I’ve seen the Bing search engine promote Tony Benn’s funeral to the top 3 searches, while the BBC coverage almost hide’s the funeral! For god’s sake, people cheered and applauded with gratitude in the streets as the coffin went past! There was NO jeering.
Many people on social media have commented that the Tory government is manipulating the news output through changing the hire & fire of those that run the corporation to tory supporters and lobby groups. This is readily apparent today, when comparing the BBC output for the funeral of a revered MP, Tony Benn, to that of Thatcher, the former leader, loathed and derided my millions. See Mike, for instance.
Benn, top 3 on Bing!
Many on Facebook and Twitter have pointed out this difference. So I checked an alternate stream…. the load page of Bing (Microsoft’s search engine). That’s it here.
You will see that the top 3 web searches are (were):
Ukraine IMF Bailout
Tony Benn Funeral
Obama meets Pope
BBC Hide, BBC Change?
BBC Shove It
I was hoping to get some screenshots of the search results, but since I started typing, the results are now driving the BBC up the rankings! (Initially, the BBC was not to be seen!)
I can only assume that this is due to some BBC editorial decisions following on from a myriad of postings onto the BBC FB and Twitter pages of photo memes and comments like this one.
Here’s Benn’s summarised. Follow the links through. Thick crowds, not the thin cold lines at Thatchers, all guarded and marshalled by thousands of police.
You have to ask, why such a difference? The answer is obvious, but you won’t find the BBC expanding on it. Only latterly has this belated report come out, now snuggled down and buried under the 2 year fudge of an enquiry into energy business prices. It says,
A large crowd holding trade union and anti-war banners lined the route of his funeral cortege.
There were tears and sustained applause as the procession arrived at St Margaret’s Church, yards from the House of Commons.
So why the subterfuge? Matt Cole in small print says,
You could tell Tony Benn’s coffin had arrived at St Margaret’s before you could see it – because loud spontaneous applause broke out.
Yeah right. Too late Matt. Just too damned late. You should have less fear. They cannot hurt you by speaking the truth out loud right from the off. Now’s the time to take a hold of the BBC and make it what it should be – after all – we all pay for it.
For now, Assange will have to stay in the Embassy. Ecuador has asked for assurances about his safe passage, but as it stands, Hague and Cameron look the foolish chumps for what they are and won’t back down.
My guesses, are:
That Assange will have a “mysterious” accident or similar and the nasty people in the world will breathe a sigh of relief – the embassy is no doubt bugged and all communications in and out religiously monitored. His undetected escape looks unlikely. Food, drink or water could be tampered with; holes could be drilled, hypodermics, germs or gas through the walls – who knows? Like a Sherlock Holmes/locked room mystery, try the poisoned ice dart through the keyhole? See http://wramsite.com/forum/topics/breitbart-murder-by-heart-attack-the-cost-of-exposing-our-corrupt and http://youtu.be/tzIw44w00ow CIA Whistleblower talks about Heart Attack gun
Assange will have to wait for a change in UK government. Even so,
should he get a plane to Ecuador it can be shot down (remember the start of the Rwandangenocide?).
Should he get a boat, it can “disappear” in a storm…
Should he arrive safely he can be either murdered in secret or by a public presidential decree – remember Trotsky in Mexico, Allende in Chile, Che Guevara in Bolivia, Bin Laden in Pakistan, Rudolf Diesel on the English Channel?
At low level of current probability, those in charge of the USA and UK must fundamentally change their attitude towards freedom of information and accountability in public office.
The emails etc. which are at the real centre of Assange’s troubles show elected and non-elected officials behaving with scant regard to either their own laws, international laws or natural law.
It is for them to recognise this which will allow Assange back into normal society and thus face the law courts in Sweden.
As I said, a very, very low probability in the current climate since those in power, those in the emails, those on the tapes, those on the videos (like the machine gunning of innocent civilians), all of those need to recognise their culpability at worse, or at least that they’ve been shown to have acted like idiots and now have egg on their face.
