Julian Assange: Socialists and Liberals Must Now Choose Their Side. 661

Cassandra Fairbanks’ account of her visit to Julian in the Ecuadorean Embassy paints a truly harrowing picture of the conditions in which he is being held. Last week after receiving a message from Julian I applied to the Ecuadorean Embassy to go and see him. I have done this many times but a new regime has established involving forms and strict time windows.

The Ecuadorean Embassy claim not to have received my email with the application, which is peculiar as I received no undeliverable message and bcc copyees received it. I therefore re-sent it with a new email advising they may change the date and time if the original is not now achievable. I have heard nothing so far in response.

Chelsea Manning is currently entering her fourth week of solitary confinement for refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury. The United States wishes to extradite Julian Assange to face charges, not of collusion with the non-existent “Russiagate”, not with a sexual offence stitch-up. They wish to charge him with publishing the evidence of extensive US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with publishing the US diplomatic cables including the one I drew on last week which prove that the US and UK conspired to establish a marine reserve around the Chagos Islands as an environmental fraud to maintain the deportation of the islanders from what is now the US nuclear and torture base.

Many tens of billions of dollars are spent every year on western security services, and they are not stupid. The use of contrived sexual allegations to detach progressive figures from their support base is well established practice. But the allegations against Assange in Sweden are long gone, never reached the stage of a charge, and fell away immediately once Assange was finally interviewed by Swedish police and prosecutors in the Embassy. The whole Russiagate fabrication has been exploded as the media confection it always was.

The false left and liberals have until now been delighted to hide behind Russiagate or Sweden to avoid asking themselves the fundamental question. Julian Assange is merely a journalist and publisher. The fundamental question is, should a journalist or publisher be locked up for life for publishing leaked documents showing war crimes? If the answer is yes, where is press freedom?

That is now the unavoidable question. The security service patsies at the Guardian, however, prefer to retail ludicrous accusations from CIA asset Lenin Moreno – accusations motivated by the revelation of Moreno’s Panamanian offshore accounts – in frenzied efforts to maintain the tactic of diversion.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


661 thoughts on “Julian Assange: Socialists and Liberals Must Now Choose Their Side.

1 2 3 4
      • Northern

        Yawn. Your argument essentially says breaking state secrecy is more morally offensive than large scale war crimes. Forgive me if I’m not content to be guided by your particular moral compass.

        • Martinned

          I had the Bail Act in mind.

          As for breaking state secrecy and war crimes, I’m quite capable of believing they should both be illegal. And as I said below, we can talk about whether Assange should be prosecuted for the state secrecy thing. But until he comes out of hiding, and in the absence of an extradition request, I see no reason to have that conversation now.

          • pretzelattack

            he isn’t hiding, he is a refugee. and given that the us has admitted there’s an indictment, let’s talk about that now. he won’t be being prosecuted for some vague “state secrecy” issue, he will be prosecuted for revealing war crimes. stop hiding behind obfuscatory bullshit and talk about that.

      • Republicofscotland


        Only if cast iron assurances can be agreed that Assange won’t be handed over to the US.

        • Martinned

          Those assurances aren’t available to someone who has jumped bail and is looking to negotiate the terms of their release. That’s not how it works. First you agree to obey the law, then you can have the “conversation” about what they law requires. No “heads you lose, tails I win”.

          • Clark

            “Those assurances aren’t available to someone who […] is looking to negotiate the terms of their release

            Yet elsewhere you maintain that Assange is not arbitrarily detained. Your arguments therefore appear opportunistic rather than principled.

          • Hmmm

            Why not? What was he on bail for? Should our law enforcement be used to pursue a foreign powers goals? This needs an independent legal review, not just your legal opinion.

          • Martinned

            Should our law enforcement be used to pursue a foreign powers goals?

            If that “foreign power” is a state that we have an extradition treaty with (and/or an EU member state), and that goal is the enforcement of its criminal laws, the answer is quite clearly “probably yes”.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Martinned April 3, 2019 at 12:22
        ‘.. Because breaking the law has consequences, as it should.’
        So how come the far more serious War Crimes committed by the US, which were exposed by Manning and Assange, are not followed up?
        Where is the ‘Rule of Law’, and ‘Justice’, if bail jumping is pursued with the full rigour of the State and Judiciary, but murder and torture is ignored?

    • isa

      Sharpears , some are like Beetlejuice you mention them once and they pop up . So he did. I will find some alkaseltzer as I inadvertently read his usual nonsense argument.

      • Martinned

        The whole reason why I read this blog (and the comments) is because I think it’s healthy to be confronted with things you disagree with. I’m sorry if you don’t feel the same way.

  • Sharp Ears

    Dan Collyns is the author of the latest Garudian anti Assange prop. He has also collaborated with the aforementioned Luke Harding (Manafort visiting Julian stuff etc)


    He has been through the BBC machine.
    ‘Dan Collyns | CGTN America
    Dan Collyns covers the Andean region for CGTN America. … Collyns was formerly the BBC’s correspondent in Peru where he has been based since 2006.

  • TFS


    I’m confident Craig, if you spearheaded a campaign to ask people to change their Search engine from Google to DuckDuckGo, they (America) would hear. Explain what it’s for, who its directed at (America) and how to make the change.

    This site and others could promote it for the cause of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.

    It would make Ghandi and MLK proud.

    • Rhys Jaggar

      I did that over a year ago. The search engine still biases itself to US stories (that is another matter) but apparently tracking does not occur.

      • Some Random Passer-by

        I use Yandex. Mostly because I know it’ll annoy the authorities (pesky Russians).

        DDF is a good start, but it’s still based in a Five Eyes country

      • James Charles

        @ Martinned April 3, 2019 at 12:22
        ‘.. Because breaking the law has consequences, as it should.’
        So how come the far more serious War Crimes committed by the US, which were exposed by Manning and Assange, are not followed up?
        Where is the ‘Rule of Law’, and ‘Justice’, if bail jumping is pursued with the full rigour of the State and Judiciary, but murder and torture is ignored?

        • Tony

          How many bail jumpers in the UK have had an eight figure sum spent on pursuing them? How many continue to be pursued at all (never mind to the extent that Assange is) after the charges against them have been dropped? I suspect that (other than for Assange) the answer is “None.”.

    • Dennis Revell



      ‘Course there’s nothing to say that startpage hasn’t been surreptitiously infiltrated by the NSA or GCHQ!?!

      – Or indeed that you don’t work for one or other of these! 😉

      Answer this ‘test’ question: Do you know Jane Griffiths? …



  • joel

    I doubt Assange has any expectation liberals are going to come to his rescue. He will have noted next to no difference between liberals and conservatives in their determination to protect state crimes. He will have noted too the degree of principle and honour in liberals’ responses to major events of the past decade.
    Austerity cuts to pay for bailing out the bankers? Liberals: ‘the only responsible course’. Brexit vote and Hillary’s defeat? ‘Putin’s to blame’. Jeremy Corbyn breathing life back into a dying Labour party? ‘A terrifying existential threat to Jewish people’. He will have seen the liberal backing for Frankfurt and Brussels in pauperizing the Greeks, hailing the likes of George Osborne, John McCain, Bush I and Bush II, lining up behind Trump, Bolsonaro, Bolton and Abrams on Venezuela.
    He will know he cannot expect any help from that quarter.

    • Johny Conspiranoid

      Why are people who do not support liberal ideas being called “liberals”?

  • Antonym

    As Clark noted, your good self and Julian Assange were the physical conducts to Wikileaks for the DNC insider leak which exposed HRC’s dirty tricks on Bernie Sanders – and cost her the US Presidency due to disgruntled Sanders voters. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/muellergate-and-the-discreet-lies-of-the-bourgeoisie/comment-page-2/#comment-850225

    No (Russian/ virtual) hacking involved into that, so also pulling the rug from under most DOJ / FBI / CIA /MI6 Trump smears.

    The March 2019 Mueller report showed no proof for a Russiagate. Your leak information was published in December 2016, but got little attention alas – no surprise considering the sorry state of the fourth estate in the West.

      • pretzelattack

        we know he didn’t issue any new indictments, or find that trump colluded with russia. his boss and 30 year good friend said so. do you know differently?

      • Observer

        Good question Glenn. That the possibilty that the Russians did hack the DNC and did so without conspiring with Trump makes it patently obvious that they are two different things.

        It’s all being thrown out here under the banner of “Russiagate” whatever that is supposed to mean. I don’t believe Trump has ever used that word.

  • mark golding

    I want to get hold of a new assurance from Jeremy Corbyn that as a future Prime Minister to the United Kingdom he will grant Julian Assange freedom and of course remove the ‘stone’ in Moreno’s shoe.

    • Macky

      It’s very concerning that the moment Corbyn was elected Leader, he stopped speaking out about Assange.

      • Jules Moules

        I honestly believe that Corbyn has to limit his exposure. Anytime, anyplace, anywhere he has taken a position against establishment views he has been vilified, abused (both in writing and in speech), and traduced. There really is only so much an individual can shoulder – and he carries much more than almost any other politician.

        The best hope is that Corbyn gets elected, and soon. I have absolutely no expectations of the current crop of Tories, red Tories, and Liberals. Mr Assange is, without doubt, in an impossibly inhumane confinement.

        • Macky

          A very immoral position; Assange is effectively being constantly tortured, and his very life is at grave risk on a daily basis, so to ignore this on a hope that when, and if ever, Corbyn gets elected, he may try to help Assange, is simply moral bankruptcy;

          Assange needs help now; if the worse happens and he dies there in the Embassy, Corbyn’s potential good intentions will be just a cruel mockery, and he will have some of the blood on his hands, as he should have been speaking-out & taking May to task over Assange at every opportunity.

          • TFS

            I like to think he’ll tackle that subject to your satisfaction once he’s in power.

