Saudi billionaire Sheikh Walid Juffali is a strong contender for most sleazy man in the world.
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Richard Young/REX/Shutterstock (525778e)
Walid Juffali and Christina Estrada
MO*VIDA SOHO CLUB OPENING, LONDON, BRITAIN – 08 JUN 2005
His second wife, Christina Estrada, a Pirelli calendar model, is divorcing him because he married (concurrently) a third wife, a Lebanese supermodel. Divorce in the UK is potentially expensive to billionaires. In September 2014 Juffali therefore acquired diplomatic immunity in the UK by becoming – wait for it – the Ambassador of the Caribbean island of St Lucia to the International Maritime Organisation, a UN agency located next to Lambeth Palace.
As Juffali has no connection to St Lucia or to international maritime affairs, the High Court in London ruled that the appointment was a “transparent subterfuge” and that Juffali does not have diplomatic immunity. This incensed Philip Hammond who argued that the courts have no right to question his “actions under the Royal Prerogative”. He added that the High Court
“erred in concluding that it was necessary (or permissible) for the court to ‘look behind’ the Foreign and Commonwealth Office certificate, which confirmed that [Juffali] had been appointed to the post of permanent representative of St. Lucia to the IMO and to consider whether (he) had taken up the post or exercised any functions in connection with it.”
It is absolutely disgusting that in the UK today a medieval claim that a monarch’s servants’ actions are above the courts, is used to defend a self-evidently corrupt and false arrangement on behalf of a member of the coterie of another corrupt medieval monarchy.
But there is a further important question here. Why on earth did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant accreditation to this obviously fake diplomat, and was Hammond involved in that decision?
St Lucia has to submit the name of its new Ambassador to the IMO for agreement by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the process known by its French name as “agrement”. I know the process well.
Officials in the FCO would, undoubtedly, have flagged up this appointment as fake and undesirable. I would rate the chance as less than 1% that an appointment which is so self-evidently a subterfuge to gain diplomatic immunity, would have been approved by the FCO without a direct ministerial instruction.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has intervened to support Juffali by submitting to the Court of Appeal a legal opinion that the Court has no right to question Hammond’s decision to grant immunity.
The Court should reply by insisting that the FCO produce the internal documents in which officials discuss Juffali’s fake appointment and put the question to Ministers, and on what grounds Hammond insisted Juffali be accepted. They should call Hammond as a witness to ask what contact there was between him or others and Juffali to discuss the appointment, and what contact with other Saudi royals and authorities on the subject, including by our Embassy in Saudi Arabia.
In facilitating this obvious subterfuge, Hammond has actually committed a crime. The crime is Malfeasance in Public Office.
If the United Kingdom were a democracy, the Court of Appeal would defy Hammond and the police would be investigating him.
I expect neither of those things to happen in Tory Britain.
Corrupt.
Not sure why the post doesn’t mention this, but on Tuesday, in a unanimous decision with a judgment by the Master of the Rolls, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/estrada-v-juffali/
Specifically, the Master of the Rolls said, in conclusion:
“For the reasons that I have given, I consider that the judge was wrong to hold that H is not entitled in principle to immunity from W’s claim. But the judge was entitled to conclude on the facts that H is not entitled to immunity because he is permanently resident in the UK and the claim does not relate to any official acts performed by H in the exercise of his functions. I would dismiss the appeal.”
Martinned
Thanks for the update. It doesn’t mention it because I hadn’t seen it yet. Doesn’t make Hammond any less of a sleazebag though and the judge dodged the question of why/how Juffali got immunity.
In fact, the judge seems to have agreed with Hammond, upheld the Royal Prerogative and ruled that Juffali does have immunity, but that it is a limited immunity which only applies to actions in the course of his duties. I presume that is because he is accredited to an international institution rather than to the UK.
O, I assumed the post was prompted by the press attention for the case this week.
I haven’t actually read the judgement yet, so I can’t speak to the grounds to the judgement with confidence, but that sounds about right.
Another brilliant exposé Craig – I doff my hat.
Who would believe the number of cover-ups that go on? I wonder how many other important and shocking ones have yet to see the light of day for the lack of brave whistle blowers?
Thank god there is no danger of that!!!!!
The very clever set up of the system is to apportion blame to the minions and then find the tea boy to be sentenced to life in prison for any unbecoming/criminal/corrupt conduct.
Lord Dyson and his colleagues agree with Philip Hammond.
“43. It seems that the judge considered that a functional review was mandated by Article 6 of the ECHR. However, in my view, there is no suggestion in the jurisprudence of either the ECtHR or the domestic courts that it is necessary or permissible, in determining whether a diplomat or Permanent Representative is in principle entitled to claim immunity, for a court to consider whether that person has “taken up” his post or is fulfilling the requisite functions of the post.
