It is no secret that Alistair Carmichael is a friend of mine. Not least because he told parliament so in 2005:
“The Government’s signals to the Uzbek regime have not always been helpful. I am thinking especially of their treatment of my old friend, the former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who has done us all a great service in graphically highlighting the appalling human rights record of the Uzbekistan Government.”
Alistair was one of very few MPs who raised the dreadful human rights abuses in Uzbekistan even before I got there. He has a genuine interest in human rights worldwide, and had a much better motivation in going into politics than the large majority of politicians. He was never anything like a diehard unionist in personal conviction. I felt quite proud for him when he was asked during the campaign what would his role be in negotiating for the UK the conditions of separation after a Yes vote. He replied that he was Scottish, and he would be on the Scottish, not the UK side.
I have never chosen my friends by my politics, and I am not one of those people who is only happy in the company of those who agree with me. I am happiest with a few drinks and a good argument in intellectually challenging company. I also do know that all human beings are flawed, and I don’t expect perfection. So I have no intention of ending friendship with Alistair.
All of which makes it hard, but I have to say that I really do think he needs to resign as an MP, and to do so immediately.
It was not just a mistake to leak that memo, it was wrong. It was even more wrong because he himself believed it was written in error and did not give Nicola Sturgeon’s true opinion. But in an election in which the Scottish Lib Dems faced wipeout, he saw the advantage of playing this trick. That was wrong on many levels. I would add that I feel very confident that Alistair would never have done it without consulting Clegg first. Clegg should resign too. And instead of the usual Cabinet Office stitch-up, there needs to be a real inquiry into the whole history and production of that extraordinary minute, and whether Alistair was set up to do it. The Scottish Government needs to be an equal partner in constituting that inquiry.
Alistair has no alternative but to resign because he then repeatedly lied about what he had done. It is much better that he goes now with a full and frank apology to everyone, especially his constituents. When you have blatantly and repeatedly lied about something, you cannot expect people to give you their trust again. That it even seems a possibility is an example of the erosion of ethical standards, of which Tony Blair is of course the greatest example as liar, mass murderer and multi-millionaire.
But we should not lose sight of the real lesson. The corrupt and rotten structures of the UK state are so insidious that they can take a fundamentally decent man like Alistair and lead him to behave so badly. There is something within the rotting organisms of UK institutions in their decline from Imperial power and dependence on corrupt banking and corporate systems, that infects almost all who enter them. While I worked for the FCO I saw really nice colleagues, decent men and women I worked with, go along with organising what they knew to be illegal war in Iraq, and with facilitating the torture and extraordinary rendition programmes. Because that was what paid their mortgage, looked after their children, and above all gave them social status as high British diplomats.
Westminster gives untramelled executive power to a party with just 23% of the support of the registered electorate. The majority of parliamentarians are unelected Lords a great many of whom are themselves mired in corruption – and some much worse. The organs of state power are used to facilitate the flow of money from the poor to the very wealthy, which is the actual cause of the deficit in public finances. The rewards of being on the inside are sweet; those outside are measurably dispossessed of wealth, and measurably alienated in politics. The media is controlled by this corporate state.
Alistair Carmichael’s story is not the story of a bad man. It is the story of what happens to a good man who buys in to UK power structures. The real lesson of the sad story of this period in Alistair’s life is that the UK is evil, corrupt and corrupting, and that the UK state needs swiftly to be broken up.
Btw I want to clarify what I meant above, that friendship is expected. Those who work in politics, I don’t begrudge it in the structure as is. But the capacity for if to effect what should be professional work. Etc. It’s not like celebrity culture is it, where I see few issues that can effect so many.
I’m just finding out how it ‘works’ and I can’t say i’m clear. All this rubbing shoulders. Argen’t they meant to be the enemy? And “we” come together for favors or influence, Tip bits within the current system. Aren’t we mean to be NO, I want your system out…And we will take if from you. There will be nothing friendly of affable about it.