            He has no need to open avenue of bile from SpartUSA and lovers of the status quo.

            Better he’s in power first.

          • Macky

            Funny that a Life or Death situation, and/or a situation of constant inhuman torture, doesn’t register with some people; maybe they calculate that Assange’s life is really expendable for the nebulous “Greater Good” !

        • Dennis Revell


          That’s BOLLOCKS.

          Whilst none of us would like to think that there’s anything to be learned from Trump – there certainly is. That is you call out the mainstream media for the bullshit liars that a very large increase in the populations on both sides of the Atlantic realise that they are. Perhaps going as far as Trump and calling them enemies of the state as Trump did might be thought inappropriate for inGRRRlish sensibilities; but the point is made. This apparently did Trump’s campaign no harm – he won the presidency. Since May’s snap election, Corbyn has actually had a voice – no longer ignored. IN like manner to Trump, Corbyn should have called out in a loud voice every derogatory story about him, and his policies; most shamefully and stupidly, instead of fiercely calling out the anti-semitism smears for the complete bullshit that they were, he, as is his fashion, curled his tail between his cowardly legs and demurred.

          Well, yes, it might be of the ‘street smarts’ type, but Donald Trump is cleverer and a better politician than Jeremy Corbyn!

          And so to Julian Assange. Sadly my belief is that there is zero chance that Julian Assange would escape his present plight were Corbyn-The-Cowardly-Compromiser-Too-Far to become prime minister – an event still not at all likely in my view. The vacillating Corbyn will almost certainly hide behind the skirts of Govt. lawyers, claim it is out of his hands, and that he has to follow the law – aka screw Julian Assange up the arse with a stick of dynamite – hopefully only figuratively.

          And to any “Labour” Party supporters who come back with claims that, well, that’s true, it’s what Corbyn’s constrained to do, it’s out of his hands, what he has to do, I would regret at that point that I’m unable to reach through these screens and rip your fucking throats out. Well, OK, that’s a bit strong, just a wee bit. Such idiocy embodied in such obsequious claims brings out the worst of my political tourette’s syndrome, but I’m working on it.

          Such claims are idiocy, because they’re not true. This argument has been had here before, and I’m attempting to pre-empt its recurrence: Sure, Corbyn as PM in a party still infested with Blairites might have trouble getting the den of iniquity known as Parliament to vote Assange free with safe conduct – but he wouldn’t have to. He would merely have to declare that henceforth the UK will abide by United Nations pronouncements and advice regarding political asylees in general and Julian Assange in particular, as well as, in a huge change of its warmongering policy, abide by international law more generally and in its entirety.

          But Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn-The-Cowardly-Compromiser won’t do any of that. He won’t be the lion that has the guts to piss off the AmeriKKKans, to put a dent in the utter evil that is the Special Relationship, by letting Assange go free.

          The only kind of lion that Corbyn P.M. will likely be compared to is in an allegory in which Julian Assange is the Wizard of Oz***.


          *** I’ll be mildly surprised, even more dissappointed if Julian hasn’t used this as his “handle” at some time 😉 .


          • TFS

            ‘But Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn-The-Cowardly-Compromiser’

            I can’t say I agree with the stance he taken on many subjects, but lesser men like me and yourself would have checked out long ago from the constant abuse.

            I’ll make my mind up when he’s in power, and if it turns out he’s no better (not likely), Parliament will need a ground up clearout.

          • Dennis Revell


            lesser men like me and yourselfk would have checked out long ago from the constant abuse.”

            PLease be so good as to speak for your fucking self; refrain from transferring your own undoubted inadequacies to others.


          • Alyson

            Not a coward, not a compromiser, just an honest, principled, diplomatic politician working through the morass with careful consideration for all the exits

      • SA

        Just a note. Perhaps that is why Corbyn is the leader of the opposition despite so many attempts to unseat him and Denis and Mackey are mere keyboard warriors.

        • Dennis Revell


          It’s Dennis, two ‘n’s, and hell if it’s not clear to you now that your hero worship is misplaced I guess it never will be.

          Especially after Corbyn’s vacillatiing weak kneed response to the conjured anti-semitism “crisis”.

          I’m willing to listen to any one diputing any of the facts I’ve used to bolster my opinion of Corbyn. Good luck with that.

          I detest the MSM as much as anyone here – my disdain and contempt for Corbyn, and the “Labour” Party, of which I used to be a member – though I called it the Labour Party then, is because I’ve pretty much given up on the UK – my hopes are for an Indepependent Scotland, a United Ireland more generally that that shitty Mass-Murdering serial War-Criminal union is blasted into as many (far more harmless) shards as possible.



        • Macky

          @SA, Instead of a cheap & empty comment, why don’t you address the moral question ? A man is cruelly suffering & is in a precarious life or death situation, and the politician who can really help him, suddenly stopped speaking-out on his behalf the very moment he was elected to a position where his voice would carry a lot of weight & influence; playing “safe politics” when a life is at sake, not to mention an obviously vindictive injustice, really does not reflect well on Corbyn, and bodes ominous for the future if he ever becomes PM, as how many more issues will he also play “safe politics” with ?

          • SA

            I take it you think that it would be better for the leader of the opposition to walk into a trap concerning Assange and loose more and more support having given the MSM a chance to vilify him, than walk into no 10 and then act on this matter?
            If you do then you are an extremely poor tactitian.

          • Macky

            @SA, So you think that abandoning somebody in extreme jeopardy, someone you once spoke-out for, but now are ignoring since you came into a position where you could have really actually help, is a matter of “tactics” ?! How does that “tactic” work-out if Asaange dies or gets extradited to a US Supermax Gulag in the meantime ? Are you sure it’s not moral-bankruptcy or cowardicy, you know the same sort that lets your close friends & allies get throw to the wolves over fake anti-Semitism accusations, and allows your Party smeared as racist ? And this “trap”, are you sure it’s not as imaginary as the wishful belief that maybe once Corbyn gets into power, he will suddenly be able to do, & undo, all that needs to done ? Maybe he will just carry-on playing 5th dimensional tactical chess, afraid to do what he really wants to do, in case he gets pushed out of the Office that he betrayed so many to get into.

            Despite what you may think, I’m rooting for Corbyn to become PM, and I’ll be deliriously happy to have to eat humble-pie if he does surprise me & starts to act on his famed principles & convictions, but I’m not getting my hopes up, as the route he is presently taking is giving plenty of causes for concern.

      • SA

        Nevertheless a good effort from you in helping with the work of the neoliberal MSM

          • SA

            So sorry I gave you one D instead of two. But I see you were in very good company with CB.

  • freddy

    There are many MAGA supporters who also think Assange a hero. Let’s hope some of this is optics. The Trump administration has no reason to hate him and every reason (previously) to be wary of its own intelligence services

    Trump on the 2016 campaign trail:

    October 10, 2016 in Wilkes-Barre, PA: “This just came out,” Trump said. “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.”

    October 12, 2016 in Ocala, FL: “This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable,” Trump said. “It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it.”

    October 13, 2016 in Cincinnati, OH: “It’s been amazing what’s coming out on WikiLeaks.”

    October 31, 2016 in Warren, MI: “Another one came in today,” Trump said. “This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove.”

    November 4, 2016 in Wilmington, OH: “Getting off the plane, they were just announcing new WikiLeaks, and I wanted to stay there, but I didn’t want to keep you waiting,” said Trump. “Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks.”

    • Andyoldlabour


      I wouldn’t trust Trump as far as I could throw him. I think Trump would not hesitate to have Assange locked away on Guantanamo, because he would have achieved what no other POTUS managed, and that is what it is all about – Trump’s massive ego, nothing else.
      Trump does whatever will make him look good/popular in his eyes.
      Trump’s logic is based on his own warped view of things.

      • freddy

        Andy, you may well be right – but I hope not. For many, it won’t look good or be popular – it will appear (or further confirm) he is part of the swamp he is claiming to clear. I’d also have to dye my MAGA cap pink 😉

        There’s a direct link between the Mueller probe and Assange – the former being partly to obscure and project what the latter revealed. Mueller never interviewed Assange for good reason. Assange – and Craig – have always known the truth about the hoax.

        I saw the other day an interesting article on Trump’s ‘mob connections’ – very pro-Trump, but I recommend a read, if only for a glimpse into warped minds! https://quodverum.com/2019/03/75/endgame-potus-trump-s-vindication-nears.html

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      No mention of Trump and Flynn chanting to the crowds about locking up crooked Hillary.

    • Mr V

      And? They may love him for all the good that does, US military-industrial complex already shown they can ram the decisions they want whatever Trump says (see their howls at the withdrawal from Syria or decision to stop provoking North Korea flying fleets of nuclear bombers right at the border for one) and I just don’t see anyone opposing utter destruction of “traitor” if the USA manages to get him…

  • Hieroglyph

    Craig, is Julian a) in the embassy, b) still alive.

    I initially thought all the rumors unfounded balderdash, but it appears something strange is afoot. There were rumours of his arrest, too, which of course would be slapped with the D-Notice of all D-Notices.

    Assange, more than anyone has highlighted quite how sinister the UK state has become. It wouldn’t be a massive surprise if they’ve actioned some funny business. He’s also one of the reasons I utterly despise the US left, and strident feminists, who threw him under the bus with alacrity. Fuck those guys, too.

    • Martinned

      What are you talking about? The British have done nothing against Assange except comply with EU law on the European Arrest Warrant, and seek to enforce his bail conditions against him.

      • Ian

        You might have noticed that the reason for the European Arrest Warrant is now defunct, as there is no case against him. Any liberal country would drop the charges against him, as they are now expired, trivial and a waste of public resources.

        • Martinned

          Indeed, but my statement was backward-looking. Going forward the only action that the UK government is (nearly) certain to take is to prosecute Assange for absconding under s. 6 of the Bail Act 1976, which is a separate offence, regardless of whether the person is guilty of the offence for which they were bailed.

