Max Weber defined a key attribute of a state as holding the monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence within a given territory. For anybody other than the state to use substantive physical force against you or to imprison you is regarded as an extremely serious crime. The state itself may however constrain you, beat you, imprison you and even kill you. That link is on deaths in police custody. I might also quote the state murder of 12 year old British child Jojo Jones, deliberately executed by drone strike by the USA with prior approval from the British government.
That is but one example of the British state’s decreasing reticence over the use of extreme violence. The shameless promotion of Cressida Dick to head the Metropolitan Police as reward for orchestrating the cold-blooded murder of an innocent and unresisting Jean Charles de Menezes is another example. So is Savid Javid’s positive encouragement of the US to employ the death penalty against British men stripped of citizenship.
There are a class of states where the central government does not have sufficient control over its territories to preserve its monopoly of violence. That may include violence in opposition to the state. But one further aspect of that is state sanctioned violence in pursuit of state aims by non state actors, done with a nod and a wink from the government – death squads and private militias, often CIA supplied, in South America have often acted this way, and so occasionally does the British state, for example in the murder of Pat Finucane. In some instances, a state might properly be described as a gangster state, where violent groups acting for personal gain act in concert with state authorities, with motives of personal financial profit involved on both sides.
It appears to me in this sense it is fair to call Britain a gangster state. It has contracted out the exercise of state violence, including in some instances to the point of death, against prisoners and immigration detainees to companies including G4S, who exercise that violence purely for the making of profit from it. It is a great moral abomination that violence should be exercised against humans for profit – and it should be clear that in even in most “humane” conditions the deprivation of physical liberty of any person is an extreme and chronic exercise of violence against them. I do not deny the necessity of such action on occasion to protect others, but that the state shares out its monopoly of violence, so that business interests with which the political class are closely associated can turn a profit, is a matter of extreme moral repugnance.
Rory Stewart appeared on Sky News this morning and the very first point he saw fit to make was a piece of impassioned shilling on behalf of G4S. That this was the first reaction of the Prisons Minister to a question on the collapse of order at Birmingham Prison due to G4S’ abject performance, shows both the Tories’ ideological commitment to privatisation in all circumstances, especially where it has demonstrably failed, and shows also the extent to which they are in the pockets of financial interests – and not in the least concerned about the public interest.
I should add to this that Tories here includes Blairites. Blair and Brown were gung-ho for prison privatisation, and even keen to extend the contracting out of state violence for profit to the military sector by the deployment of mercenary soldiers, which New Labour itself consciously rebranded as “private military companies”. Iraq was a major exercise in this with British government contracted mercenaries often outnumbering actual British troops.
The reason for the state to have the monopoly of violence in any society is supposed to be in order to ensure that violence is only ever exercised with caution, with regret and in proportion, solely in unavoidable circumstances. It is the most profound duty of a state to ensure that this is so. The contracting out of state violence for private profit ought to be unthinkable to any decent person.
Apologies for being off topic. What is it with the inability of the British to use apostrophes correctly?! I refer to the comments section. It is endemic.
I blame the decline of grammar schools. It’s also incorrect to use an exclamation and a question mark together. It’s like using two full stops.
The use of the exclamation mark is generally inappropriate, with or without another mark of punctuation. Let the reader decide if your point is funny, remarkable, or whatever it is you expect to evoke exclamation.
The exclamation is used, for example, in chess notation when the reader, obviously, cannot see the scene live.
Or a last second goal in a cup final, that was completely unexpected, and reported to you in the sports pages, could reasonably be given an exclamation mark.
If you feel really strongly about it, I suggest you start a campaign to remove it’s key from every console in the land – or even begin a direct action campaign – start with your own keyboard, of course!
It would be rather inconvenient to remove the key with the exclamation mark from my keyboard, since it is also the key with the Number 1. At this point, I could add:”Hey everyone, laugh,” as an alternative to using an exclamation point, but that would be annoying to most people, just as writing LOL seems annoying to some people, or as using an exclamation mark is annoying to people of the highest sensibility, since it suggests that without the prompt they wouldn’t see how humorous the author is, or thinks he is.
Who care’s?
only pedant’s!?
or .. should it be only pedants’??!!
And folk’s who went to grammer school’s.
Why not spice up your prose with so,me oth*er irrelev’ant points of m:eaningless punc;tu/ation, beside merely the insane use of the apostrophe?!%
Real Guid, only pillocks care. When spoken we don’t hear apostrophes, exclamation and question marks merely give hint on whether to lower or raise the pitch at the end of a sentence, of course if you have midlands dialect you will naturally raise pitch at the end of a sentence whether it’s a question or not.
The English Language -or perhaps I should say English speech – is a bastard phonetic language, it is in a constant state of flux, it’s unruley and it’s crude.
In the late 18th and 19th centuries – interestingly at the same time as the rise of exploitative and often violent capitalism – there was a move to create an orthodox ‘laguague’ with rules that were supposedly mechanical and there to lend clarity. In reality they did the opposite, by inflicting language rules on speech and then only allowing an elite wealthy minority to learn them, fantastic class divides were created. No longer was real English the English spoken by the masses, developed through necessity and altered through years of usage. No, instead English was now that of the rule book and if you didn’t speak it you could be expected to be excluded from “civil” society.
Grammar pedants on Internet forums are the very worst type of troll. They offer nothing to debate, they set themselves up above other less trained posters and reduce the quality of discourse to that of the prefect’s office.
You may wish to write English ‘correctly’ when composing a letter or something else official, or perhaps to impress your less adept friends, however on an Internet forum these are not important AND they are quite often thwarted by the poor quality of the text box editing features and an inability to review your text before posting.
If you can read it phonetically – so that it’s as clear as it would be were someone speaking it to you in a room, then that, in my view, is perfect acceptable.
Naaaaah bugggah orrrfff wiv ya pendantics!!
Yours
A cockney Scot.
Cockney snot:
‘Grammar pedants on Internet forums are the very worst type of troll’.
Reflect much?
Joe, you’ve confused yourself.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/07/no-need-for-nato/
“Yet NATO is a demonstrably useless institution. It’s largest ever active military deployment…”
The guys who trouser billions out of NATO think it’s jolly useful.
Yes – it’s unclear whether its usefulness is apparent.
Sometimes they are randomly inserted by the predictive text in the app. I am constantly surprised by what gets substituted for what I actually type ( I have just had to replace “think” with “type” here, twice, before posting, although I correctly entered type on both occasions.)
Predictive type is for stupid people.
Guilty as charged !
……Even if I do have Grade “A” for ‘A’ level English.
Grade inflation in British A Levels is quite astonishing: between 1963 – 87 the proportion of A Grades was fixed at 10%; it is now 26.4% https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-are-a-levels-what-they-used-to-be and according to a different study, a “B” Grade performance n Mathematics nowadays would have scored an E Grade 50 years ago http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3458830/Pupils-B-grade-level-maths-today-scored-E-50-years-ago-study-shows-exams-got-easier.html
Moving on from gangster apostrophes…?
I’m British and I can use apostrophes correctly.
What it is is that the “education” system in Britain is total shite. And rather than having the willpower and the intellectual coherence to criticise it, many adopt an “I’m thick and proud of it” persona. This goes together with an “Ooh, look at him! He uses apostophes properly. He’s trying to be posh!” attitude.
Where are you from, Rosa?
Here at many state schools the teachers think it’s fine for working class children to say “I don’t know nothing”, because telling them otherwise would be interfering with their “ethnicity”.
No prizes for knowing which country Malthusianism and Social Darwinism originated in.
Yes and I know I made a typo and left the “r” out of “apostrophes”.
Another pedant writes: Correct me if I’m wrong but I think a “typo” is a typographical error made by a printer when settting up someone else’s text. What “everyone” seems to call a typo nowadays is just a plain old spelling mistake. See me after class.
Surely a typo and a spelling mistake are entirely different things. A typo is an error of setting out the type – a slip. A spelling mistake would have been typed as intended. So this “modern” usage seems to me completely reasonable? For example, if I write, “teh” instead of “the” it isn’t a spelling mistake but it is a typo.
“Here at many state schools the teachers think it’s fine for working class children to say “I don’t know nothing”, because telling them otherwise would be interfering with their “ethnicity”
Did you read that in The Sun Says? Inner London state schools are now among the highest performing in the country thanks to the efforts of the teachers you want to rubbish.
Performance targets are poop. I had a look at an A Level psychology syllabus recently and it was like a manual in how not to think. I imagine the same applies to what Pearson dictates should be done each week at younger ages too. Truly, “stupidity is a scar” as two academics once wrote.
What kind of person wants to go back to school shortly after they left it? Schoolteachers are the whingiest bunch of wallies out. And that’s being kind. Many are arseholes and semi-psychos. They think everyone else has it so easy.
I don’t want to hear how bad the Auschwitz guards had it.
You have not got the first clue. You’d be destroyed by one day in an inner London classroom.
N_, I agree.
The general ‘education’ system, I believe, and the ‘pop’ culture combine to create a mafia of the mediocrities, where, outside of paid schools, any pupil who appears outstanding is labelled geek, or anorak or, from times past a swot or bookworm.
The situation was different in Germany, for example, where excellence from any class of society was encouraged.
I think teachers can be too close to the jobs to be objective (like most people no matter what job they do). But equally those offering solutions who are not teachers appear to be proffering political/ideological solutions (with intended outcomes that are not related to education).
Foisting performance targets on teachers (who, by and large, didn’t want them) then dismissing the views of teachers based on those targets seems particularly pernicious.
There is a high burnout rate of teachers and that isn’t good. The constant messing around with teachers training and teaching isn’t good either.
Getting involved in the syllabus is a nightmare because you are just going to get wacky ideas (from ThinkTanks and politically motivated people of every spectrum). Recently, I read one viewpoint that stated it was actually a waste of time to teach children anything because if they were motivated they would learn anyway (the conclusion: abolish all schools and education as it was just a waste of public money).