This question of friendship is one that keeps niggling at me. I’v recently come to the conclusion that it’s actually corrosive to be around, or try to fit in with, people who have radially different ways, outlooks… Of course your never going to find anyone who ‘agrees’ totally. But it’s about connecting to like experience. And that’s something i’m looking forward to more after breaking old habits. As that’s what they often become. Self re-enforcing narrow vision maintainers.
I guess that’s more about the nature of friendship. I do like challenge. People with strong differing ideas. But not glorious bigots, cynical none starters, vampires of energy and sucking up kindness and effort, but I often fall into such things though want of “friendship”.
Can you have more than 2 or 3 friends? Really.
And the above illustrates how a whole culture is dragged blind into the wosrt ways of acting. And look where we have ended up? It’s not enough to resign, but maybe to go against that which you have maintained is something. To seek to improve the lot of those who have been harmed as a result. I’m of course thinking on Iraq now, labour, the Establishment, still not holding the massive injustice they where part of to account. Until Blair and co are held to it the law is a joke and you put us all in danger. Man women children in this country. It’s on your head that you let this injustice go unaccounted in any meaningful way. It’s despicable and disgusting rat like behavior. No less for “Conservatives” who also do nothing…
Then he adds:
Who would have thought of that?
They have been screwing us the public in a fashion as in the Salem witch trials fashion all in the way of preserving the planet; kill the human vermin, and save the pandas, and if you don’t agree with that then you are denier!
Never lie or mislead, or screw anyone, just delivering all the honesty, justice, and decency that you can handle!
Off topic.
Just to let people like Craig and others based in Edinburgh that Moazzam Begg, Aamer Anwer and Lindsay German are speaking at Augustine Church, George 4th Bridge, EH1 1EL at 7.30 pm on Tuesday 26 May on “Islamophobia, war and the Middle East in chaos – the legacy of Bush and Blair”.
Mr Spencer-Davis,
I thought you might ask that question. I used brackets to separate the names, and intended the exclusive ‘or’; as far as I am aware only the Consul-General referred to Ed Miliband. I accept my wording could have been more clearly expressed on this point, but as far as I know nobody present at the meeting has suggested any other interpretation of what happened; save only a leaked report that is itself of questionable reliability, and is in any case a soenwhat ‘over-exposed’ second-hand source. This is really not at all convincing, save in the fevered hands of the British media.
Candidly I am not convinced that any of the British journalistic sources pressing this issue are inherently more reliable sources than those who actually attended the meeting; and it really does not help the journalistic case that none of the British journalist sources attended the meeting. Given these facts I am at something of a loss to understand what purchase this whole matter has on reality; I suspect that if this, probably politically motivated boot was on ‘the other foot’, the argument would not ever have seen the light of day in the ‘mainstream’ media; I doubt if it would survive a single editorial meeting, setting any media-outlet’s agenda; it is wastepaper-basket material.
Craig,
You are saying this:-
“I have never chosen my friends by my politics, and I am not one of those people who is only happy in the company of those who agree with me. I am happiest with a few drinks and a good argument in intellectually challenging company. I also do know that all human beings are flawed, and I don’t expect perfection. So I have no intention of ending friendship with Alistair.”
I am saying this:-
http://www.tciaffairs.com/news/petition-by-members-of-the-legal-profession-against-the-appointment-of-judge-schuster/
Now, human rights is a global issue. Why should I not have the right to say that a totally compromised man should not be dumped on the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands ( i.e. a British Colony) as a Supreme Court Judge?. Why should the people here be any less entitled to protection of their rights – as anyone in the UK would be entitled to – especially when – the European Convention on Human Rights – extends to us in the TCI.
Should the same standards not apply?
You tell me.
Courtenay
John S Warren
24/05/2015 9:20pm
Mr Warren,
I can see you have a sharp eye; and I am going to have to be exceedingly precise in what I say to you. I’ll deal with both your contributions in the same posting.
Kind regards,
John
Hannah Arendt wrote something very similar about Eichmann.
The Scotsman agrees with you, Craig. Be very afraid.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/leaders-end-of-the-road-looms-for-alistair-carmichael-1-3781219
I don’t pity Carmichael in the slightest, it was such a subtle, crafted lie, so specific and unusual that it could only come from a conniving devious person. He was well aware of the damage it would cause. He also had a lot to say during the independence referendum, how much of that did he know was a lie???
