the internet, of course …

          And on topic, the Australian Government has done jack-shit to protect Assange. Both the ALP and the Coalition treated him like a mangy dog, who should be kept out of site. It was as pathetic a show of globalist ass-kissing as you’ll ever likely see, and shows who is really in charge. It’s not that ridiculous Turnbull fella, you can be sure.

    • Ishmael

      I was just reading on wikileaks building new UK media organisation, sounds a good idea, something intercept like maybe.

      But I somtimes wonder if an exorcist might be more useful.

  • Peter Beswick

    Possibly O/T

    But if like me you believe Assange would not be imprisoned in the Ecuadorian Embassy were it not for Iraq.

    Trump wouldn’t be potus, May pm, Brexit, Europe on the edge of collapse, Terrorist threats at the highest ever, WWIII poised at the edge of a misguided missile, SS & SiS exposed as weapons deployed against the British people, etc etc etc

    Well here’s an email I received today;


    Dear Friends and Supporters,

    We had very much hoped to have made public our Counsels’ final opinion by the end of June. In the event, this has not been possible due to the enhanced scrutiny counsel is giving to this matter. Given the seriousness and importance of this matter to us and the families, as well as, dare we say, the country, we and our legal team are committed to ensuring that the final advice has been strenuously tested and comprehensive. We do not want to make any errors, raise hopes unnecessarily or risk embarking on any course of action prematurely or that does not have the proper chances of success. We must be certain that the next steps are the right ones and please be assured that we have the best barristers in the country working on this. Unfortunately, this means matters are taking longer than we wanted or anticipated but, at the same time, we have to get it right. We remain grateful for your support and your patience.


    Roger Bacon and Reg Keys, on behalf of the Iraq War Families Campaign Group”

  • Bob Apposite

    WikiLeaks perpetrated several lies, exaggerations, and distortions during the recent U.S. election.
    Not to mention trafficking in stolen emails from a private server.
    That charges against Assange were dropped only speaks to politics – there was shift in political power causing the charges to be dropped. It says nothing about their merit.
    If Assange wanted to address the merit – he would have gone to court.

      • Bob Apposite


        But claiming FOIA docs are a “leak” -> IS a lie.
        Pacing a release of them every week of an election to suggest “continual leaks” is a distortion.

        Claiming you posses and will release secret documents saying you were going to be drone striked, but then not doing it – is a lie.

        Frankly, I pay little attention to WikiLeaks, but the few times I’ve looked at what they’re doing, they’ve been lying.

        • Bob Apposite

          Ooh, and I forgot the most obviousx – the Gamergate-Style DOXing of a woman running for an office.

    • Bob Apposite

      Let’s be honest.

      1. Both Assange and his organization have many times lied about the nature or significance of information in his possession.
      2. Assange’s organization makes no effort to protect the privacy and private information of people in its data dumps, and makes no distinction whatsoever between public and private data.
      3. They traffic in stolen data.

      They’re not the most ethical organization. And,

      4. They’re probably useful idiots for powers-that-be.

      • Ishmael

        Let’s be honest.

        1. Lie

        2. Lie

        3. Distortion

        4. Nobody in power ikea the truth speed about them. That’s why they have useful idiots parrot endless empty accusations and slurs to deflect from what’s been leaked by american patriots.

        • Bob Apposite

          WikiLeaks lost all credibility with the Clinton stuff.
          Sorry, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.

      • Tony_0pmoc

        Bob Apposite,

        Whilst I take your points, and there is some evidence of point 2 (though no evidence that this has actually caused any significant personal harm), the only point I really agree with you is point 4, and that is mainly for the information that is not released and published, rather than what is.

        I certainly do not think that Assange should be extradited to the USA. In fact I have enormous respect for him.


        • Bob Apposite

          I don’t have strong opinions as to Assange’s extradition, but I do think Murray plays fast-and-loose with his concept of a “minor charge”. I mean, espionage, is not a minor charge.

          • Bob Apposite

            (i.e. whatever Murray’s opinions as to the underlying merit of the charge, the charge itself is not minor).

          • Bob Apposite

            I guess the question is – do we believe in due process of law – or do we believe people have the right to pull Roman Polanskis and hide from due process?

          • Tony_0pmoc

            Bob Apposite,

            I certainly agree with due process of law, but I am not aware of any laws that Julian Assange has broken. I am also not aware of any Criminal Charges against Julian Assange. If you are can you please tell me what they are.



          • John Spencer-Davis

            Murray does not say that espionage is a “minor charge”. He says that at present Assange is wanted on nothing but a “minor charge” – missing a bail appointment. His statement is correct.

