Been doing some filing. Thought you might like these statistics relating to legal threats received by this blog since it started five years ago. These figures also include letters from the Treasury Solicitors threatening action under the Official Secrets Act and other legislation.
Dedicated to Jack Straw, Alisher Usmanov, Tim Spicer, the Quilliam Foundation and nine other bad people with something to hide, who have wasted money trying to frighten this blog out of telling the truth:
Number of letters received from lawyers threatening legal action 47
Number of lawyers involved 11
Number of lawyers told to go ahead and sue or prosecute 11
Number of suits/prosecutions brought Nil
Number of apologies and retractions issued Nil
Damages Paid Nil
Number of flasehoods published Nil
Who says it is not fun running a blog?
Of course, some of these rich criminals and mercenary killers have succeeded in hindering me by legal bullying of other people. Alisher Usmanov had us closed down for three days when he got my webhost to close down the site by threatening legal action. (The Quilliam Foundation tried to pull the same trick but found I now have a much more robust webhost).
Ultra wealthy mercenary killer and war profiteer Tim Spicer threatened my publisher into preventing commercial publication of the Catholic Orangemen of Togo. But he backed down when I published it in full online.
Britian’s notorious libel laws are designed to inculcate fear in those who would publish the truth. But, as with most situations in life, a lack of fear makes things much less fraught.
@ eddie
I see. You’re complaining that he may be using his severance pay to fund this site, amongst other things.
Of course he may use his severance pay any way he chooses. We’re not quite in a fascist state yet, though new Labour tried hard enough to push us there.
As a taxpayer, I’m quite happy that there are still many good men and women who are willing to blow the whistle on wrongdoing by government. I see that as serving the general good of the nation as a whole, rather than the narrow interests of transient figures in government. Most of them do this at great personal sacrifice.
Sometimes government is so bad that people need to make a stand. The Blair/Brown regime is one of these. It’s a very good use of taxpayers money to expose them. In fact it’s almost essential that insiders do so.
I was a Labour supporter, even voted for Blair in 1997. Never again. Never ever again.
At some stage it might be a good idea to collate the names of all those who stood up against this evil government and tell their stories in one place. That would be a useful and illuminating way to spend taxpayers’ money too.
Perhaps we could erect a statue to their memory in Trafalgar Sq. They really are heroes.
We could offset these expenses on the public purse by withdrawing all salaries and pensions from those who sat quiet and said nothing.
I’m just making the point that it’s like the sow that ate its farrow. Craig gets huge payout from a Labour government for incompetence and then spends it on attacking same government calling them war criminals and all sort of other shite. But that’s free speech innit? It just highlights the point that we live in a wonderful, inclusive democracy, where all kinds of dissent and anti socail behaviour is accepted and absorbed, just like the USA, where fools like Chomsky can get state-funded tenure and spend their entire careers shitting on the governement that feeds them (is it true that he has shares in Haliburton by the way?). Tell me that happens in any of the following countries and I will call you a liar – Cuba, Iran, North Korea, most of the middle east, Venezuela etc etc.
For incompetence.
On August 21, 2003, he was confronted with 18 charges including “hiring dolly birds [pretty young women] for above the usual rate” for the visa department, though he claims that the department had an all-male staff, and granting UK visas in exchange for sex. He was told that discussing the charges would be a violation of the 1989 Official Secrets Act. The FCO encouraged him to resign.[10]
He collapsed during a medical check in Tashkent on September 2, 2003 and was airlifted to St Thomas’ Hospital in London. After an FCO internal inquiry conducted by Tony Crombie, Head of the FCO’s Overseas Territories Department, all but two of the charges (being drunk at work and misusing the embassy’s Range Rover) were dropped. The charges were leaked to the press in October 2003[16]. Immediately upon his return to work in November 2003, he suffered a near-fatal pulmonary embolism and was again flown back to London for medical treatment. In January 2004, the FCO, after a four-month investigation exonerated him of all 18 charges, but reprimanded him for speaking about the charges.
@ eddie
It’s amusing that you think it’s new Labour’s money. Explains a lot about your mentality.
It’s taxpayers money!!
The above error of yours is fundamental to your warped way of thinking about civil society. You quite simply don’t get it!
Yours is the mentality of the authoritarian or fascist.
In exposing the wrongdoing of this government, people like Craig are doing the taxpayer a favour. So much so indeed that the taxpayer will be consigning your criminal government to the dustbin of history, where it so truly belongs.
The taxpayer ought to be giving Craig an extra few bob for his dedication and service to the public interest.
Eddie calls Chomsky a fool for his “state-funded tenure and spend their entire careers shitting on the governement that feeds them”.