44. On the contrary, the clear and consistent position taken by the courts is that for a claim to immunity to be regarded as a proportionate restriction on the right of access to a court enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR, it is necessary to do no more than determine whether the grant of immunity reflects generally recognised rules of public international law.
57. For the reasons that I have set out, I would hold that the judge erred in his approach to the immunity issue and was wrong to hold that H was not in principle entitled to immunity from W’s claim for financial relief pursuant to Part III of the 1984 Act. It remains to be considered whether, as the judge held, H was “permanently resident” in the UK. If he was, then it is clear that he would not be entitled to immunity since W’s claim does not arise in respect of official acts performed by H in the exercise of his functions.”
So the appeal fails because the sleaze bag is permanently resident in the United Kingdom, but the Government can get the Queen to appoint any sleaze bag they want to a diplomatic post and the courts can’t interfere on the grounds that the sleaze bag has no qualifications and has done f–k all to fulfil his or her diplomatic duties.
Actually, if the Queen appoints someone to a diplomatic post they are still within the reach of UK law. But foreign diplomats, like this [cough] representative of Saint Lucia, are normally outside the reach of UK courts, and there is very little UK courts can do about that. Fundamentally, that is an uncontroversial position. It protects UK diplomats working in Iran just as much as Saudis working here.
Juffali was appointed by the Governor-General of St Lucia. The Governor-General of St Lucia is the representative of the Monarch of St Lucia, Queen Elizabeth II.
True
And indeed Ecuadorian diplomats in London. Inviolability of the person of a diplomat is based on the same principle as inviolability of diplomatic premises
I don’t think Ecuador tried to say that Assange was an Ecuadorean diplomat. Rather, they have something called diplomatic asylum which some other South-American countries also recognise but which is not accepted as part of the law of diplomatic immunity elsewhere.
But yes, there are useful questions to ask about people’s consistency across the two cases.
Perhaps I was being too short. The point I was trying to make is that the principle of international law that prevents the Police from entering the Embassy has the same origin as that which prevents them arresting the Ambassador. The South American tradition of diplomatic asylum is a development of the second aspect of the principle.
Perhaps I was being too short. The point I was trying to make is that the principle of international law that prevents the Police from entering the Embassy has the same origin as that which prevents them arresting the Ambassador. The South American tradition of diplomatic asylum is a development of the second aspect of the principle.
Wherever Saudi goes corruption and radicalism follows, the West’s love of oil explains the actions of Hammond .
The Saudi’s haven’t taken in one Syrian refugee but generously offer to build 300 Mosques in Germany, no doubt they will be supplying the radical Imans too.
Brussels attacks: How Saudi Arabia’s influence and a deal to get oil contracts sowed seeds of radicalism in Belgium
Radical Salafist teachings came from a very different tradition to the Islam of the city’s North African immigrants
There are many reasons why Belgium has become a hotbed of radical Islamism. Some of the answers may lie in the implanting of Saudi Salafist preachers in the country from the 1960s.
Keen to secure oil contracts, Belgium’s King Baudouin made an offer to Saudi King Faisal, who had visited Brussels in 1967: Belgium would set up a mosque in the capital, and hire Gulf-trained clerics.
At the time, Belgium was encouraging Moroccan and Turkish workers to come into the country as cheap labour. The deal between the two Kings would make the mosque their main place of worship.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brussels-attacks-saudi-arabia-influence-oil-contracts-sowed-seeds-radicalism-belgium-great-mosque-a6745996.html
Actually, part of the issue with imams is how Western governments decide who is an imam enough imam to be given a clergy-visa. The guidelines all but filter out the moderates.
I would imagine, that the most compliant imam’s to Western wishes, would rise to the top of the pile so to speak.
Relax, not everything is a conspiracy. Remember Hanlon’s Razor.
After digesting Mark Curtis’s book Secret Affairs, I stick with my assumptions, thank you.
Seconded.
This is something many of the Eminences on here (and their hangers-on) need to learn.
But I’m not holding my breath.
You bet!!!
whence there is form on the issue in UK, and the Archbishops and Bishops are selected and appointed by the crown, there can be no other mode of career progression for the men of cloth of whatever persuasion they maybe.
Also of interest is the ease of travel for the numbers that have been going to Syria for fighting with “anti Assad” elements.
Have you seen the latest RT documentary from Syria?
The would be “anti Assad” fighters were easily passing through Turkey to Syria without any difficulties.