  • nevermind

    here is why we need more Wikileaks and truth speakers. Our Government is turning themselves into the laughing stock of Europe. With kind regards to all who want to sail; away and sing Dixie.

    And here is a translation by Paula Kirby for all the sole English speakers.

    “This article in a Swiss newspaper today is so ruthlessly clear-sighted in its assessment of just how screwed we are that I just had to translate it for the non-German speakers. Hold on to your hats:

    [Translation by Paula Kirby]
    If it weren’t so serious, the situation in Great Britain would almost be comical. The country is being governed by a talking robot, nicknamed the Maybot, that somehow managed to visit the burned-out tower block in the west of London without speaking to a single survivor or voluntary helper. Negotiations for the country’s exit from the EU are due to begin on Monday, but no one has even a hint of a plan. The government is dependent on a small party that provides a cozy home for climate change deniers and creationists. Boris Johnson is Foreign Secretary. What in the world has happened to this country?

    Two years ago David Cameron emerged from the parliamentary election as the shining victor. He had secured an absolute majority, and as a result it looked as if the career of this cheerful lightweight was headed for surprisingly dizzy heights. The economy was growing faster than in any other industrialised country in the world. Scottish independence and, with it, the break-up of the United Kingdom had been averted. For the first time since 1992, there was a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. Great Britain saw itself as a universally respected actor on the international stage. This was the starting point.

    In order to get from this comfortable position to the chaos of the present in the shortest possible time, two things were necessary: first, the Conservative right wingers’ obsessive hatred of the EU, and second, Cameron’s irresponsibility in putting the whole future of the country on the line with his referendum, just to satisfy a few fanatics in his party. It is becoming ever clearer just how extraordinarily bad a decision that was. The fact that Great Britain has become the laughing stock of Europe is directly linked to its vote for Brexit.

    The ones who will suffer most will be the British people, who were lied to by the Brexit campaign during the referendum and betrayed and treated like idiots by elements of their press. The shamelessness still knows no bounds: the Daily Express has asked in all seriousness whether the inferno in the tower block was due to the cladding having been designed to meet EU standards. It is a simple matter to discover that the answer to this question is No, but by failing to check it, the newspaper has planted the suspicion that the EU might be to blame for this too. As an aside: a country in which parts of the press are so demonstrably uninterested in truth and exploit a disaster like the fire in Grenfell Tower for their own tasteless ends has a very serious problem.

    Already prices are rising in the shops, already inflation is on the up. Investors are holding back. Economic growth has slowed. And that’s before the Brexit negotiations have even begun. With her unnecessary general election, Prime Minister Theresa May has already squandered an eighth of the time available for them. How on earth an undertaking as complex as Brexit is supposed to be agreed in the time remaining is a mystery.

    Great Britain will end up leaving its most important trading partner and will be left weaker in every respect. It would make economic sense to stay in the single market and the customs union, but that would mean being subject to regulations over which Britain no longer had any say. It would be better to have stayed in the EU in the first place. So the government now needs to develop a plan that is both politically acceptable and brings the fewest possible economic disadvantages. It’s a question of damage limitation, nothing more; yet even now there are still politicians strutting around Westminster smugly trumpeting that it will be the EU that comes off worst if it doesn’t toe the line.

    The EU is going to be dealing with a government that has no idea what kind of Brexit it wants, led by an unrealistic politician whose days are numbered; and a party in which old trenches are being opened up again: moderate Tories are currently hoping to be able to bring about a softer exit after all, but the hardliners in the party – among them more than a few pigheadedly obstinate ideologues – are already threatening rebellion. An epic battle lies ahead, and it will paralyse the government.

    EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said that he now expects the Brits to finally set out their position clearly, since he cannot negotiate with himself. The irony of this statement is that it would actually be in Britain’s best interests if he did just that. At least that way they’d have one representative on their side who grasps the scale of the task and is actually capable of securing a deal that will be fair to both sides. The Brits do not have a single negotiator of this stature in their ranks. And quite apart from the Brexit terms, both the debate and the referendum have proven to be toxic in ways that are now making themselves felt.

    British society is now more divided than at any time since the English civil war in the 17th century, a fact that was demonstrated anew in the general election, in which a good 80% of the votes were cast for the two largest parties. Neither of these parties was offering a centrist programme: the election was a choice between the hard right and the hard left. The political centre has been abandoned, and that is never a good sign. In a country like Great Britain, that for so long had a reputation for pragmatism and rationality, it is grounds for real concern. The situation is getting decidedly out of hand.