Chomsky has seen a lot of govts come and go, Republican and Democrat. Is Eddie suggesting that he ought to support each one and switch his view to what the govt in power at the time thinks?
Is anyone else coming to the conclusion that this eddie is just seriously hard of thinking?
The whole point of course is that we pay these great minds to apply themselves to the issues of the day, irrespective of what govt is in power.
They’re serving a much greater interest than whatever govt is in power. New Labour and its supporters seem to have difficulty with the essential tenets of a civilised society. It’s the same on the American right too.
They’re quite simply neo-fascists, and let no one be under any illusion that that is what is at stake here. Luckily we will be rid of this lot soon, but there is much work to do still to ensure our democracies are strengthened to ensure that these evil people never have untrammeled power again.
eddie
are you so narrow-minded that you think we should celebrate this government because the only other possible options are regimes like North Korea/Cuba/Iran/etc?
“is it true that he has shares in Haliburton by the way?”
Who knows,but who would have guessed that you are as much of a conspiracy theorist as all the other “loons” here!
A Taxpayer – did I say it was Labour money? No I did not. I said he had the payout from a Labour government. The government of the day acts as a steward for taxpayers’ money. QED. The rest of your rant is just drivel.
Woy, again you need to read more carefully. Chomsky is clearly not a fool for living off the state. In fact he is a very rich man who invests in all kinds of dodgy stuff and is a tax dodger to boot. A few quick google searches will elicit that information. Again, my point is that the Western liberal democracies tolerate these people, even though they spend their careers attacking their own governments and ignoring or even supporting FAR greater horrors elsewhee in the world, as Chomsky did with Pol Pot and other fascists, like Slobodan.
MS yes I think we should celebrate our governments and our liberal way of life. For a start it allows types like you and me to spout off in whatever direction we like without fear of being rounded up. See above, if you think my point about Chomsky is a conspiracy theory. He is a deeply unpleasant figure.
eddie
do you think a liberal government would not engage in dodgy dealings or lie to the electorate?
Of course they would. But then it is part of the democratic and electoral proces to expose such things. But I tell you what they would not do. They would not slaughter millions of their own citizens or lock up thousands of their own citizens without judicial process. If you know of an example pray tell.
An increasingly desperate eddie whines:
“A Taxpayer – did I say it was Labour money? No I did not. I said he had the payout from a Labour government. The government of the day acts as a steward for taxpayers’ money. QED.”
Well, yes you did actually. I quote:
“I’m just making the point that it’s like the sow that ate its farrow. Craig gets huge payout from a Labour government for incompetence and then spends it on attacking same government calling them war criminals and all sort of other shite.”
You’re quite clearly saying there that because a Labour govt gives taxpayers money to someone then they should not criticize that Labour govt.
That’s drivel, as was the rest of your post. All your posts indeed.
You quite clearly haven’t the foggiest notion what you’re whining about, and have no sense of the necessary competing elements in a democratic system.
You’re quite simply a fascist, like the rest of your ill-educated ilk.
I don’t think eddie is a fascist FWIW.
@ technicolour
Anyone who argues that those in receipt of taxpayers money should necessarily support the government of the day understands nothing about democracy, has an authoritarian mindset and is easily swayed by those corporate elites who wish to undermine democracy.
I agree that it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say that eddie has any ideas of his own, but still he’s the sort of uncritical twit who will serve as a willing dupe to the type of fascism which will ensue if we let it.
I suspect eddie wouldn’t recognise fascism if it bit him on the nose. I agree with A Taxpayer that he would probably be rather comfortable in a fascist state. Provided of course that it didn’t involve jackboots, funny moustaches or the persecution of Jews. In the case of other minority groups – muslims for instance – I think he’s open to persuasion. Pushing against an open door in fact. On another thread he is desperately trying to argue down the number of Iraqi casualties. His arguments sound eerily reminiscent of those of Holocaust deniers.
I think he’s just trying to say, and believe, that things aren’t all that bad. On some very selfish level, since I am not currently being attacked, and so far we have all survived, I agree with him. I wish he wouldn’t dash off into unsupported critical attacks at the drop of a hat, and it is very tiring to give someone facts over & over again & have them ignored, but I think his heart is in the right place, if that means anything.
I mean, one can hope.
Sorry, feel like I’m defending Blair. Eddie, give a sign that the time & effort everyone’s spent in giving you facts was worth it, please. Otherwise why should we bother?
