I am becoming quite fond of my little corner of Schiphol airport. I have put up my Christmas cards and a few bits of tinsel. I now have a boarding card for the 0800 to Manchester. This is the sixth boarding card I have had. It is very hard to understand why, time after time, they don’t know a flight is cancelled until some time after it was due to leave and all the passengers have queued at the gate for hours.
Of course, Manchester is a lot further from Ramsgate than Schiphol is, so even if the flight atually goes, this represents rather dubious progress.
Happy New Year everybody.
Remarkably, KLM delivered my lost luggage, including my laptop, at 9.30 pm on New Year’s Eve. At that time a pretty lively party was already in full swing,much improved by the presence of a great many beautiful young women, mostly from Latvia. I am not sure why; my life as ever consists of a bewildering succession of chance encounters with really nice people. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that Nadira was the most lovely of all, without indulging in dutiful hyperbole.
It was an extremely happy Christmas. Having my mum, both my brothers and all my three chidren together was as great as it was rare.
We have been through the laptop in lost luggage discussion before. The problem is that my shoulders dislocate at the drop of a hat, and I travel without hand luggage to avoid an accident.
2011 is going to be a very important year for me. particularly the first quarter. A number of crucial events are going either to set me up financially for the rest of my life, or result in real distress and failure. At present I have reason to be very optimistic. I am also very absorbed in my life of Alexander Burnes, which I hope will help establish a serious academic reputation.
The Portuguese edition of Murder in Samarkand has sold unexpectedly well in Brazil. The translation of the Turkish edition has just been finished.
I hope to do a Wikileaks retrospective in the next couple of days. Just a quick thought on the case of the poor young gardener in Bristol. Of the Jill Dando case, long before Barry Bulsara’s succesful appeal I blogged that this appeared to be a miscarriage of justice in which the police had fitted up the local weirdo.
Despite not being enamoured of landlords in general, I fear the same dynamic is at work in Bristol, albeit Chris Jefferies is much more intellectually capable than Bulsara. My instinct is that the police have picked up on Jefferies for being camper than a boy scout jamboree and archer than Trajan.
Jefferies’ release on bail has me worried that there was nothing against him other than the “He’s a weird one, guv” instinct of some not very bright cop. The case needs to be closely watched as history shows that the powers of the police to make the evidence fit the suspect are considerable.
CD: welcome (back?) I don’t remember your posting.
Happy (?) to let you know that, as you can see, no-one has chased Alfred/AB/Lucretius anywhere: there he is, sock-puppeting all over the board, with his ‘cogent’ points. Jon is in the middle of trying to make sense of some of them, I believe. In the meantime he continues to insult and slur other posters (no-one has encouraged avatar singh, for example) while claiming he is being slurred himself. Ho hum. How you think that asking him a short and simple question, politely, if repetitively, counts as ‘trolling’ I’m not sure. Ingo and Jon are two other people who don’t, by the way.
dreoilin: did you really not recognise that crude caricature as racist and repulsive? the terms in which it spoke (repulsive images of coitus, gibbering attacks) surely made it clear?
anyway, richard’s right: don’t want to think about this any more.
@Ralph
Actually I was dissapointed that Craig didn’t get his OBE. Just for the pleasure of hearing that he told them to shove it !
“did you really not recognise that crude caricature as racist and repulsive?”
Have I not made it abundantly clear from my attacks on Alfred’s racism (in relation to Suhayl), that had I done so I would have said so?
I didn’t read it all, technicolour. I don’t recall “repulsive images of coitus, gibbering attacks”. I remember him taking the piss out of Larry — whom I have no reason to like, since he has called me a ‘lying cunt’, without providing any evidence of me ever having lied here.
I was clearly wrong about ‘juniper’ and didn’t read it carefully enough.
Did you visit the link I gave to Suhayl? I should have posted it earlier for Alfred, when he was waffling about Ireland having nothing but bogs and whiskey.