The scattered paper work meticulously denoting and keeping account of the barrels of oils sold to Turkey. as well as the devastation of the make shift refineries that have a huge impact on the environment with acres of land left ruined and contaminated, with pools of oil.
~~~~~the Archbishops and Bishops are selected and appointed by the crown~~~~~
The Prime Minister. England has been a republic since 1688.
Love of oil and military procurement contracts.
Fredi, surely the UK governments love of arms sales is just as important when it comes to KSA?
I like his jacket but I think the jewelry and shirt are a little bling.
Is that standard diplomatic attire? And shouldn’t they have announced Hammond appointing Ali G to a diplomatic post?
Absolutely – if you are the Uzbekistan Consul in Albuquerque.
However for the Court of St.James’s I fear he has been somewhat ill-advised.
He’s never been anywhere near the Court of St. James. I’m not sure whether there is actually a High Commissioner of St. Lucia in the UK at the moment – they might be inbetween High Commissioners – but there’s a picture of Mr. Albert Fregis, the Charge d’Affaires, here: http://www.stluciahcuk.org/home.html (No snazzy jacket, though.)
Amazing what a few $$/Euros will buy.
No!
An English Gentleman cannot be bought for few dollars/euros – no sir!
Only Sterling accepted.
“But knowing what the chap will do,
Un bribed there’s no occasion to”
It’s the free market baby!!!
At least this one did not claim that his tadger was sticking out of his pyjamas when he tripped and fell on the woman and penetrated the said woman whom then screamed rape!!! That one got off with the charges of rape too. al saud pederasts have form in getting away with blue murder.
Juffali must have some powerful friends within the British government, why that should be, is quite disconcerting.
However this is from Wiki.
“In February 2016, the High Court dismissed Juffali’s claim of diplomatic immunity as ‘spurious’. Juffali appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal, and was supported by an intervention from the Foreign Secretary. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s dismissal of Juffali’s immunity, but ruled that his immunity was not relevant to the divorce claim, which it allowed to proceed.”
Yes. I posted a link to the Court of Appeal judgement earlier.
Does the UK actually give agrement to an IMO representative. Maybe it’s the Sec Gen of the IMO you need to be after
Both, I imagine.
Annex 3 of the HQ agreement http://www.sjofartsverket.se/upload/5123/22-18.pdf seems to indicate that the UK Govt is informed and may object, but does not (as with agrement have to give positive approval
Ah, I’d been looking around for that one earlier, but couldn’t find it. Still, at least diplomatically you’d think that the UK government’s objections might carry some weight. (And in any event they could declare him persona non grata.)
Yes, but if the FCO only has a right of objection it is likely to have been dealt with at a much lower level. The notification might simply have got buried.
That Hammond is not just sleazy on behalf of the Saudi head-chopping, women-veiling, blasphemer-flogging regime, it’s been noticed that he is really stupid as well!
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/putin-weaponising-stupidity/ri13467
Craig: you seem to have very little to say about Syria. Why so?
I’m not sure that citing a Putin propaganda mouthpiece is very helpful for anything…
Not ‘Putin propaganda’ but a re-post from elsewhere. Why should our wonderful politicians speak only the truth, yet Putin puts out ‘propaganda’?
Why shouldn’t those who are lied against defend themselves? A bit more balance please Martinned!
I said nothing about “our” politicians, I said something about “our” press. You see, the difference between the UK press and the Russian press is that the former doesn’t work for the government and doesn’t run the risk of disappearing into some Siberian prison if they displease the government. Whatever else you think of the UK press, it’s at least more reliable than whatever comes out of Russia.
To answer your other question, reporting is propaganda if it is controlled by the government, as it is in Russia but not in the UK.
Don’t the thinking for the rest of us, you just carry on kidding yourself long!!!
On what merit, and objective quantification can anyone dare to make such a bold claim is either born out of sheer optimism or the result of a sever sand storm!
“You see, the difference between the UK press and the Russian press is that the former doesn’t work for the government and doesn’t run the risk of disappearing into some Siberian prison if they displease the government. ”
This approaches the ‘priceless’ category. But I have no doubt that this conformist in chambers actually believes it. I wonder whether he believes the same about the Press in the US? Or Turkey?
It is actually rather easy to compare the veracity of RT with that of the BBC, for example, or Sky or Fox. And increasingly large numbers of people are making the comparisons.
By the way Assange, Snowden and Manning would all be interested to learn that the British and US governments do not imprison- or extradite to imprisonment- those who tell inconvenient truths.
The principle here, and I hate to disillusion a Land of Hope and Glory fan, is that, for information on what the British government wants to hide or suppress, check out RT or Press TV.