In fact, eddie posted this on another thread:
I think that sometimes people on these boards say things so outrageous that anglo saxon language seems to be the only appropriate response. Such as Craig, who I respect to some extent, likening Powell to Saddam. I think that is outrageous and unjustified and I think “fuck off” is the only logical response. Goering was right to some extent about victors’ justice. We did some terible things in winning WW2, Dresden, the atom bombs etc but no one stood trial for these things, and who is to say that they did not save more lives in the long run? That is certainly the view of most historians about the atom bombs. So who is to say that we have not saved thousands of lives in invading Iraq, although many thousands have also been lost. This may sound like a specious moral argument, but it is one that Chomsky has made from the other side in defending red terror. History teaches us that sometimes, when we do nothing, it leads to more death and destruction in the long run. So I accept that Blair and his cabinet may have made a policy mistake (time will tell), but to describe it as a crime etc etc I think is wrong. I agree that the powerful can kill the weak, but it is not just about one country vs another. There is rarely any mention on these boards of the millions killed by Mao or Stalin in their own countries (Mao 60 million), or even the thousands suffering in the gulags of Korea or China, let alone Cuba. That is because the principal motivation of most of the people here is a rabid anti-Americanism that disgusts me, frankly. I think it is morally repugnant. And I did not say that the 58 million people who did not march supported the war, I just said that they did not march.”
That is a point of view to engage with, I think. Could be wrong.
I have accepted that the IBC figures may be an underestimate but I completely refuse to accept that they are TEN times higher viz the Lancet report. I think that is just propaganda
sorry, that last bit was from eddie as well. argh, i am cluttering up the board with ‘try and be nice to eddie’ stuff. how sick.
“That is a point of view to engage with, I think. Could be wrong”.
I think it’s just backtracking and blether.
“I have accepted that the IBC figures may be an underestimate”
Just a bit. They include only violent deaths. They exclude deaths resulting from the destruction of the healthcare infrastructure. They exclude deaths from DU poisoning. They exclude infant mortality rates, now off the scale. They exlude everything other than a bullet in the head or being blown to pieces by a bomb.
A Taxpayer – for what it’s worth I think you and MJ are idiots. I’m sorry if that offends you but a) you don’t read what people write and b) if you do, you don’t seem to comprehend it.
“You’re quite clearly saying there that because a Labour govt gives taxpayers money to someone then they should not criticize that Labour govt.”
I’m not saying that at all, and I suggest you read what I wrote again. To leap from that to suggest I am a fascist just makes you look silly, frankly.
dammit, MJ, I know. I posted it earlier. What to do? Is there really any point shrieking ‘this many could have killed’ at people? Well, actually ‘at people’, yes, but at one person?
And MJ you still have not engaged with my fundamental point that IBC is the best researched piece of work on deaths in Iraq and if they are wrong it is highly unlikely that they are wrong by a factor of ten.
Eddie, look at the ORB report. Eddie, no-one is saying that IBC are ‘wrong’. Eddie, stop putting people through this.
no, take it back, carry on. are you having fun imagining the numbers of deaths and the way they happened? have you picked up the phone and talked to anyone? have you been there?
Plenty of people are saying they are wrong actually.
“I have accepted that the IBC figures may be an underestimate but I completely refuse to accept that they are TEN times higher viz the Lancet report. I think that is just propaganda”.
They are numbers. Why not post them here, and we could do the sum ? I don’t understand what the point would be, though ? They were measuring different things.
@ eddie
You wrote this. Didn’t you?
“I’m just making the point that it’s like the sow that ate its farrow. Craig gets huge payout from a Labour government for incompetence and then spends it on attacking same government calling them war criminals and all sort of other shite.”
You’re quite clearly saying there that because a Labour govt gives taxpayers money to someone then they should not criticize that Labour govt.
If not, what are you arguing?
Do you know?
Or will you have to check with the last loopy American shock jock who provides your baleful script?
You do realise they are handsomely paid to utter their drivel. They know it’s crap.
What’s your excuse, other than the one I offered you earlier?
Taxpayer – don’t be a loon. I am not saying that at all – he can do what he likes, it’s a free country and we live in a wonderful liberal democracy. I am just saying he is a hypocrite to do so. It’s like a teenager who lives off their parents for years and yet slags them off and abuses their hospitality. Do you understand english?
@ eddie
How can it be hypocritical for someone in receipt of taxpayers money to criticize the government?
It’s not the govt’s money.
It’s nothing at all like a parent’s money.
Every MP from every party is in receipt of taxpayers money.
Are you arguing that they shouldn’t criticize the govt either?
Why is it that you completely fail to understand the implications of the arguments you make?
He can do what he likes. It’s taxpayers money, as I explained before. But he is a hypocrite for taking hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money, after being sacked for incompetence, living a life of luxury and turning on his former employer. That is my opinion. You clearly have a different opnion. Full stop. I hope you understand.