The Russians call it Kompromat – the use by the state of sexual accusations to destroy a public figure. When I was attacked in this way by the government I worked for, Uzbek dissidents smiled at me, shook their heads and said “Kompromat“. They were used to it from the Soviet and Uzbek governments. They found it rather amusing to find that Western governments did it too.
Well, Julian Assange has been getting the bog standard Kompromat. I had imagined he would get something rather more spectacular, like being framed for murder and found hanging with an orange in his mouth. He deserves a better class of kompromat. If I am a whistleblower, then Julian is a veritable mighty pipe organ. Yet we just have the normal sex stuff, and very weak.
Bizarrely the offence for which Julian is wanted for questioning in Sweden was dropped from rape to sexual harassment, and then from sexual harassment to just harassment. The precise law in Swedish, as translated for me and other Sam Adams alumni by our colleague Major Frank Grevil, reads:
“He who lays hands on or by means of shooting from a firearm, throwing of stones, noise or in any other way harasses another person will be sentenced for harassment to fines or imprisonment for up to one year.”
So from rape to non-sexual something. Actually I rather like that law – if we had it here, I could have had Jack Straw locked up for a year.
Julian tells us that the first woman accuser and prime mover had worked in the Swedish Embassy in Washington DC and had been expelled from Cuba for anti-Cuban government activity, as well as the rather different persona of being a feminist lesbian who owns lesbian night clubs.
Scott Ritter and I are well known whistleblowers subsequently accused of sexual offences. A less well known whistleblower is James Cameron, another FCO employee. Almost simultaneous with my case, a number of the sexual allegations the FCO made against Cameron were identical even in wording to those the FCO initially threw at me.
Another fascinating point about kompromat is that being cleared of the allegations – as happens in virtually every case – doesn’t help, as the blackening of reputation has taken effect. In my own case I was formerly cleared of all allegations of both misconduct and gross misconduct, except for the Kafkaesque charge of having told defence witnesses of the existence of the allegations. The allegations were officially a state secret, even though it was the government who leaked them to the tabloids.
Yet, even to this day, the FCO has refused to acknowledge in public that I was in fact cleared of all charges. This is even true of the new government. A letter I wrote for my MP to pass to William Hague, complaining that the FCO was obscuring the fact that I was cleared on all charges, received a reply from a junior Conservative minister stating that the allegations were serious and had needed to be properly investigated – but still failing to acknowledge the result of the process. Nor has there been any official revelation of who originated these “serious allegations”.
Governments operate in the blackest of ways, especially when it comes to big war money and big oil money. I can see what they are doing to Julian Assange, I know what they did to me and others (another recent example – Brigadier Janis Karpinski was framed for shoplifting). In a very real sense, it makes little difference if they murdered David Kelly or terrified him into doing it himself. Telling the truth is hazardous in today’s Western political system.
Quick update from @SkyNewsBreak on Twitter:
“Shoes and eggs have been pelted at Tony Blair in Dublin as he attended his first book signing.”
Will disable Javascript and clear the cache now.
Somebody,
thanks for the Blair update. Yes, I miss Craig, too. Do you have a good link for the Helen Boaden issue?
Dreoilin,
I have to go out now. You could also try your other browsers – not Internet Explorer, unless it’s *really* locked down!
“BREAKING NEWS: Former PM Gordon Brown arrested at Dublin Airport, wearing only one shoe.”
——-
No, it’s only this website, Clark. I’ll leave it be now.
Clark – on Medialens
BBC defends impartiality after Downing Street meeting over cuts season
Posted by spike on September 3, 2010, 5:47 pm
The BBC helping right wing ideologues soak the poor? Never!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/03/bbc-spending-cuts-mark-thompson
BBC defends impartiality after Downing Street meeting over cuts season
The BBC has been forced to defend its impartiality after Mark Thompson, the director general, was photographed yesterday going into a meeting in Downing Street to discuss a season of TV and radio programmes about the government’s spending cuts.
Thompson was photographed carrying an internal email from Helen Boaden, the BBC News director, saying that she had had lunch with Andy Coulson, the coalition government’s director of communications, at which he had expressed concern “that we give context to our Spending Review Season”.
Boaden’s email went on to provide Thompson with briefing notes on the season ?” which begins next week across BBC TV, radio and online services ?” for his Downing Street meeting yesterday. The subject line of the email was “Briefing for Steve Hilton meeting”. Hilton is David Cameron’s director of strategy.
She said she had responded to Coulson’s concerns about context by saying “that’s what we always try to do … inform the public about the whys and wherefores”.
In the email, which was CCed to Mark Byford, the BBC deputy director general and head of journalism, Boaden also defended the corporation’s spending cuts coverage over the summer, saying it had “mostly been driven by news lines”.