For information on matters that the Russian government wants to suppress check out (if you have the stomach for it) Radio Free Europe the BBC or NBC.
For information of developments that all sides want to obfuscate or suppress, learn to think critically, read widely and, as that long dead peasant lad from a Surrey village suggested, ‘use your common sense: the most obvious explanation should be examined first.’
This kind of thing reminds me of conversations I’ve had in the past about the EU’s democratic deficit. Because I often have a bit of a problem with that one – people tend to mean different things by it, and not all of them are particularly sane. I can’t tell you how often it’s happened that I probed my interlocutor a little bit about what, exactly, they think is wrong with EU democracy, only to find that they think the UK isn’t a proper democracy either and that nothing short of the Athenian democracy will do. While that is a defensible position, it isn’t a very sensible basis for criticising the EU exclusively.
If you want to criticise the press generally, from a plague on all their houses perspective, go ahead. At the end of the day, you should doubt everything. (Cogito ergo sum, etc.) But if you want to be a vaguely functioning member of society you’re going to have to accept that there are degrees of bad, and that you shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The British press is much worse than the press in the Continent, but it is universes away from the kind of organised propaganda and other misinformation that comes out of Russia these days. If you don’t accept that, then I’m sorry but I don’t know how to help you. In that case there’s no alternative but to put you in the silly corner with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the climate change deniers.
use your common sense: the most obvious explanation should be examined first.’
Doctor, heal thyself.
“I said nothing about “our” politicians, I said something about “our” press. You see, the difference between the UK press and the Russian press is that the former doesn’t work for the government and doesn’t run the risk of disappearing into some Siberian prison”
____________________
That’s correct, some of the British press, backs the government narrative, without the threat of retaliation. What does that say about them?
Had you bothered to look, you would have noticed that this piece originated in TheBlogmire a “cheerfully and unashamedly Christian” site.
But then that would have spoiled your opportunity to be obnoxious about the elected and extremely popular President of Russia.
Couldn’t FCO just get them them a gig as lounge singers on a cruise ship? On the high seas he’d be safe from ex-wives, and a rousing chorus of What’s New Pussycat would make those outfits somewhat less incongruous.
Thank you – that gave me a much-needed good laugh.
To be a little fair to the Appeal Court, their business is not to re-try the case. I’m not even sure they would call witnesses. The determination that this appointment was “transparent subterfuge” has not been overturned, and the question is who is best placed to investigate the potential malfeasance.
Is their a branch of the Met Police that would do this? Or some other Home Office agency?
I would add too that if Philip Hammond had any common sense, he would not have done this without cover from someone more important than him. Regardless, it’s another opening for Corbyn to do more damage to Cameron’s cabinet; and in this case, public shaming is the very least the guilty parties deserve.
The gravy train of powerful connections.
Interesting one:-
” It is absolutely disgusting that in the UK today a medieval claim that a monarch’s servants’ actions are above the courts, is used to defend a self-evidently corrupt and false arrangement on behalf of a member of the coterie of another corrupt medieval monarchy.”
Some years ago, as I recall it, a Kuwaiti dissident was granted asylum in the UK. The Kuwaiti government objected to London’s decision and threatened to discontinue an arms purchase if he were allowed to remain in the UK. The dissident lost; the Caribbean island of Dominica was the assigned and agreed alternative location for the dissident and it was arms business as usual.
This one is the reverse in a way. A Caribbean island has its man in London, where he is welcome to stay.
In a way it is like the prostitute going to court saying ” My Lord, he owes me a thousand quid for the night and I slept with him as agreed. Here is the signed contract to prove it. Please ensure that the contract is lawfully enforced.” Of course the court treats this as an illegal contract under English law and would rule that such a contract is contrary to public policy.
In this instance there is ‘misfeasance in public office’ and prima facie corrupt dealings in facilitation of such an appointment. Seems in this instance that evident political facilitation and corruption in high places are punished in court – while – the unfortunate prostitute is screwed and can’t get what she worked so hard for.
interesting example you give about a contract for prostitution. A contract for prostitution is unenforceable, but it is valid, not illegal – both parties can lawfully carry out their obligations under the contract, but if they choose not to do so, they cannot be sued for non-performance (so to speak). A contract to gamble is similar. An example of an illegal contract is a contract to commit murder or robbery – it cannot be performed without doing something which is against the law.
Craig. This isn’t the first time you’ve put across the notion that the FCO could never be guilty. You always blame ministerial pressure. Come on man, get real.