In practical terms I will limit myself to what I think are the minimum steps that you can take to improve education:
1. Only one education system (no private schools, no grammar, no religious schools, no segregated schools) with no fees.
2. Local schools with local catchment.
3. Much smaller classrooms and much smaller schools.
And if anybody has a proposal about how to improve education that dosen’t include the above 3 points then they are really on about something else other than education.
I’m with N- on this one. If teachers were truly making efforts to teach students to think for themselves, would the education system be in such a right mess? And another thing – apostrophes (sorry, Nick). As lots of people pointed out you’re in a dance with the devil when you engage predictive text. The spelling mistake becomes a typo.
Steady on N_.
Don’t diss the teachers, they have shitty lives; many of the children have shitty lives; the schools are under resourced and falling to bits; as are the kids as they don’t have playing fields anymore.
If you write professionaly then you should be 100% correct. Many newspaper articles are not.
Countries divided by a common language do have different grammar and spelling rules.
The language of a minority in no way qualifies it as the sinecure most jumped up grammar fascist ‘mrs bouquet’ types demand of it.
As long as the meaning is clear enough who cares innit?
Anyway, i’lll attempt to keep on topic stay Coolio, in this Gangsta paradise!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fPO76Jlnz6c
Right. No one here knows nuthin’ nowhow.
Ever since supermarkets caused the decline of greengrocers on the high street, nobody sees greengrocer’s apostrophe’s on fruit and veg any more. So that avenue of learning is lost and people now have to guess whether or not to include an apostrophe.
It seems to me that the general tempo of ‘things’ is much faster so that taking the time out to check if the way you plan to use that apostrophe is correct or not, is doomed to failure. Utilitarianism rules when you’re caught in the matrix.
Unfortunately the rot has set in much deeper. Sometimes the autocorrect is responsible for the apostrophe.
TBH it seems it’s something to do with spell checkers which will constantly put an apostrophe in its.
“It’s” does not mean the possessive case of “it”, rather it is a contraction of the phrase “it is”. The possessive case of “it” is “its”.
I didn’t need the grammar lesson. What I was pointing out was that autocorrect many times puts an apostrophe in the possessive its. As it did just then before I corrected it.
is this an indirect plug for a certain frank zappa album?
craig – thank you for articulating all this… bang on.. thanks!
Rosa’s comment.
How is that for starters?
Rosa,
Where do you come from?
Please post more here. I agree with you. Personally, I think it comes from the use of mobile phones and twitter. What really annoys me is not swearing, working class accents or appalling grammar and spelling – it is all these people who take videos on their mobile phones in portrait mode. When was the last time, any of these peoplewent to the cinema? I can understand them not turning on a TV, until they all come as standard in portrait mode.
“Delbert McClinton – Shaky Ground”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7JCWoxtGLs
Tony
Apple’s and orange’s…
It took me many years before I got a correct handle on apostrophes, I believe the following summarizes the rules.
1/ To indicate a syllable break where the normal rules of pronunciation would not put such a break;
2/ To indicate that one or more characters have been omitted.
On 1:- Remember the episode in Fawlty Towers where Manuel mispronounces the reference to the men working for O’reilly the incompetent builder as “orally men”. In this he is not pronouncing the syllable break between the first syllable O and the rest of the name. The correct pronunciation of the name of the ruling despots of Sa’udi Arabia is “Sa’ud”. If you read many articles on the middle east you will notice that many Arab words have syllable breaks marked by apostrophes.
On 2:- When one contracts a phrase by leaving out some characters one indicates that they have gone by replacing the omitted characters by an apostrophe. Consider the contractions of the phrases “he is”, “she is” and “it is” to “he’s”, “she’s” and “it’s” respectively.
But what about the possessive case you ask? It is actually covered by case 2. It is useful when deciding how to express ownership to bring to mind how earlier versions of English expressed possession. For example “Peter’s book” would have been expressed as “Peter his book:” Today we omit 3 characters ” hi”(don’t forget the omitted space character) and replace them with an apostrophe followed by “s”. Consider “Mary her garden” would now be expressed “Mary’s garden”, but wait we have omitted ” her” and replaced it not with “‘r” but “‘s” as if Mary were actually a bloke, sometimes in English we use masculine for the feminine so we pretend that we used to say “Mary his garden” not “Mary her garden”
Finally plural possession used to be as “in the ladies their sewing circle” today entirety of the possessive pronoun is omitted and replaced by an apostrophe thus “the ladies’ sewing circle”.
how do you use apostrophes to denote ownership for nouns ending with s?
e.g. Mavis coat, Hercules staff, Dave Perkins car, Mike Collins house, the walrus moustache, the class timetables and the classes timetables, the bus depot and the buses depot, Gus birthday, St.James Park, St. Barnabas epistles? I know what I think. I am interested to hear what others think.
When it’s a hard s, (for example, Mavis, the class) then the rule is quite clear – you add an apostrophe followed by an s. When it’s a soft s, as in James or Charles then either an apostrophe followed by an s or just an apostrophe is acceptable. My personal preference is to include the s for anything singular
I think it is “s'”. Mavis her coat -> Mavis’s coat -> Mavis’ coat.
Two “s” es in a row sound so awkward whether they are from the possessive case of a word ending in “s” or from a plural of a word ending in “s”. Somewhere I have a book on English grammar I will have to dig it out.
“We are orrelly men” referencing the popular Diddy Men song by the actor who went on to play the gym teacher in Grange Hill was, I think, the high water mark in his career.
A brief mention of the obsolescent, largely obsolete, usage of the dieresis marking the syllable break between vowels (eg Noël, naïve, microörganism & c) would have been nice, for completeness’s sake. But otherwise, top of the form fir you CM! Struck down by bloody SwiftKey™ at the last there….
whats an apostrophe? is it something to do with religion?
Can I recommend Simon Griffin’s pocket book entitled F***ing Apostrophes of which I have purchased several and sent to friends who also suffer from this affliction. Luckily, they take receiving it in good part.
I do.
The British poshboy regime has issued a “formal apology” for 18 among those whom they have instructed the media to call by the traditional Tory dogwhistle name of “Windrush” types. (I suppose this was chosen over “gentlemen who’ve caught too much of the sun” and “gentlemen who give people black looks”.)
Has it been published? I want to know whether it includes the words “sorry for any inconvenience caused”.
I put up a comment about that earlier N_.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/08/a-gangster-state/comment-page-2/#comment-770617
Congratulations and, on behalf of N_, sincere apologies for having posted before makiing sure that you had not already done so.
“makiing” Too eager and ‘clever’ by half, chum!?
SUBSTANCE beats style = anti-semantic !! Its a twitter world now, nobody cares except the hypocrites who shoot children from afar and then are “very kindly” yours !!
Texting and Twitter certainly have a very great deal to answer for. Many people are writing more than ever before, and more and more of it is just worthless.
Many teenagers don’t know how to do joined-up writing or tell the time on a clock with hands. Clocks with hands were recently banned from some British exam rooms for that reason.
Stop moaning N – you’re supposed to be a socialist show for compassion ffs instead of condemning all the time. You just sound frustrated. Life’s too short ?
Craig,
I agree with the morality behind this post, but I find myself concluding that the political class (of every variety) would be against you on this one. It’s in the interests of any leadership for all political parties, uncomfortable with accountability and responsibility, to seek to blur the space between their decisions and the consequences. For any misdeed committed by the agent, the political class can always rely on deniable plausibility.
At the sharp end in conflict zones, the drive towards technological solutions (drones and algorithm/ AI driven targetting), black site and torture outsourcing, and PMCs (Private Military Companies) is only going to increase.
While you mention G4S and other actors (including militias), who operate along a spectrum of harm to lethal force, I’ll focus on PMCs: non-state actors permitted to apply lethal force. This will require some preamble to set the scene.
Modern PMCs have been operating since 1965 (Colonel David Stirling’s “WatchGuard International”). Then in the 70s and 80s we had other former SAS soldiers setting up new PMCs (Saladin Security, Control Risk Group and their ilk). A big step forward was in 1974 when Vinnel Corp signed one of the biggest deals with the US government for around half a billion dollars to train and support Saudi Arabian national guards.
This is all by-the-way, to frame the landscape prior to Neo-liberalism’s involvement in the 1980s. In 1985 the US approved LOGCAP, that permitted PMCs to provide the US armed forces with non-lethal support. It took until the early 90s before they really took on battle functions. Analysis is available elsewhere with regards the reasons for the growth in popularity of PMCs in the 90s, but a significant one is the modern trend of asymmetrical warfare, mostly taking place within countries rather than conventional bilateral warfare. Small groups of highly trained, environment aware, mercenaries were well suited to this new kind of warfare.
PMCs began in Russia in the 90s with “Rubicon” (active in the Bosnian war), after the break up the USSR. And while the growth of private armed militia under Russian influence has taken a different trajectory (only between 2007 and 2011 did PMCs attain any kind of official legal status), their use in asymmetrical conflicts also proved compelling (Libya, Syria and Ukraine). So this is not only a trend in western nations.
Getting back to the US, and taking just the Afghan war as an example from 2007, and we have year on year increases in PMC use. According to Berkely Univ the estimates of contractor increased from 60,000 in 2007, to over 100,000 in 2012, before tailing off again to around 40,000 in 2013. PMCs gave Obama a public relations opportunity, cutting regular US armed forces from around 100,000 to 60,000 between 2010-2011, while ramping up contractor use to plug the shortfall.
It’s worth noting that combat contractors who commit crimes in the names of their paymasters, are a step removed in terms of political damage (see Blackwater for example) compared to regular soldiers committing the same crimes (rightly so, we hold regulars to a higher standard). It’s easier for politicians to again claim plausible deniability whenever any “rogue” elements in the private sector get out of control. Whether its on the battlefield or in a black site torture chamber, whether its working via a proxy, or directly under battle colours, outsourced military personnel provide an important obfuscating role that complicates the blame game when a crime is committed.
So unfortunately, recent history and current political culture is against you in this fight. Non-state actors permitted to use lethal force in conflict, and especially PMCs, are here to stay.