Boaden cited examples including the billionaire retail mogul Sir Philip Green’s appointment to head an external review of the government’s spending cuts and the Institute for Fiscal Studies report claiming the poorest would be hardest hit by the measures.
“The director general has made it repeatedly clear that the impartiality of the BBC is paramount,” a BBC spokesman said.
“The director general in his role as editor-in-chief discussed the possible participation of a number of members of the government in the BBC’s coverage of the spending review this autumn. The BBC has regular meetings with both government and opposition parties. Both he and colleagues will also be talking to all the main political parties on this issue.”
However, Thompson’s PR gaffe prompted unease within BBC News, where correspondents and programme editors face regular pressure from all the main parties over their political coverage.
One senior BBC insider said: “What the ####’s he doing going in to see Hilton anyway? Management and editorial should be completely separate.”
The BBC will also be keen to avoid any appearance that it is soft-pedalling on its coverage of the government in the build up to next year’s negotiations about a new licence fee deal.
The Labour MP Michael Dugher told the Daily Mail: “The political independence of the BBC should be absolutely sacrosanct and it is very odd that the director general is going into Downing Street for this kind of meeting. The BBC is within its rights to publicise the cuts to public spending in whatever way it sees fit.”
Thompson said in an interview with the New Statesman earlier this week that the BBC had become “increasingly tough-minded about the concept of impartiality” since the Hutton report in early 2004.
“If you wanted to criticise us you would say we are becoming increasingly tough-minded about the concept of impartiality. In a sense we are becoming more explicit,” he said. “That is a post-Hutton change in the organisation. Impartiality is going up and up the agenda.”
He also defended the BBC against accusations that it had given Cameron an easy ride in opposition.
“It’s easier to cover opposition politics when you’ve got an opposition with a clear leadership and clear agenda. We are doing our best to cover the Labour leadership competition, but, in a way, normal politics will only resume in the autumn [when there is a new opposition leader],” he added.
Newsnight and Radio 4’s Today programme will be running special features on the spending review, while the BBC political editor, Nick Robinson, is travelling around the country to find out what are the key issues affecting voters.
Next Thursday BBC1 will be broadcasting 12 simultaneous regional The Spending Review – Making It Clear debates across England. Jeremy Vine will be hosting the London debate.
The debates will feature local politicians, public sector workers business leaders and members of the public.
In BBC blogpost published late yesterday, Byford said: “This kind of comprehensive programming, providing real public service is what the BBC is here to do and we will continue to follow the story throughout the autumn. We hope it will help our audiences understand the full context of the spending review and what it may mean for them.”
___________________________
Re: BBC defends impartiality after Downing Street meeting over cuts season
Posted by pete f on September 4, 2010, 12:37 pm, in reply to “BBC defends impartiality after Downing Street meeting over cuts season”
“In BBC blogpost published late yesterday, Byford said: “This kind of comprehensive programming, providing real public service is what the BBC is here to do and we will continue to follow the story throughout the autumn. We hope it will help our audiences understand the full context of the spending review and what it may mean for them.”
those that lose jobs and homes as a result of ConDem cuts are unlikely to need the BBC to put that into ‘context’ for them.
______________________
For a laugh look up Dugher quoted. Was a SPAD to Byers and Hoon! ‘Did a spell’ with EDS.
http://www.fishburn-hedges.co.uk/election/ones-to-watch/michael-dugher?filter=labour
Dreolin:”would the NOTW make up something like this from scratch?” Indeed, it sounds improbable. And there’s stronger evidence on the way – today’s papers reported banknotes being found by police in the players’ rooms. Here’s the Guardian report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/aug/30/international-cricket-council-pakistan-surveillance
Dreoilin,
I thought of two causes for what you describe:
(1) ‘Code injection’ – this is when someone posts a comment or links to text that could be interpreted by a browser as a script. Disabling Javascript should stop this affecting your browser. Code injection is a malicious technique, and the reason that I use the NoScript Firefox extension. The script gets cached, that’s why I suggested clearing the cache. Internet Explorer has vulnerabilities other than just Javascript, that’s why I suggested not using it.
(2) Avatar Singh’s post made the page go wide. There are coding errors in the old software that this site is based upon. This could be giving your browser a headache. This is why I suggested trying a different browser.
Has anyone else been having problems? All’s fine on my system (Ubuntu 8.04 / Firefox 3.6.8, scrips enabled per-site).
Dreilion: “Where did he day “murdered”?
Didn’t you quote it yourself as “reported dead three years ago by the late Pakistan candidate Benazir Bhutto”? Are you at your twisting again?”