          And yes, another thing that would be quite likely to happen in the future, if Assange were to come out of his hidey-hole, is that the UK would receive an extradition request under the UK-US Extradition Treaty of 2003. But the United States are a Category 2 territory under the Extradition Act 2003, meaning that Assange would be entitled to an extradition hearing under s. 75 – s. 92 of the Act. Under s. 87, that hearing includes a full airing of the human rights concerns of any extradition. Similarly, if the judge finds that the extradition is because of “political opinions”, or that “if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his (…) political opinions”, that is also a bar to extradition under s. 81 of the Act.

          I am at a loss why that would suffice to give any reasonable observer comfort. Far be it for me to remote-diagnose Assange to speculate why he is nonetheless staying in the embassy.

          • Northern

            So this is a man who has spent the majority of the last decade being persecuted by the legal system of 3 different states, and your suggestion is that he should put further trust in those legal systems? I for one certainly can’t think of any examples of the state manipulating the criminal justice system to it’s desired ends…

            At least try and make your apologising for the state credible.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Martinned April 3, 2019 at 13:09
            The Chagossians also litigated up to the Supreme Court – was justice served there?

          • Charles Bostock

            Re Martinned’s last para (sentence) : the word “not” should be inserted between “would” and “suffice”.

            That would answer “bj”‘s question. Say thank you, “bj” 🙂

          • Martinned

            @Northern: Correction, he spent the last decade being prosecuted in several legal systems. I know that Assange prefers the word “persecuted”, but he’s not the only criminal to take that perspective. And yes. Assange used the tools of justice when they benefited him, and when he anticipated that he would lose, he fled. Heads he wins, tails we lose.

            @Paul Barbara: The Chagossians actually litigated up to the Supreme Court three times. (And counting.) And they got the short end of the stick. But their legal position is infinitely more challenging than Assange’s, whose legal position is quite straightforward: He is likely to be prosecuted for a crime in this jurisdiction, as happens to countless people every day, and he is looking to avoid extradition, which is also a bog-standard situation that many people find themselves in all the time. Assange doesn’t have to persuade the courts to change the law or add to it, all he has to do is accept that the courts will apply the law to him in the same way that they do to everyone else.

      • Clark

        Martinned, 12:18:

        “The British have done nothing against Assange except comply with EU law on the European Arrest Warrant, and seek to enforce his bail conditions against him.”

        That is untrue. Sweden wanted to drop the case against Assange in 2013 but the UK Crown Prosecution Service insisted it be kept open. The CPS then deleted many of their own e-mails, which I regard as destruction of evidence:


        The deletion of e-mails appears to contravene document retention law:


          • Clark

            Really? I am surprised and encouraged by your response. Maybe you are a victim of propaganda rather than a purveyor, of which there are many.

            If you didn’t know that, there may be much that you don’t know about the ‘case’ against Assange. I suggest you begin by reading his defence statement, which is consistent with my observations as events unfolded over the years:


            Maybe you don’t know that false evidence was submitted by the only original complainant against Assange, yet no action was taken against the complainant:


            Maybe you’re unaware that the allegations were dismissed by the original Swedish prosecutor, only to be reinstated by a different one. These are only a fraction of the concerns about the ‘case’ against Assange; I suggest you explore more thoroughly.

        • Adrian Parsons

          And so stands revealed, yet again, the willingness of the intellectual working class/”middle class” to pontificate on a subject about which they are either ill-informed or completely ignorant, merely on the basis that they are “more educated than the average bear” and ipso facto “deserve to be heard”.

          • Adrian Parsons

            Just to be clear, this is a reaction to the admission of ignorance by the legal dilettante, not you.

      • Dennis Revell


        SO, to you, International law and conventions, agreed to and signed by the United Kingdom, under the auspices of the United Nations, most specifically those relating to the granting of asylum are subservient to the misuse of local national laws???

        That is idiocy. The opposite is and should be true. The purpose of agreements on international laws and conventions is precisely to prevent any Govt. of any country from trampling human rights, especially in such heinous ways as Julian Assange’s right are being trampled.

        ANY and ALL charges in the UK against Julian Assange should have been voided the instant that Ecuador granted political asylum.

        Britain and the United States of World Horror are the first to themselves use allegations (always false or highly exagerrated) of such abuses of human rights to bomb the shit out of countries killing and maiming hundreds and thousands, milllions even, of those whose human rights they initially claimed to be protecting.


        • Clark

          MODS ^^^

          There is some political argument here, but it is intertwined with personal attacks, and it is directed at a commenter, not at an argument.

          This commenter rejoiced at the sinking of a ship with the death of the entire crew. It is a troll.

          • Charles Bostock

            Yes, he is certainly a troll.

            But a troll whom only Clark calls out as such.

            Where are the other jobsworths who never hesitate to call ME a troll? Where are the calles from Sharp Ears and others of her ilk to ban the troll? Where are the protests from “SA” and “bj” and “Ian” about the ad hominems Clark has pointed to?

            Hypocrites all!

          • Mistress Pliddy's p.o.v.erty of thought

            Chas Bostick, (Where are the other…?)
            Well here’s one. Though, to be sure, I don’t think I’ve actually called you anything, whatever I may be thinking. I haven’t called out our raving Denise, because her rattle-throwing rants are just so OTT that I cannot imagine anyone lasting long in her shouty vicinity. Though my proclivities may be to agree with her underlying sentiments, I certainly opted out of reading her as soon as the language turned foul.

  • Amir

    When I first attempted to choose a subscription amount, I was unable to find the PayPal icon on my iPhone. I decided to drop a line in the comment section and upon reloading of the page, the PayPal button appeared. I checked this one more time on the same device with the same result. This might just be an individual device error but if other suffer from the same, they should post in the comments bellow. It would certainly be a minor barrier for the expansion of subscriptions.

  • Republicofscotland

    As Assange is a journalist and publisher, is there not a precedent case on which Assange could refer to, if he decided to face his detractors charges in say a neutral countries courts?

    Could he not surrender himself to that neutral countries authorities as well, and get out of the Ecuadorian embassy before they put him out?

      • John2o2o

        Julian Assange has (according to the gentleman who is in charge of this blog) already clearly stated that he does not want to go to Russia.

        Shall I repeat that or is that clear enough for you and the rest of the creepy spooks who no doubt infest this blog?

        Write it down so you don’t forget.

        • Martinned

          That doesn’t exactly solve the problem of what counts as a “neutral” country as RoS had in mind.

          Also, Craig’s judgement with respect to Assange is clearly extremely impaired, so I’m not exactly going to take his word for anything. (Nor would I take Assange’s word for anything, but that’s a different story.)

          • Antonym

            You sound just like Robert Hannigan “CMG”: I wouldn’t take his word for anything, nor from Brannon, Clapper, Comey or McCabe. Highly paid liars protected by highly paid lawyers.

          • Charles Bostock

            On a point of fact, Republicofscotland, it is the Swiss Federal government which is competent to grant asylum and not any City or Cantonal government. So you are raising false hope here – the Geneva city govt can ask away as long as it likes but it can do no more than that.

          • Martinned

            LOL. Local politicians all over the world like to adopt resolutions concerning matters that are outside their purview. (Actually, not just local. The European Parliament often does it too.) It’s a great way to make a splash towards your constituents without having to actually confront the nuance and/or consequences of your “decision”. (See also the Scottish government’s decision to “revoke” art. 50. I agree with their opinion, but that doesn’t make it any less silly.)

            The Geneva City Parliament is one of the least conservative elected bodies in all of Switzerland, and has absolutely no authority over asylum or extradition. So they decided to score some free points by adopting a resolution about Assange. So what? That’s hardly a good predictor for what the Swiss government might do.

            Generally the Swiss are quite law & order. The wildcard is the SVP, the populist party. Usually they’re quite right-wing, but being populist they sometimes end up on the left.

      • SA

        After the admission of ignorance on your part about the Assange case I would take a low profile especially and not make silly allegations like the one above. As I advised CB before “when in a hole, stop digging”

        • Charles Bostock

          Yes, thank you for your “advice”, “SA”. But you’d be better employed looking at the quality of your own posts. And do try and develop an argument occasionally, that’s my advice to you.

        • Martinned

          That’s generally sound advice, but in this case I don’t think any of the facts that I’ve been made aware of yesterday undermine the basic point I was making: If Assange is suffering so much, all he has to do is walk out the front door.

  • nevermind

    Thanks for the link to the horrific account of Julians treatment at the US/Ecuadorian stasi embassy, Craig. How can they not be under the cosh of the US? what a macabre show they are presenting, and all to cut his speaking time with Stasi rigmarole.

    Moreover, are there any moves to liberate the man, ideally in full public view? How about asking Iceland to declare him an official diplomat/courier? before the last wretched action of this no hope, its all for the elite don’t you know, Government is disintegrating into its gruel state.

  • Martinned

    If the situation in the Ecuadorian embassy is so harrowing, he’s welcome to leave at any time. There’s literally no one stopping him.

    • John2o2o

      There is no one stopping most people from stepping out in front of a bus.

      But on balance and with all things considered it may carry the risk of serious injury. And so may not be a good idea.

      No one in fact knows what will happen to Julian if and when he leaves the Ecuadorian Embassy. But if I were in his shoes I too might consider it a risk not worth taking at the moment.

      The minister of state at the UK FCO that directs MI5 and MI6, Sir Alan Duncan is on record as describing Julian as a “miserable little worm”. In the light of that even you Martin might not be willing to exercise your freedom.

      • Martinned

        Well, given that neither the minister of state at the UK FCO nor MI5 nor MI6 have anything to say about what happens to Assange once he leaves that embassy, I’m not sure why that matters. In the UK we have government of laws, not men. And Assange has demonstrated plenty in the past that he understands that, when it suits him.

