Coe Better Protected Than Blatter By Corrupt National Authorities 1875


Why are the Metropolitan Police not feeling Tory Lord Sebastian Coe’s collar and trawling his hard drives? I blogged recently about his involvement in awarding the World Athletics Championships without a vote to the hometown of his long term paymasters and sponsors, Nike. Plus the £12 million his promotions company made from VIP hospitality packages for the Olympics, the VIP tickets for which were allocated by the Organising Committee of which he was the £600,000 pa chairman.

Now we have this, from the person Coe works closest with in the IAAF and who he has now promoted to head the President’s office since Coe assumed that title:

« Dear Papa,

Following our discussion earlier I have already had some thoughts and believe that we need to do the following, in the strict confidence and control within a small circle of senior IAAF staff only. This must be very secret.
(…)

4. Finally, as soon as possible, and ‘unofficially’ PR campaign to ensure that we avoid international media scandals related to the Moscow Championships especially in the British press, where the worst of the articles is coming from. This will require specialist PR skills (working only with me directly) from London, but I believe that if we consider using CSM we can also benefit from Seb’s political influence in the UK. It is in his personal interest to ensure that the Moscow World Champs is a success and that people do not think that the media of his own country are trying to destroy it. We can work extremely hard in stopping any planed ‘attack’ on Russia from the British press in the coming weeks.

5. Finally, I need to be able to sit down with the Anti-doping department and understand exactly what Russian ‘skeleton’ we have still in the cupboard regarding doping. I think that the time to have unveiled the various athletes was a long time ago and that now we need to be smart. These athletes, of course, should NOT be part of any Russian team for these World Championships and Valentin should be pressurised to make sure this is the case. If the guilty ones are not competing then we might as well wait until the event is over to announce them. Or we announce one or two BUT AT THE SAME TIME as athletes from other countries. Also we can prepare a special dossier on IAAF testing which will show that one of the reasons why these Russian athletes come up positive is that they get tested a lot !!! In the same way, we can make the point that the WADA laboratory is the responsibility of WADA not IAAF and that if WADA decides there really is a problem, we have a plan B to do the tests in Lausanne instead (Gabriel confirmed this to me yesterday).

Papa, as soon as I have an idea of the price of this unofficial PR campaign I will let you know, but I will do everything in my power to protect the IAAF and the President.

All the best Nick »

So what does the Establishment now wish us to believe?

a) As long-term Vice President of the IAAF, Coe had no idea the organisation was massively corrupt and the President was taking huge bribes to cover-up doping scandals.
b) Coe had no idea his close associate and now head of his office Nick Davies was writing to the son of the President proposing that Coe’s company and Coe’s “political influence” be used to keep doping scandals out of the British media.
c) Coe’s meeting, while Vice President of the IAAF, with executives of his sponsor Nike, to discuss awarding the World Athletics Championships to Eugene, had no bearing at all on the decision of the President of IAAF to award the games to Eugene without a vote.

All that is even less convincing than Sepp Blatter’s declarations of innocence. Yet there is an utter difference in the British media’s treatment of Blatter and of “Lord” Coe.

I wonder why?


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

1,875 thoughts on “Coe Better Protected Than Blatter By Corrupt National Authorities

1 35 36 37 38 39 63
  • Herbie

    It’d certainly be interesting to see Habby outed in public.

    Her dogged and energetic persistence in the matter of stalking and abuse was certainly quite extraordinary to behold.

    Way way beyond the casual, common or garden knockabout abuse one expects on t’internet.

    Far from normal.

    I’d say she has previous form.

  • Resident Dissident

    “You know diddly squat about France.”

    That is probably why I listened to what they were saying on my recent visit – and hence I know that you know even less and have never aired your own opinions directly with the locals.

  • Resident Dissident

    Solidarite was a word I heard repeatedly – Rob G would do well to look it up.

  • Resident Dissident

    I wonder what Herbie’s comment at 11:04 says about its (lets not be sexist) previous form.

  • RobG

    @Resident Dissident
    1 Jan, 2016 – 11:00 pm

    It’s not a threat. It’s what’s going to happen to a-holes like you.

    Anyone with half a brain can see the trolls on this board for what they are.

    Trolls are an endangered specis.

    I doubt if any insurance company will touch you.

    Lampposts..?

  • nevermind the new year, Feldmann....resign FFS, or come clean about Mr. Elliott

    I wish it were happier circumstances bringing you back on New years day, Mary, ein frohes neues Jahr to you.

    Good to hear you are considering action, about time this wanton menace gets his comeuppance.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Mary
    01/01/2016 10:44pm and earlier

    I am very glad to see you back. I can take the opportunity again to say I hope you will stay.

    I think there are some matters you would be well-advised to consider before attempting to proceed with legal action against any individual on here.