He’s not a man of the people, he serves himself.
I mean just look at the diffidence between socialism and what we have now. Does anyone in the mainstream of system seriously thing they are socialists? Working for social justice? Supporting and being part of that witch maintains and imposes a brutal expansionist exploitative capitalist system. That’s affectively brought this county to the edge of chaos. Destroyed it in many ways, they destroyed the country.
I think it high time some decide what they are and what they stand for. And openly stand for it.
And they talk about their jobs and morgages, there is always food banks you know. You won’t die like the people you’ve killed and degraded in far worse conditions. And most of us as a result if this enforcement live in total Precariousness, and have know little else all our lives.
I tell you, anger doesn’t cut it. Resignation won’t cut it, it won’t undo the injustice they have done, ever. This is innocent peoples lives. Dreams cut to pieces. Futures put in real jeopardy. Walk the plank, that’s what many of us are being told. Fuck you.
You are a good man Craig, an honest man, I still wish you had become one of our MPs but just you being on the same side as us all who fight for Yes is a bonus for the Yes team.
I agree with all your comments however you say Carmichae, once was a good man but I am sure he is an intelligent man, one who knows the system inside out.
No excuse really – he knew exactly what he was doing. The system is only corruptable because some people are corrupt. Power can corrupt – and the People can see this.
Time for Change. We want “Integrity” Always.
Heywood began his enquiry on 4 April.
Inquiry was published on 22 May.
£200,000/week
??????????????????????????????
Should have read :
Heywood began his enquiry on 4 April.
Inquiry was published on 22 May.
less than 7 weeks
cost 1.4 million pounds.
= £200,000/week
??????????????????????????????
John S Warren
24/05/2015 8:37pm
[JSW 1]: I am a little perplexed by Mr Spencer-Davis’s contribution. The only people who can confirm or disconfirm what was said in the relevant interview have all denied that anything was said about the suitability of David Cameron (or Ed Miliband) to be PM.
[JSD 1]: Well, we’ve now had a little bit of a go-around with this statement, and you will not be surprised to read that I do not agree with it. Nicola Sturgeon, Pierre-Alain Coffinier, and Sylvie Bermann’s office (Bermann has said nothing herself, as far as I am aware), have all denied that any preference was expressed as to the outcome of the election. Pierre-Alain Coffinier further stated (on television) that the suitability of Ed Miliband as Prime Minister was not a subject for discussion, but unless I (or anyone else on the forum) choose to believe that the Investigations Editor for the Sunday Herald is a deliberate liar, as I discuss below, he seems, later, to have become more equivocal on this matter. Sylvie Bermann’s office has not said anything about whether or not Nicola Sturgeon stated that Ed Miliband was not Prime Ministerial material. The matter is not quite as clear-cut as your sentence suggests, is it?
You have been very frank with me, in suggesting that my interpretation of the evidence is generous to the point of vacuity. I trust that you will forgive me for being equally frank with you, in suggesting that your wording of the sentence I have discussed above is slippery to the point of misdirection. You admit yourself that you wondered if I would put the point regarding Sylvie Bermann to you, and that you could have worded the matter more clearly. In which case, why did you not do so? I suggest the answer is that you were hoping that you would get by with it, and that I would not pick that point up.
[JSW 1]: The “contradiction” amounts to a series of speculations by journalists who were not there.
[JSD 1}: I disagree with this statement. The blog entry that I posted from Mr Paul Hutcheon is not speculation. It is truth, or it is lies. Mr Hutcheon is the reporter who wrote in the Sunday Herald, on 05/04/2015, that the Sunday Herald had been granted an exclusive interview with Pierre-Alain Coffinier at the French Consulate.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/french-diplomat-i-told-friend-in-scotland-office-about-sturgeon-meeting.122423565
The context makes clear that this interview took place after the televised Sky News interview. It is reasonable to assume that the journalist who conducted this interview was Paul Hutcheon himself: if it was not, clearly he is working from a transcript or recording.