Unless I’ve missed it, I don’t believe that anyone’s mentioned that Saudi Arabia was recently elected the Chair of the UN Human Rights Council…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/22/why-is-saudi-arabia-heading-the-u-n-human-rights-council.html
Oh, and with regard to the Kingdom of Saudi, shortly before the Brussels attacks, fighter jets from a Saudi-led coalition (including the US and UK) bombed a market in Mastaba, in Yemen’s northern province of Hajjah. The latest count indicates that about 120 people were killed, including more than 20 children,..
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/22/families-were-blown-up-scenes-from-a-saudi-led-bombing-in-yemen/
I wasn’t aware of Juffali, so thanks for the expose, Craig.
Candidates, elections and all the illusory features and benefits of Democracy. Does Joe Lunchbucket think he lives in a democracy? Damn Straight!!!
Craig
What has got into you lately – are you having a black dog or something?
Deplorable as this incident is, I fail to understand why you’re using it to call the United Kingdom “ultimately corrupt” and “not a democracy” – don’t you think you’re going slightly over the top with that?
The arrogance of the UK lackey class never ceases to amaze. How could there be doubt as to the magnitude of corruption that envelops the UK. Today’s example is instructive only for its insignificance.
It is as nothing compared to the prosecution of multiple illegal armed interventions undertaken by the British state. On your twisted reasoning there is a good chance that the UK never invaded Iraq as I am not about to provide you with a source.
Equally I am not going to provide any sources that confirm that HSBC (one of the largest quoted companies in the UK) is, by its own admission a criminal organization. A criminal organization that far from being dismantled by the legal system is instead wooed by politicians to maintain its global HQ in London.
London is widely regarded by international criminals as representing an ideal location for money laundering purposes. This ranges from the purchase by individuals of prime residential property – with no questions asked through to the UK being the jurisdiction of choice for conducting open fraud by entities including AIG, MF Global and JP Morgan.
The fact that your manufactured surprise of the UK being considered as corrupt will be taken seriously by many is merely one more example of corruption in the UK – and that is the corruption of peoples ability to understand reality. No doubt, when they can be bothered, the British opine with some sadness regarding the brainwashing and indoctrination in the DPRK – but remain totally unable to see that they are not so different from the average Kim Jong-un devotee.
Far from going over the top the author of this blog only hints at the all pervasive corruption that infests pretty much every aspect of the UK
Bizarre how, with the exception of this blog and Private Eye, the british press hardly reports on this sort of corruption at all. Makes all the “fearless free press” blather hard to take
Not really, laddie.
Freedom is indivisible – and therefore the press is free to report……or not to report.
See what I mean?
The issue is how they use their freedom to report.
Very selectively, obviously.
But they are not coerced in the way they use their freedom.
Therefore the adjective “free” is correct.
Unless of course you believe that the press is not free just because it doesn’t report something you think should be reported?
Still again. The issue raised was how they used that freedom.
Not whether they had such freedom.
It’s how they use their freedom that tells you what they are.
Stop distracting from the issue.
Your views regarding the free press are not shared by a range of people that include Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Chris Hedges, Peter Oborne and Professor Stephen Cohen. All of these people have some expertise in the matters on which they opine. Of course they could all be in error.
Of course they could all be in error.
Yes, that strikes me as the most plausible conclusion by far.
D Notices?
Smashing hard-drives in The Guardian basement?
The idea that the Press in Britain is Free is novel. That it is the slave of special interests is something that few proprietors or editors would deny.
Never mind the OED you need to spend some time reasing about British history. May I recommend the career of Walpole as a place to begin?
Here we go again with Platonic ideals. Am I to conclude that you think that only in the natural state can the press be free?
Martinned
Can you point to any analysis of UK media that supports your view.?
What view is that? That it is more reliable than the Russian press under Putin? I would have thought that that falls firmly into the res ipsa loquitur category.
Your view as to how media operates.
You’ve rubbished the work of Chomsky, Berman etc.
Is there any analysis that supports your view?
http://www.eightysevenminutes.com/three/
So.
Nothing.
You rubbish the analysis referred to above, by experts from very differing political backgrounds, but when asked to present analysis that reflects your own view, you’ve nothing.
Nothing.
Do people actually pay for your advocacy?
The people cited all have in common that they have the coherence of the proverbial typing monkeys. The problem with such gibberish is that it is impossible to refute, because it is impossible to understand. So I thought I’d just cite some typing monkeys back to you…
O, and to avoid any confusion in the future, I am not now nor have I ever been a solicitor, barrister or otherwise someone who gets paid for (legal) advocacy. Legal research and advice, yes, that I’ve done at some point in the past, but not advocacy.
You don’t understand the research into media, by experts from differing political backgrounds.
Yet still you rubbish them.
And.
You’ve no alternative research that supports your own view.
Not much of a case, is it.