Reminder: The Initial Swedish Set-up
Forgetting the secret US indictment from over a year ago revealed in the Stratfor secrecy emails, Sweden issued an arrest warrant, then dropped it, then “sort-of” reopened the investigation before barring Assange from Sweden? I know. You work it out. It’s all detailed succinctly in this Telegraph page from June 2012.
Bizarrely though, this Foxnews rant/explanation from Glenn Beck (both not noted for their liberal stance…!) is even better at describing the events for which Assange was arrest warranted with in Sweden. Pay close attention and you’ll see how what we are now being fed by Hague and the Obama administration is seriously at odds with this very precise investigation and summary made soon after the events in question… http://youtu.be/npBvNJl6X9w
Ecuador’s Key Points
An English translation of the eleven key points, derived from The Dissenter, is here:
Julian Assange is an award-winning communications professional internationally for his struggle for freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in general;
That Mr. Assange shared with the global audience was privileged documentary information generated by various sources, and affected employees, countries and organizations;
That there is strong evidence of retaliation by the country or countries that produced the information disclosed by Mr. Assange, retaliation that may endanger their safety, integrity, and even his life;
That, despite diplomatic efforts by Ecuador, countries which have required adequate safeguards to protect the safety and life of Mr. Assange, have refused to facilitate them;
That is certain Ecuadorian authorities that it is possible the extradition of Mr. Assange to a third country outside the European Union without proper guarantees for their safety and personal integrity;
That legal evidence clearly shows that, given an extradition to the United States of America, Mr. Assange would not have a fair trial, could be tried by special courts or military, and it is unlikely that is applied to cruel and degrading , and was sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment, which would not respect their human rights;
That while Mr. Assange must answer for the investigation in Sweden, Ecuador is aware that the Swedish prosecutor has had a contradictory attitude that prevented Mr. Assange the full exercise of the legitimate right of defence;
Ecuador is convinced that they have undermined the procedural rights of Mr. Assange during the investigation;
Ecuador has found that Mr. Assange is without protection and assistance to be received from the State which is a citizen;
That, following several public statements and diplomatic communications by officials from Britain, Sweden and USA, it is inferred that these governments would not respect the conventions and treaties, and give priority to domestic law school hierarchy, in violation of rules express universal application and,
That, if Mr. Assange is reduced to custody in Sweden (as is customary in this country), would start a chain of events that would prevent the further protective measures taken to avoid possible extradition to a third country.
What’s clear is that Ecuador is actually in a win-win situation here.
LONDON, ENGLAND – JUNE 22: outside the Ecuadorian embassy.(Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)
They recognised the sabre rattling of William Hague and David Cameron for what it is – that the UK cannot pick and choose which international treaties to abide by without acquiring the severest opprobrium of its own people and parliament.
Of course, there’s the “sticks and stones” argument which the government may ignore by barging in, armed to the teeth, anyway, but also the long-lasting risks to the whole British diplomatic force who will be placed in the severest of danger. This latter they cannot ignore.
How can the UK pontificate on others when behaving worse than a bull in a china shop?
Ecuador has its own internal problems and this crisis will strengthen the hand of its President Correa, but also its standing in the eyes of all the little countries of the world, especially those in South America, historically in the thrall of US might.
They point out that Assange is only wanted for questioning in Sweden and that Sweden has refused to question Assange on Ecuadorian “land”, the embassy.
They point out the red herring issue of Sweden in its entirety, in that several public and private threats have been made or allured to against Assange by the governments of Sweden, USA, UK and that his own country hasn’t offered any protection (of course, we all know that the Aussie government is following the UK & USA like sheep).
So Assange is in dire and immediate threat of kidnap, torture, summary trial by a military court, execution or imprisonment in inhumane conditions. We all know the USA is guilty of this having been caught red handed several times as has the UK in its collusion.