Where we can make a difference undoubtedly, is the trend to roll out this model into the civillian sector (with agents using violence rather than lethal force), and it’s here that we can try to put the brakes on companies like G4S.
Kind regards,
Scott
Just because there is a history of PMCs doesn’t make it right. They are just a cutaway.
The choice is between:
a) potentially or relatively impotent public services subject to overt public scrutiny
b) public services subject to some official scrutiny, but less than (a)
c) cutaway actors whether PMCs, marionettes or glove puppets.
IMHO (b) is best, but it requires trust in the actors and those who oversee, which has to be earned. Those given the trust need to have a genuine sense of duty and be incorruptible; in the alternate b) requires an innocent naive unsuspecting public. I tend to think we may be drifting to a more open acceptance of (c), but I know diddly squat about this and am just idly guessing.
At least one can content oneself with the thought that, in spite of all the PMCs, and in spite of all the high-tech warfare, it hasn’t made the US any more successful in war. Getting the bum’s rush from yet another war (Syria) is by now well on the cards for the US – Britain withdrawing finance from the rebels was a big marker of the way the war is going. Official recognition by Britain.
Scott,
If you accept such actions then you must also accept blowback as part of the price.
So we nurture Jihadis in Manchester and send them to destroy Gaddafi. One comes back and kills 23 people (including himself) and injures at least 800 other people. But we really can’t complain because we know that this kind of thing is the price we pay for enabling/causing war and terrorism in other countries.
The US, UK and France are heavily involved in killing people in Afghanistan, North Africa and the Middle East. Can we really not expect that the survivors, friends and relatives of those that were killed in such attacks will just get on with their lives and not seek revenge?
We’re gearing up for war on Iran to free the Iranian people? But the Iranian people and you and I are very clearly aware of the subversive activies that the UK and US have undertaken in their country in the post-war period?
And what is it all for? What is it all trying to achieve.
You are right in that it blurs accountability but this in only in the west. The west’s victims are in no doubt who is responsible.
If we accept such methods the we can have no issue it the state turns such methods on it’s own people, and we don’t really have much to complain about if another state uses such methods on us.
Have you also considered the moral costs of such a view? The vast majority of people in the UK aren’t really aware of such abuses (in a way that are very fortunate). But you are one of those that are very clearly aware and you just accept it. Can you not see that (by some incremental process) you have become evil?
“So what will The Sanctioned supergroup do?”
http://www.atimes.com/article/so-what-will-the-sanctioned-supergroup-do/
I couldn’t see what was wrong with this, nor my reply to Pepe Escobar, But I am having some problems getting my written words to appear in websites hosted in Iceland. Is Craig’s still hosted in Russia? That will not go down too well, if the UK Foreign Office find out, though that is highly unlikely. I think most of them are already braindead, or trying to write speeches for Boris Johnson, having given up on Theresa May.
Pepe Escobar in fine form. This is just so funny, cuts like a knife, and is full of both a lot of facts and some seriously interesting speculation.
I came across Pepe, about 10 years ago, and bought his book Globalistan, which is also incisive funny, and full of facts and speculation. I read most of it in a villa in a Greek Island under a pagoda with olives and grapes growing above my head, and my wife and kids keeping me cool by splashing in the pool.
In the restaurant, I asked the waiter how hot it has been today?
I didn’t mention our trips to Turkey, cos they do not get on too well. I have no idea why.
Greece 45.5 Degrees Centigrade
Turkey 47.9 Degrees Centigrade
We love them both. We brought our kids up there in their summer holdiays.
Both the Greeks and Turks are brilliant with kids.
Closest we got to Pepe’s home town in Brazil, was Cuba
Havana is wonderful, and Robert Plant is still Great. We saw him earlier this year.
We love Morocco too. Marrakech was much better, before the mopeds replaced most of the donkeys, but still it is wonderful in the mountains. Why do these global elite psychopaths, keep letting off bombs? Most of us common people are just the same. We are welcoming and friendly, regardless of ethnicity or anything else. We get on, whllst these lunatics in control are trying to destroy us.
“The Truth Explodes-Yallah-(HQ)-Live in Marrakesh-’95- (Page+Plant- No Quarter)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJzjHrJqOcw
Tony
Opmoc
“Most of us common people are just the same”
What with your family holidays in Greece, Turkey, Cuba and Morocco (not to mention the Greek villa), would you really consider yourself one of the “common people”?
Charles Bostock,
Yeh, I just worked hard, and Pulp got it right..and they came from Sheffield. That’s even colder than Oldham and it rains more too.
My “Sis” from Accrington, really likes this. I must admit it is growing on me, though I always thought he was a bit of a tw@t. The lryics are so good, its probably a true story.
“Pulp – Common People”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTMWgOduFM
Tony
@Tony – Never mind that link 🙂 This one is much better:
Common People.
And while we’re swapping links to music videos, how about someone makes a video against Brexit, UKIP and the Tory scum that’s at least as good as this great song against the French National Front by Berurier Noir?
It won’t be John Lydon. Last I heard, he expressed acceptance of the British monarchy and supported both Donald Trump and Brexit.
N_,
Class photo and sound editing, but its not as good as this.
“Theresa May and the holy grail – the movie”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTPLdVlyjxc
Tony
N_ ,French punks on Dope? It’s a bit 1976 innit?
You all conspired to get rid of RobG, and I thought most of hs comments highly interesting.
I can’t remember much about his politics, but he was from London, went to some of the same gigs as me, and now lives in France, and you all conspired to get him banned by winding him up.
I thought that was a little bit like what the boarding school kids did, before sticking his head down the toilet.
It didn’t seem very fair to me.
Don’t you like Free Speech, if you don’t agree with the contents of it?
Nah, just ban him, and flush the toilet.
Tony
It’s a year old, but just as relevant….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUTbxEUBdio
Charles,
We have an Italian Family staying right next to us now for a week or two.
Our neighbours – very much like us, are trying to pay off their mortgage, before they retire.
We might have hired a villa in Greece for a couple of weeks a few times.
French, Germans, Dutch, Italians and even Americans do much the same.
It’s a bit like a house swap.
What is true of almost all Common People in my and their experence, is that they treat their new temporary home, that they have hired for a week or two, with the utmost respect.
They leave it, as they find it, as if they haven’t even been there, except maybe a thank you note and a recommendation to their friends, about our lovely cats.
The nicest one we have been to is in a little market town in Yorkshire.
We found it somewhat unusual, because the Yale key was fused to the lock in the door. It didn’t come out. You simply had to turn it to get in the house.
We asked them about this, and they said, Well we’ve been doing it for 30 years, and we’ve never been robbed yet.
Such trust is reciprocated.
Tony
is this the way to revolution?
And the gangster state and warrior state are all by choice, For world peace to be achieved we must disband NATO. An excellent video by Samir Amin explains in simple terms why we must go for the snakes head and not beat around the bush:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtV7zGVYRl8&feature=youtu.be
Could you expand a little on how exactly disbandiing NATO would “achieve world peace”? Please talk us through it because it looks at first sight as if you might have hit on the solution (to achieve world peace)which has escaped mankind for several millennia.
Just watch this very good video and then you may understand. You hit the reply button too soon Charles and I bet you did not watch it.
I have to say, I’m not convinced NATO – or G4S – or even Brexit, or anything I’ve really read here is the “head of the snake”. But perhaps that’s the best way to approach these issues.
NATO is the strong arm, the executor and projector of power much more than something like G4S. As Laguerre says, NATO really runs US policies often to the detriment of all the other states.
Perhaps. Was the 2003 Iraq war a NATO exercise or an “American-led” coalition?
Nick
Iraq was not a ‘NATO’ badged operation but the predominant members of the coalition were leaders in NATO, and although some NATO countries were against and did not collaborate, NATO is obviously an organisation that could have been mobilised if needed at some point. Certainly members of NATO have been prominent contributions of all the US wars. The obvious NATO wars are Afghanistan, Serbia and Libya.
The bottom line is this, that a lot of militarist activity in the world today is prompted by countries with the backing of NATO, all or some of whom mat be called on to contribute.
I can’t completely disagree with that, but you’re not saying NATO is the “head of the snake” or that NATO runs US policy. Part of the snake, for sure though 😉
Unknown to or overlooked by nearly everyone, NATO has its own Secret Service. This service is therefore globally unique; it is not accountable to ANY government, not even to the minimal extent of more typical national secret services.
The FBI knew of this organisation in 2001, and one of its major operations which they referred to internally as Gladio B. Of course, as a mere civilian I know little about this operation, but the FBI’s obvious reference to the original Gladio presumably gives us an indication of its character. Gladio was (is?) also a secret NATO operation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio
Clark,
Gladio is well known as being part of NATO. What Gladio has done and the implications of Gladio are also well known. Practically no-one wants to hear about it. perhaps, because practically nothing can be done about it.
What it means is that NATO is an occupying force and that all countries in Europe are effectively occupied. And should a country step out of line then ‘incidents’ will happen to get that country back in step.
Knowing about Gladio is to know that Corbyn will not be PM, or, in the unlikley event he finds himself in that position, he will have extremely limited room for manoeuvre and will find himself removed (replaced or killed) if he doesn’t listen to the message (the incidents) and tries to make a real difference.
The Wikispooks website has some good stuff on Gladio.
I was outraged when I first came across Gladio and was convinced (my vanity) that a change would come. But it doesn’t.
I think it is safe to assume that every Member of Parliament (and all equivalent European politicians) know about Gladio and have known about Gladio for some time and they don’t do anything;- so that gives you some idea of the feebleness of our democracy and the calibre of our representatives.
The best first step to begin freeing a country from Gladio is to get out of NATO. But any politician suggesting this is universally derided.
Nevertheless it is the question I would put to any politician who seeks my vote: “Do you support leaving NATO?”
Clark,
Gladio B refers to Islamic terrorism. Yes, that’s right the islamic terrorrist incidents are essentially NATO false flags.
Gladio incidents refer to the left and right wing terrorists incidents that happened on the European continent post war. Yes, that’s right those left and right wing terrorists incidents that plagued Italy and Germany (amongst other) were also NATO false flags.
