The revelation that undercover Met officers spied on the family of Jean Charles De Menezes after they murdered him, leaves me utterly appalled.
You have to consider this in the context of the lies that the Met assiduously spread about De Menezes – that he entered the tube without buying a ticket, that he vaulted the ticket gates, that he ran away from officers, that he was wearing a bulky jacket.
All of these were lies. In truth the poor man had entered the tube normally and legally, walked calmly and sat down with a free newspaper. He wore a short tight denim jacket. Then totally without any cause or justification from his actions whatsoever, his murderers shot him multiple times in the head. Just because his Brazilian complexion looked a bit Arab.
I can think of no category of lie worse than that told by a murderer against the reputation of their victim.
The police did everything they could to mislead the media, planting lies and encouraging stories they knew to be untrue. Personally I find it extremely suspicious that numerous CCTV cameras were found not to be working, and have little doubt that the police destroyed that evidence.
There can be no other motive for spying on De Menezes’ family than either the hope of gaining information to feed to the media to discredit the man they murdered, or to attempt to pervert the course of justice.
They did not have to worry – their were plenty of others to pervert the course of justice for them, including the DPP and above all, Sir Michael Wright, as disgusting a piece of scum as ever sat on an English bench, who directed the inquest jury that they could not return a verdict of unlawful killing. (I was delighted to find that, when I googled Sir Michael Wright, my article on him came high on the first page. Is that result tailored by Google for me, or is it general?)
The recent revelation that the Met spied on Menezes’ family sparked very little public interest. It should. It is a still more appalling outrage than the Murdoch press hacking Millie Dowler. At least the Murdoch gang had not actually murdered Millie Dowler themselves. The De Menezes family were being spied on by their son’s and brother’s murderers.
Clark, the idea behind articles such as that posted by Node above is to create a racial stereotype based on a handful of incidents stretching over 50 years. The racial stereotype in this case is the idea of the devious Jew, which the Metapedia website specialises in along with various derogatory caricatures of black African ‘negroes’. There have been thousands of genuine cases of anti-Semitism, none of which are included in the article.
What Node is saying is that he has accidentally stumbled on this mine of information and yet has taken what he has found as fact about the Jews and anti-Semitic grafitti including that found across Europe at this present time. He believes on the basis of this article that all anti-Semitic activities are the work of the Jews, or rather he has googled for anti-Semitic articles which support that view which he already held.
Rather than do the decent thing and apologise, he has attempted to back up his revolting racist views by asking you to disprove any of the content of the extremely limited and prejudiced article he has selected for our attention. All in all a complete shit.
What is the definition of ‘chutzpah’? Oh yeah.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.607384
“Anon, unfair on Doug Scorgie. You asked about hatred of Jews in general, got an answer, and then assumed hatred on Doug Scorgie’s part.”
Clark, Doug believes that anti-Semitic attacks are “more likely” to be the work of Zionists (by which he means Jews). He cannot accept the reality of virulent anti-Semitism from certain quarters in Europe, so he seeks to deny it as the work of devious Jews making attacks upon themselves in order to garner sympathy. It is foul anti-Semitic propaganda of the same variety as that emanating from A Node and for which he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
Clark: “Node, I dispute the first example so far, as the original source… You check it out. Metapedia is disgusting”
I asked you if you dispute the accuracy of any of the swastika vandalism incidents on that page. You seem to be saying that you dispute it merely on the grounds of its source. Here are independent reports of the first three:
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/woman-confesses-to-two-borough-swastika-blitz/3391/
http://www.jta.org/2007/11/06/news-opinion/jewish-student-behind-some-dorm-swastikas
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087991/Jewish-man-arrested-string-anti-Semitic-hate-crimes.html
The information on the page seems to be accurate. That’s what I was linking to, not the rest of the site. My 3rd link above is to the Daily Mail – that doesn’t mean I endorse everything else on the site
I didn’t check out the site before posting the link. Now I have, I agree that it is pretty horrible, but I don’t attach as much significance to that as you seem to. This issue has come up before – should we discount information just because of who said it. I believe we shouldn’t, that would be attacking the messenger instead of the message and it makes it too easy to justify dismissing awkward information.
If you’re ticking me off for linking Craig’s blog to Metapedia, I accept that’s a valid criticism, but I make no apologies for posting accurate relevant information.
“Node, someone told me Wikipedia was “useless”, pointing out it the politics of Jimmy Wales. It was months or more ago. Was that you?”
No, not me. I don’t trust Wikipedia, but I would never say it was useless, and I don’t know anything about the politics of Jimmy Wales.
In the wake of De Menezes’ death, I speculated on a very very unpopular blog I was writing (just a few friends commenting) on what the Met execution of De Menezes had actually involved. I stated that he would be found not to be running, not to be jumping the ticket barrier, and so on.
Seems I was close enough to the truth, as I was intercepted and interviewed at a UK airport when returning from the Republic of Ireland a short time later. No uniforms, no names, summoned into an alcove before reaching baggage reclaim, taken off to a side room and intimidated for a brief period.
I’m a nobody. Clearly, Plod (and the intelligence services) were intent on making sure the truth did not leak out.
Komodo
The idea that you would ever stand outside a mosque and protest the actions of an Islamic state is laughable. In common with many here you couldn’t give a shit about what goes on in Muslim countries except that which you can stick to the West and in particular, Israel. The only possible reason for you to come up with the idea of forming protest groups outside British synagogues is because you have some problem with the Jews, it being Jews who attend British synagogues, not Israelis.