So the UK & USA are not havens of justice, guardians of the rights of Man, protectors from dictatorships nor international peacemakers.
Their actions from Vietnam through to Chile, from Egypt through to Bahrain, from corrupt banking to multinational deforestation programs, from Stratfor and the secret surveillance society to drone bombings of civilians shows them to be pariah states on the same footing as Zimbabwe or North Korea, say.
Ecuador has rightly recognised all of this, and more.
As part of their statement, they stood on the following points (derived from Google translate!):
a) The asylum, in all its forms, is a fundamental human right which creates obligations erga omnes, that is, “for all” states.
b) The diplomatic asylum, shelter (or territorial asylum), and the right not to be extradited, expelled, delivered or transferred, human rights are comparable, since they are based on the same principles of human protection: no return and no discrimination without any adverse distinction based on race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, or any other similar criteria.
c) All these forms of protection are governed by the principles pro person (i.e., more favourable to the individual), equality, universality, indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependence.
d) The protection occurs when the state of asylum, refugee or required, or the protecting power, consider the risk or the fear that the protected person may be a victim of political persecution or political offences against him.
e) The State granting asylum seekers qualify causes, and in case of extradition, assess evidence.
f) No matter which of its forms or forms are present, the seeker is always the same cause and the same legal order, ie, political persecution, which causes it lawful, and safeguard the life, personal safety and freedom of protected person, which is the lawful purpose.
g) The right to asylum is a fundamental human right, therefore, belongs to jus cogens, ie the system of mandatory rules of law recognized by the international community as a whole, do not support a contrary agreement, being null treaties and provisions of international law they oppose.
h) In cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience, or are under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.
i) Lack of international agreement or domestic legislation of States can not legitimately claim to limit, impair or deny the right to asylum.
j) The rules and principles governing the rights to asylum, extradition no, no delivery, no expulsion and transfer are not converging, as far as is necessary to improve the protection and provide it with maximum efficiency. In this sense they are complementary international law of human rights, the right to asylum and refugee law, and humanitarian law.
k) The rights of protection of the human person are based on ethical principles and values universally accepted and therefore have a humanistic, social, solidarity, welfare, peaceful and humanitarian.
l) All States have the duty to promote the progressive development of international law of human rights through effective national and international action.
Here they kick down the quasi-judicious use by the UK of the 1987 Act regarding Embassies and the like in the UK.
They state the various rights of Man as defined in the United Nations and elsewhere (in case the UK has forgotten them!!!)
They point out the various ethical issues.
Ecuador has produced a clear and unambiguous statement, totally unlike the shadowy cloak and daggers stuff from Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
United pops up a lot in the state’s names. They’re united, but only united in shame and devilishness corruption. This is the reason for their stance – it’s nothing to do with national security and everything to do with covering their own backs.
The truth is really out now. Notably, bonkers Boris has been quiet on the issue so far – he never thought much of Cameron and I guess it’s even less now!
Declaración del Gobierno de la República del Ecuador sobre la solicitud de asilo de Julian Assange
Embarrassment is not it though. The real reason is our discovery of Straw & Blair’s hypocritical dealings over wars and torture, kidnap and illegal detention without trial, things that Straw’s government, and now our own coalition one, seek to hide. That’s a deep guilt.
Was it guilt over the knowledge that as he was the head of an unaccountable web of spies, they were doing everything that any free democratic nation would naturally think abhorrent?
That’s the special relationship for ya! Straw brought in the US-UK one-sided extradition agreement in 2003. The following yearhe and Blair were found out to have started the war in Iraq on false pretences. There then followed the endless investigations that dragged on for so long that folks forgot what they were about.
A collusion between the military, the law and politics from the establishment, designed to legally obfuscate by the dreary analysis of the minutiae of the webs of illegality they’d hatched?