        • pretzelattack

          they could refuse to renditio him to the u.s., but given that you’ve already pronounced him a “criminal” in one of your posts above i expect you to ignore that. and lol, in the uk you have a government of incompetents and liars, much like the u.s., your bastard child.

  • Martinned

    Julian Assange is merely a journalist and publisher.

    If you believe that, I have a bridge you might like to buy.

    (For the record, I believe that under normal European human rights standards Assange should not be extradited to the US, or at least not extradited without long and detailed guarantees from the US authorities. But that’s not because he’s innocent of all crimes, but rather because even the guilty have rights.)

    • Robyn

      So exactly what crimes has Julian Assange committed? What might he be charged with?

      • Martinned

        Bail jumping (“absconding”) in the UK, and publishing classified US documents, to begin with. Whether he should be prosecuted for the latter is a fair question, but he certainly did the crime.

        • N_

          No – to do a crime under a state’s criminal code you have to be in that state’s jurisdiction.

          • Martinned

            Well, subject to that state’s jurisdiction. States can legitimately enforce their criminal laws against people not present within their borders. (Aforementioned war crimes legislation being a case in point.) The 1927 Lotus case (and the subsequent academic discussion thereof) is generally the governing precedent.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Martinned April 3, 2019 at 13:47
            You are probably aware that the US, and it’s poodle, have no respect for International Laws, and speak and do as their bellies guide them.

        • Ken Kenn

          He ‘jumped ‘ bail on a charge that was never brought?

          Has he a parking offence we don’t know about?

          Or has he not paid his TV Licence?

          So he theoretically can walk out any time he likes?

          The British then will arrest him for jumping bail on a charge that never materialised.

          He’s arrested for what then?

          Ruining a Judges game of golf?

          What other crime was committed in the UK?

          If Assange committed a crime in the UK he should be tried in the UK.

          Where does the US come into it?

          Publishing is not a crime unless it involves slander or libel.

          To prove both of the above you ( the publisher ) have to prove that
          what you said is true- not the slanderd/libelled to prove that it isn’t.

          If the US get hold of him do you seriously believe that that sort
          of proceedings will be allowed.

          He might call in as evidence Hilary Clintons servers as evidence.

          After the failure of Russiagate ( no apologies from the truth telling
          media so far ) the PTB will not allow that.

          I don’t think he’s scared of the ‘ Law ‘ he is wary of the prosecution of
          US Law and it won’t be applied fairly or reasonably.

          I’m sure he’s right.

          Ask Chelsea Manning.

          Not good optics for the Greatest Democracy in the world – is it?

        • Martinned

          Well, ish.

          To begin with, New York Times v. United States was about prior restraint, about the US government seeking to prevent publication. Even if it is accepted that they can’t do that, that doesn’t mean they can’t punish people afterwards. (Just like getting an injunction against an allegedly defamatory publication in the US is much harder than suing for damages afterwards.)

          Secondly, and more relevantly here, what the press can’t do is conspire with those who have a legal duty to hold certain information confidential, in order to violate that duty. It’s the difference between publishing something that someone sent you unsolicited – Wikileaks’ original business model – and coordinating with someone about their future plan to abscond with information and send it to you.

          At some point, no later than the extradition request, the US authorities would have to make their case and explain on which side of the line the alleged conduct falls. (Although of course the extradition request would only have to pass muster under art. 10 ECHR, not the US 1st amendment. The 1st amendment only comes into play if Assange is already in a US court.)

          • pretzelattack

            it’s not a crime for an australian journalist to publish information about u.s. war crimes, much as you like to defend and support those crimes.

          • Ken Kenn

            ” Wikileaks’ original business model – and coordinating with someone about their future plan to abscond with information and send it to you.”

            The first bit of what you say may be true but the second point is pure speculation that Wikileaks would say to a ptential leaker – go and get us this info and that info.

            Wikileaks doesn’t know about the leaks until they receive them.

            They are not called Old More’s Almanac leaks. How would they know what they want leaking?

            Do you see where you and the US are going with a statement like that?

            We’re into Trump/Russiagate territory.

            And you think that Assange will be tried fairly on your assumptions.

            I will ask you this though as I’m nowhere near the knowledge of Craig Murray.

            Explain to me what the crime was that Assange is alleged to have carried out and if their was a crime
            how and where was this crime committed?

            I’m not looking for technical legalities just what you think he did and how he did it as well as whether what
            he did ( or didn’t do it ) was a crime and where he did it?

            That’s a lot of dids.

    • different frank

      ‘Lo, EUREKA,’ I yelled into the cat, ‘Thou art truly laborious and divergent. My nose bleeds for your impending encounter with the front fender of a Mercedes Benz.’

    • mark golding

      Rights? You recklessly quote European rights that no one at all has ring-fenced in this Brexit scandal – More, if this empty, hollow and trivial government survives and is re-elected you can expect compulsory ID cards, DNA at birth and digital finger-printing of every British citizen according to Blairite Alan Johnson who behind public view is also colluding with the Israeli lobby to defile Corbyn. Wake up!


      • Charles Bostock


        Your post implies that EU nationals have more “rights” than UK citizens will have in the future.

        You then accuse the UK govt of being likely to introduce compulsory ID cards after Brexit.

        But ID cards are compulsory in every EU country except Ireland and Denmark.

        So if the UK introduced compulsory ID cards, it would only be doing what the rest of the rEU does, wouldn’t it.

        • Iain Stewart

          Not quite. Carrying identity documents is apparently still optional in Austria, Finland, Sweden and (oddly enough) France (where the police are likely to give anyone imprudent enough to be caught incognito a hard time). The one right the British are about to lose (or rather give away, or even pay heavily to dispose of) is of course their European citizenship, thus wriggling free from the “iron heel of the EU” (1).

          (1) Copyright Loony.

          • Charles Bostock


            I was talking about the obligation to have ID, not the obligation to carry it on you at all times. Plese read what I write more carefully if you intend to comment on it.

            There is an ID card obligation in all Member States except the UK, Ireland and Denmark, but as you say, not all of those states require you to carry it on you.

            The main point was that Golding’s example of future loss of liberty through the imposition of ID cards was an extremely foolish one- unless you accept that the EU25 citizens have already lost that particular liberty.

  • pete

    It is good that Craig Murray reminds us again that some of the information on his blog comes from people who have made a considerable sacrifice in the name of freedom of information. Craig lost his job because he was a man of principle, without Chelsea Manning we would never have known about the details of the Collateral Murder event made public on the Wikileaks website ( https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org )

    This was the public relations nightmare that the US authorities sought to suppress, along with the duplicity and corrupt practice revealed in the cable documents. The trumped up charges against Assange were just a pretext to get the man into custody so that he could be extradited to the US, no matter what the Guardian might claim to the contrary, just as the move to get Manning subpoenaed before a Grand Jury was another way to get her back into jail and out of the public view. In these grotesque persecutions I am reminded of the attorney who asked McCarthy “Have you no sense of decency?”: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6444/

  • Garth Carthy

    @ Martinned
    “(For the record, I believe that under normal European human rights standards Assange should not be extradited to the US, or at least not extradited without long and detailed guarantees from the US authorities. But that’s not because he’s innocent of all crimes, but rather because even the guilty have rights.)”

    Surely the point is that the US or UK authorities can never be trusted to guarantee anything.
    They break International laws and commit war crimes with impunity. Do you live in the real world?

    • bj

      That guy exposed himself by stating “even the guilty have rights” instead of “even the accused have rights”.

      It’s about “classified US documents” and “Russia”, that’s what his peeve is.

      Keep this in mind.

    • Martinned

      If you truly believe that the UK courts cannot be trusted to obey the law (i.e. the Extradition Act) and uphold human rights, you should probably move to another country, because that’s a pretty seriously lack of trust to have in the country where you reside. Like I said, in 2010-11 Julian Assange had no trouble getting the Courts to seriously consider his case. (He lost in the end, but not because the judges were corrupt/unreliable.)

      • Dennis Revell

        April 3, 2019 at 13:42:

        You say:
        “If you truly believe that the UK courts cannot be trusted to obey the law (i.e. the Extradition Act) and uphold human rights, you should probably move to another country, because that’s a pretty seriously lack of trust to have in the country where you reside.”

        You really are the stereotype of why most people on Earth have deep suspicion and contempt of lawyers. I would bet that you would argue vehemently that the victims of the Nuremberg Laws were treated fairly according to the laws of the land. That you don’t much like arguments that the law is very, Very, VERY often WRONG, and even argue like a batshit crazy utterly inhumane person that those prosecuted and persecuted under a law that a later law reverses and declares unlawful were nevertheless treated fairly, and should have no recourse (in cases where that persecution wasn’t up to death). Your tunnel vision would still have segregated schools in the US, and miscegenation would still be a serious offence there, as would even wives giving their husbands blow jobs ( which probably wouldn’t bother you personally, probably s’thing else you’d frown on ).

        You really are the stereotype of why most people on Earth have deep suspicion and contempt of lawyers. Your arrogant comment “you should probably move to another country” assuming from your undoubted privileged well heeled position that EVERYBODY is financially in a position to just uproot and skiddaddle from wherever they happen to be settled. I think I detect the insufferable arrogance of ex Public School – inbred born unbearably confident to rule with none of the required competence. I guess austerity passed you by.

        The fact is that inGRRRland has become a xenophobic, increasingly racist, teeentsy-tiny minded, dumb as buckets of rocks shit-hole of a country, still hankering for its GORY days of Empire, nothing more than a pimple off the French coast. FUCK THE PLACE. Enjoy the ‘signature’ I sometimes stick at the ends of posts when it seems appropriate – just for you this time:

        “Nothing will avail to offset this virus which is poisoning the whole world. America is the very incarnation of doom. She will drag the whole world down to the bottomless pit.”

        Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer


        The creation of the United States of America has turned out to be the worst man-made catastrophe ever inflicted on human-kind; and, for that matter, most of the rest of animal-kind.

        In turn, it’s well known that the United States is the bastard spawn of the United Kingdom, the first, the most successful and the most brutal of Europe’s genocidal colonisers.

        Those at Echelon, GCHQ, MI6, NSA, CIA and similar fascists reading this post and ‘signature’, are referred to the profanity used by the sadly seemingly immortal lying manipulative War-Criminal, Mass-Murderer and Traitor Dick Cheney to some Democratic Party non-entity (as pretty much all the Democrats are).


        • pretzelattack

          well said, i think we have another fine example of the work of the integrity initiative here.

      • nevermind

        Garth is talking of European Human Rights standards, whilst you are answering by saying Uk courts could be trusted.
        Trusted to keep Julian Assange in perplexing judicial purdha, trusted to mix their deserving, so they say, but deferential political bias, keeping as close as possible to the status quo, and press it upon us all.
        You, Martinned, are a neocon apologist juggling possibilities of law. Bless

      • Martinned

        That it’s a bunch of people being stupid, who will likely get their just desserts. (I’d suggest kicking them out of the army, but I’m not sure how the army’s recruitment is going. They might need to be pragmatic and come up with a different punishment.)

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Martinned April 3, 2019 at 14:12
          Of course, just a bunch of ‘people’ (elite Paras?) ‘being stupid’?
          Couldn’t be anything more than that, obviously – British troops wouldn’t countenance such behaviour.
          ‘Why the British should apologise to India (by Shashi Tharoor)’:
          Bloody Sunday, Cyprus, Aden, Kenya, Malaya, South Africa, Basra, Greece.
          They do have ‘form’, you know.
          ‘British Army ‘could stage mutiny under Corbyn’, says senior serving general’:

          • Martinned

            That’s a lot of crazy in just one comment. In the future, if you split them out, I might respond to each in turn so that we can have a minimally organised conversation. (This nesting format for posts is generally quite convenient, but more so if you don’t stick too many topics in the same comment.)

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Martinned April 3, 2019 at 15:41
            What’s crazy about my comment? The link between the countries named is obviously that British troops committed murders, tortures and War Crimes in them all.
            Would you rate the last link as a senior British general ‘being stupid’?

        • Andyoldlabour


          The examples which Paul Barbara gave are real, genuine events. They are examples of atrocities carried out by our armed forces.
          You chunter on about our great legal system and human rights, as if our country is somehow a bastion of all that is good. My father is a bit like you, he doesn’t even believe that the UK/US were responsible for the 1953 coup in Iran – Operation Ajax, or responsible for the shah going into exile in 1979, and the theocracy taking over, a massive error of judgement, which led to the all too predictable “law of unintended consequences” an oft used phrase when our meddling leads to chaos and disaster.
          I suppose that you are not aware of the “Hague Invasion Plan”, which ensures that the US and its allies (their citizens, such as Bush and Blair) will never face the ICC in the Hague – we dispense so called “justice” against other countries, but we will never face justice for the crimes we commit ourselves.

          • Andyoldlabour


            “Unlike you, I’m capable of believing that more than one side to a dispute can consist of bad guys.”

            I am quite capable of stepping out of the “echo chamber” and looking at both sides of the story. I believe that the US and UK planned the attempted overthrow of Assad a long time ago. I also acknowledge that Assad’s rule would not be acceptable in the UK. I can also acknowledge that radical Islam is a huge problem in the Middle East particularly and has spread to Africa and the far East.
            Regarding 1979, and the Iranian revolution, it was partly due to growing dissatisfaction at the Shah’s brutal methods, and partly due to a joint UK/US plan to remove him, place Iran in the temporary control of “friendly ayatollahs” or a military junta and then when it all calmed down a bit, reinstal the Shah’s son on the Peacock Throne.


          • Dennis Revell


            Nail, Head, On.

            Everyone will understand that variation on a theme, excepting perhaps Martinned and Bostick – as I have some doubt as to whether they know what a nail is.


    • bj

      You’re catering old news.

      Btw. a “anti-left wing conspiracy”, is that a conspiracy perpetrated by the anti-left (and so, in the current colloquialism, a narrative fabricated by the anti-left [although the fabricators would on the contrary see themselves as revealers and uncoverers], or is it ‘anti’ –in the sense of opposing and maybe subverting– I repeat anti, a ‘left wing conspiracy’ , that is, a conspiracy perpetrated by the ‘left wing’ (and so, in the current colloquialism, a narrative fabricated by the left wing [although the fabricators would on the contrary see themselves as revealers and uncoverers])?

      Is a fictional conspiracy fictional in the head of the conspirator or is it fictional in the real world.
      Is a real conspiracy real in the head of the conspiracy-thinker, or is it real in the actual world. If the latter, can it be called a conspiracy?
      Is conspiracy a legal term?

      • pete

        Ha! “anti-left wing conspiracies”
        Yes, I see what you mean, did Martinned mean to say anti-left-wing conspiracies or anti left-wing- conspiracies or even something else. The meaning is not clear, particularly as he added fictional or real, indicating that his reference was in doubt. As he only added later that it was not old news I assume he was unaware that the target practice photo probably came to light as a result of an older story concerning Shamima Begum’s picture being used at the Ultimatge Airsoft Range in Wallasasy.
        It’s a bad practice, of course, but it’s better than shooting real people.

    • Aloha

      Martinned, this is a bullshit video. If the camera doesn’t pan out to see what these guys are actually shooting at then there is no proof that Corbyn is their target. You are obviously having a lot of fun messing with people who are on this blog and seriously care about the corruption and lies that are destroying every ones lives including yours by the way. I feel sorry for you….

  • N_

    Those interested in state media political propaganda – which is to say, the running of the British brand in its internal market – should pay close attention to the story of the unidentified British soldiers who are said to have used a picture of Jeremy Corbyn as target practice.

    This story was released within HOURS of the announcement by the Tory prime minister that she is going to cooperate with Jeremy Corbyn in reaching a Brexit arrangement, an announcement that is causing fury among the xenophobic racist far-right majority among Tory MPs, the Tory party membership, and Tory voters.

    Anybody who doesn’t think this is important should recall that there was a huge majority for Leave among British soldiers. As I recall, it was higher than 80%.

    We can be sure that before the story was released very serious prior consideration will have been given to the question of whether and when to release it.

    The context is one of decades in which the Tory press have spread and encouraged the idea that Britain’s EU membership was a matter of traitors who wheeled out large amounts of money from state coffers every week and handed it to a foreign power called “the EU” in return for nothing other than the obligation to follow foreigners’ orders. The word “traitors” may not often have been used, but this is certainly the idea and the belief. Radical critics should be under no illusion on this score. This is very much the mentality that used to tell striking workers to get back to Russia.

    The propagandists will have have determined how to play the story in various markets, the most important of which will include the army itself, the other armed forces, and the whole “army world” which includes army families, veterans, veterans’ families, those who help out with Help for Heroes, those who drink in Royal British Legion clubs, etc., as well as in the market susceptible to the declarations and stunts of Tommy Robinson. And yes those markets overlap. Robinson’s rallies have featured military veterans in their berets, and he himself has run stunts featuring serving British soldiers.

    This morning the leader of the ERG party within a party, Jeremy Rees-Mogg, was saying that real Brexit is being prevented by hundreds of MPs who are betraying the millions of Leave voters. Other Tories have mentioned the Tory manifesto. They don’t seem to realise that the Tory party did not win a majority in the House of Commons and that therefore parliament is NOT under any kind of obligation to implement the Tory manifesto. Got to wonder what they teach them at Eton.

    JRM also said there is a disconnect between a supposed majority of traitor “Remainer” MPs, set against the Leave majority among voters in the referendum three years ago. It didn’t seem to occur to the BBC interviewer to ask him what he thinks is the reason for this disconnect.

    In any other country, UKIP probably would have won the 2017 election.

    Polly Toynbee is actually right: this is ALL about the Tory party.

    Expect MORE highly symbolic and exceptionally well timed events in the next two weeks that are aimed, as the “target practice” story is aimed, at taking xenophobia to a new level.

    • bj

      the story of the unidentified British soldiers who are said to have used a picture of Jeremy Corbyn as target practice.

      I’ve seen a story just like that flash by a few weeks ago tops.

      It’s playground news.

      And using a picture of an opponent like that, is as old as Rome.

      • N_

        I couldn’t care less if it’s as old as Babylonia and it’s kindergarten news. Consider its timing in context. What gets printed as one of the top news stories doesn’t “just happen”.

        You’re just rationalising to pooh-pooh what you hadn’t thought of considering properly.

    • N_

      Click here for the current tally in a Brexit poll on the main participatory propaganda site for the British army, Arrse.co.uk:

      * voted Leave: 79.4%, of which 0.0% now want to remain
      * voted Remain: 19.9%, of which 11.6% now want to leave and 8.3% still want to remain
      (0.8% described themselves as wanting a referendum because they were too stupid to understand the question – students of propaganda please note the phrasing here)

      That makes, dsregarding the 0.8%:

      * want to Leave: 92%
      * want to Remain: 8%

      That distribution is VERY different for the population as a whole.

      And oh look, the leader of a minority government enters talks with the leader of the opposition and a story comes out a few hours later about soldiers using a picture of the leader of the opposition as target practice.

      • Martinned

        Well yes, but I’d imagine that the people who sign up for the military are very different from the population as a whole in many other respects as well. Not a lot of university grads, I’d imagine for example.

        • Casual Observer

          ”Well yes, but I’d imagine that the people who sign up for the military are very different from the population as a whole in many other respects as well. Not a lot of university grads, I’d imagine for example.”