    After the loss of its empire, the United Kingdom sought a new place in the world. It finally found it, as a strong, awkward and influential part of a larger union: the EU. Now it has given up this place quite needlessly. The consequence, as is now becoming clear, is a veritable identity crisis from which it will take the country a very long time to recover.”

    • Xavi

      “centrist” politics (aka neoliberal-austerity politics) once again prescribed as panacea for the popular disillusion that’s resulted from a generation of “centrist” politics.

      • J

        Agreed. For nearly forty years the choice* has been between ‘right’** and ‘further right.’*** This notional ‘centre’ doesn’t exist.




    • Ishmael

      Some commentators attitude to “great britain” in the EU (particularly Germany) stinks. Not quite as bad as here but still worthy of contempt.

      liberal intelligentsia as all much of a muchness across the EU. This nationalist mocking attitude towards others states, gross generalisations, dividing, scapegoating, is why the EU is still in major crisis. They have nothing to feel good about.

      • nevermind

        Some commentators can’t even distinguish between Germany and Switzerland.

      • Laguerre

        The EU is in major crisis, is it? Hard to believe from someone in Britain, lashing out from a country which is scarcely able to govern itself.

        • J

          We don’t do self awareness, as a nation, it’s true. But why? Is this a natural cultural state or an artificial level of emotional and intellectual subjugation? Half of the population have been living with induced fight or flight level anxiety for a long time. But we’re becoming immune. The other half are beginning to feel it, mostly because they think someone is going to take their latte machine away.

    • Tony_0pmoc


      Some of this is true, but most of it is based on a total and complete misunderstanding of the origins of the EU, and how it was formed and controlled by the CIA. If you want to be part of a Worldwide American Dictatorship – and most of the World already is, then do not Respect the Democratic views of the (to my amazement) The British General Public who voted for BREXIT and Democracy rather than Dictatorship by American Warmongers. Even Corbyn sussed that out. Thats why we voted for him too.


      • Ishmael

        The EU has always been a lot more than that Tony. I’m not aware of all factors but I’m aware it’s not all formed and controlled by the CIA, though I’m sure they’d like to imagine it so.

        That you can even imagine such a thing in practical terms is out there. Sure they influence elites, media (less now) etc, but no. Nobodies in control.

        And btw, “brexit” more than anything was going to put us more in the hands of the USA. NF couldn’t have been more blatant about his alliance. As most elite, totally subservient to US policy.

        & The USA does not “control” the EU. The fact’s of the ground simply can’t be contained in such simplistic thinking.

        • Tony_0pmoc


          I am not imagining anything. The official documentation, supporting what I have written is freely available on the Internet, and I have posted links to it on here and elsewhere for over 15 years. If you can’t read and analyse official documentation and masses of other evidence, and (if you are a moderator) delete such evidence when it is freely posted, because it conflicts with your own political views and those of your “tribe” supported by mainstream and other corporate funded internet sites like “Democracy Now” – isn’t Amy Gordon such a nice girl??? If you get sucked in by the lies and propaganda like R2P -“Responsibility to Protect” from the American supposedly Left Wing – if any such real entity still exists – then that is your problem not mine.

          Try doing a bit of research yourself, rather than being spoon fed by warmongers such as Juan Cole who I see Craig has still got a link to his blog.


          • Ishmael

            I don’t know juan.

            And iv been watching DN for near 10 years I think. Among studying history/classics/economy/sociology etc, (actually got a base knowledge from art history I studied ages ago)

            Nobody controls that much, US proxy installation or no. They had to let their own family Mubarak go. If they don’t control there own family what do they control? They try and we can see the influence. But that doesn’t mean they actually shape everything at all.

            Maybe you need to learn something outside in the real world over simplistic generalised imaginings of omnipotent forces.

            It’s a nexus of social relations at work.

        • Dave Lawton

          “The USA does not “control” the EU. The fact’s of the ground simply can’t be contained in such simplistic thinking.”

          Come on now just join up the dots.If you check the voices who are most vocal about staying
          in the EU you will find they are the elite who are Bilderbergers.Do your homework.

      • Ishmael

        Brexit was a populist tide of racism that’s been fed for a long time now. Ridden by people who didn’t and don’t believe it’s a good thing.

        The EU did not, does not, control much significant. Many good things we have in fact.

        • J

          Populism* need not necessarily be a bad thing. What is odd is the prevalent idea that appealing to what the majority want is automatically a bad thing although it certainly can be.