(There would also have been copycats, blowback, but without Gladio there would have practically no incidents).
See, Clark, no one wants to talk about it?
Hi Clark. Great point. But with so many bad actors to choose from, is it proof of NATO’s pre-eminence among them? I’ve always seen them as an instrument rather than the wielder.
Having said that, I’ve had so many preconceptions of mine challenged and overturned, especially recently, I would be fine finding out I was wrong.
So many rabbit holes, so little time 😉
NIck, I wouldn’t know where to start to answer your question, and that is characteristic of the problem. The starting point has to be insistence upon transparency and accountability in all organisations; military, public and private. There are enough interested people to investigate just about anything, but they are helpless when denied information.
For some limited information about NATO spies, Gladio B and whose interests they may be working for (non-NATO states, arms and hydrocarbon companies), a documentary about Sibel Edmonds, Kill the Messenger. Sorry, the higher resolution version seems to have been removed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn10itGL5iM
As a general study about lack of transparency, the book Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. At least in medical science there’s sufficient transparency to see just how much opacity there is, and how even limited opacity corrupts the entire field.
It’s a tricky one – always good to hear another’s opinion.
Thanks for the references, I’ll try to look then up at some point soon. Cheers.
And Charles: the video is 17 minutes long, you answered me 8 minutes after I posted so you did not bother to watch the video. Are you some kind of automated responder triggered by certain words?
I was going to say that but you said it for me.
@SA
You’re right, I didn’t bother to read your link. That’s because I believe in a bit of individual thinking (and effort): when a poster says something pretty big like “get rid of NATO to achieve world peace” I would like him to explain why he thinks that in his own words rather than just lazily linking to someone who appears to be of the same opinion.
BTW, your answer at 20h48 (to Nick) was extremely weal, wasn’t it. Having been forced by Nick to admot that Irak 2003 was NOT a NATO operation, you’re reduced to pointing out that some prominent members of NATO have launched their own military actions. Very true – so those actions were not NATO actions, were they. And when you say “NATO is obviously an organisation that could have been mobilised if needed at some point” I woudl answer that they weren’t mobilised; your comment is pure speculation and therefore pretty desperate as an “argument”.
I am sorry Charles for not explaining. I assumed that since the video was by someone who has researched the subject and has spoken in a public about it would be enough to watch to make up your own mind. Not all of us are pundits who like to write long reviews. However on this occasion let me simplify matters for you. NATO and NATO affiliated countries are responsible for about two thirds of the worlds arms expenditure. To a certain extent NATO is both a big war machine but also a conduit for enhancement arms sales. The main beneficiaries are of course the big three, the US, UK and France. Sometimes the whole of NATO acts under the collective banner but sometimes not, but in the latter case, it is usually the predominant members that do and may fail to attract all of the hangers on as happened in the Iraq war because it was such a blatant lie. So it does not matter whether an action is taken by the full force of NATO or not because there is an alliance that does not create a balance or threat but will either stand back or condone but not oppose military action. This situation creates conditions where wars are the norm and are actively sought out, not for democracy, nor for improvement of the attacked nations but to destroy any dissent from the groupthink. There is also the added economic reward of being able to support the lucrative arms industries of the participant state. In other words, the existence of NATO in its current form is conducive to more not less war. To get rid of NATO would be the first step to achieving less war.
As to Nick, he is of course right in that the major determinant of the policy is the US. As to Anon 1, hope he is now pleased I think for myself and hope he can now come up with a well reasoned critique, as I hope you too will, of what I have written.
@ SA
Having written
” For world peace to be achieved we must disband NATO.”
you now write, after some prodding and further thought,
“To get rid of NATO would be the first step to achieving less war.”.
Now that’s a lot better, isn’t it?
After this sign of progress, could you now please think further and tell us which further steps could be taken? Feel free to take into consideration the contribution which other heavily militarised states (including Russia and China, of course) might take in furtherance of that very desirable aim. Preferably in your own words.
The idea that NATO is the head of the snake can be torpedoed with one simple supposition; if NATO didn’t exist, it’s likely that its constituent parts would spend more on arms and defence.
There’s a case for saying the opposite, that NATO is really a notional idea transposed on a bunch of countries who have very little in common save for a desire to spend as little as possible on deterrence and defence.
Arguments for disbanding NATO hinge on its inappropriateness, not on its over zealousness. It’s another man made leviathan-like nightmare which the world could do without but we can’t get excited about such arguments when those making them usually argue for a more effective replacement.
Charles Bostock
When one side constituting about 20% of the world is spending about three quarter of the worlds expenditure on arms it sounds that some balance is needed. So your ‘heavily militarised’ China and Russia turn out to constitute about 20% of world population and therefore appear to be spending less per capita on this ‘heavy militarisation’ than the real heavy weights. And they do need to protect themselves because you know what? When did China last launch a war of aggression? When did Russia for that matter? And do not give me any nonsense about Georgia, Ukraine and Syria either, because enlightened people in this blog know the real facts and who the aggressors are in these conflicts.
So in answer to your perfectly reasonable question about the next step. When NATO ceases to exist, the others will need less to militarise, more money will be spent on real world problems like climate change, energy, hunger, equality and so on.
Hatuey
“The idea that NATO is the head of the snake can be torpedoed with one simple supposition; if NATO didn’t exist, it’s likely that its constituent parts would spend more on arms and defence.”
That was obviously one of those dud torpedoes that boomerang. No individual countries would be able to meaningfully build up such defence as to counteract the big players individually so your argument is not based on any facts I am afraid.
And Charles and Hatuey
NATO is more like a protection racket than a mutual defence association.
Why dont you try to argue your own point about achieving world peace by disbanding Nato instead of trying to force Charles to watch your YouTube video?
Are you a spokesman for Charles?
At any rate, being a member of NATO serves no more purpose for Britain, as Craig said. We are only executing US foreign policy at our own expense. Funnily enough that was also what happened to ancient Athens and the Delian Confederacy – the allies became more and more servants to Athenian policy, while paying in. And Athens also ended up with demagogues in power, who brought down the Athenian democracy. Only their hair wasn’t dyed orange.
Do you believe that NATO serves a purpose for the country you apparently live in (and of which you might actually be a citizen) ie, France?
If so, what were, in your opinion, the reasons why France re-entered the military structures of NATO a few years ago after a decades-long absence?
Follow the money
@ SA
on France
Thank you for that comment, the explanatory interest of which is matched by its extreme brevity. As our friend Laguerre will probably not come back with any thoughts. would you consider standing in for him and expand a little?
re France, past decisions were taken in a context different from today, and they may have been taken in situations which no longer exist. Trump’s presidency has done a lot to crystallise and expose the real nature of US policy, e.g. notably its virulent dislike of Europe as a competitor. Under previous presidents competition was an aspect, little exposed, and hidden under a desire to keep European cooperation; Trump blasts it loud and clear. It is true that the French were convinced, after 2003, into cooperating with US projects, such as Afghanistan, which they went into big. All these projects were failures, including Syria, and I think there may be changes in thinking now. I don’t meet French diplomats much any more, so I’m not up to speed.
It’s pretty well known that I live in France. You mean that you don’t keep detailed notes on the biographies of commenters, like old Habbabkuk did?
@ SA
You should really stop hoping backwards and forwards between the US and NATO, as in :
“When one side constituting about 20% of the world is spending about three quarter of the worlds expenditure on arms it sounds that some balance is needed.” (here, by “one side”, you mean military spending by NATO and the United States for non-NATO purposes)
and
“When NATO ceases to exist, the others will need less to militarise, more money will be spent on real world problems like climate change, energy, hunger, equality and so on.”
Are you not aware that most US defence spending is not for NATO purposes?
I mention this because your orignall post had it in for NATO specifically.
And, BTW, perhaps I will look at your link – in the hope of finding there a somewhat more coherent and intellectually satisfactory analysis than the ones you’ve been providing in your own words.
In line 1, “hopping” (although “hoping” to distract and confuse is perhaps what you’re also doing)
Oh yes Charles. As if you believe that NATO and the US and the whole non-nato West, as well as Saudi Arabia and other vasal states do not constitute one entity under the command of the US.
Familiarised, as you sound to be, with the oeuvre of Chalmers Johnson, re-read “MITI and the Japanese Miracle”. If unfamiliar, start by reading his books from “Blowback” onwards… you’re in for a treat.
James
Thanks for the post. I just watched him in an interview, wow, excellent non-dramatic speaker and confirms all that I have heard from other sources. I have to admit I did not know of him but has now ordered Blowback.
A mention should be made of Orgreave where, allegedly, troops were dressed as police to deliberately assault and physically provoke a peaceful protest by a mining community and their supporters
Allegedly. Alleged by whom and do you believe it yourself?
‘Habbabkuk’, you’re so ‘on’ tonight.
Just as a matter of interest, are you the person who posts as Keith264 on The Lifeboat News?
No, CB can’t be Habbabkuk. Habbabkuk used ti keep detailed notes about the biography of the victims he persecuted. CB doesn’t have that level of knowledge; it’s just generalised persecution..
Our political establishment have become an enemy of humanity.
Their cards have been duly marked.
A YT from the Beautiful Days Festival held in Devon at the weekend.
Peter Ford and Peter Tatchell go Head to Head – Syria, Where Next?
552 views
vanessa beeley
Published on 21 Aug 2018
At the Beautiful Days Festival 2018 in Devon, Peter Ford, former UK Ambassador to Syria 2003 – 2006 debated Peter Tatchell, multi regime-change-war promoter whose rhetoric has manufactured consent for the dirty war in Syria for the last seven years. While virtue signalling faux “humanitarian” principles, Tatchell effectively condemns the Syrian people he claims to speak for (on Skype, never having visited Syria) to prolonged suffering under illegal economic sanctions and a terrorist invasion masterminded, financed and armed by the U.S/U.K Coalition of Terror.
At the end Alison Banville, an activist who went to Syria earlier this year, takes Peter Tatchell apart. Great stuff.