          Its probably the case that the problem stems from university grads, simply because getting into the Officers Mess these days will in all likelihood require a degree ? And its the Officers who set the tone, no shop, politics, or religion, in the Mess sort of thing. Back in the day, the officer class instinctively knew that whatever ones personal political leanings, it was best to keep them private, and ensure that the rank and file did not become politically engaged. Armed services that become politically engaged always spell trouble, and nobody wants that.

      • michael norton

        Most members of the Tory Party voted to Leave, almost none have now decided to Remain.
        Most working class Labour Party Members voted to Leave, they are not changing their minds, either.
        We are being sold out by the intellectuals/high earners, who do not give one shit for the workers.

        • Andyoldlabour

          michael norton
          I totally agree Michael, the “elite” do not give a toss about the majority. When the EU orders austerity measures on individual country’s budgets, it is the poor who suffer, not the snuffling hogs in Brussels.

      • Vivian O'Blivion

        The Sandhurst selection procedure for Commissioned Officers is a sleekit piece of engineering designed to perpetuate social control of the established elite.
        Imagine if the top ranks of another public funded service, say the Police, were exclusively reserved for the products of elite private schools.
        On first pass, the system is beneficial to the elite in that it provides employment to its less intellectually gifted progeny. This is itself a scandal.
        On closer inspection, the system establishes a pool of closely knit (predominantly male) ex-squadies who are entirely comfortable with the notion that “there’s them that’s born to lead and there’s them that’s born to follow”. These groups remain active in civilian life through Regimental associations and the Net, reinforcing extreme right wing politics through insular feedback loops.

        • Alyson

          It’s all about soldier F, the feelings being promoted across Facebook now, that the republicans were the only real enemy in NI, and the notion espoused by Farage and our new crop of Israel funded fascists, that peace is a dirty word

      • Casual Observer

        Probably best to not take that image too seriously ? Catering as it does for old and some serving soldiers, Arrse tends to be very rich in the sort of dark humour that abounds in all branches of the armed services.

        The topic of Brexit provoked strong debate on Arrse, which was for the most part of a higher level than that which we have witnessed coming from our elected representatives.

    • TFS

      The Politcians choose legally to ceed the decision to the public, by the avenue of a Referendum. This they did.

      They can talk about constituents voting, their manifesto as much as they want. The Politcians voted in an act which gave the right of decision on this issue to the public.

    • Tony

      “This morning the leader of the ERG party within a party, Jeremy Rees-Mogg, was saying that real Brexit is being prevented by hundreds of MPs who are betraying the millions of Leave voters. Other Tories have mentioned the Tory manifesto. They don’t seem to realise that the Tory party did not win a majority in the House of Commons and that therefore parliament is NOT under any kind of obligation to implement the Tory manifesto. Got to wonder what they teach them at Eton.”

      Er…..Both Conservative and Labour manifesto’d leaving the EU. To put that into parliamentary perspective, that’s five hundred and seventy nine seats, which is eighty nine percent of the Lower House

  • Courtenay Barnett

    There is at core here a moral issue – well beyond the questions of legality.
    I believe I am correct in saying that the American Declaration of Independence declares and acknowledges a right to revolt against tyranny.
    If the laws were all to have been upheld during the slave days of the British Empire in the Caribbean, then no Maroons ( i.e. the slaves who revolted and left for freedom in the mountains ) would have existed. Had they simply obeyed the law, they would have submitted to oppression.
    What about our own Craig Murray, right here and now? Had he been a good little boy and shut up about wrongdoing in Uzbekistan then the world’s eyes would not have been opened up; consciences would not been moved; right would not have had its voice heard over wrong.
    So, we get to the legal issues concerning Julian Assange:-
    1. State Secrecy
    2. Bail Act
    State Secrecy versus legitimate criticism: Much wrongdoing by agents of the state would never come to light if journalists were not unlawfully leaked confidential ‘classified information’.
    What a legal farce when the U.K. Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in favor of recognising Sweden’s arrest warrant concerning Assange’s rape charge(s). Their Lordships made an interpretation of the term “Judicial authority” by reference to the 2003 European Extradition Act. But the law too is that extradition orders are not granted for politically motivated reasons. The Swedish legal system could have moved to interview Assange at the Embassy, but they let their statute of limitations run out. The ruse is revealed and Sweden ( based on available evidence; want thereof) drops the charge(s). But, now that the original consideration related to the Swedish rape charge is not active, then is it still that Assange in the UK remains a “Wanted man”?
    Is it not true that the press in the UK and US also publish classified materials; are the Editors then hounded and/or prosecuted in the same manner that Assange has been?
    From 2012 Assange, with a grant of political asylum, has been living at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
    Fast forward to the Bail Act violation.
    Assange was busy obtaining asylum at the time and could not be in the Ecuadorian Embassy while at the same time surrender; and so thereby not be breaching his bail. “Failure to surrender” in those circumstances, on the bail aspect, is a minor offence. At least the UK Government and the police know his place of residence, which he has not vacated for quite a few years now. The law, if I know it at this time, I think for such violation is a prison term of three months and/or a level 5 fine ( is that about approximately £5000?). But wait – didn’t Assange spend 10 days in Wandsworth Prison in 2010 and 550 days at the home of a supporter while on bail, which could be deducted from any custodial sentence. Or, does the UK justice system now want to take it another way and contend that there is “contempt of court”?
    Cf. Craig Murray did what he did; but, could not so have done without breaching the Official Secrets Act. Was he morally right; legally wrong?
    Up and down the UK in courts and across the Commonwealth in courts each day, persons fail to show up for their hearing date. Magistrates or Judges will weigh the circumstances and many such Magistrates or Judges re-list in the criminal justice system – or – depending on the circumstances issue a Bench Warrant. The operative factor is “ the circumstances” explaining the absence:-
    A. The man is seriously ill Mi Lord and tomorrow will be undergoing surgery; or
    B. The man is seriously under pressure and the US wants him for telling the world the truth by way of factually exposing the nature of largescale political wrongdoing ( e.g. diplomatic cable on the Chagos Islands etc.)
    So, here we are:-
    The CIA director, Mike Pompeo, simply does not like the truth coming out and being exposed globally – so WikiLeaks is termed, “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,”
    As best I understand the situation; if the US proceeds with an application for extradition, then it would be the UK Extradition Act of 2003 which would be the applicable law. The traditional approach under international law is approached as being decisions to be made by the judicial authorities alone and no political considerations are to be involved.
    What next?
    Yeah – lock him up indeed.

  • Rhys Jaggar

    I think conservatives with a small C must choose a side too.

    This is about accountability vs authoritarianism, not right vs left.

    Everyone must decide on the balance between the need for discretion and secrecy vs the need to expose unacceptable government behaviour.

    Just as I was on the side of Snowden, in this case I am on the side of Assange.

    My life experience tells me that those parachuted into unelected power generally favour secrecy and unaccountability, whereas those actually chosen more democratically generally favour checks and balances more often.

  • Charles Bostock

    Craig Murray

    Perhaps the embassy has not responded because you have filled in the application form incorrectly.

    Under “Nationalkity” you have written “Scottish”.

    That is incorrect ; your nationality is UK. Or, colloquially, British.

      • Charles Bostock


        Whether Scotland is a nation or not, you will not get very far if, as a UK citizen, you put down “Scottish”, “Welsh”, “Northern Irish” or “English” on an official form which asks you to state your nationality. And if that form emanates from a foreign government you will get less far. And if the form emanates from a foreign government that does not really want the form-filler to be able to do whatever it is he’s filling the form out for, you will get even less far.
        Do please read what I write before knee-jerking.

        • Ian

          Oh really, quite the expert aren’t we. Said with all the passion and insight of a petty bureacrat. Who’s jerking you chain then?

        • Ian

          Oh, and since we are quite the little border guard, perhaps you could advise people who live in Israel what to put under ‘nationality’.

          • Ian

            Dennis, the point is that they can’t put Israeli as nationality, since there is no such thing. Look in their passports. They are categorised under a different system. I wonder what that can be, and which was the only other country to practice that.

          • Dennis Revell

            HI Ian:

            Oh, I didn’t know that, so what do “legal” permanent residents of the Zio-NAZI state of Israel call themselves, or write on forms?


          • Charles Bostock

            Simple : Nationality : Israeli.

            As you know; there are about 6 million Jewish, Muslim, Christian(and probably a few other faith-based) people who are currently abler to give their nationality as “Israeli” on forms, if required. That may displease you but it’s a fact 🙂

        • Clark

          Two points Charles:

          If the embassy bureaucracy consider the form has an error, they should reply, specifying the error.

          Craig has applied many times before, and if similar applications have been accepted previously, either it should be accepted again, or Craig should be notified of the change of policy.

          Of course, if they’re looking for excuses…

          • Clark

            Though of course maybe I should have ignored your comment, since you wrote “nationalkity”, and got your own e-mail address wrong.

          • Charles Bostock

            Your response at 08h51 was valid, your afterthought at 08h53 was just silly. Beta ++ for the first, gamma — for the second.

    • Martinned

      The former is bad, the latter makes sense. The whole point of barristers is that the act on either side within their area of expertise. Defense barristers within the same day will prosecute one case and defend in another. So it makes sense for the same barrister to pop up in both cases.

      • Sharp Ears

        Here in the UK, we call them ‘defence barristers’. Defense is a US spelling.

        • Charles Bostock

          Several commenters on here use US spellings but I haven’t noticed you complaining about it before.

          • Clark

            MODS ^^^

            “Martinned being probably the most anal retentive tunnel-visioned a-hole on this blog. I have no doubt that despite its complete lack of ethical training or ethics, complete lack of sympathy and empathy”

            Purely playing the man, ball not of interest. Please ban the troll Denis Revell.