Quite right. Well spotted. We’ll just have to see what Alfred comes up with.
Clark: “I think you’ve been unfair to Angrysoba there. As I’ve said before, I get frustrated with his argument technique, but I think he just gets a bit carried away with his enthusiasm to argue for what he believes is true. But he’s a good researcher and he really does do some reading.”
Thanks Clark!
“those reports of Osama bin Laden were picked up on immediately. On the day that the Afghan War Diaries were released I saw such an article on either the Guardian or the Telegraph’s front web page, maybe both. It’s pathetic, really, but I suppose the papers need their bogeyman.
How much does Osama bin Laden’s continued existence really matter? Could it be a case of “Strike me down, and I’ll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine”?”
Well, like I said, maybe I need to pay more attention to mainstream media but most of the time I simply don’t read the Telegraph, the Guardian or the Mail.
I don’t know how much Osama bin Laden’s existence matters, per se, but what clearly is important is that IF he is no longer alive and yet videos and messages are being released in his name then who is responsible for producing them?
Angrysober,
Thanks for the links – hope you are well? Unfortunately I am also confused with the ‘over-quoting’ although to be fair I did enjoy the research on North Korea.
somebody,
I miss Craig’s commentary and I too hope he is back soon.
The Beeb spending review reminded me of the ‘Star Chamber’ reintroduced by Mrs Thatcher and recently revised to determine spending cuts.
Mmm I heard the starry chamber has been revised to deal with ‘soft treason’ or anyone opposed to ‘state terror’ or those of us immune to government propaganda.
I might be wrong but I will report back if I am whipped or have my ears cut off.
Among those obsessed with personalities, does anyone know who Angrysoba is?
Not that it matters, obviously.
Incidentally, TM, Clark is not a dumb as he seems. He argues like a commie tosser because he is a commie tosser: screw the argument, spew the defamation.
And Suhayl, what the hell has Aethelred got to do with this thread? And which Aethelred do you mean?
Discussion of Alfred’s older brother Aethelred, who died of wounds received in a battle with the Viking pirate bastards in Somerset in 871, obviously belongs in a thread on illegal immigration.
‘I don’t know how much Osama bin Laden’s existence matters, per se, but what clearly is important is that IF he is no longer alive and yet videos and messages are being released in his name then who is responsible for producing them?’
Oh come on Angrysoba, don’t be disingenuous! You know who is producing them, the same manufacturers that produced that classic false flag operation 9/11
Oh, I see Angrysoba’s identity is known, but it’s a secret. LOL
Suhayl,
You demand to know what I think about Assange. But I really don’t know anything about him, so what can I say.
I intervened here only to object to the racist, anglophobic genocidal rant by Avatar Singh, since no one else seemed to find it objectionable. Indeed, you seemed to find considerable merit in it.
On the question of leaking, I would say the honorable way to do it is as Clive Ponting did it, in one’s own name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ponting
Ponting was charged under the Official Secrets Act and although he
“… fully expected to be imprisoned ?” and had brought his toothbrush and shaving kit along to the court on 11 February 1985 ?” he was acquitted by the jury. The acquittal came despite the judge’s direction to the jury that “the public interest is what the government of the day says it is”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ponting
“Oh come on Angrysoba, don’t be disingenuous! You know who is producing them, the same manufacturers that produced that classic false flag operation 9/11”
Well, the “9/11 was a false flag” theory is indeed a popular theory with the “fake bin Laden videos” theory as a necessary corollary but I am sure you know by now that I don’t subscribe to the former so have no need for the latter.
Re: KingofWelshNoir on 9/11
Here’s a comment by a US Congressman, directly attributing foreknowledge of 9/11 to George Bush.
How, one wonders would Angrysoba spin this.
Sorry, I forgot the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow84BoZjLjU&feature=player_embedded
Alfred, with inimitable lack of self-awareness, again condemns name-calling and smearing through the medium of name-calling and smearing:
“Incidentally, TM, Clark is not a dumb as he seems. He argues like a commie tosser because he is a commie tosser: screw the argument, spew the defamation.”
Actually, when I say “inimitable” I forget that TM has imitated his style quite convincingly.
“Here’s a comment by a US Congressman, directly attributing foreknowledge of 9/11 to George Bush.
How, one wonders would Angrysoba spin this.”
Alfred, you know where the 9/11 thread is. So the video of a Congressman essentially accusing Bush of incompetence (not collusion) should be taken over there.
Besides, I asked you about Benazir Bhutto claiming Osama bin Laden was dead. Do you have a source for that?