The only difference between this report and the Sky News interview is that we are able to see and hear Pierre-Alain Coffinier for ourselves in the televised interview. As you say, that is first-hand evidence and must be given greater weight, due to that, than a journalist’s direct report of an exclusive interview. That does not mean that the journalist’s direct report is to be given no weight at all. Additionally, the Sky News interview was a quick off-the-cuff response to a single question. Unless Hutcheon is deliberately lying, it is quite possible that Coffinier had second thoughts about what he had said in that televised interview.
[JSW 1]: This, I respecfully suggest, is not very persuasive;
[JSD 1]: You are quite welcome to suggest that, and the members of this forum will doubtless reach their own conclusions regarding the evidence I have presented.
[JSW 1]: unless your interpretation of what would amount to accessible, decisive, primary evidence is generous to the point of vacuity.
[JSD 1]: I don’t agree with this conclusion. The fact that Coffinier said one thing in a televised interview, which is primary evidence, does not mean that the fact that he is directly reported to have said a different thing in a later interview is automatically out the window. There is nothing vacuous about that. Members of the forum are entitled to see the primary evidence, and also the secondary evidence, and to reach their own conclusions about the credibility of the secondary evidence, and what could have happened between the two interviews to change Coffinier’s position – unless they conclude that Hutcheon is lying, which of course they are entitled to do.
[JSW 1]: The “leaked” report even referred to the so-called damaging ‘facts’ potentially having being “lost in translation”; which, I suggest, should have been a red hazard-warning light, even for a bold spin-doctor.
[JSD 1]: Fair enough. On the other hand, the author of the memo may merely be recording his astonishment that Nicola Sturgeon could have been so indiscreet. It is not clear from the memo exactly what is being referred to as “lost in translation”. It might refer to (and in my judgment is more likely to refer to) the five allegations immediately preceding the “lost in translation” sentence, three of which are undisputed as far as I am aware, or it might refer to the Cameron/Miliband allegations alone.
If you don’t mind, I won’t respond to the rest of your remarks, since they do not really have a bearing on my initial posting. If you don’t agree, please point out anything you would like me to respond to and I will be glad to do so.
I know I said I would deal with your second posting as well, but this response is very long (apologies to all) and it is late. I will pick it up tomorrow.
Kind regards,
John
“The corrupt and rotten structures of the UK state are so insidious that they can take a fundamentally decent man like Alistair and lead him to behave so badly.”
Sorry Craig, he may be your friend but responsibility rests with the individual. He made the decision to leak the document – that was his responsibility. The UK state (which I detest) for all its shortcomings did not make AC behave badly. AC made a decision to behave badly. I have watched and listened to him during the referendum campaign and after and he never came over to me as a “fundamentally decent man”. He bumbled and prevaricated on so many levels and never really convinced me that as Secretary of State for Scotland he spoke for Scotland’s best interests… His problem was not that he was a good man corrupted by buying into UK power structures; but rather that, in typical Diberal Lemoncrat fashion, he fudged and film-flammed, without focus or conviction and when it came to it thought he could pull a fast one. He’s not a bad man, more just an irrelevance.
That he should resign is beyond question.
Might it be love not anger that cracks the shell and allows for change. The hen can hath her eggs because her heart is always listening. Anger can crack the shell but it will not be productive. It will just be stolen.
“His problem was not that he was a good man corrupted by buying into UK power structures; but rather that, in typical Diberal Lemoncrat fashion, he fudged and film-flammed, without focus or conviction and when it came to it thought he could pull a fast one. He’s not a bad man, more just an irrelevance.”
Well, that sounds quite accurate. On the other hand, he could have been under orders, and in a panic.
They are the same basic thing Fwl.
And felt a loyalty to his party. Powerful thing, loyalty.
Re CM’s comment – “There is something within the rotting organisms of UK institutions….. that infects almost all who enter them”. All police states are corrupt. The open question is how we allowed ourselves to become a police state. And if one doesn’t think that our Kingdom is a police state, just ask oneself why it is that our secret police (MI5) spent time protecting pedophiles from justice and, furthermore, have got clean away with doing so. Even the Stasi, who used similar methods of “persuasion” to MI5, were not normally in the business of protecting pedophiles.