We now find out, in the same year, 2004, that Straw and Blair were (supposedly) in government, Fatima Bouchar and her husband, Abdel Hakim Belhaj were captured, bound in gaffa tape (her eyelid bound open for 17 hours during this process), kidnapped and transported to a foreign power (Libya) where they were tortured and imprisoned for seven years.
Straw said he knew nothing, so what exactly was he paid for? Was he a stooge, a calm reassuring personae, quietly acquiescing to misdeeds on the grandest of scales in exchange for lifelong protection and a nice pension?
Abdel is now in the ruling government of Libya, having fought and beaten Gaddhafi, with The West’s help, let’s not forget….
Cover Up Illegal Government Work by Invoking Secret Trials, “in the national interest”!
Killer Drone Aircraft
It’s all true. Our own (and the US) secret services kidnapped and transported innocents from our own and foreign soils to foreign powers. This was all done without the intervention of a judge, without court orders and in many cases (those in Guantanamo Bay for instance), without any immediate or subsequent trial. They’re still doing it!
Bush, Cheney, Obama, Blair – their handiwork – it is estimated that >3ooo civilians have been killed by drones
The only difference between the recent actions of Jack Straw, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Blunket, Teresa May, Ken Clarke & David Cameron, and the historical actions of Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao and Adolf Hitler are that in the former, there’s been no trial and the people are still alive, and in the latter there were usually show or peremptory trials usually followed by immediate execution.
Though life is precious, today’s innocents (innocent unless proven guilty, remember) may have at times wished they were dead.
The targets have no chance to surrender, and the Afghan government has raised concerns. The drone strikes are dubbed ”Kill TV” or ”Taliban TV” because soldiers watch live video feeds of bombs and missiles detonating, with one source admitting it is uncomfortable viewing: ”You can see everything.”
Because the real devilish forces, whereby a supposedly civilised country like the United Kingdom can kidnap and torture with impunity, still exist. Pregnant Fatima Bouchar was not a terrorist and nor was her husband. Their terrifying ordeal at the hands of our secret service stands testament to that.
These are the real devils in our midst. They are the real terrorists. Under false pretexts they continue to bomb civilians with drones and kidnap and torture those they can’t kill. Though from different political persuasions, successive governments draft laws cover up the previous one’s actions.
What an evil nasty bunch they are. Cameron and his crowing cohorts are just the latest in a long line.
MPs and judges can retire to fully indexed-linked pensions, unlike the rest of the public sector workers who have been recently brutalised and scape-goated in the press for the thieving behaviour of gambling banker-politicians.
MPs and judges are protected from harm by the very secret services they’ve steered and governed while the rest of us are made
to feel fear at home, where none exists
to feel loathed abroad, when we have done nothing
All due to the evil machinations of these few folk.
The Real Reason for Secret Trials and Internet Censorship
Question: Why Pictures of Drones and Dead Innocents, Yet not many Kidnaps?
A. Simple. It’s the same mentality of person that sends in the drones to kill innocents as kidnaps innocents. In fact, it’s the same people. They stand there smiling on our TVs, in suits, with the appropriate amount of gravitas dependant on the situation.
The real devils in our midst. The real terrorists.
How Bad was Thatcher’s Recession compared to the Current Economic Slump?
Q. Well, how would you find out, exactly?
A. Surprisingly easily. This graph here compares historical economic slumps with the current one, on a month by month basis. It’s taken from the “National Institute of Economic and Social Research” (NIESR) website here. Notionally, it’s an academic institution, but on examining it’s staff and management you’ll see that it’s a collection of vested interest groups, supplying a “knowledge base”.
But There’s No Denying their Facts!
The current slump is in black and the fall seems to have plateaued out a bit. It’s tracking something like the red line and the green line. So what you see is the Green Line, which is Thatcher’s Slump, being nearly as bad as the depression in the 1930s (the red line)!
However, in Thatcher’s time, Britain was awash with North Sea oil wealth! Coal mines were still producing horrendous quantities of fuel and North Sea Gas had been on-stream for years.