I know what research is, and what Chomsky et al. do isn’t it. It’s flinging faeces at the wall to make incoherent ideological points. That is the opposite of research, and most certainly not in need of refutation or any other kind of response. Like any other troll, the best thing to do is to shrug, think “bless his heart”, and move on with your day.
Yes, yes.
You’ve many opinions, no doubt.
Have you read these works, you’re criticising.
First you say you don’t understand them, then you say that these profs and others don’t know how to undertake research.
That’s poor enough, but curiously there’s no alternative research to back your own view of how media works.
One can only wonder at how you come to form any view of media at all.
I’d suggest that your view is informed by your own political prejudices.
When faced with research, from experts with differing political backgrounds, you’ve nothing to say but rubbish them.
Most adults build their understanding of the world with evidence and reflection.
Not you, it seems.
Most adults build their understanding of the world with evidence and reflection.
Yes, me too, but what does that have to do with Noam Chomsky?
What research did you undertake to form your view of how media works?
My God, Martinned is really the Man of the Day!
First he demolishes “Lysias” and now he’s just shredded “Herbie”.
As someone said about me just the other day : “they don’t like it up ’em, do they Sir”
Martinned, please post much more often!
Martinned – So Professor Cohen has the “coherence of the proverbial typing monkey” How strange that he was a special adviser to President GHW Bush. Given that Bush accepted much of his advice this says quite a lot about your informed opinion of the US administration.
Chris Hedges apparently also exhibits the “coherence of the proverbial typing monkey” Perhaps you should make your views known to the Pulitzer Prize Board as I understand that they intend that their awards for journalism only go to “distinguished” writers and not to monkeys. Presumably they have made a mistake.
If you have any trouble contacting the Pulitzer Prize Board perhaps you could content yourself with a letter to the Daily Mail – a publication that is on your list of approved liars.
Like you, habby, Martinned is very short on facts and specifics
Bollocks, bluster and smear, other favourites of yours, is all he has to offer.
I’ll be pleased to further tear his garbage apart tommorrow, should he wish..
No, Herbie.
Martinned is not short on facts ans does not bluster.
Rather, his analytical mind and factual knowledge helps him shred your bargain-basement, gamma double-minus gnomic “thoughts” to pieces.
It is a pleasure to watch and I’d like to see more of it but in your own interests I advise you to withdraw – you’re not in the same league.
The Guardian had this story on Tuesday. (Sans CoA judgement.)
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/mar/22/hammond-criticises-judge-for-stripping-diplomatic-immunity-from-saudi-billionaire
Here is the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3504749/Saudi-businessman-s-Pirelli-calendar-model-ex-wife-fight-slice-ex-husband-s-4billion-fortune-judge-threw-spurious-claim-diplomatic-immunity.html
I note that you provide the Daily Mail as a source. I recall seeing you questioning the appropriateness of Russia Insider as a source, and wondering aloud as to whether credence should be attached to the Chicago Post. Here are some facts (they are undisputed) regarding the Daily Mail:
The Mail reported:
(i) that the dean of RAF College Cranwell showed undue favoritism to Muslim students.
(ii) that film producer Steve Bing hired a private investigator to destroy the reputation of his former lover Liz Hurley
(iii) that actress Sharon Stone left her four-year-old child alone in a car while she dined at a restaurant.
(iv) that actor Rowan Atkinson needed five weeks’ treatment at a clinic for depression
(v) that a Tamil refugee, on hunger strike in Parliament Square, was secretly eating McDonald’s burgers
(vi) that actor Kate Winslet lied over her exercise regime
(vii) that singer Elton John ordered guests at his Aids charity ball to speak to him only if spoken to.
(viii) that Amama Mbabazi, the prime minister of Uganda, benefited personally from the theft of £10m in foreign aid.
All of these reports share one thing in common – they are all false and in all cases the Daily Mail acknowledged that they were false and paid damages.
The Daily Mail has often been used on here as a source -to general approval. There have been many links to FDaily Mail articles.
For example, Lysias often used to link to Daily Mail articles during his “excited about British paedophilia” phase.
Yes, and in none of those cases was the Daily Mail told by the government what to write or what not to write. More generally, if something is written about in the Daily Mail, it becomes difficult to insist that the issue not reported on.
Habbakuk – Apologies I was not aware that a method of validating a source of information was by reference to general approval. I was laboring under the impression that in order to rely on information it needs to be both accurate and true.
Thank you for letting me know that false or misleading information is perfectly acceptable just so long as it garners general approval.
Martinned – The basis on which the Daily Mail publishes articles is wholly irrelevant in determining whether or not what it publishes is true.