Oops, should’ve read the other comments before posting. OK, Phil, you got me. Still stand by my general comment about messenger and message though.
You’ve got nothing to stand by, Node. Accept that you have been using information from anti-Jewish websites (not just repeating it but actually using it), apologise and move on.
Anon, I fail to get your meaning about the difference between ‘repeating’ and ‘using’. Also I’m not sure what I’m supposed to apologise about. Do you apologise when you link to the anti-Muslim BBC website?
Node, I use Wikipedia a lot, but I always follow links to the significant sources on anything contentious. It’s essential on Wiki sources; the page could have been vandalised thirty seconds before visiting it.
Forget it, Anon. The world’s beginning to get wise to the lies.
http://www.98fm.com/reader/523.685/6611/0/
http://onedemocracy.co.uk/news/the-courage-of-gaza/
Anon, people get inaccurate impressions in both directions when forming opinions on highly contentious and aggressively argued subjects such as the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s inevitable, partly because humans have to form impressions, partly because the information has all been skewed one way or another before it is encountered, and for a host of other reasons.
Please stop telling everyone what other people think and feel. You cannot know this, and it angers the victim, contributing to conflict and misunderstanding.
““Node, someone told me Wikipedia was “useless”, pointing out it the politics of Jimmy Wales. It was months or more ago. Was that you?””
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/10/the-extraordinary-rarity-of-whistleblowing/comment-page-2/#comment-373376
Clark: ““Node, someone told me Wikipedia was “useless”, pointing out it the politics of Jimmy Wales. It was months or more ago. Was that you?””
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/10/the-extraordinary-rarity-of-whistleblowing/comment-page-2/#comment-373376
@Fedup: I’m coming back to this late, but what does the “Make Poverty History” gathering in Edinburgh… which was brilliant incidentally but Geldof & U2 were only there via big screen… have to do with 7/7?
Node, you used the Metapedia article in order to provide some sort of credence to your idea that the anti-Semitism currently being seen across Europe is the work of the Jews.
If you believe this is not the case then all you have to do is say that the swastikas daubed on public monuments, the Hitler football shirts, and the placards reading “Hitler was right” are the work of anti-Semites.
It shouldn’t be that hard. Over to you.
Komodo
“Forget it, Anon. The world’s beginning to get wise to the lies”
A complete avoidance of the points I put to you at 7:58 pm.
Note the prophetic tone also. He really does believe the shit that spews out of his mouth.
Are you still here, Anon…
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/27/372991/egypt-destroys-13-more-gaza-tunnels/
“Since the ouster of Egypt’s former president Mohamed Morsi last July, the Egyptian military has launched a campaign to destroy the tunnels, preventing the people in Gaza from bringing in most of their basic goods like construction materials, food, and fuel into the coastal enclave, which has been hit by Israeli airstrikes since July 8. ”
Evacuate? Where? Food and other necessities? ‘Natch.
Yup, alive and kicking, Peacewisher. Bring on your ideas. Let’s discuss.
I’m still flabbergasted that you’re not aware of Michael Moore. You must be very young…
No I’m very ancient and still hoping for the youth of today to tell me all about Michael Moore and his beliefs. Why so shy?
Anon, I accused you yesterday of not arguing in good faith. Thank you for the confirmation. You make no attempt to really find out what I think, or to discuss a topic. Instead you use clumsy debating tricks in an attempt to prevent examination of the issues.
Example (1) the Straw Man argument
“you used the Metapedia article in order to provide some sort of credence to your idea that the anti-Semitism currently being seen across Europe is the work of the Jews.”
I’ve never said that and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.
Example (2) False dichotomy
“If you believe this is not the case then all you have to do is say that the swastikas daubed on public monuments, the Hitler football shirts, and the placards reading “Hitler was right” are the work of anti-Semites.”
You pretend that there are only two possibilities, either all instances of swastika vandalism are the work of anti-semites, or all instances of swastika vandalism are the work of Jews. I do not believe that, and neither do you.
What I do believe is that some acts of swastika vandalism are the work of Jews, and that there are enough proven examples of this to justify caution in assuming who is responsible for any given incident.
I am quite willing to debate that proposition with you, and to explore the possible motivation of those Jews who do it. I only ask that you address the words I write rather than those of your straw men.
When I saw it, the cinema was full of “ancient” people, some of whom looked quite shocked when they left. You still have time… it is available on DVD and Bluray.
Clue: it starts with the rigging of the Florida count in the 2000 US Election. I’m sure you heard about that…
“I’ve never said that and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.”
You were presented with evidence of anti-Semitic attacks, your response was to post an article from an anti-Semitic website claiming that anti-Semitic attacks are the work of the Jews.
Peacewisher
Please, I don’t want to have to write in caps again, but if you are so sure about the ideas of this Michael Moore, please print them here! There is nothing to be afraid of. Just type it out!
If you really are that stupid/uninformed, Anon, how did you get onto this blog in the first place?
Anon:
“You were presented with evidence of anti-Semitic attacks, your response was to post an article from an anti-Semitic website claiming that anti-Semitic attacks are the work of the Jews.”
No, straw man again, I posted an article which claimed that some anti-Semitic attacks are the work of the Jews.
Just type it out, Peacewisher. What do you believe really happened on 9/11 and 7/7?
Again, don’t be afraid. The self-evident truth of what you say will shine through.