In short, the country was sound with it’s own supplies of energy, dependant on no-one. And yet, it had the worst economic state since the great depression!
So much for Thatcher’s miracle!
The current labour government has not been blessed with such good fortune during the current slump. Britain is now a huge energy importer and is vulnerable to the vagaries of the market in oil as we saw last year.
Where Did the Money Go in Thatcher’s Time?
Thatcher Explains All
The legacy of Thatcher’s time in office was leaking schools everywhere, a crumbling rail network, hived off bus services that redefined “service”, a crumbling road system, paid-for medical treatment…. an almost endless list!
So where did the money go?
Where did the strategic national energy reserves of oil, coal and gas go?
Where did Britain’s manufacturing industry go?
Well the energy was burnt to get money to pay people on the dole.
Britain’s manufacturing (and most of the Western world’s) went to China and would have happened anyway
That leaves the money. Where did the money go?
A. Tax havens, that’s where.
Thatcher and all conservatives of that ilk whine on about making a country fit for the entrepreneurial spirit. But their actions, both now and historically, for the most part, go soundly against that spirit. (I’m thinking particularly of Ashcroft here who may be entrepreneurial but whose contributions to UK PLC as opposed to Tory Ltd have been minimal…)
It’s in their name – conservative.
Their gut reaction is to hoard wealth, and if they can’t do it at home, they’ll do it abroad (like Shirley Porter). Remember, the wealth of “The City” is not derived from the re-invested wealth of landowning Tories suddenly looking for a home for their money once local industries had gone. It comes from abroad. There’s no way they’d invest their own money in infrastructure or development. Sheesh!
Their other modus operandi is to do as little as possible for the country while maintaining the status quo. Hence, this is why all large companies and financial institutions are full of the same old people, having the same background and speaking the same language. The banks and other institutions behind the economic collapse are headed by these people, who flit from government to the military, to law, ‘business’ and finance with impunity. Anywhere that’ll keep them busy, keep them wealthy and keep them pulling strings.
True, many do ‘charitable’ activities and are on the controlling side of many charities. But that’s purely dressage. Being involved with charity does not make you a good person. You just look good. In a truly civilised society there should be no need whatsoever for charity. It’s a definition of civilised, or being civil, in my book.
Worms from Woodwork
Now, with the piss-poor Labour government and their own side’s resurgence all the old tories are all coming out of the woodwork again. The odious slimery is oozing forth like the dark stain from history that it is. The Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) is one such place.
The CPS, created by… Thatcher!… in 1974, proclaims it’s freedom credentials from it’s lofty privileged position. Among it’s luminaries is Thatcher’s advertiser (Saatchi) and the European gaffer of Goldmann Sachs, one of the companies internationally bailed out with public funds and one of those businesses at the forefront of the whole current economic mess! Most of the rest seem to have had various Tory positions over the last two decades. So much for independent think tank! (By the way, the CPS is a pseudo-charity – a non-profit-making organisation which relies on the donations of individuals and companies to carry out its work!!)
Part of the CPS’s ‘current thinking’ is to roll back the surveillance culture that has developed under Labour. Personally, I can’t see it happening…
The trouble is, as has just been revealed in a book supposedly derived from recently released archive material from MI5, (The Defence of the Realm: The Authorized History of MI5), like all power-grabbers, Thatcher used MI5 for her own ends. She used MI5 to discredit Red Robbo the Trades Union Leader and had tabs on Scargill. Prime Minister Wilson even had the tabs on him and ordered tabs on others…. and so it goes. (see Book tells of MI5’s secret past – the fact is that Margaret Thatcher demanded action from MI5 to deal with “wreckers” in British industry and yet it was herself that wrecked that same industry!.)
That’s why I see it as highly unlikely that Cameron, if the Tories get in, will roll back the shutters on our increasingly closeted and shuttered state apparatus. He’s there purely to re-instate the old status quo….