In common with all other governments the Russian government publishes information. Any involvement of the Russian government in publishing information provides no basis on which to determine whether that information is true.
You appear to be of the opinion that you are content with people publishing lies, just so long as the publisher is on your personal list of acceptable liars. Do you see any problem with such an approach?
Torygraph and Mail are his paper of record yet no dispositive suggestion.
And here is The Guardian reporting on the CoA judgement: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/22/ex-wife-saudi-billionaire-sheikh-walid-juffali-right-claim-slice-fortune
Craig
In the midst of your lashing out at all and sundry, NOWHERE do I spot any CRITICISM of the either CORRUPT or VERY FOOLISH government of ST LUCIA for APPOINTING this awful man as a DIPLOMAT.
What are your thoughts about that?
Habba, dare I ask what your blood pressure has been like this week?
Dangerously high in the absence of information from you about how much you charge per night at your gîte. It’s almost Easter you know and I’m raring to get down to your part of France and put you on trial.
Habba, ours is not the only gite business in France that’s been ruined by all the terrorist stuff in the last year or so; even though, as you pointed out in the previous thread, in my very rural part of France visitors are totally safe. If you came for a visit, with our gite business in ruins, you’d be more likely to find me busking on the river bridge. No doubt as you walked past my bad rendition of a Bob Dylan song, you would kick my dog and overturn my coin hat into the river, before reporting me to the authorities, who under the present state of emergency could chuck me in jail indefinitely, with only Johnny Halliday to listen to.
Many other types of businesses are also being effected by this terrorism stuff. For instance, Eurostar services between London and Paris have lost 50% of their passengers. A similar thing will now probably happen on the London-Brussels route, and that’s not even mentioning all the bars, restaurants and shops, etc, who will suffer a similar downturn in business.
We can argue with regard to what these terrorism events all all about, but the crux of the matter is the way it’s all totally hyped-up by the presstitutes, who still have a strong effect on public opinion: people are brainwashed to think that they are going to be killed by ‘terrorists’, when the reality is that they have more chance of being killed by bee sting, or by drowning in their bath.
Sorry, Craig, that this is off-topic: I’ve avoided getting bogged-down in your previous Terrorism thread.
RobG, I forgive you.
I hadn’t realised that your denial that there was Muslim terrorism in France was an attempt to reassure potential clients of your establishment.
Habba, there’s no reply on your post of 16.39, so I’ll ask you here: what’s your definition of ‘Muslim terrorism’?
And to stay sort of on-topic, isn’t Saudi Arabia the biggest proponent of ‘Muslim terrorism’? (all well-documented, including 9/11), It certainly has one of the most vile human rights records in the world, so why is Saudi Arabia one of the closest allies of the US and UK?
One can only wonder if one has dropped a tab of acid.
You certainly need that with USUK foreign policy.
Sickening.
“Sickening” – you see, this is again the sort of over-the-top language which makes devalues any serious point contained in posts.
Killing 35 people and injuring 200-odd others by planting bombs is sickening.
The events recounted by Craig are deplorable (and have been deplored, inter alia on here), they are not sickening (were you physically sick, MerkinScot?).
Meanwhile, people are not finding the Saudi bombing of a market in Yemen that killed 120 people, including more than 20 children (“FAMILIES WERE BLOWN UP” — SCENES FROM A SAUDI-LED BOMBING IN YEMEN), sickening, because our media are not reporting the atrocity.
They aren’t? https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dkFJDaSOlsetB9MTof7Q80oJkheJM&q=Mastaba+bombing&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVm8LL2tnLAhUK5xoKHe8rClUQqgIIIjAB
I have yet to see an article on this atrocity in the Washington Post, which is the newspaper to which I subscribe and which is generally considered a newspaper of record. A word search for “Mastaba” (the site of the market that was bombed) on their Web site turns up one Associated Press article on the bombing from a week ago. I did not see that article in the print newspaper, and, since many AP article on their Web site never appear in the print edition, I strongly suspect they have never printed a single article on the atrocity.
Really? Who considers the Washington Post the newspaper of record? I’ve only ever heard people use that term non-ironically when they were talking about the New York Times. (Who seem to have carried three AP articles about the bombing in the last week and a half. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mastaba+site:nytimes.com&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje3e2y3dnLAhVLHxoKHXz3D-8QpwUIFQ&biw=1280&bih=878
What do you think most people in the U.S. government in Washington read?
AP articles that appear on a newspaper’s Web site are often not in the print edition. I looked at those three articles in the NYT on line, and I saw no indication (like a page reference) to indicate that any of them had been printed.
Buzzfeed?
