I spoke at this meeting on Saturday and gave a broader overview than usual of the Assange case and its importance. I think it comes over fairly cogently, even though I was actually feeling pretty dizzy and faint.
Jonathan Cook is, as ever, particularly worth listening to closely, and it was great to catch up with Jeremy Corbyn again.
At the end of the event I was particularly honoured to receive from Jeremy the Gavin Macfadyen Prize for supporting whistleblowers, not for myself but on behalf of Julian Assange, and I say a few more words on that subject.
————————————————-
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
very good from Jonathan Cook on why journalists fear Julian Assange, particularly liberal journalists. it’s the same reason why liberals or centrists are still so virulently hostile to ‘corbynism’. it’s because it exposed their own brand/ image as fraudulent and worthless.
Corbyn (ism) exposed itself as querulous and futile.
talking of worthless..
I’m always surprised at the ability of fools to blame everyone but Corbyn for his failure.
i used the term ‘corbynism’ (in inverted commas) because that’s now the byword for anything left of Mandelson. i wasn’t commenting on Corbyn’s failure or exculpating him for it.
but forget about me, do you really believe Corbyn had a role in his own downfall? that is one seriously transgressive big boy take if you don’t mind me saying. I bet you’ve shaken up a few when you’ve laid that insight on them!
re that Sunday Telegraph reenactment of Prince Andrew and the trafficked minor in the bath: i highly doubt that was intended to convince the general public. rather it was to demonstrate to the elite the lengths to which journalists are willing to go in order to protect the establishment.
Yes, good observation
Maybe also a bit of distraction from the Nadhim Zahawi corruption. Probably I should say Tory government corruption. I can see that Nadhim Zahawi got the sack because he lied to the boss.
But Zahawi is innocent. The Telegraph has proof:
https://twitter.com/MrJonDePlume/status/1619830894914854913/photo/1
If I understand correctly, the point you were making is the Telegraph’s claims to being a ‘serious newspaper’ are undermined when they allow themselves to be used as little more than a cheap propaganda platform to ‘clear’ the Duke of York. A man who refuses to accept he simply befriended the wrong person and made some stupid decisions. A man who now seeks a reset, and his royal privileges back.
Alongside the Telegraph’s nauseating campaign, came the news over the weekend that ‘that infamous photo wasn’t a digitally manipulated, forged image, it’s a real physical item, that dates from the time in question. Andrew has cautiously – presumably on legal advice – maintained only that, he had “no recollection of meeting Virginia Giuffre,” whereas Ghislaine Maxwell has gone much further, insisting the image is faked. It’s bizarre how Ghislaine was given a TV platform to lie again, you’ve got to wonder who has the power to pull these strings and who is Ghislaine seeking to influence, perhaps she’s scared and signalling her loyalty? Meanwhile, Assange isn’t allowed to be heard from, or seen, sat in a maximum security prison cell, and yet hasn’t been found guilty of anything. The overprivileged royals seem to have lots of people pulling strings for them, while a wholly innocent man rots in jail.
What did Price Andrew do wrong ? Even if you assume he had sex with the girl in the photo ? She was not under age. If she was ” traficked ” how would he have known that ?
He is a revolting creep, and very stupid, but that is not illegal.
Geoffrey
I’d have more respect for him had he been honest, but I’m not a royalist. In reality, any such admission would have destroyed his already meagre chances of being rehabilitated in the UK royal family. And sensationalist tabloids plus public perceptions, would never allow for that here, the UK is quite prudish.
The most offensive aspect isn’t necessarily the alleged behaviour. It’s the cover-ups and brazen lies and the abuse of power by these pampered, powerful people. Similarly, with how a then President Bill Clinton denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was prepared to see Monica Lewinsky’s life ruined, with her forever branded a liar and a fantasist… until a certain dress emerged with his …ahem, DNA on it.
Lewinsky was lucky to survive this long, some 57 or so associates of the Clinton’s have “committed suicide”.
“If she was ‘traficked’ how would he have known that ?
He is a revolting creep, and very stupid, but that is not illegal.”
You move so elegantly between asking how something could be known and then saying something isn’t illegal. If he knew she’d been trafficked for his use, he certainly would have been acting unlawfully even if he didn’t have sex with her.