Btw, this is happening in Manchester:
Right bang smack in the middle of what is seen as the heart of Manchester’s posh shopping district tents have sprung up all over St Ann’s Square to protest against the doubling in the number of homeless people over the past year.
At yesterday’s Protest Against Austerity at Piccadilly Gardens, the Homeless Camp was the centre of attention for a lot of the speakers, as a stark reminder of Dickensian Tory Britain. And while one former homeless man was handing over a donation of £1,000 on the stage (see previous Salford Star article – click here) many others made the journey down to the Camp to offer support, food and donations.
“We’ve had a lot of public support today; people coming over and giving food and donations, or just coming over and seeing if they can help or stay on the site” said Saffron, an activist from Salford who is not homeless but is one of those who are helping out. She stays on the Camp during the week and from there goes to work and college.
http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=2751
And so is this, from the Guardian Letters page:
In his praise of the “magnificent Central Library” (“The View From… Manchester”, Comment), Sir Richard Leese might have mentioned that in the refurbishment 150,000 books were lost, together with the very popular Library Theatre. Some of us see the problems of building for the future as more complex than Sir Richard’s enthusiasm suggests.
Yep Techi, seems to trump loyalty to democracy every time. in the current set up..
Rod, I don’t like to assume to much. But I think about how I heard all our spy info goes to Israel in bulk, and the effect external holders of this info have. Let alone how it’s justified in the first place..
But how much so called loyalty is really heavily disguised, from self at least, self-interest? Ishmael, what did you mean about love and anger being the same thing? I can see it, if the anger is a warm anger, but there is also a type of very cold anger which I think is very far away from love.
Actually, love is warm and embracing, while even warm anger is a form of repulsion.
Mr Spencer-Davis,
I remain perplexed. You began your comments on this thread with the slightly harsh conclusion that Mr Carmichael “breached the 11th Commandment: thou shalt not get caught”, but rather than exploring the major issue that follows – the consequences for Mr Carmichael of his activities, and for anyone else in the Coalition Government who was involved – you have invested considerable effort instead in what you have termed “precision”, but something that looks rather like a vain exercise in logic-chopping, over a matter of small moment at best, and that however hard you try, either you are completely wrong, or you will almost certainly never be able to prove that you are right. The evidence either does not exist or is not accessible.
The only people who attended the meeting have effectively denied that there was any reference to David Cameron or Ed Miliband with regard to the election outcome; which leaves you only with an elusive, “slippery” (if I may borrow your term – it fits better here) opportunity to link Ed Miliband to being ‘non-PM material’. I might add that I have at least as much confidence in the responses of those who attended the meeting, as anyone else who has offered an opinion; and more confidence in the principals than I am inclined gratuitously to place in most of the critics.
My understanding, and I am happy to be corrected on this, is that the leaked report does not emphasise the ‘Miliband-non-PM-material’, but Cameron and the election; and indeed the leaked report is not even secure on this matter because the conclusions have been denied by one or more of the people who attended the meeting, with none dissenting from this view; it is indeed an insecure report, as the “lost in translation” warning implies. The leaked report was not a direct report of the meeting, but an interpretation from an interview with an attendee. The report thus was not, and could not assert that it was authoritative. The report writer may have thought it true, but that merely suggests that he was simply wrong. No amount of quibbling places the leaked report or any of the journalism to which you refer on the same level of authority on the matter, as the people who attended the meeting. This is just a plain fact. It is worth noting that no attempt was made by the journalist who originally published it, to confirm the accuracy of the report with those who attended the meeting before publication; or I am sure this report would have died shortly after birth.
There is a sense of rhetorical desperation in failing in the primary objective (Cameron-election-preference) but driving on to the bitter end with a bad case, in order to inflate a tenuous point about Miliband into a matter of political substance; after Miliband has departed the scene and Carmichael has pled guilty.