Alfred also posted under LOL, I think. Didn’t see the Lucretius tag! Anyway, he claims to have made his last post. I’d welcome his old character and identity back, but something in him changed to make the new version a great deal angrier and adversarial. I’m not sure that a misunderstanding of the intent of Suhayl et al is the whole of it, tbh.
I think Alfred changed his name to ‘LOL’ precisely so that he could be ‘a great deal angrier and adversarial’. He’s also an obfusticator, a ducker and diver. He blinds one with text in what he imagines is a diversion from the fact that he’s not replying to Suhayl.
So you haven’t noticed how the biggest disruptions here – the ones that prompt ppl to announce their departure – are regularly presaged by Suyahl’s persistent troll-baiting? Coincidence?
I’d hazard a guess that Alfred started using his LOL sock-puppetry precisely to avoid it.
sorry dreoilin, clearly didn’t read *you* clearly enough!
yes, I don’t think Alfred is *responding* to anything or anyone by being angry and adversarial. but *being*.
lots of stars. some of us are looking at them 🙂
… and I think it also explains why he became ‘a great deal angrier and adversarial’.
It pays to treat ppl with respect, Suhayl. Jon has positively proved that.
CD: You would ‘hazard a guess’? Why don’t you try reading the posts instead, that would be a good start. Go back – oh, a year – and carry on from there. In the meantime, it’s a fashionable tactic to blame the intended victim in some circles, I believe. What a shame that Suhayl didn’t roll over and take it.
Still, on re-reading it seems you are, at least, acknowledging that Alfred is a troll. Most people have, nevertheless, tried to engage with him. He is not banned so what would you do with him, CD? Ignore him? Or encourage him to avoid questioning or objections by ‘understanding’ his sock puppetry?
Techni, I should be looking at lunch. I’m off to do that now. 🙂
Why you try reading the posts instead, techni?
AB began by airing some Anglo-nationalist views that SS perceived as covertly racist and took exception to. So SS tried hard to draw AB into making racist statements. Alfred didn’t like that, or where it was leading, and started being abusive. SS kept the pressure up every time AB made a new post. AB eventually resorted to sock-puppetry and became personally vindictive against SS, and others who defended him.
After Clark and Jon tried to mediate, AB eventually softened and reverted to reasoned argument.
I can see the logic, why can’t you??
Why you try reading the posts again, techni?
Now who else uses ‘SS’ as an abbreviation for Suhayl’s name? Could it be the same liar who wrote this about him:
“an Aglophobic (sic) racist who very warmly encouraged contributions from the lunatic Avatar Singh”
To refresh your memory ‘CD’, AB ‘began’ on this board by airing quite a lot of nonsense eg the USA was more or less deserted before Europeans arrived. He happily used a word like ‘miscegenation’ and included the memorable phrase ‘genocide in Leicester’ quite off his own bat. There was no need to draw him into making ‘racist statements’. No-one, I’m sure, wanted to draw him into making any statements (Suyahl was after a yes or no answer to a simple question) So you are wrong ‘CD’, and, if you persist further, tiresomely so.
Dreoilin, lunch, good idea 🙂
Anno, Dawkins’ phrase “The Selfish Gene” has been much misunderstood and misused; it is easy to see why:
As Dawkins himself has repeatedly pointed out since his book of that name, it’s not about genes that make people selfish. His point is that the ‘selfishness’ of evolution takes place at the level of genes, not individuals. Genes behave selfishly, but this leads to a variety of behaviours in individuals, including altruism. Altruism persists because it benefits the propagation of certain genes, rather than the individuals that carry them. Effectively, there are genes for charity; surely God’s design is a good one!
Compelling evidence for such genetic influences come from the study of mating, genetic inheritance, and behaviour in colonies of ants, bees and other social insects, see Matt Ridley’s ‘The Origins of Virtue’.
SS was indeed after a yes or no answer ?” but only after a long series of interrogations trying to tempt AB into revealing an underlying racist credo. It took a while before SS boiled it down to that one question, which he repeated over and over again like some kind of mantra. Why was it so crucial to SS and what would he have done with the answer? I reckon it was a blatant attempt to stick a BNP sticker on AB so he would be tainted with all the assumptions and negativity that group attracts. But that’s like concluding that CM wants to raise tuition fees because he’s a member of the LibDems.