If he did know, how could it be shown that he knew? Well who knows? Many ways would be conceivable.
The trouble with this type of fact free insinuation , is that, Craig is using the same methods that he accuses the US and UK authorities of using against Assange.
So what if Andrew knew that the girl was paid to have sex with him ?
Men paying women for sex has been happening for quite a long time.
for the benefit of the incorrigible bootlickers and nonce fanciers – HRH paid her 12m of UK public funds to avoid the details of his actions being heard in court. i believe this fact was reported even in the UK itself.
As far as I’m aware, not reporting a crime isn’t illegal in England & Wales, Him.
For the benefit of the incorrigible anti-royalists, Prince Andrew making an out of court settlement may make him look guilty, but it doesn’t prove his guilt. As Goose points out above, “The most offensive aspect isn’t necessarily the alleged behaviour. It’s the cover-ups and brazen lies and the abuse of power by these pampered, powerful people.” It should make no difference that he is a member of the royal family, either to how he is treated or how he is judged.
I suppose the £60 million payout by Randy Andy to said child victim might have some onus as a guilt payment…… as you believe in fairy stories, I find I’m drawn to actual fact or a balance of probabilities.
Of course the sixty million was a charitable donation, to the victim, as we forget and pay no attention to his interview with the BBC, which of course was adorned with the charm the royals bring to the subject in hand.
I find I don’t sweat, if I’m cold!
The amount that Randy Andy paid to settle the suit has never been officially disclosed, Highlander, but was reported in the Telegraph, which styles itself Britain’s best quality newspaper, to be of the order of £12 million.
On a related note, I’ve just remembered about this from Prince Andrew & (Not) Talking (to the) Feds – with a bit of help from the Iain Duncan Smiths – performing ‘Nonce in a Lifetime’, which if you ain’t already seen it, I’d say is worth 100 seconds of your life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG1JJq_n8TY
Even though it still languishes in relative obscurity, it seems to have had several thousand more views than the last time I watched it, so maybe it’s where Randy and/or Ghislaine’s people have been getting their recent ideas:
# Ghislaine’s bath isn’t big enough, Ghislaine’s bath isn’t big enough, Ghislaine’s bath isn’t big enough, Ghislaine’s bath isn’t big enough!
Re: ‘What did Prince Andrew do wrong?’
Amongst other things, Geoffrey, Virginia Guiffre alleges that she and PA had intercourse on Epstein’s island when she was 17 as part of an orgy involving Epstein and several underage Eastern European girls. According to US Virgin Islands law:
‘Any person over 18 years of age who perpetrates under circumstances not amounting to rape in the first degree, an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person not the perpetrator’s spouse who is at least 16 years but less than 18 years of age, and the perpetrator is 5 years or older than the victim, is guilty of rape in the second degree and shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years.’
In the US Virgin Islands, mistakes of fact as to the victim’s age do not constitute a defence. So even if he didn’t know her age and all of the acts she describes in her lawsuit were consensual, he would still have broken the law over there.
By the way, with reference to your later comment, in the UK, the age of consent for prostitution is 18, so if PA had sex with her in Ghislaine’s bath, and knew that she’d been paid to do so – whether it was $15,000 or $15 – and that she was only 17, that would also be a criminal offence.
Lapsed, I thought she was 18 in the bath ?
Thanks for your reply Geoffrey. She was born on 9th August 1983 and the alleged bath-time incident took place in the early hours of 4th March 2001, so she would have been 17. She claims in her lawsuit that the other two alleged encounters also occurred when she was 17.
All of which illustrates the bonkersness of having different ages of majority and consent in different countries. It used to be said that, in Ireland, you could legally get married two years before you could legally have sex.
Thanks for your reply Bayard. Different countries*, different rules. It’s people’s responsibility to find out what the rules are before going on holiday etc, which is easier than ever with the internet. Of course, some members of the WEF etc would say that this inconvenience could be eliminated if we had world government, and some of them may wish for this government’s stipulated age of consent to vary inversely with the net worth of one of the participants.
* In the US that also applies to different states or even counties/cities.
you’re naive if you imagine these lot would care if the victim had been half the age she was. royalty can literally do no wrong in their minds.