          • Charles Bostock

            Yes, if I used language like Dennis Revell’s the Mods would be deleting all of my posts and not just the ones where I wipe the floor with someone they wish to protect.

            But I don’t really mind Revell, who clearly has a screw loose. Are we sure it’s not Chris Spivvey?

      • Isa

        That would all be acceptable hadn’t your CPS behaved in a most unlawful manner by destroying documents , by pressuring Swedish prosecutors to not drop the charges and asking them not to interview assange .

        It’s clear as day what they were up to and what they are up to .

        • Martinned

          …and when Assange has his day in court, he is welcome to bring all of that up. He’s entitled to his rights under art. 6 ECHR just like everyone else who stands accused of a crime. (Although I’m not sure why misconduct in the prosecution of one crime would be relevant in the trial concerning another crime.)

  • Charles Bostock

    As usual, Martinned wipes the floor with his opponents. Probably because he argues on the basis of knowledge and fact, he leaves his opponents desperately panting behind him, destined never to catch up.

    This blog needs more fact-based commenters with expert knowledge.

    • Republicofscotland

      Well Charles its a fact that the UN said Assange is in arbitrary detention. That he (Assange) is arbitrarily detained.

        • Charles Bostock

          Well, you lot usually shout “troll” when you read something which corrects you or which you don’t like. Not really very convincing, is it.

          • bj

            You usually become quite aloof when you read something you don’t like.
            Do you notice it yourself?

          • Charles Bostock

            On the contrary, “bj” 😉 I wade in rather strongly. And do you know, I usually manage it without resorting to insults and ad hominems 🙂

          • Tatyana

            ha ha ha 🙂
            Bj, are not you tired yet with spending your time and effort on empty spaces?

            I’ve discovered a new series “Homeland” you may be interested in. Despite of some artistic concessions and conventions, it is catching 🙂

      • Charles Bostock

        I mean, you lot should really be consistent and make your minds up.

        A UN panel says something you lot like to hear, so you lot say “oh, it must be so because the panel said so”.

        But when a real court rejects the Chagossian’s claim, which is something you don’t like, then we have you lot shouting “Bad court, wrong and evil decision!”

        And there are more examples…….

      • Charles Bostock

        Yes, “Republicofscotland”, it is a fact that the UN panel (NOT the UN! ) said that; But that does not make what the panel found a fact.

        But it’s good that you support the outcome of judicial processes. I trust you have shown equal respect for the outcome of the Supreme Court’s dellberations on the Chagos Islands affair.

          • Martinned

            And when the Human Rights council, the parent organisation of the panel that declared Assange to be detained, adopts resolutions lamenting the human rights violations in Nicaragua or Venezuela, are you still so unwavering in your willingness to take their word for it?

        • Clark

          Regarding the Chagossians, the UN Court is a neutral party, therefore the UK Supreme Court’s opposing finding strongly suggests that it is corrupted by the UK’s political motives in the issue. That reflects very badly upon the UK.

    • pretzelattack

      there was some wiping, but he didn’t do a very good job. needs another roll.

    • bj

      One detester of whistle blowers of “classified US documents” recognizes another.

      • Charles Bostock

        Anyway, it is interesting that no one has denied the truth of what I wrote about Martinned at 15h42 above.

        So much easier to attack me, eh?

        • Dennis Revell


          I denied the truth of what you wrote, with some reasoning you complete a-hole; Craig or his blog minders apparently ‘nuked’ the comment – as they might this one.

          Hey, that’s just me,.


        • Ian

          “Anyway, it is interesting that no one has denied the truth of what I wrote about Martinned at 15h42 above.”

          As it is only your opinion, calling it the truth is rather grandiose exaggeration, unsupported by any actual reasoning on your behalf.
          Complaining about people attacking you is rather rich, coming from someone whose sole endeavour is to goad people with deliberately baiting assertions.
          Anyway, people don’t attack you, they just don’t take you seriously, and respond appropriately, with humour, sarcasm or irritation.

          • Charles Bostock

            No reasoning required, Ian, just read the replies to my original post. .

    • Tony

      Charles, Martinned is making a fool of himself (again!). It is CPS policy not to pursue breach of bail conditions charges when the originating offence has been dropped. The CPS is in breach of it’s own policy in it’s continued pursuit of Assange. If you (and the likes of Martinned) want to be taken seriously in these discussions, you need to move to the next stage and start questioning why the CPS is disregarding it’s own policy for one particular individual.

      • Andyoldlabour


        “It is CPS policy not to pursue breach of bail conditions charges when the originating offence has been dropped.”

        That is indeed true and very logical. Assange was basically arrested in the UK for charges/allegations made in Sweden, which have subsequently been dropped. A crime was therefore never committed.

        • Martinned

          That last bit does not follow. What you’re referring to is the CPS’s policy under the public interest test. That’s the bit that talks about whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute even if there is sufficient evidence to convict.

      • Charles Bostock


        You may well be right about the CPS’s policy in this regard. But even if you are, perhaps the CPS is choosing not to follow its usual policy in the case of Assange. Let’s face it, Assange has turned this into a high-profile event and done his best to publicise it as much as possible. Perhaps, in those circumstances, the CPS feels it has no other option than to keep behind him?

        • Northern

          You seem to be conceding that the CPS can and does make political decisions. Is it not the role of the CPS to simply to prosecute those who could potentially have broken the law? If their decision making process is affected by political concerns as you seem to have just admitted (regardless of how those circumstances came to be), does that not somewhat undermine the usual arguement trotted out by yourself and Martinned that Assange should have nothing to fear from facing the justice system?

          Lets try be unequivocal here – what’s the bigger crime in your eyes, revealing war crimes, or the war crimes themselves? You both seem to be rather concerned with what is by your own admission’s, a minor crime compared with the murder of thousands of innocent people. I can’t work out how a reasonable person could consider that to be the case.

    • Ken Kenn

      Well I’ve followed all the ‘ facts ‘ re: Trump v Liberal allegedly progressive America and found out that what was said was utterly untrue.

      Where do I get a refund for those ‘ facts? ‘

      I could have saved all the fact checkers a fortune just by declaring Hilary as a nasty politically ambitious warmonger and Donald as an Orange Buffoon who actually is no good at business and is the Alan Partridge of Real Estate.

      All the evidence was there from the start – no more facts where needed.

      Of course all right wingers are sick of experts – I forgot.

      Have you got your rosettes for the Euro Elections yet?

      I’ve got mine.

      Mr Junckers got his – he’s prepared unlike some politicians I could mention.

    • mark golding

      Knowledge and fact is certainly not conducive or contributive to the logic of the meme or concept that states a pretty seriously lack of trust to have in the country where you reside…This ‘trust’ codex is utter bollocks when one recalls the lies, deceit and fabrications that the British establishment constructed to massacre Iraq in an illegal war; the collateral murder, the planting of explosives by British SAS dressed as Arabs, the use of cluster bombs, those sparkling ‘toys’ that maimed hundreds of Iraq children; the British secret service plotting with the CIA to build a secret extraordinary rendition and detention program that spanned the globe and stripped people of their most basic rights, facilitated gruesome forms of torture, at times captured the wrong people, and debased the UK’ human rights reputation world-wide. These appalling facts occupy the event horizon forever pressing into the minds of the higher perceptive.

      No, this old baby boomer, Navy veteran and cadre will work with the astute Millennials and the Principled to attempt to clear this shameless and gruesome swamp that is the British Establishment circa 21st century..

  • Sopo

    Socialists by default have chosen their side. Wsws.org, like Craig, Pilger, Hedges, have provided unstinting support for Assange and Manning.

  • Baalbek

    The liberals are a total write off and a sizeable chunk of the left too. Every newspaper and almost every journalist that partnered with WikiLeaks and milked it for everything they could ge, threw Assange under the bus and left him to be stitched up and effectively tortured at the behest of the American government. The utterly shameless, and discredited, Guardian and its stable of crooked hacks and spook agency stenographers is particularly odious in this regard.

    The treatment of Assange, the Russiagate fiasco and the witch-hunt against Jeremy Corbyn and Labour tells you everything you need to know about the ruling class. They are the lowest form of scumbag and cannot be trusted or reasoned with.

  • BrianFujisan

    I Often think about Julian Rotting away in that place.

    !00% torture.. No Good Fresh Air , No breeze in the hair, No Sunlight on Skin. No Choice in Anything

    The U.K establishment sickens me

    And it may be Futile to wait on a Corbyn Gov.

    I wonder if Corbyn will ever be Allowed to be P.M.

    I also wonder how a senior serving army general can say a Jeremy Corbyn government could face “a mutiny” from the Army if it tried to downgrade them… And that general Not be Arrested.

    Good to see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calling for the release of Chelsea Manning, who’s been in solitary confinement for 26 days.. Again it’s Torture – According to the U.N.

    • Charles Bostock

      He’ll get a breeze and sun if he stands on the balcony for slightly longer than it takes to address a few supporters in the street below. But it’s true that you can’t expect fresh air in polluted London.

      • BrianFujisan

        Maybe by Now Julian is Too beaten down.. Tortured by the Evil U.K Elite.. To stand sunning himself on the Balcony.

        If Julian had the Choice of Freedom.. He’d be most welcome on one of My paradise Hebridean Beaches.. Then he could go running filled with Joy, wind and air.. and into the Ocean for a Skinny-Dip

        I hope he aint reading this.. At least till he’s free

        • Paul Barbara

          @ BrianFujisan April 3, 2019 at 22:37
          He is not allowed to ‘stand on the balcony’. He as only been on the balcony a few times all the while he has been there, and that was during the benevolent Presidency of Rafael Correa, as it is the Ambassador’s office.
          With the traitor Moreno having conned the Ecuadorean people into voting for him, and his selling his country and countrymen down the river to the Yanks, he has no chance of appearing publicly from the balcony.