    Firstly, neither I nor any poster on here except, presumably, Craig Murray and his moderators has any means of finding out who you are, unless you choose to reveal that information yourself. Defamation law requires the reputation of a known, identifiable individual to have been damaged. Your reputation can hardly be damaged in my eyes if I have no idea who you are. Therefore, defamation would only presumably have the potential to succeed if you were able to call as witnesses Craig, the moderators, or other persons on here who can identify you personally.

    http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html

    Secondly, defamatory comments on here would probably not be regarded as libel but as slander, as they are regarded as akin to chatting in a pub: casual and ill-thought out, etc.

    http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading-room/bulletin-boards-slander-or-libel

    The High Court does not seem too keen on this kind of thing being actionable, as you can see from the link above.

    Harassment might be a better bet, but please do note that the link you yourself have posted includes the following:

    “1. Do not engage with a troll or retaliate. The common mantra “do not feed the trolls” is good advice. If you do not take the bait, they may eventually lose interest. If you have already engaged with a troll then simply make it clear, on one occasion, that you want them to stop what they are doing. Do not get drawn into dialogue about this.”

    It could be very easily demonstrated that, not only have you continually retaliated against people who have been critical of you on here, but you have also repeatedly initiated disputes yourself, by dragging their names in even when they have not been focusing on you at the time. You have also been warned against this practice at least once, and probably a number of times, by the moderators and several times by other contributors. I believe this would very materially assist anyone you attempted to take action against on here, in building a defence against defamation, libel, slander, stalking or harassment.

    I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I don’t think I would be your friend if I did not point these matters out. At the very lowest you would be well-advised to point them out straight away to any solicitor you consulted to get their best-informed opinion. It might save you money.

    Kind regards,

    John

  • Resident Dissident

    Sounds like a threat with menaces – btw I posted a link earlier today so you should be able to identify me based on one of your past farts. Has anyone ever told you that you pass all the troll tests yourself – I bet you think you have an IQ in excess of 140.

  • Resident Dissident

    “Still waiting for the Habba loon to respond…”

    As it is clearly past your bed time – I’m sure Habba won’t mind if I respond by citing Pressdram vs Arkell.

  • nevermind the new year, Feldmann....resign FFS, or come clean about Mr. Elliott

    Thanks for your immense insight JSD.

    What of carrying on with this slanderous behaviour with menace and malice in mind?
    i.e. If said person full well knew Mary was convalescing, knew that his behaviour would cause unnecessary, avoidable distress and psychological pressure? and still persistently carried on?

  • Herbie

    JSD

    It simply isn’t correct to say that Mary retaliated, other than in circumstances of very very persistent abuse.

    Normally she resisted their attack in silence, hoping the mods would take action.

    She even requested that others not retaliate on her behalf.

    She certainly didn’t “continually retaliate”, as you put it, and her reticence in this regard will be demonstrated by the record.

    I do hope you’re misremembering, though the rather stark categorical way in which you’ve made these false assertions does raise a concern.

    Anyway, I look forward to you telling me all about these architects and stonemasons, and their craft, and indeed why what you claim to be a “joke” outfit has such a long history, involving very prominent people in many nations.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Nevermind
    01/01/2015 11:26pm

    The difficulty that I see with that, is that a defendant could argue that Mary could materially contribute to her own well-being by ceasing to engage with the forum. It’s not as if people are following her on to other forums just to annoy her, as far as I am aware, although if they are she might have a better case.

    Look, I’m not a solicitor or policeman. I am concerned that if everyone on here choruses that Mary should take action, she may start spending a lot of money consulting solicitors, or whatever. The downside is the most important thing to point out to any professionals involved at the very beginning. Then they can give proper advice.

    Kind regards,

    John

  • John Goss

    John Spencer-Davis, much of what you say makes sense. However, most of us know Mary, as we know Habbabkuk and Resident Dissident, by what comments they have posted over several years. Although, unlike you and me, they do not disclose their names they are I believe as transparent in what they write as we are.

    I don’t think any court would allow people to hide behind pseudonyms to hurl abuse in concert at one person until it drives her to distraction and I understand from drove her from commenting on a blog for which she previously provided so many valuable links. Unless Mary was making up the fact that she was going in for a cancer operation, and I do not believe for a minute she was, the abuse was relentless and continued up to her operation and afterwards.

    A better action than a court action might be to get Habbabkuk to say he’s sorry. Habbabkuk has access to a lot of resources. They are not necessarily his own. He came on here with so many different IP addresses and monikers when he was banned I think he must be a director at GCHQ 🙂 or he was using all the computers in his workplace. 😀

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Herbie
    01/01/2016 11:28pm

    Yes – I haven’t forgotten your questions and I will be coming back to you. Apologies that I have been caught up in a couple of other things first.

    Sorry, but I think you are yourself misremembering. Mary seldom responded directly to people who criticised her postings, but that does not matter. She very frequently responded – much of the time to every comment, like a tennis match – calling people “the troll” and talking about them in the third person, in the full knowledge that the persons criticising her would read those comments and would obviously respond to them. That is most certainly the way I remember it. That is dialogue, by any reasonable measure. I invite people here to confirm or deny that my recollection is accurate. I do not think that it is false at all.