Craig tweeted:
@CraigMurrayOrg
Aug 20
Craig Murray Retweeted Hugo Gye
The Sun newspaper thinks I am not just extreme, but “ultra-extreme”. I feel that is something of an achievement.
This thread followed.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1031472826174369792
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg
Believing that all concern about immigration is racist is an ultra-extreme position in my book, as is calling for open borders. Arguing that the results of the Scottish and European referendums should be ignored is an extreme position. Believing that Scotland should declare independence after a majority of Scots voted against it is extreme.
‘Linked In’ have this ‘Hugo Gye’ working for Associated Newspapers.
Have the Heil and the Sun merged? 😉 😉
If this is the same person, what a dreadful waste of a university education, especially to obtain an Honours degree in such a rarefied subject, for him to be scribbling away in that trash.
http://anglosaxonnorseandceltic.blogspot.com/2010/07/best-statue-in-cambridge.html
I thought Jojo survived the strike and went on to become an executioner for so-called so-called Islamic State? In which case all I can say is “Hope they get him next time!” ?
I see you followed on from Vanessa Beeley’s YT about Syria with that old stuff about JoJo.
You blame child soldiers for being child soldiers?
The british state reportedly planned to murder the Irish PM Charles Haughy in 1984, there are many other deaths which have not been fully explained the death of Willie McCrae activist and SNP supporter in 1985.
The death of David Kelly is another in 2003 and let us not forget the odd case of the death of Princess Diana which may have been a tragic accident but the circumstances undoubtedly left unanswered questions.
This of course is what you get in fascist states.
The cold blooded murder of Jill Dando – as much a statement as JFK.
I would advice anyone to remove their Facebook account:
“Facebook has begun assigning ‘trust ratings’ to users as part of its attempts to fight ‘fake news’ and help identify ‘malicious actors’ on the platform — but it won’t tell users how well or how poorly they have scored. ”
https://www.rt.com/news/436517-facebook-trust-rating-users/
Freedom of speech, how long will it last?
All liberal-left talking points will be given maximum publicity and anything conservative will be supressed as “hate speech”. They’ve already started and the Russia collusion bullcrap was the warning shot across the bows.
Yet another link to RT, that organ of the freedom-loving Russian state (the state which values freedom so highly that it barred the main opposition candidate from running in the recent Russian Presidential election).
Charles
You are a stickler for details and accuracy I note, and respect. Could you please show me where I can find any details that support your statement that the Russian state barred the main opposition candidate from standing?This would require you to know the names of all opposition candidates in the last presidential election with supporting polls to show that indeed this was the case. I await your answer.
Why are you wasting your time with CB? Pointless.
One can but try. But it is typical that he always asks questions but never bothers to answer your answer, it is easier to challenge than to argue.
@Sharp Ears-you’re quite right. CB isn’t really interested in clarity or being persuaded by argument. He (assuming his gender follows his posting name) merely posts to wind you all up and like fools, some of you engage with his intellectually feeble mental masturbation.
There are better things to do with your limited time.
@ SA
Navalny.
Before he was banned his rating was 4% as opposed to 78% for Putin. Ratings for people like Zhirinovsky were much higher.
Charles
I had predicted that that would be your response, of course, very short and non-informative with no analysis and no backup information or references. So you have repeated what all the MSM who sell the line that Russia interfered with US elections and that Russia is undemocratic etc.. Nobody in Russia believed that Navalny was such a threat otherwise we would have heard more. In fact the true challengers to Putin are the communists and the even more right wing ultranationalists.
Jack,
I know what Facebook does, and I will not have it installed on my mobile phone for numerous reasons – battery drain, the thing installs so much shit, it goes so slow, and then I get even more adverts about crap they think I am interested in…and all these people waking me up sending messages well sometimes they are good I just can’t stand the bilnking noises.. I also don’t do Twitter. I charge my phone up downstairs before I go to bed…
However, I have on numerous occasions found Facebook incredibly useful for multiple different reasons..but I only log on to it when I want to. I can go several days without even thinking about a cigarette. I will see if I can last a week without Facebook – I have already done a couple of days this week.
Most of my professional friends, don’t use Facebook at all, and I think that extremely wise, particularly if you are a teacher, doctor or nurse (cos in my experience – they are all pissheads too – at the end of their “professional week” ) put that up on Facebook – and you are going to be in real trouble.
I’m retired so it doesn’t matter. I don’t think they are going to fire me again…unless they go bust and stop paying my pension.
Then I might have to go work again.
Tony
Do Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen wish that they had steered clear of Trump and vice versa?
Manafort found guilty of 8/18 charges and Cohen making a plea bargain.
Trump is silent on Twitter on both for a change.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?
He did defend Manafort when arriving for his rally.
Jeremy Corbyn is in Scotland ‘on the campaign trail’. Richard Leonard’s Twitter refers
https://mobile.twitter.com/LabourRichard
Wow!!! Simply wow!!! This pack of lies by the infamous Hamish De Bretton Gordon has just been published unquestioningly by Sky News:
https://news.sky.com/story/hamish-de-bretton-gordon-syrias-chemical-weapons-hell-11477718
This is such a naive article for an expert, contains sweeping statements, allegations treated as fact and unconnected assertions. The two truly astonishing points are that he clearly slips from the supposed use of CW by the Syrian Army to its use by Isis without also implicating the other groups of our ‘moderate rebels. It contains blatant lies that the SAA used CW in each siege including Aleppo and East Ghouta, both fact free and then a threat that the west will not hesitate to bomb the SAA if chemical weapons are used in Idlib. It has been widely known that this so called red line by the west and its use to launch bombing attacks before any proof is forthcoming, a tactic used in the Khan sheikhoun attack and most recently in East Ghouta is really a signal for the rebels to use those weapons to justify interference.
Elsewhere he had to introduce novichok by making another sweeping statement about the use of chemical weapons by dictators and terrorists, including Russia in Salisbury.
No doubt his prophecy about Idlib will come true because he knows that the rebels will at some stage use CW.
Interestingly, one of the few witnesses (to the results of an alleged CW attack, at any rate) was Shajul Islam. Numerous news agencies included reports featuring Mr Islam. None of them pointed out that he would have been in prison if the aptly named John Cantlie hadn’t inexplicably returned to Syria only to be kidnapped a second time. Cantlie was a vital witness to Mr Islams gun wielding antics in Syria and the other witness wouldn’t give evidence for fear of endangering Mr Cantlie even further. You couldn’t make this up but within weeks of the trial being abandoned, Mr Islam had managed to return to Syria (wouldn’t the authorities be observing him?) after the GMC struck him off without making the reason public.
This terrorist was the best they could find to give credibility to the CW story. Significant clues were a carefully positioned dead goat and proof that Syria suffers from highway pot holes, just like we do.
SCL/Bell Pottinger attempting to get back in to the saddle after having had a tumble with CA/AIQ – hoods on, lets get spooky – Halloween is round the corner.
This is an excellent review of these crucial facts, and a correct characterisation of the contemporary British state. These facts also apply to the yankee imperium in spades, and apply to many of the collaborating satellite client states designated as “allies” by said imperium. As an unrelated aside, if they keep financially pressuring Russia, then what happens when the Russians no longer allow aerial resupply of the yankee Afghanistan expedition? It is also interesting that Heiko Maas, the German foreign minister, is demanding the creation of a European based alternative to the SWIFT financial dictatorship which is a key element of the yankee imperium. This could lead to a greater measure of independence by other Western countries if this could be effected.
If only this can be achieved without to much bloodshed. It is clear that many countries that tried to move away from the central US control of international transactions have had excuses to be bombed. Notable are Iraq and Libya.
Craig, I wonder if there is any connection between these two news stories , happening approximately 4 months apart? ‘Soft state-violence’ perhaps?
http://fntalk.com/politics/great-british-bake-off-star-nadiya-hussain-calls-theresa-may-monster/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6084829/BBC-humiliates-former-Bake-winner-Nadiya-Hussain-axing-Mecca-pilgrimage-series.html
I started my day by re-reading Craig’s profound words. If only the politicians would act with the same principles.
Aung San Suu Kyi to be stripped of Freedom of Edinburgh award
Nobel peace prize winner loses seventh honour over refusal to act over violence committed by Myanmar military against Rohingya
22 Aug 2018
This will be the seventh honour that the former Nobel peace prize winner has been stripped of over the past year, with Edinburgh following the example of Oxford, Glasgow and Newcastle which also revoked Suu Kyi’s Freedom of the City awards.
Good. She won’t even speak the name ‘Rohingya’.
‘She has repeatedly refused to call the Rohingya by their name- which is seen as an acceptance of their belonging in Myanmar- and in a speech in Singapore yesterday, she described them simply as the “displaced persons from northern Rakhine.”’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/22/aung-san-suu-kyi-to-be-stripped-of-freedom-of-edinburgh-award
I’m confused Sharp Ears, the International Crisis Group (ICG)
https://www.crisisgroup.org/who-we-are/history
is fairly closely allied to Soros/World Bank/Carnegie/MSF, some of whom have many obvious-intelligence-agency-compromised elements, ICG have pushed R2P doctrine to the UN even, yet they accurately mentioned the malign Saudi Arabian head-choppers embedded in the Rohingya in 2016. Context of today’s news is very important.
Myanmar’s Rohingya insurgency has links to Saudi, Pakistan –
report
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya/myanmars-rohingya-insurgency-has-links-to-saudi-pakistan-report-idUSKBN1450Y7
”Aung San Suu Kyi to be stripped of Freedom of Edinburgh award’ – that will have her groaning into her porridge then. And the ‘Duke of Tartan, another empty post holder – still happy to bend the knee?
re. stripped of freedom the guardian says..
‘This will only be the second time in 200 years that Edinburgh has revoked a freedom of the city award, following Charles Parnell in 1890, an Irish nationalist who fell into disrepute for a scandalous affair.’ More piss and virtue?
I found it fascinating that St Aung San has fallen so much out of grace having been the greatest thing since sliced bread when she was obviously fulfilling the great democratic agenda for the west. But now there is a conflict of various interests and as usual, there is no honour amongst thieves.
Facebook, Twitter shuts down more accounts, this is censorship!
“Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) also acted on FireEye’s claims and removed hundreds of accounts said to be tied to Iranian “actors,” which are said to be promoting Iran’s geopolitical agenda.”
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/08/22/571886/Facebook-Iran-Russia-US
I thought that the reason they have a monopoly on violence was so the ruling classes could increase and preserve their ill-gotten gains by force in the face of any demands that might rise up from the proletariat. I would love to think it’s as you say, but I don’t think history bears that out. I’m not sure that whether the police or prison officers kill this or that prole, or get killed by them, is a matter of great interest.
@Ali – You are right. One could also mention the “inter-disciplinary” meetings in hospitals where it’s decided who’s going to live and who will die.
Max Weber didn’t understand capitalist class society. Hence his superficial focus on ideas such as “prestige” and “status”, with some “wealth” and “power” thrown in – all the sociological wood for the trees. He had no fundamental understanding. For that, one goes to Karl Marx.
N_
You write very astutely on many subjects but what you say about the NHS generally appears to have an air of a grudge and with some rather off the mark comments. Do tell what bad experience you had. MDTs do not decide who is to live or to die.
Is there a single anti-Z__nist J__ in Britain (meaning a person who considers themselves to be J__ish and who opposes the existence of I__ael) who thinks Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic or that any kind of problem whatsoever exists with anti-Semitism on the British left?
As far as I am aware, the answer is “No”.
So the position is equivalent to black people in the Nation of Islam or who support it shouting really loud that one part of the political spectrum contains people who are racist against black people, and no other black people agreeing with them.
It is to be noted that one of the ideas among Z__nists is that J__ish people should leave whatever country they are in and go and settle in I__ael. Meanwhile the IHRA states that it’s anti-Semitic to say that J__s outside of I__ael (i.e. any among their number) aren’t loyal to the countries they come from.
The fact that the “representative body” of British J_ws, namely the Board of Deputies, which is basically part of the J__ish state – as are the WZO, ADL, CST, LFOI, CFOI etc. – is fascist, shows that most British J__s are Z__nists (even if I__ael gets on many of their tits), in other words that they are fascists, but so what? A fascist is a fascist whatever ethnicity they may have.
The self appointed finder of demons Joan Ryan is still twisting the knife.
Jeremy Corbyn appalls me – and his behaviour will get no better
The chair of LFI says her party’s leader is not interested in Middle East peace – just in meeting terrorists with blood on their hands
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/jeremy-corbyn-appalls-me-and-his-behaviour-will-get-no-better-1.468594
Jonathan Cook:
‘Can there be any conceivable reason preventing Joan Ryan MP, head of Labour Friends of Israel, from being investigated, suspended and deselected over this astounding hatchet-job by her on the party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn?’
https://twitter.com/Jonathan_K_Cook/status/1032036108622802944
The heat is on as the J**ish press have a field day over Corbyn. It must surely be damaging his prospects of becoming PM.
“In a pamphlet published by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign in 2010, Nicolette Petersen recommended that Labour supporters “read the Jewish Chronicle online and look at websites that will show you who not to vote for,” asserting that it was better to divert support from Labour than to support anyone considering himself a “friend of Israel,”
https://m.jpost.com/Diaspora/Antisemitism/Jeremy-Corbyns-secretary-to-voters-Read-Jewish-media-oppose-candidates-who-appear-there-565468
Corbyn must do something and soon, or it will snowball out of control, if that hasn’t already happened. It just might be too late, to stem the tide.
@ Republicofscotland August 22, 2018 at 13:06
You should have been the meeting at Conway Hall last night, sponsored by ‘Corbyn, antise^itism and justice for Palestine’.
Speakers were Tariq Ali, Ben Jamal (PSC), Lindsey German (StW), Rob Ferguson (Je^ish anti-racist activist), Richard Kuper (Je^ish Voice for Labour), Salma Karmi-Ayyoub (British Palestinian Human Rights Lawyer).
Choc-a-block full, crowd left outside as no room. Zi^nists with big blue and white flags and a megaphone heckling the crowd waiting to go in, and after the hall was full, they heckled those who were outside, unable to get in.
I believe it got quite nasty, with some Tommy Robinson supporters turning up, but not sure of the details.
No signs of despondency there – just a groundswell of disgust at the smears, and the determination to push back hard against the anti-Corbyn campaign.
Thanks for the sitrep Paul. Good.
Paul.
I’m sure you had an enthralling time listening to the speakers. The hall holds 400 people, so I would imagine it would been very atmospheric.
Hopefully no one was injured in the fracas with Robinson’s boot boys.
A word of caution though, I recall many halls in Scotland packed out like this during the 2014 indyref campaign. It stirs the blood and, gives you a sense that the cause is all but won.
However, the media reach far more people and in Labour, and Corbyn’s case they’ll be ruthless to the end.
Worth noting one quote from Joan Ryan’s article in the JC:
“Nor should we pretend that even full acceptance of IHRA ends the battle against antisemitism in the Labour Party. ”
i.e. adopting the IHRA definition of anti-semitism is pointless. Ryan, Berger, Mann, etc., etc. will continue to divert the real need to oppose Tory policy by making false claims about anti-semitism in the Labour party.
Listen to this LFOI expense-fiddling Labour MPBarry Gardiner. He’s against a third Brexit referendum because it might appear “undemocratic” (sic). “You never give as much succour to the extreme right as when you cut off the mechanism of democratic change,” he says.
That statement is typical, including in its use of the word “you”, of a politician who wants to put himself across as some kind of connoisseur, as a person who is highly knowledgeable about past history. In actual fact he can’t talk except in clichés and he clearly knows sweet Fanny Adams about how movements such as the German Nazis, the Italian Fascists, etc., came to power. I imagine this trougher is so dim that any big change that happens always surprise him.
And why would having a referendum being “cutting off” the “mechanism” of “democratic change”?
Don’t argue with pigeons.
And why would having a referendum being “cutting off” the “mechanism” of “democratic change”?
Well, because voters are grown ups and they voted to leave. If you don’t like it tough but what happens if there’s a small majority to remain? Can that be challenged likewise? If you follow this logic it’s not democracy anymore but opinion taking. The good thing about democracy is that your decision is your responsibility and taking part means accepting the result whether you like it or not. You have the option re-apply for membership if you have sufficient support to do so.
@Charming
“And why would having a referendum being “cutting off” the “mechanism” of “democratic change”?
Well, because voters are grown ups and they voted to leave. If you don’t like it tough but what happens if there’s a small majority to remain? Can that be challenged likewise? If you follow this logic it’s not democracy anymore but opinion taking. The good thing about democracy is that your decision is your responsibility and taking part means accepting the result whether you like it or not. You have the option re-apply for membership if you have sufficient support to do so.”
You are using your assumption that “democracy” (which is cack anyway) means you shouldn’t have another vote as your major premise in support of your conclusion that you shouldn’t have another vote.
You mention grown ups. Grown ups are open to changing their minds when new evidence comes in.
It may be cack but it’s the democracy we have.
That’s what I said, You vote to leave – you leave. If you don’t like the outcome you reapply for membership.
For background – I don’t believe we ever joined the EU. The vanity of national governments, ours especially, didn’t want the successes of the EU to acknowledged or recognised. Which made it easy for the enemies of the EU, the SUN, USA etc to undermine the project. Britain could have given leadership and pushed through reform and financial controls if it had engaged. By the time the UK rejoins the EU is will be a very different organisation as we already see the integration friction from new joiners.
Quite right.
Look at those who want to ignore the 2016 vote: Alistair Campbell the war criminal; Vince Cable who helped the Tories impose austerity and £9,000 fees on students. None of these people give tuppence for democracy.
What would be the point of a further referendum – if you can ignore the result of the 2016 vote, presumaby you can ignore the resut of the next vote.
@ N_ August 22, 2018 at 13:10
I don’t know the details, but I believe a number of Referendums were held in some EU countries voting against, and they just reheld them until the ‘right’ result was attained.
If I am correct in that, then it indicates that the ‘PTB’, the Shadow Puppet Masters, want the EU to continue.
As a rule of thumb, what the PTB want is not good for the general public, but for the Banksters, Corporations and warmongers.
You’re absolutely right – but unfortunately it’s the only game in town. It’s clear that Blaire’s labour party did nothing to make strong links between the socialist parties in europe which, in alliance, could have exerted controls – mainly over migrant labour. Shameful behaviour over Greece and refuguees really exposed the EU for its corporatist soul as you say and what remains is the German/French hegemony with the rest just ticking along. Undoubtedly the EU is a kraal but outside, the UK is weaker, and more exposed to less palatable partners dealing in war toys where relationships already exist. I think the only hope is for a pan european socialist alliance to assert some sense. I’m not hopeful however – as someone else said ‘ I see the better way’ but choose the worse’.
He talks of ‘violence on the streets’ breaking out. As an Outer London MP (Brent North) he must know that there is already violence on the streets – stabbings and gunshot wounds – some resulting in death.
London violence: Boy, 16, stabbed and three hurt in gun attack in just 24 hours across the capital
1 day ago
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-violence-boy-16-stabbed-and-three-hurt-in-gun-attack-in-just-24-hours-a3916721.html
Craig refers to Cressida Dick’s appointment in his piece. She is useless and so is the opportunistic Sadiq Khan. Neither are dealing with the situation, nor with the robberies by youths on mopeds.
‘The total tally of murder victims in London had reached 91 by August 2018, with several of them the result of shootings.
The latest life claimed was 17-year-old Rhyhiem Ainsworth Barton, who was gunned down in a drive-by shooting near his home in Kennington, South London, on May 5, 2018.
Eight other people in the capital have been shot dead this year, a Metropolitan Police spokesman confirmed.
Tanesha Melbourne, 17, Amaan Shakoor, 16, Kelvin Odunuyi, 19, Bulent Kabala, 41, Joseph William-Torres, 20 and Russell Jordan-Jones, 23, all died after they suffered gun wounds.
The name of the seventh and eighth victims are not known.