          * ….

          Which brings me to my second point, only 26.7% of the population voted for Brexit and they were a mixed bag with a plethora of views and mixed intentions. This so called ‘populist tide of racism’ had a lot of press, official sanction and money behind it while the main stream media explanation for the Brexit vote was never satisfactory and served only to obfuscate what is really going on. It’s a pity that Mr Murray is only too willing to entertain the MSM narrative on this subject without his usual critical distance.

          Why accept the MSM territory at all? It’s largely consumerist bullshit.

          • Ishmael

            Agree. it need not be.

            But I have seen this tide rise in my own community. I think at it’s root much of it was an expression of this tide.

      • nevermind

        Surely you meant to say the English general public, Tony, because Scotland and NI did not vote to leave. You see after busting your precious union with such lamenting nonchalance, lies and political bravado by some very lazy loud mouth, and some 52% of those who took part, please do not speak for the 17 million who did not vote, democratic Tony, some 52% would have benefited from some school education in early years, about the pirates that are steering the good ship Britannia on to a reef, breaking it up in its various parts.

        You can stop blaming the EU for the British special relationship with what is currently a rolled up hedgehog, the US of A…
        Anybody who thinks they are living in a democracy that is leaving Europe to escape the evil dictatorship of American warmongers, is sadly mistaken. The almighty dictatorship you are going on about is just about to swallow you hook, line, sinker and the man holding the rod.
        JC will have to realise that a loss of 48% of the UK’s GDP will not pay for his program, he will have to realise that most of his young followers that swilled the ranks, are supporters of the European idea, what will he say to them?

        I know that the warmongers in this country never really were in it, they want more wars, ideally not on their doorstep and they play fast and furious games, but soldiers they are not, they are cowards and money wasters who create what is dividing the UK today, division.
        The EU is unaccountable, always has been, not that any of the British ever made much of it, they took the money, the market and now that they should take some of the Syrian refugees they helped to create, the little Englanders want out, oh deary me.

    • Adam Burgess

      Yup, there are plenty of anti-British Europhiles like you around, Nevermind.

      • Iain Stewart

        “Yup, there are plenty of anti-British Europhiles like you around, Nevermind.”
        And a year ago there were even more anti-British Europhobes too. Yup.

  • reel guid

    Tory Depute Provost of Aberdeen City Council Tom Mason took the oath as a new MSP at Holyrood today. He intends to continue as a councillor. About his dual role he has given assurances that his “constituents won’t suffer …but his croquet will”.

    Croquet? One of the few Scottish Tories to be a fan of the Hoops!

    • Republicofscotland

      reel guid.

      I’ll see your Tory and raise it, Tory Ian Duncan who was rejected (lost) by the electorate at Perth in the GE vote.

      Is to be given the title of Lord Duncan of Springbank, and to take his seat at the undemocratic, unelected House of Lords. Duncan who the voters snubbed, is also to be made under-secretary (deputy) to Scottush secretary David Mundell.

      So Duncan was rejected by the public, they didn’t vote for him. However he now sits in the troughing unelected undemocratic House of Lords, and has a huge influence on Scottish affairs as Mundell’s second in command.

      Who says Britain is a democracy? Its not.

      • reel guid


        Duncan will get a salary as a government minister, his £300 a day attendance allowance in the Lords and will continue to draw his MEP’s salary for another while. Unless he’s giving the Euro seat up.

        It would probably have cost him money to have beaten Pete Wishart in P&NP.

        Elsewhere people have been tweeting to show how Ruth Davidson and most of her Tory colleagues at Holyrood voted against the SNP’s fire safety improvement legislation in 2014.

  • Phil the ex-frog

    I regret my part in the comments on this post. What with all the stuff going on right now. Everyone should be screaming GRENFELL. Not bickering about some marginal right wing narcissist. This blog feels increasingly irrelevant. I’m gone for a while.


    • Tony_0pmoc

      Phil the ex-frog,

      I thought your comments were O.K.. I even agreed with most of them – but GRENFELL was almost certainly an accident, and not done deliberately…

      Meanwhile The British Government has been deliberately committing hundreds of GRENFELL’s – literally bombing completely innocent people in Tower Blocks in Yugoslayvia, Iraq, Libya, Syria since 1999…and they still continue to do it.

      The people are just the same – what’s so special about an accident in London compared to what our Governments have been doing Deliberately. It does not make it O.K. cos you rarely see it on the Telly.

      Our taxes have been used for the last 18 years to deliberately kill innocent people in Tower Blocks and hardly anyone in The UK complains.