Do you think every complex issue comes down to a simple yes or no (or dare I say, black or white) question? From what I can tell, AB didn’t.
It’s good that AB was tackled on his inappropriate use of words like ‘miscegenation’ and ‘genocide’. The discussion was going well at that point. But when SS decide to try to uncover some underlying racist evil, it degenerated into a ‘burn the witch!’ frenzy. Lefty do-gooders vs the racist baddy. AB refused to be cast in that role or participate in that scenario.
I’m sorry if you find counter-arguments tiresome, techni. Pop a couple of proplus or something.
Trollin’, Trollin’, Trollin’
Alfred keeps on trollin’
Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
…the blog!
A good piece, which we would do well to remember when some people talk about ‘the problems of the people of Britain’ as though ‘the working class’ was only white:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-remembering-an-unsung-heroine-of-our-modern-history-2174684.html
I’m pleased, CD, that you do agree that the use by Alfred of the words, “genocide” and “miscegenation” were indeed inappropriate. Thank you for that. I appreciate it.
Voting…?
When it boils down to it, at the most basic level, you know it’s really as simple as… ABCD.
From the archives:
Glenn, I think you may agree that it’s stimulating and intellectually pleasurable to engage in discourse with Alfred, largely because of his erudition and because he tends to avoid tossing out personal insults, so even if one disagrees with some of his basic premises, there’s no need for him to feel up against it.
Posted by: Suhayl Saadi at May 5, 2010 7:43 AM
Suhayl Saadi: Yes, I agree very much – Alfred is worth talking to precisely because he doesn’t immediately descend into petty insults and bickering. In fact, it takes him a good few prods to even start going there. So one can actually talk about the subject matter without each side trying its hand at a more polished form of the usual brush-off of one’s personally dismissed political view.
Posted by: glenn at May 6, 2010 3:07 AM
I’m not AB by the way. Just following on from him …
The prodding started quite gently, admittedly:
Alfred, do you consider yourself more ‘British’ than Craig Murray’s youngest son?
… or Lord David Steel’s grandchildren? Or ‘Irish’ Technicolour, or me? And if so, on what basis, exactly.
Posted by: Suhayl Saadi at May 6, 2010 6:44 PM
Fascinating. D’you think Griffin is MI5? Cambridge… tap on the shoulder, cup of tea…
Posted by: Suhayl Saadi at May 9, 2010 7:25 AM
Some history:
In the message thread ‘That Cameron Gay Gaffe’, glenn innocently enquired ‘Are you a racist, Alfred?’, which was fair enough at that point. Then indigenous rights and voluntary segregation became dominant issues in the ‘South Africa’, ‘Dead Nazi’, ‘Death of Polish Katyn Delegation’ threads, which became increasingly Godwinesque.
In ‘Voting Tree’, a bit of mild goading was introduced, but the tipping point came during ‘The Ethics of Banning Trolls’ and the polemics were really unleashed. Too many juicy taunts to quote here. Scan the discussion and see who was responsible. It was a tango no doubt, but it would help if the usual suspects tried to hold back from the brink.
“The prodding” – taken out of context as always, Alfred – was “initiated” by your various statements. Yes, you did begin by not throwing out insults – as Jon said – and I did enjoy discussing much with you but it became clear soon that on almost every thread, you descend to the same, tossing the rattle out of the pram type of interaction. I’m not persecuting you, Alfred, you’re not a victim of any sort. I do feel sorry for you, actually, and I don’t mean that in a patronising way. I think your specific fears over the ‘fate’ of things British is sad. You simply expressed views, Alfred and I have attempted to hold you to account thereof. That is all.
Yours, in context,
WXYZ
Alfred, I fear that this has become very boring for everyone else. This thread will soon slip off the screen, perhaps not a bad thing.
In spite of everything, I wish you all the best. But, without allowing it to dominate or subvert future threads, I will continue to hold you to account in relation to your words and expressed views whenever I think it necessary to do so. That, after all, is partly what discourse is about.