Boys aged 13 and 15 were victims of a shotgun attack in Harrow on May 6, 2018, as a 22-year-old man became the fourth person shot in the capital over the Bank Holiday weekend in New Cross.
In June 2018, a man was airlifted to hospital in Southwark, South London, after witnesses reported he was shot in the face with a shotgun.
On August 20, 2018, three people were injured in a drive-by shooting outside Kingsbury Tube station, north west London.
A woman, 30, and two men – aged 18 and 24 – were rushed to hospital with gun shot wounds.
One victim was seen lying in a pool of his own blood after being gunned down in the triple shooting outside Kingsbury Tube station.
Timeline of shootings
February 12 Taxi driver Bulent Kabala, 41, shot dead on a roundabout in Enfield
March 8 Kelvin Odunuyi, 19, shot in Wood Green amid escalating gang warfare
March 14 Joseph Williams-Torres, 20, shot dead in a stationary car in Walthamstow
March 17 Student Russell Jones shot and stabbed to death near Ponders End station in Enfield.
March 25 Abraham Badru, 26, shot in Dalston, East London, without warning
April 2 Tanesha Melbourne, 17, gunned down by drug gang in Tottenham
April 2 Amaan Shakoor, 16, shot in the face outside Walthamstow Leisure Centre
April 9 An armed man was shot dead by police in Romford after threatening people with a gun near a petrol station
May 1 A 30-year-old man died outside Queensbury Tube station in North London after being found with serious injuries
May 5 Rhyhiem Ainsworth Barton was gunned down in a drive by shooting near his home in Kennington, South London
May 6 Man, 22, is shot in New Cross, South East London
May 6 Boy, 13, blasted in head with shotgun while walking with his parents in Wealdstone, near Harrow, in North West London, as 15-year-old also injured in the head in the shooting
June 1 A 24-year-old man is fighting for his life after being shot with a “machine gun” in Brent, north-west London
June 3 Oluwafemi Omosuyi, 22, airlifted to hospital in Southwark, South London, after witnesses reported he was shot in the face with a shotgun. another man, 25, suffered non-life-threatening injuries
June 6 A teenage boy was left fighting for his life after he and two others were shot in Brixton at around 11pm
July 9 Gunman shoots three times at woman, but misses
July 27 Four men aged between 20 and 22 were arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after exchanging gun fire with police in Forest Gate
August 20 Armed police swarm a school in Maida Hill, West London, after “shots fired” as terrified staff cower in classroom cupboard
August 20 A woman, 30, and two men – aged 18 and 24 – were rushed to hospital following a drive-by shooting outside Kingsbury Tube station
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5971706/london-shootings-kinsbury-forest-gate/
@ Sharp Ears August 22, 2018 at 13:06
And just when you thought it couldn’t get worse, along comes Elon Musk:
‘Musk Madness: People Are Already Wreaking Havoc With Elon’s Flamethrowers’:
https://sputniknews.com/us/201806111065316730-People-Wreaking-Havoc-Elons-Flamethrowers/
How long before the next school attack, this time not a hoax as it would be too difficult (IMO) to fake, with one of Musk’s little toys?
You would have to wonder whether there is any serious intent to address the problem. The Violence Reduction Unit set up by Strathclyde police in the early years of this century (since the formation of the unitary body, Police Scotland, the unit is called Scottish VRU, but is commonly referred to as the “Glasgow VRU”) has had a dramatic impact (hope I’m not tempting fate).
Five years 2006 – 2011: 15 children and teens killed in Glasgow with knives.
Five years 2011 – 2016: 0 children and teens killed in Glasgow with knifes.
Hate to use the word, but the success comes from a “holistic” approach. I don’t think there has been any serious deterioration since 2016. Guns are reserved for gangsters v’s gangsters. Acid assaults are extremely rare.
The VRU approach was (from memory) developed from a program used in Chicago.
A working model is there but it needs commitment, resource and impassioned management interested in something other than climbing the greasy pole.
Poverty and a hot summer cocktail
What would you have the Commissioner of the Met and the Mayor of London do to combat the rise in violence?
Perform their duties.
Who am I talking about?
* The thief who started his business career stealing lead off roofs
* who then went into property dealing
* and vehicle insurance
* who owned a bank registered in the Isle of Man
* who worked as an honorary consul for the drug-money criminal state of Belize
* who has a record funding disgusting right-wing organisations such as theTory Party
* UKIP
* and Leave.EU
Yes, step forward Arron Banks, who is encouraging xenophobic far-right wing arseholes to join the Tory party so they can choose one of their number as the next Tory leader and prime minister. (He doesn’t seem to realise that the leadership vote may well not go to the members.)
Does anyone else think this guy needs a bloody good slapping?
Does he have the same kind of “this isn’t going to end nicely for him” aura that Robert Maxwell and Boris Berezovsky had?
N.
Well Nigel Farage is back in action, to scupper the flawed Chequers proposal, and maintain a no deal Brexit. I’ve even read that Ukippers have infiltrated the Tory party to help Rees-Mogg et al, to ensure a no deal Brexit.
“Does anyone else think this guy [Aaron Banks] needs a bloody good slapping?”
LoL. Well, I certainly would like to see that happen but then again I would like to see the same done to all the other self-seeking, psychopaths who manipulate our nation’s affairs.
Interesting to watch the washing up of dirty linen in public by the US political class. This is due to the breakdown of the two sided coin of previous politics with the outsider Trump being outside the establishment. It seems that far from draining the swamp. Trump wants to replace it with a giant cesspit.
Someone has tweeted on Trump’s account “If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!”. Perfect spelling and composition so not Trump.
Everything is happening at once. Cohen, Manafort, Chris Collins, Duncan Hunter and potentially Elliot Broidy. You could say “Deep state conspiracy”, but that implies discussion and collusion. Does a school of sharks collude when they smell blood in the water?
Trump on Manafort this morning “Such respect for a brave man!”. Sounds like Manafort has some seriously damaging information and Trump is signaling “hold out for a Presidential pardon buddy”.
The system is breaking and the government is losing control – this is evident in substantially all areas of public policy.
Sure the government kills some of its own population – but not as many as are being stabbed to death on the streets. The government does not want this to happen – but they lack the ability to stop it.
Mass murdering lunatics are being imported into the country by an out of control “intelligence” service. The guy that blew up the Manchester arena had some form of connection to British intelligence. Not enough real Nazi’s to frighten the people with? No problem we can import some so step forward Pavlo Lapshyn.
Sure prisons have been privatized and conditions in a lot of prisons are said to be out of control. But just look at the NHS – and ask how many people that entity kills each and every year.
wherever you look you will find the same trends in place. These trends are irreversible – but their effects are being accelerated by an administrative class that does not understand that the game is up, and a general public obsessed by vacuous narcissism.
– “The system is breaking and the government is losing control”
Losing control? More like abdicating control by selling it off at knock-down prices, so their cronies can buy it back into the private sector where highly paid jobs will await the politicians who voted to sell it shortly after they quit politics. That’s how the NHS is failing its patients; its reliance upon the private pharmaceutical sector and the imposed “internal market” have already transformed it into a cash-cow for the corporate system.
What choice do they have?
Take a look at the current account deficit No-one in the UK does any work and yet they want to live like Kings. How is it all supposed to work,
Sure there is a lot of corruption, Why would there not be? Big pharma is doing a lot more damage than just the NHS. Take a look at the rate of opiod deaths in the US. Ask why something like 23 million people in the UK are taking some form of prescription medicines.
“Take a look at the current account deficit No-one in the UK does any work and yet they want to live like Kings. How is it all supposed to work,”
By definition, not every nation can be a net exporter.
The UK is a net importer, has been for decades, and will most likely continue to do so.
This means that its Terms of Trade are good (i.e. it receives more in return compared to what it sells abroad), its population aren’t beavering away simply to sell the results of all their efforts to foreigners who would then gain the real benefit of those goods and services, and lastly, it successfully manages to increase the UK standard of living, via imports of real goods and services created by the hard work of foreigners, all in exchange for little portraits of Her Majesty.
What’s not to like?
“Take a look at the current account deficit No-one in the UK does any work and yet they want to live like Kings. How is it all supposed to work,”
Loony, do you mean like Greece? Where no one paid their taxes, and the government would count all the swimming pools using a helicopter.
Thankfully the Greeks, appear to be on the right track now, so much so. That the Greek PM, has supposedly chosen the home of mythical King Odysseus, to declare the end of his country’s bailout.
You are surely having a laugh.
Who do you think pays taxes in the UK? Some poor schmuck on PAYE has no choice, but the truly rich pay nothing. That is why they are in the UK. Not because they like the climate, or the people, or the countryside, or the cities – but because they can domicile in the UK and pay no tax.
What gave you the idea that “Greece is on the right track”? More fake news. Greece can never, ever escape its debt trap – and the people that write the fake news know this to be the case. Ask why you are so keen to believe liars?
Whose fault is it that you believe liars? Is it the fault of the liars, or is it your fault? Obviously no-one can be an expert in everything and sometimes things need to be taken on trust – but even then you have a responsibility to determine who is trustworthy and who is not.
This is a more or less accurate summation of the current situation in Greece
https://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/greece-still-faces-a-long-hard-road-to-end-its-economic-depression/
It aint over because it cannot be over – and the liars that tell you otherwise are fully aware that they are lying.
– “…a general public obsessed by vacuous narcissism”
Always, always the people are to blame in Loony’s theories of societal collapse. Never the media who misinform them and deluge them with the intellectual equivalent of junk food, or the politicians who fail to control the exploitation by the corporate sector including the media.
“Ignore politics and ditch government (thus exposing your bellies to the corporate sector). Your fate is inevitable and you deserve it anyway”.
So people are being lied to by the media.
They only tells these lies because people believe the lies. Whose fault is that? Do people have no responsibility at all to inform themselves as to what is going on?
Take a look at this blog – so many people busy besmirching the BBC and then often the same people quoting the BBC to “prove” some kind of point. People claiming that they are being crushed by austerity – but having enough money to subsidize the BBC. Why would people do this?