    Furthermore, even when no-one was commenting on what she was saying, she would make comments about “the troll” being off-duty tonight, etc etc. There was no doubt about to whom she was referring. That was less frequent, but there is no doubt that she did it. That is not a wise way to behave if you want to claim that people are harassing you. Again, I invite people to confirm or deny that Mary not infrequently did this.

    I specifically remember a moderator responding to Mary’s complaints about harassment with a clear statement that she should not engage with people who she claimed were harassing her, and that moderators would not take action, because she did do that. That was quite a long time back. Perhaps other people remember it too.

    I resent the statement that I am making false allegations. That is quite untrue.

    Kind regards,

    John

  • Resident Dissident

    One point you miss Goss is that Mary was not above hurling abuse herself – and if you bother to look closely you will find that like yourself she often started it. Your specialty of course is seeking to attack people through their families and the incessant labelling of people as fascists.

    As for Habba’s different monikers that is just a function of changes to his email. IP addresses are rarely static nowadays unless you pay a lot for one.

  • John Goss

    You will always find where the abuse comes from if you go to who started it in the first place. I cannot speak for Mary because she was contributing here before me. I try to get along with everybody: carpenters, playwrights, novelists, toolmakers, freemasons, gardeners, designers, technicians, toilet-cleaners, academics, ex-military and poets. They are all worthy people. I have never posted under more than one name. Who else can say that?

  • Herbie

    JSD

    What you’ve described is relatively recent, after quite a long and persistent period of abuse.

    I’m telling you that when the abuser, Habby, first arrived, she responded in the manner I’ve described.

    She ignored it, and asked others who responded to ignore it.

    The record will show that this is an accurate account of what took place over the years.

    Now, it’s precisely because she didn’t immediately respond, that she did not initially retaliate, that she asked others not to retaliate on her behalf, that she ignored it for so long, that she only responded after quite a long period of abuse, that she does have a case.

    That’s the point.

    It was only after long and persistent provocation that she responded in her own defence.

    Her defence was no more than calling her abuser a “troll”.

    No court would consider that action, after long and persistent abuse, anything other than a reasonable and completely understandable response, in the circumstances.

    An appropriate and proportional response, after a long period ignoring the abuse.

    That doesn’t mean that such a case would be successful of course, but it’s far from the situation you’ve described.

  • Resident Dissident

    I should add that I think JSD has given a very fair account. I should also add that when Mary made comments or insinuations that I considered to be anti-Semitic I considered it my duty to challenge such behaviour – and for that I offer no apologies whatsoever. If people look very closely they will note that I never attacked Mary for pointing out the many injustices faced by the Palestinian people – although I might point out that similar injustices were faced by Israelis. Saying that both sides face injustices is not the same as denying that they exist – also some of our more stupid brethren often assume that it is.

  • John Goss

    “Your specialty of course is seeking to attack people through their families and the incessant labelling of people as fascists.”

    I never labelled you as a fascist. My comments related to your support for the coup fascist regime in Ukraine. If you no longer support it or the Azov forces that were illegally shelling Shirokino after Minsk2 I applaud your change of heart. If the Interceptor’s Kara Murza Junior has had the good conscience to thank the doctors who saved his life, which I believe he has, all well and good. Of course, as you and I know, the poisoning story will be first on a Google search.

  • Resident Dissident

    “You will always find where the abuse comes from if you go to who started it in the first place”

    The problem is that you and most people have selective vision as to what constitutes abuse so you will probably miss the first instance.

    Rob G distributes death threats with gay abandon and never gets pulled up by yourself and other conformists among commenters.

  • Resident Dissident

    Macky started abusing me and making false allegations when I wasn’t even here – did anyone complain?

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Herbie
    02/01/2015 12:11 am

    Very well. I do not think I was here then, so I can’t comment on what happened at the beginning.

    I can’t agree that the situation is a relatively recent one – I think I have been here a couple of years, and this is the pattern I remember over those years. Maybe I haven’t been here a couple of years, I am not sure.

    Look, I am not saying these things for fun. If Mary starts to involve the law in any way, you do realise, do you not, that people are not just going to roll into a ball and plead guilty. They are going to defend themselves. What do you think they are going to say? It is better that I say this stuff now, than some legal antagonist to Mary says it later, with unpleasant consequences. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

    Kind regards,

    John

  • fedup

    John Spencer-Davis there is no need for Mary to get in touch with any solicitors. All she needs to do is to get in touch with her local constabulary and report that the continual harassment of the the h—kuk have caused distress and alarm for her and further the pernicious stalking of her in two biogs has made her afraid for her safety given the degree of invectives directed at her.

    This will not cost her any money or funds, all it will cost her is a her time!

    Fact is given the constant threats of legal action by the keyboard warrior units that are the first to report anyone of the contributors here to a plethora of organisations (as already in place) thee cretins verily believe they are above the laws of the land.

    Your points although welcome but do not address Mary’s concerns and her state of alarm and distress. Given that Mary is in her recuperation stage from her illness and given her age and circumstances, she has a damn good case for a try at least, won’t you agree?

1 35 36 37 38 39 63

Comments are closed.