      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        Is it true that the fiire fighters thought that they had put out the flames, and left, only for it to reignite into an inferno?

        An inquiry should look into this apparent mistake too.

      • Ishmael

        It was a result of deliberate wilful neglect. A crime.

        If you leave a baby in a car and it dies of heat, you killed it, especially after repeated warnings. This event was no accident.

        • Xavi

          It’s odd that some are still unable to see that. Can only assume it’s from not having read or thought the first thing about it.

          • Ishmael

            I don’t read the local press but i’d assume “Horrible Accident” ….move along.

            But i can’t let this go away and not going to.

        • fred

          I think it would be better to wait for the findings of the inquiry I don’t see how there can be only one cause for this tragedy. It will probably turn out to be a combination of factors.

          If part of the blame falls on the tenants themselves would it be so bad to say terrible accident? There is speculation that the Tenant Management Organisation had let people move into the properties before they had a completion certificate for the improvements which means before it had been inspected by the council. I can see how they might do that if there are people desperate for homes and they had them there empty just needing a piece of paper. If part of the blame does rest on the tenants themselves would it be right to punish those who lost their friends, maybe family? What would it do to the TMO system? Would anyone ever volunteer to be responsible for the management of their local community again?

          • fred

            You mean the factors the money grabbing capitalists doing the renovation or the crooks at the council were responsible for are causes and those the tenants are responsible for are effects.

          • Johnstone

            If these are the questions you want answering then you like the K&C council, the TMO, the planning authority, the contractor and the government responsible for ignoring the fire and safety committee recommendations are suffering from moral ineptitude.

      • nevermind

        You see you don’t even understand Tony, Grenfell was the construct of the lazy money makers, the councils and their departments who have a rich=yes and poor = No attitude, who serve those who are rich. They are more interested in how to bend over backwards in helping to create multiple underground mazes for these rich UK residents/ citizens/ furriners. They have always neglected immigrants and poor people, indeed they play the latter up against each other when it comes to providing housing ghetto’s.

        I think I take a break too, the real fascists have never been banned from this blog.

        • glenn_uk

          I think I take a break too, the real fascists have never been banned from this blog.

          It’ll be a shame if you do, nevermind, given you’re one of the few consistently sensible and worthwhile posters here. And Phil for that matter – his views are interesting and he’s not afraid to state his case.

          A bunch of real fascists – we’re talking about Nazi scum here – have been banned. They infested this blog some time back, and kept returning in various guises. The mods have done a good job in keeping them away, it seems.

          Again, it’s unfortunate about Bevin (notwithstanding his soft spot for the fascist Trump), but the rule about Le Pen could not have been more clear, and we’re all guests on someone else’s blog here at the end of the day. If we break the house rules, what else can we expect.

          Take a break if you must, but I hope it’s not for too long.

          • Ishmael

            Not that a few posters on a blog matter much (no matter what we individually think) but I think a good take on this is to be what were about.

            Political terms are vague, and it’s Craigs propagative to try and run a tight ship. Myself I think some of the more “subtle” racist memes are worst than saying I support so and so, which when saying “support” can be infinitely nuanced.

            For instance Craig said he now supports labor (under jc) but he doesn’t just support labour.

            Such is life under tyranny (:

            I must try not to take it too seriously. But I do think others have spread far more implicitly worse positions given they are said in the context of what is happening now. Not some imagined possible rise of storm troopers under a totalitarian ideology.

            While certainly far right, la pen exists in a different world to the 1940s.

          • Ishmael

            To sum up. The people who are “just” right wing and clear bigots have been all over this blog for ages. They are not blatant, they are far worse than that. It’s obvious the consistant positions they hold no matter what thin costume.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    So the fire fighters made good on what the “faulty fridge”‘ man was attempting?

    That’s the only reason I can see why he would falsely claim it all instead of saying that the firemen could have saved them all.

  • Adam Burgess

    Finnish police have foiled a terror plot to bomb a church in Helsinki.

    Must be their foreign policy.

  • Laguerre

    The British government has reached a state of ridiculousness which is hard to parallel. They can’t even agree a settlement with the DUP. Who nevertheless won’t vote against them in the Queen’s speech.

    • J


      The alternative for this country is to be forever dominated by those cultivating Armageddon, ostensibly as a business opportunity but we know, beneath all of that they simply hate themselves. They can’t imagine anyone else is much different and simply want to take the whole world with them when they go, just like their spree killers whose continual eruption is not merely some aberrant fact, but an expression of overwhelming unconscious desire.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.