This brings me to your reference to the journalism, with your selected example presented as follows: “It is truth, or it is lies”. Actually in logic I would say, the precise dichotomy is ‘true or false’. False does not necessarily mean “lies”. ‘False’ could rest on a misinterpretation of what was said (either of the question or the answer or both); or faulty memory, or mere ignorance, or fallacious reasoning (by either party). Confusion is often the master of events. That is why primary evidence of a conversation depends on who was there (if there is no recording). The huffing-and-puffing about the Sunday Herald provides us with a report, based on an interview; but it is not primary evidence. The Sky News interview provides the direct statement of an attendee; it does not transport us to the meeting, but – with all due respect to both you and the Herald – it is intrinsically of greater value than the Herald piece as evidence; unless you can show me something more substantive than you have provided.
The logic of your position on the weak Miliband-PM issue implies, I think, a ‘fishing-expedition’ in London, Edinburgh or Paris to resolve the matter. Good luck with that, but forgive me if I think such an endeavour an utter waste of time, if not a mere distraction from more important fishing: Orkney and Shetland deserve better. May I suggest that you fish where there are fish: in Westminster.
On the Sylvie Berman issue, I took a short-cut that was a little clumsy; and didn’t change it because it was not a substantive point. It wasn’t very important. Berman (or Berman’s office if you like), the Consul-General and the FM were in agreement on the main issues and that would satisfy most reasonable critics. I thought you would raise the matter because I too speculate; I speculated that you would resort to logic-chopping.
If we compare the two issues (Carmichael’s gaffe and the Miliband-PM speculation), and your relative investment of effort, I humbly suggest you are seeking returns in the wrong place. Which leaves the question why you think this over-investment in such material worthwhile? I remain perplexed.
I don’t know Alistair Carmichael, but I have been trying to explain Psychology and Criminolgy to my Daughter who has spent 4 years at University studying it…so by now..she should be an expert in it and close to her Ph.D..but the truth about The Real EVIL in this world is just so horrible that I can’t corrupt my daughter’s innocence with it…(nor my wife)..I just want them to keep singing in their innocence..when they may think…well its a Sunny Day..and I feel good…and so you should…
So I wrote this instead for the rest of you “innocents” not that anyone will read it or take the slightest notice…but wtf…
Today was a Biker’s Day
Well, of course I know..I used to be a Biker Too…many many years ago…
and I know they turn up at Wooton Basset to support our Dead Soldiers..and sure I would too ..and at Headley Court The Kids Who are Still Alive…Minus Their Legs…
But they never ask..and I sure as hell can’t tell them the truth…
Sure I understand they hate the enemy…and all these guys think they know who the enemy is.
I know but, I can’t tell them…cos for one thing…they simply would not believe me..and they would nearly kill me..if I told them
I can’t do anything about that…These People My Friends are Just So Wonderful…
I can’t ask them…well why exactly are you working For The Americans and The Israelis??
Why are You Dying For Them..
I Want You on MY Side…
I don’t want you Fighting For Them.
Tony
So Why Exactly Can’t We Use English Law To Prosecute These Evil Scottish Cunts Starting With
ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR
I know a few people who might be up to it.
And Have The Skills and Experience…
If We Can’t Do That..Then The Human Race is FUCKED
The Scottish Bit..was just to Annoy The English Craig Murray.
If That Cunt had been born in a Rat Hole in Oldham..I would still want to Prosecute Him.
What is Wrong With The Rest Of You???
Are You Just So Brainwashed???
Have You Been Watching Too Much TV?
Come on Get Out Of Your Shells. Stop Being So Shy.
Wake The Fuck Up..and Lets Take These Cunts Out in An English Court of Law.
Tony
Technicolour; “Powerful thing, loyalty”
Indeed, it has caused a lot of mischief on this Blog.
Friendship , I respect Craig’s choice of ways on this… i think there was certainly more Twisted antics..Motive’s, it all…But it looks like the Northern Isles want him gone.
Well Said Tony ‘2;29 am…
Been achy Eyes watching Chunky Mark’s WestMonster youtube…Effin three hours. ( of good Stuff )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oCNiiH_Xqs