          • BrianFujisan


            I did not realize the change in Ecuadorean Gov Meant Julian could not Even step on the Balcony

            Horrible Torture.

        • Dennis Revell


          In all likelihood that twat Moreno has forbidden use of the balcony to Assange – after all he would then be able to communicate with the cadre of probably pretty much always present supporters, and even mainstream reporters would rush to the scene to ask him questions – all contravening Moreno’s aim to keep Assange incommunicado. It probably went something like this: “you go out on the balcony to speak to whoever, to the World, and you’ll be out. Otherwise I’m sure Julian Assange would be out on the balcony for hours each day making his case.

          You’re trying to tell us that with everything that the World Patriot Assange has gone through and is going through, that you think he’d be OK freezing his ‘nads off skinny dipping on a Hebridean beach?!?. ;-). Remember he’s from the land of Sun, Sand, Sea, Surf and Sharks. 😉


          • Charles Bostock

            Pretty much always present group of supporters, eh?

            Does that mean that if I turned up one day I’d have a good chance of meeting some of this blog’s Assange-supporting commenters from London or Home Counties?

            I must really come along one day if that’s the case!

    • Alyson

      It is a fiction that Corbyn would reduce military capability. He is keen to ensure that Britain’s defence capabilities are up to date, based on what is best for the country, and not on what will give the most profit for arms dealers. He is anti nuclear, and would personally want to not fund a trident replacement which could kill millions from a distance, cost billions and never be used. However he accepts that Labour voted to renew Trident, and democracy is what is important. He would first and foremost attempt to negotiate peace. He is also more likely to provide for ex servicemen than the current government, which values people for their financial usefulness. Whether he will be allowed to be prime minister depends on who is deciding. He supports rule of law, including international law. This is the crux of the matter

      • BrianFujisan


        ” It is a fiction that Corbyn would reduce military capability…”

        Thank you for replying.. But My main Point is that.. A serving General threatens Corbyn.. If the U.k Elects him P.M.. And it must be Treason to say such a thing.. I hope Scotland is out of the U.K by then.

      • Dennis Revell


        Corbyn is a vacillating hypocritical coward. It’s quite clear that as soon as he became “Labour” Party leader, and thought he could sniff the reins of power, that his prior more “radical” apparent anti-war and anti-nuclear stances were going to be relegated – hardly ever to be mentioned again.

        It was clear as could be that Blair’s changes to the “Labour” Party would have to reversed as “Job 1”, for there to be any hope of Corbyn achieving any of his goals as stated. Just as Blair purged everyone from the party who he considered might not assent to figuratively sucking his dick, to the extent, for example, of changing rules with respect to Parliamentary candidates selected by constituencies – so that they had to jump the additional hurdle of having also to be approved by the NEC, Corbyn should have immediately selected a new NEC, and a wholly new Shadow Cabinet – purging at the very least those members who were pro-Iraq war voting MPs back in 2003. There were 15 2003 MPs in the Shadow Cabinet that Corbyn inherited, and every one of those War Criminal cunts voted for that atrocity, and the gutless weasel fired not a one of them until “Labour”‘s very own little night of the long knives over the leadership contest a long time later – so clearly his lack of decisive action as soon as he became leader came back to bite him in the arse at that point (as his supine positions on most everthing also have). Although I haven’t checked lately, as far as I know, to this day of those in Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet who were MPs back in 2003, there is still a majority who voted for that criminal carnage.

        To those arguing that Corbyn had to abide by “democratic” processes in the “Labour” Party, I say bullshit. If necessary he could have, should have, called his carefully selected candidates for these two bodies together, locked the fucking doors until the selections made & agreed, then unlocked them to a notified waiting press – now that would have been in line with his previous alleged radical nature, and I would agree, ironically, a pretty Blair-like thing to do.

        He should have immediately announced that grass-roots campaigns in all relevant constituences for deselection of Blairite MPs, including the withdrawal of all in-constituency support activities to such MPs – including recall, would get his full and loud support.

        Sure for both of these actions a lot of shit hitting the fan from the get go – but that would eventually settle down – he is the leader of the party, ffs; and that would have been much preferable than the unending torture of his alleged principles by the long slow incessant flinging of turds in his direction that has gone on for years now, and continues to this day.

        Hell, and the odious Blair arse-licker Tom Watson as Deputy Leader?!? Un-fucking-believable, and quite clearly un-fucking-tenable.

        In every single one of these issues and others I haven’t mentioned (eg: the anti-semitism nonsense), Corbyn’s abject cowardly failure to address them head on has without doubt come to bite him in the arse. This in spite of the fact that it was clear that he could count on the unwavering support of the “Labour” party rank & file, vastly increased in number precisely because of his prior more “radical” postions – many of whom I’m pretty sure took part in the largest demonstration in British if not World history back in 2003, and all of whom the hypocrit Corbyn has betrayed. He also failed to use this clear overwhelming support to insist that his anti-nuke stance must become, by hook or by crook “Labour” Party policy – it will quite clearly be up to an Independent Scotland to finally rid the British Isles of these odious doomsday machines (on the NIMBY principle) – another reason to support Scottish Independence – so that even pro-Union CND members and others with strong anti-nuke stances should nevertheless for that reason alone be in favour of Scottish Independence.

        Those who say that such ‘radical’ action wasn’t possible under the ‘rules’ of the “Labour” party – well, I already covered that – appoint a new NEC who will then b>re-write the fucking rules, to which I’ll add: also change the locks on NEC headquarters, – but who nevertheless persist in that contention I say that in that case Corbyn is leading the wrong fucking party.

        But he’s not in the wrong party. The attraction he feels to the lure of power is quite clearly considerably stronger than the attraction he ever had for his once stated principles:

        The icing on the cake for my argument that Jeremy Corbyn is a Hypocritical-Cowardly-Compromiser-Too-Far is a little matter that I’m pretty sure he did have full control of: that is that he outrageously allowed a free vote on bombing Syria – coming damned close to crossing the line of being a War-Criminal himself – or may be he did cross that line.

        IN addition, for much or all the reasoning given above, Corbyn is incompetent, but that doesn’t alliterate too well ;-).


          • Garth Carthy

            Dennis sees things in a binary way – he is an absolutist who see everything as right or wrong, black or white.
            I think there may be elements of truth in what he says about Jeremy Corbyn but I believe that Corbyn is in essence a good man and should be given credit for being the only leading politician to wake people up to the evils of Tory Britain. Whether he is leadership material or not, we may never know because the establishment, via the MSM, is so determined to undermine him.
            I don’t agree that all Blairites are necessarily out and out warmongers (though a fair number are) but I do think they should feel some sense of shame for not standing up to Blair in 2003 and questioned the legitimacy of the Iraq war.
            Corbyn didn’t vote to bomb Syria. He allowed a free vote – it’s what is known as democracy. Many people were conned by the Tory media and US/UK false intelligence into thinking Syria needed to be bombed.
            Where I can share Dennis’s feelings is when I ask how the hell could politicians be so stupid or callous as to support the invasion of Syria after the appalling catastrophe and blow-back from of Iraq and Libya.

          • Ken Kenn

            I like good rant and yours was good one.

            I don’t agree with your idea that Corbyn can appoint or just choose who to put where in
            Cabinet or various positions in Parliament or on the Executive etc.

            He will be lucky if he has 10 loyal people in the PLP who are similar in political outlook
            The rest vary between those who think themselves as socialist but act like centrists and
            those who think they are centrists but act like Tories. There are many of them.

            My rule of thumb for those who could be ( note I didn’t say can ) trusted is enshrined in the
            way they voted on the Welfare Bill when Harman was in charge.

            I know who they are and temper my praise dependent on what they do, not say from that
            particular reference point.

            So Corbyn is trying to operate not just against the MSM and his opponents outwith the Labour Party but within it as well. I’m surprised he’s still stood up after the assaults ( verbal and actual ) that he has and still is receiving from
            those quarters.

            Corbyn I think is a Democratic Socialist – like Benn he believes in the Sovereignty of Parliament and probably like me is not in favour of having referendums when the MPs should take responsibility to make decisions on polcy.

            I probably like you am a lot more to the left of Corbyn who is described as a ‘ Marxist ‘ and this shows just how far to the right the UK has been moved since Thatcher. The politicians and the MSM think that a mild version of Keynesianism is
            akin to Communism these days and Reformism is equal to The Communist Manifesto. No surprise then that they all get their predictions wrong.

            Unfortunately we are in the era of Reformism – not Revolution and even that’s a struggle. Corbyn I think wants to reform and reverse the past injustices of neo liberal economics genuinely. In that fight he has to get the PLP and the
            Labour voters and Labour members on his side in order to win an election so he can do that. Whether as a poster said above he gets away with it – I don’t know.

            My personal view is he is a genuine Democratic Socialist with a Keynesian economic programme ( not far from a German model) yet this is too much for the Establishment and its media paid supporters to tolerate and they will fight tooth and nail to keep the lifestyle and income they both love. Unfortunately there are a lot in the Labour Party who are of the same mind. In fact nine of them have broke cover.

            Not left enough for me – but his policies are a start relative to the trickle down nonsense we’ve allegedly been showered with for forty years.

            I don’t know about you but for that period I must have experienced a drought as have tens of millions.

            Time to turn the tap on I think.

  • Dennis Revell


    Islam doesn’t have to be a prominent item or even an item at all in every discussion.

    It is indirectly relevant here in that the topic under discussion is support for a man, a Westerner (yes, white Australians are Westerners – it’s a club into which some are easily accepted, others, not so much), and mostly against the suffering deliberately inflicted on him mainly if not wholly because he exposed Mass-Murdering serial War-Crimes against people it is reasonable to assume the majority of whom were one of the denominations following Islam.


1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.