Angry, I know you don’t subscribe to the former and thus have no need of the latter but since you were seemingly willing to entertain, at least temporarily, the hypothesis that the bin Laden videos were false I presumed you were thereby flirting with the troof to see what it felt like. Felt good huh? 🙂
And anyway, if bin Laden is shooting them how come he can’t afford a decent video camera?
“I intervened here only to object to the racist, anglophobic genocidal rant by Avatar Singh, since no one else seemed to find it objectionable. Indeed, you seemed to find considerable merit in it.” Alfred
That is really completely untrue, and you know it. You persist in doing this, Alfred. Duncan MacFralane and I – and others – have all criticised avatar singh’s posting and you jolly well know it.
“You demand to know what I think about Assange. But I really don’t know anything about him, so what can I say.” Alfred
Now that, Alfred, is an evasion. You are opinionated on many matters, yet on the subject of this thread – Assange and his work – you have no opinion? Well, okay. I think that really answers my question and also would tend to reinforce angrysoba’s contention that you and TM (?trademark) are one and the same – something which you seem to neither confirm nor deny. Just like MI6.
For what it’s worth, here’s a story from the Washington Post in which former CIA agents claim to have faked a bin Laden video, albeit one that wasn’t released.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html
Good on Dublin and Kate O’Sullivan!!!
Dreoilin, you were going to throw yoghurt at the TV last night.
I wish the eggs had hit him.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100904/tuk-protester-attempts-citizen-s-arrest-dba1618.html
Suhayl,
Blair is signing again at Waterstones Piccadilly this Wednesday coming unless it is cancelled.
I saw Kate O’Sullivan interviewed a while ago. Blair’s security whisked her away toot sweet.
Ali Abunimah (ElectronicIntifada.net) posted “Long live Ireland!” on Twitter earlier today, with a link to the BBC report. I hope the protests in London will be even better. 🙂
The latest issue of Time magazine has a very interesting article by Tony Blair about recent American presidents as people. Its value IMO lies in the fact that it’s based on first hand encounters:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2015409,00.html
I agree BTW with those who say that the invasion of Iraq was planned badly, and Rumsfeld and Bremer deserve much of the blame. Jimmy Carter in my view was right in condemning Britain for not being more active as a restraining influence.
“Obama’s Iraq Speech:
An Exercise in Cowardice and Deceit”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26289.htm
Suhayl:
Re: “Duncan MacFralane and I – and others – have all criticised avatar singh’s posting and you jolly well know it.”
Yes, that’s right. But neither of you said anything critical of Avatar Singh before I pointed out that his statements were racist incitements to genocide. But you did commend Avatar Singh on the merits of his post.
So what I “jolly well know” is not what you imply.
So now may I have an apology for your charge that I am a speaker of untruths.
You again demand my opinion of Assange, but I repeat, I know nothing of him other than the very limited amount of information provided here and in the media. Clark says we should trust him because he’s a “hacker,” but I’m not convinced either way.
Again, my view is that a leaker should leak publicly. That way they have no need of Assange or anyone else: They need just send a package of papers, a disc or whatever, and a signed cover letter to the editors of mainstream and alternative news sites.
Of course, if you act publicly you have to take the consequences. But as in the case of Clive Ponting, who no one here seems interested in, the jury decided against the judge’s advice that the government was the sole judge of what it was in the public interest to keep secret.
‘Tony Blair’s autobiography becomes crime book after Facebook campaign’
http://bit.ly/cPSd0k
‘Love letter to America: Gushing tributes to Obama and Bush in U.S. version of Blair memoirs’
http://bit.ly/cex4l1
The above was my post, obviously.
And Angry, Clark told me he was a Commie (God knows where on this site that exchange occurred.)
True he didn’t say he was a tosser. But the one thing implies the other. He also said he was an admirer of that Commie Jack Straw.
Oh, and Clark still owes me an apology from way back, so I am free to be as rude as I like.
Abe Rene, in what way was the Iraq war badly planned?
BP are now drilling there. Wasn’t that the purpose? And could that have been achieved without total distruction of Iraqi society as it existed before the war?
Just kicking Saddam out wasn’t going to change much. The whole structure had to be smashed. That’s what happened.
Iraqi turned against Iraqi, millions of middleclass Iraqis driven from the country, many of the intellectual elite murdered. It was a brilliant operation, that turned over the World’s second largest pool of oil to the western oil companies, insured the price of oil continues to be denominated in dollars, and most important of all, kept Iraq’s oil wealth out of the hands of Iraq’s Arab nationalists.
Not that I supported the war, of course. But if it were to be done, then the way it was done was the only way it could have been done.
“Oh, and Clark still owes me an apology from way back, so I am free to be as rude as I like.”
Oh, grow up.