To keep jobs for the boys
Re-exert the dominant power structures of the state and the wealthy, bolstering their unhealthy connections to their former pre-eminence
Say that all the new hospitals and schools which have replaced all the leaking and collapsing ones, would have happened anyway…
Say that the new fast rail links would have happened anyway without government sponsorship
Ensure that money stashed abroad by the wealthy remains unreachable by the state
Bring back smoking in pubs
Tax the poor to pay for the rich’s mistakes
Kill foxes ritually
Say that they’d have fixed the credit-crunch anyway..
All these and more will come under the banner of “freedom” and I’m quite sure that MI5 will be used to ensure they happen. The media will naturally be roped in to lend a publicity hand to smooth the waters and ensure that the status quo has safe passage; A media governed by;
a non-tax paying, non-resident Australian-American,
a non-resident Briton who prefers to pay French tax
and a brotherly twosome who threaten locals who don’t vote for “their man”.
Thatcher’s Economic Legacy
The Channel Tunnel (economic disaster, multiple bankrupt)
Professor Noel Sharkey from Sheffield, better known as one of the judges on the BBCTV show “Robot Wars” knows a thing or two about robots and artificial intelligence. He’s made a plea for more debate about the use of robot planes in warfare. (see link)
He’s said, “An international debate is needed on the use of autonomous military robots. A push toward more robotic technology used in warfare would put civilian life at grave risk.”
Actually, when you look at the statistics objectively and compare them to large conflicts, like WW1 for instance, a war that kicked off mechanised slaughter, then it’s bloomin’ obvious!
The BBC report says that,
Between January 2006 and April 2009, he estimated, 60 such “drone” attacks were carried out in Pakistan. While 14 al-Qaeda were killed, some 687 civilian deaths also occurred.
What this means is that 49 times as many civilians as combatants were killed!
This is truly horrendous.
Now lets look at the statistics from the dawn of mechanised slaughter, the war to end all wars, the war where the Last Tommy has just died….?
World War 1 Stats
In WW1, Germany invaded France, and the war was largely fought in Belgium and France. On the battlefields and surrounding areas, many civilians died, as well as combatants, (source statistics here). Here we go:
Military Deaths = 1,397,800
Civilian Deaths = 300,000
Military Deaths = 58,637
Civilian Deaths = 62,000
Even including all countries involved, the statistics are stark. Forget about the actual (huge) numbers – look at the proportions:
Total Military Deaths in WW1 = 9,721,937
Total Civilian Deaths in WW1 = 6,821,248
So overall, 0.7 civilians died for each soldier.
Terminator: Rise of the Machines
If we scale up the drone usage deaths into a global conflict sized scenario (and knowing the military, this is exactly what they’d do), and using the military deaths in WW1 as a starting point, how many civilians would die as the armchair pilots sought their foes?
9,721,937 x 49 = 476,374,000
This is about the whole population of Europe!
Professor Starkey is completely correct. If this is not a definition of the term “putting civilian life at grave risk“, then what is?
…and this is without attaching nuclear weapons to the planes…!!!
Of course, the effect of the usage of these machines and tactics is hardly likely to win over the Pakistani and Afghan tribesmen (the current targets) when every time one flies over a whole family is wiped out, is it? So you have to ask yourselves,
If ‘The West’ is really trying to ‘win hearts and minds’ as they say, then what the fuck are they playing at?
in other words,
It looks like the real game is to continue the ‘war against terror’ to ensure that our people stay cowed and afraid and to justify the existence of the ‘military industrial complex’.
Just like the government in the film, “V for Vendetta”.
Over the last couple of days the strangest thought has plagued me. Two simple ugly words have kept emerging, only for me to lock them out and ridicule them as bizarre. Simon’s dead. Just to write it down feels like … Continue reading →
If you ever needed confirmation that the UK is not run by a shadowy cabal of sinister plotters but a bunch of chinless fucking idiots then the upcoming Digital Economy Bill is a good place to start. As well as … Continue reading →