Stop paying the licence fee and the BBC will be gone within months at most. They are a venal and corrupt organization. If you choose to pay for them then why does that not make you venal and corrupt?
Governments don’t control they ‘manage’ and not having any dosh makes it impossible to provide social services as in the past. So where’s the money gone, or is it simply a concept entirely independent of production? Industrial revolution and technological revolution are behind us now so what big idea is going to save us all? Perhaps this is a great opportunity to run up even more individual debt and wait for a write off crash when we can pay off with inflated paper money? Spend all our pocket money. Decades ago now people talked of debt jubilees and write offs for nations but that has gone very quiet. I blame private house purchase/debt for the failure in the UK. Maggie looked at the voter demographic and knew exactly what turns a labour supporter into a tory. Sell them the house they’re renting and ensure that housing demand will never met. Fill the streets with homeless people who remind us daily that there but for the grace of may we all go. Looks like labour’s last gasp to me.
The only way to deal with a shortage of housing is to build more houses. Debating how much of the existing stock should be in the public or private sector misses the point
You miss the point. Social housing is affordable and recyclable whereas private housing is expensive and ends up used to enrich private landlords where property accumulates.
“the guy that blew up Manchester arena had some form of connection to British secret intelligence”. you need to be more specific. Sources?
Here you are
http://markcurtis.info/2017/06/03/the-manchester-bombing-as-blowback-the-latest-evidence/
Interesting item in the current ‘Eye about G4S and Birmingham Prison and the whole outsourcing scam generally.
When G4S took over they promised to cut running costs by 23% but their own business model demands a profit of 20% so costs had to be cut by around 40% resulting in staff numbers being reduced by a third and cheaper less experienced and qualified staff being recruited.
G4S have made their profit but once again it falls to the taxpayer to clear up the mess left behind.
This is a straight question:
If Jean Charles de Menezes had indeed been a suicide bomber making his approach to a target, would you still describe his death as ‘murder’?
Many people would answer unhesitatingly that it would not have been murder. Their arguments are obvious.
I’m not sure what I think: that’s why I’m asking the question.
If killing an actual terrorist would not have been murder, then de Menezes died because of a mistaken decision. This would only have been a crime if the decision-making was culpably irrresponsible — and the crime committed then would have been manslaughter.
I think manslaughter applies in the De Menezes tragedy. His killing was apparently the result of a series of errors by the police and surveillance teams (seven errors according to the Independent). There was an appalling breakdown in communication, along with a panicky, trigger-happy team. In all, it was a disgraceful, unforgivable example of police and firearms officer’s incompetence.
The firearms officer would have been told to take him out because he had a bomb, he did the job he’d been trained to do. When you’re in that position you need to trust the chain of command. Any fault lies with the people who gave the order
Well, yes; The men who actually shot De Menezes were probably not as responsible as those who provided faulty information. As I said there were apparently SEVEN mistakes along the chain of command because of poor communication and lack of proper surveillance. How much blame should be apportioned to Cressida Dick, I don’t know – only she and a few others probably know – it depends on the quality of the feed-back she was getting. Craig (who presumably used to move in these circles) probably knows more than I do.
Alex — your analysis assumes that this was a ‘military-type’ situation. I’m not sure that it is generally accepted that the police should act as a military unit would: in the Iran embassy siege, for example, (if you remember all those years ago), there was a point at which the police senior officer formally passed control to the commander of the military unit. Part of the point of this procedure was that military action should be specifically and explicitly authorized by the government. Is it appropriate to bring about someone’s death by administrative action — ie, on the police commander’s initiative?
Frank Waring,
Yes. His death was murder, assuming the story is true, of which I am not 100% convinced.
I am not suggesting, that in some situations, committing murder, may actually be a highly moral act, for the greater good.
However, the problem is currently, that most of our leaders in authority, exhibit very little evidence of actually having much if any morality, honesty or integrity.
In fact many of them, not only appear to exhibit no empathy for fellow human beings, many of them appear to be downright evil. They knowingly lie, and promote outright war on completely innocent people, in foreign countries, who present absolutely no threat to anyone, so they can steal their resources, often for others who they share evil values with…like the military industrial complex. (we need another war, so we can sell more weapons of mass destruction, to maintain our profitability) They couldn’t give a sh1t about the innocent people in foreign lands they are murdering, and neither does hardly anyone else, because they believe all the propaganda, they are fed, morning,noon and night.
This is not good.
Have you any ideas re possible solutions?
Tony
I believe that the charter of the UN says that states should not make war, except when it is authorised by the Security Council. If events are moving too fast, it may only be possible to seek this authorisation after defensive action has already been taken.
The legal (not moral) answer is that murder is defined as unlawful homicide, death occurring within a year and a day of the unlawful act. The state is allowed to kill ( if the belief is that the dead person was about carry out a terrorist attack). Such a killing would be lawful, so incapable being murder. If there was no or insufficient evidence that such an attack was likely, then such killing would be unlawful and capable of being murder ( if the shooter(s) had the required mens rea [intention] to cause death or serious injury.
Under certain circumstances English Law allows for the legal killing of a human being by any citizen.
You are allowed to kill in self defense, in defense of another, in defense of property, to prevent a crime or to make or assist in a lawful arrest. All you need to do is to establish that the force used was reasonable in relation to the perceived threat. This was the branch of law that allowed Richard Osborn-Brooks to lawfully kill Henry Vincent earlier this year.
So, whatever Max Weber had to say about the monopoly of violence by the state would appear to be inconsistent with English Law. It comes as little surprise to see establishment figures seeking to persuade the population that they are defenseless victims. They are not and, under certain strictly limited circumstances, are lawfully entitled to use deadly force.
English Law is the state defining what is permissible. It’s a bit like subcontracted violence. Only a pedant would believe that this undermines the point Craig was making. It is obvious that self-defence would be an exception to ‘actual’ state violence but note the definition and circumstances are defined by ‘state’ law.
So for any reasonable person Webber’s view that the state has the monopoly of legitimate violence is obviously the case. And most people of a state accept the state’s use of ‘legitimate’ violence and won’t accept anyone else adopting such powers. In this instance, Webber is not describing a ‘gangster’ state.
Craig is describing a situation where the British state has expanded into areas that should be considered ‘illegitimate’ and as such has become a ‘gangster’ state.
…..but only a person — or many persons — can have a ‘belief’. The state is not the sort of entity that can be said to have a belief. Who is authorised to have a belief on behalf of ‘the state’? When policemen and women speak about deaths brought about by police action, they typically justify the deaths either as acts of self defence, or as misadventures (acts of restraint, for example, that have had unexpected outcomes). I think I have never heard a police person say that the police in a situation were carrying out a killing authorised by the state. Such a killing might be called an execution.
Frank Waring,
If Frank Waring had indeed been a suicide bomber making his approach to a target, would you still describe his death as ‘murder’?
Perhaps, you can see how ridiculous your question is.
You are in the dead end thought experiment of Schroedinger’s Frank Waring. In this scenario Frank Waring is simultaneously both a suicide bomber and an ordinary person on his way to work. But we can go a bit further with this scenario because the only conclusion that you can draw is that is perfectly reasonable to kill Frank Waring because only then will we know if Frank Waring is a suicide bomber or a just an ordinary commuter.
Perhaps an even more ridiculous answer might help you a bit:
Frank Waring wasn’t a suicide bomber, it was just a mistake but that’s OK because that must mean it’s manslaughter.
With regard to Frank Waring’s recent manslaughter. Frank Waring and his family are happy about how things have turned out. Frank Waring made it perfectly clear in his will that his death was for the greater good and he still isn’t sure if he was a suicide bomber or not. Frank Waring’s family expressed great relief that Frank Waring was stopped before he could become a possible suicide bomber. Frank Waring’s family issued a statement: “Thank heaven’s for small mercies, we are very grateful that the forces of the state put an end to the possibility of Frank Waring being a suicide bomber. We know that somewhere (in both heaven and hell [because we still aren’t really sure if Frank Waring was a possible suicide bomber or was not a possible suicide bomber; however, we do have it on good authority that Frank Waring was both]), but wherever he may or may not be, Frank Waring is eternally grateful that he was stopped because he knew that he was simultaneously both a suicide bomber and not a suicide bomber. Frank Waring’s family ask that Frank Waring’s body not be inspected because whilst Frank Waring’s body is not inspected it remains that Frank Waring is simultaneously both alive and dead (unfortunately, this means that Frank Waring still remains simultaneously both a suicide bomber and not a suicide bomber and the public should be on the look for any Frank Waring-type looking people or, in fact, any people who look entirely unlike Frank Waring because, you know, anyone including ‘YOU’ (dear reader) could be simultaneously both a suicide bomber and not a suicide bomber – DON’T SAY YOU WERE (OR WERE NOT) WARNED BECAUSE YOU WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY BOTH INFORMED AND NOT INFORMED SO YOU DON’T HAVE A LEG (OR NOT A LEG) TO STAND ON (OR NOT STAND ON), SIMULTANEOUSLY, AS IT WERE”
Read this post and consider yourself well and truly derided or don’t read this post and simply remain an unknowing object of derision.
I read a couple of sentences — which I didn’t understand: so I skipped to the end and then understood that your purpose was to make me feel ridiculous. You have not succeeded
Although manslaughter is different from murder on the basis of intent, manslaughter can carry the same tariff depending on the circumstances although a jury may deem the accused as mentally unfit to testify.
For example, if someone who isn’t a suicide bomber or about to explode a device is killed by someone who thinks they are, then presumably that’s manslaughter, but if the evidence shows it was a ridiculous thing for the killer to believe and unnecessary if an easy arrest is possible, that would mean they were either lying or mentally ill. If the jury concluded mentally ill that would be manslaughter, but if lying its murder.
Blair said I only know what I believe in order to justify his attack on Iraq due to WMDs. He said he believed they had WMDs, but as it was obvious to everyone they didn’t, including the Inspectors who couldn’t find any, then Blair was either lying or mentally ill. Either way he was unfit for office, but as it was a lie shared by the warmongers he got a pass and rewarded on leaving office for being a willing executioner.