But seriously, Washington insiders read Politico plus whatever newspapers their constituents/target audience read. But I’m not sure why you think that the question of what Washington insiders read is dispositive for what is or isn’t “the paper of record”.
I did a word search on Politico’s Web site for “Mastaba”. Zero hits.
Why does it matter that an article only appears on line? Because people looking at the newspaper on line may never realize the article is there to read, if it is never referenced on the home page. Only people looking for an article on the subject will ever find it.
Lysias
Very pleasing to see you wriggling in reaction to Martinned. If I were you I’d be hoping that Martinned won’t be scrutinising all your post-lets in future.
Of course you would approve of any attempt to divert attention from the awfulness of what the Saudis did here.
“I did a word search…etc, etc..”
Hope you’re not doing all this in office hours, Lysias.
But if you are, at least don’t bill your clients for the hours, will you.
Martinned isn’t diverting from anything, Lysias.
He’s just exposing some of your BS.
And I’m just enjoying.
Stick to the Reichstag fire, Lysias!
Our resident snitch, who is so worked up over what happened in Brussels, has not a word of criticism for what the Saudis did.
Does Politico do world news? (Except occasionally.) I only read the EU version, which is almost exclusively about domestic news.
give them their tiny victory. It’s the least they can do.
For Habba & Co…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqwWUNZlTOA
Lysias
I forgive you because I know that coming off worse in a discussion on here is difficult for you to swallow. Must be the old Irish pride, eh?
But you in turn must find it in yourself to forgive me for finding the way Martinned has dealt with you rather delicious.
And now – get back to the Reichstag fire! 🙂
Still not a word of criticism about the Saudi atrocity. Even if some isolated articles may have been found about it — many in non-Western media — the Saudi atrocity’s coverage is obviously grotesquely out of proportion to the coverage of what happened in Brussels.
Steady on Craig. No need for the polemic – its defamatory.
Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.
The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the offence should be strictly confined. It can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues. Prosecutors should therefore consider seeking the advice of the Principal Legal Advisor to resolve any uncertainty as to whether it would be appropriate to bring a prosecution for such an offence.
That was a cut and paste from the CPS guidance.
Re Craig’s comment — “If the United Kingdom were a democracy, the Court of Appeal would defy Hammond and the police would be investigating him. I expect neither of those things to happen in Tory Britain”
————
It wouldn’t matter whether it is a Conservative or a Labour Government – Where the London Establishment pulls their chain, Ministers have to do what they are told. Just consider what we know to have happened recently: Government paid bonuses for bankrupt bankers, establishment pedophiles protected from justice, the illegal persecution of innocents by the security services, etc. … the list of instances where the UK’s democracy has been overridden in the 21st century just goes on and on.
The lesson is obvious: The UK is not a democracy today, and the London establishment rules.
> If the United Kingdom were a democracy
As a toddler will wail “It’s not faaaair!” so will a commentator
declare, when democracy gives him answers he doesn’t like, that it
isn’t a democracy.
I don’t much like it either, Mr Murray, though admittedly for
different reasons. At one time we had a ruling class with a certain
code, certain standards, and some things were Not Done. But they were
horrible old, privileged, racist and sexist white males so we have
left all that behind us.
So this is what you get now. Call it something other than democracy if
it makes you feel better; the voters won’t care.
True in fact they don’t much care vote!
Evidently to tick a box on a piece of paper is a sure sign of “democracy”, that is the end of participation and the indentured salves can get back to their drudgeries, and they can talk so long as they talk about the prescribed subjects keeping silent on proscribed notions, and thoughts!
You’ve hit a rich vein of form, Craig.
More power to your arm, sir !
Hammond recently said this about Russia’s intervention in Syria:
“Somebody goes in to another country, starts bombing civilian populations, destroying hospitals and schools. If they decide they have done enough, let’s not give them too much praise. It’s a bit like ‘did he stop beating his wife’. The fact they are there in the first place is something we have to continually protest about. We certainly should not give them any credit for simply withdrawing from these illegal activities.”
No comment or analysis is required; “the guy’s a swivel-eyed AZ loon” will cover it.
Wait, you’re criticising the Foreign Secretary for criticising Putin? Wow, I didn’t realise how many useful idiot Putin fans there were out there. I guess now I know where to find you all…
If you have nothing to fucking say then put a sock in it!!!! What kind of utter shite is this crap you are plastering around?
Fedup
You can hand it out but you can’t take it, can you. Another few exchanges with Martinned and you’ll be begging for the men in white coats to take you gently away…
Piss off troll!!!
Go fucking get busy being a grass
You haven’t heard nothin! yet, Martinned – wait until you hear Mr John Goss and the egregious “Macky” in full flow!