Have a pleasant day.
“Suhayl said:
“That reminds me a little of Mrs Thatcher’s “swamping” phrase back in 1979. …”
Oh, I thought you might actually answer the question.
But you’re like Sam Johnson’s Poll who was, “all wiggle waggle and never could be categorical.”
Posted by: Alfred at July 22, 2010 1:07 AM
But Lynford Christie, I’ve heard of him: very speedy fellow? Can’t be a real indigenous Brit!
Oops, mustn’t say that. All animals are equally fast, although some are more equally fast than others.
It is said that the Internet is a place where people may listen only to what they already believe, and speak only with those with whom they aready agree. Such cannot be said of this conversation. But if at times has been a little bruising, it may have been worthwhile, nevertheless.
It appears this page is about to disappear from view, as I must also. So cheers, Richard, Techie, Clark – you bugger you still owe me an apology, Stephen, Crab, Suhayl — sorry about the last ding: unkind I suppose but deserved I thought, though no personal disrespect intended (I am sure that a man as articulate and well informed as you will do much to uphold the British tradition of direct speech, albeit improved with a tact and polish with which the British, in general, are not notably well endowed), and Glenn, as before, a good talk. To Craig, if you are still abroad, a safe and pleasant journey home.
Posted by: Alfred at July 22, 2010 3:50 AM
Usual innuendo. Usual faux-erudition. Usual persecution complex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EoQVaQGXmM
Goodnight, Alfred.
Jaded – ‘As for questions, you mysteriously didn’t answer all my questions. Combined with your previous posts I do find your behaviour suspicious. Let me ask you one simple question Mr. Technicolour and we shall see. I was taught in school that 6 million Jews (human beings) were deported and executed in an industrial fashion. I disagree with that narrative. Disagreeing with that narrative *doesn’t mean* you think that *substantial numbers* of Jews were deported and executed. Moreover, as I have said before, the intimidation of any human being is unacceptable in my view, let alone deportation and execution! Do you agree or disagree with the 6 million deportation and execution narrative or not Mr. Technicolour?’
So, one month and no answer eh Mr. Technicolour? Or should I say Mr. Zionist?
Posted by: Jaded. at August 16, 2010 5:01 AM
Cor blimey! If some Scotch twerp told our lahvley Queen to shove ‘er OBE…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOhXpmozpbE
Suhayl, notice the date on Alfred’s retorts – July 22, 2010. But your mischievous insinuations started in May and intensified in June. I rather think that underlines my point, don’t you think? I don’t deny Alfred got vindictive. What I’m suggesting is that you provoked it with childish tactics.
It seems to me that when people repeatedly defend views you don’t like, you become subversive, sowing patronising insinuations about motives and identities. At the beginning of the flame wars, you can be found teasing and goading, dancing around your keyboard like a delighted Puck. And it works. Hooray! You irritate the people whose views you despise. You seem to think it’s a clever tactic. I personally think it’s degrading, and that it’s stifling honest debate and potentially alienating casual readers.
Your insinuations are of course not as offensive as the bilious insults that the trolls (and clowns) spew out. But you do sometimes provoke them, and I wish you would rein it in.
And you’re still doing it. I have already stated that I’m not Alfred, AB, LOL or whichever other sock-puppet pseudonyms he was using. Of course, you introduced this idea not by asking the question or stating it outright, but by first insinuating it and then assuming it. Can’t you see how that snidey style of debate can irritate an honest interlocutor? If you stop, I’m sure the tone of comments on this blog will generally improve (LfStL notwithstanding).
@ Larry,
” No, Courtenay, the ECHR didn’t in any way meld the respective European legal systems, particularly in respect of burden of proof issues in rape cases.”
There are applying a unified jurisprudence despite the historical distnictions between Napoleanic, Common Law and the various European legal systemn that have united within the EU.
But you are the eternal contrarian Larry – we all now that.
Cheers mate and have a less than contentious 2011 if you can manage same for just one post in this new year.
Read “They” for There are applying