” Different countries*, different rules”
but still a demonstration of the total arbitrariness of those rules. I wasn’t trying to excuse HRH.
Thanks for your reply, zoot. Geoffrey stated that PA was ‘a revolting creep, and very stupid’, so the latter can hardly be seen to have done no (moral) wrong in his eyes – though whether he has done any legal wrong is another matter. If VG is telling the truth about what happened on Epstein Island then, no two ways about it, he has.
Thanks for your reply Bayard. To some extent most laws are arbitrary. Along with other things, Randy was stripped of his HRH title around a year ago:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935
It’s also pretty bonkers that, in the UK at least, you can legally have sex a year before you can legally drive.
She was a willing prostitute, extremely well-compensated, who saw the opportunity for a little extortion once she’d left the game.
oh you mean once she was no longer a child.
The more this story is rammed down our throats by the MSM the more I suspect that it is not what we are being told.
it’s to distract people’s attention from the Charles-Jimmy Savile/ Mountbatten axis.
Don’t the British Establishment already know this, zoot?
There’s even an amusing rhyme by Humbert Wolfe about it, that they probably learn by rote at their public schools:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God! the British journalist
But seeing what, unbribed, the man will do
There’s really no occasion to!
That’s an excellent rhyme, and it’s just as true today as it was when I first heard it around 40 years ago.
Nobody learns it by rote at private schools, though.
Thanks for your reply, Him. I first came across it about ten years ago in (Steven Patrick) Morrissey’s autobiography.*
How do you know it’s not taught in English public schools? Have you attended many of them?
* Half a page on the recording of 80’s high water mark ‘The Queen is Dead’; over 50 pages on his tedious legal spat with jug-eared former Smiths sticksman Mike Joyce. ‘That’s just Morrissey being Morrissey.’ – Shaun Ryder
I just read Jonathan Cook, which is why I checked here. Very careful analysis of the MSM from him.
Watched it Live Craig..Great Speeches by all of you.. Well Done..
What a fabulously powerful, penetrating speech exposing the insipid, repugnant and disgusting stature of Establishment aligned, British, so called reporting, so called news, so called fourth estate journalism, whose output is analogous to dog-eared (excuse dog) tacky, smutty porn mags.
Thanks Craig.
Let me provide some observational criticism.
I watched the event in its entirety on the live stream and felt uplifted by the fact that there are still decent honest people around trying to counter this era of duplicity and partisan political mendacity masquerading as authority . It was heartening to see Jeremy Corbyn active in this sphere of politics, which is light years from the professionalised (I mean the veneer of professionalism obscuring the corrupt base material that forms the furniture of our political parties) activities of our politicians and media mediocrities.
It was very gratifying to hear Kier Starmer being exposed and excoriated for his glaring deficit of integrity in relation to Assange.We were left in no doubt about his toxic allegiances to the British establishment and its media branches.
Regarding professionalism: although I don’t want to take away from the undoubted charm of the event the involvement of ‘simple'(I mean uncorrupted people), it was frustrating to watch the frequent microphone manipulations and bodies moving around trying to cope with the technical hitches and sometimes detracted from the speaker’s message.
Jonathon Cook provided a very lucid and coherent explanation of the absurdity of the position of the majority of journalists in these ‘post modern’ times It was excellent.
Please don’t be offended but your speech was meandering and not always coherent unless the listener was aware of your own circumstances and a follower of the blog. I expect most of the audience were familiar withe general background and your imprisonment in relation to the Salmond case and while this gives you a great deal of credibility in terms of ‘lived experience’ there was an impression of lost confidence, inhibition, and still carrying some of the trauma of these events.
Otherwise I thought that your bearing and facial expression have recovered. You looked better/healthier/more relaxed than some of your recent outings.It may be time to sharpen your pencil, recover your confidence, and renew or revive your critique of the intrinsic corruption of our current political and social systems. I realise this is not without hazard in the context of the immensity of the opaque ,toxic reactionary forces we now face but I am sure your contribution is valuable in allowing people to find their way through this maze.
Take heart.
No dgp, Craigs’ speech was comprehensible and I mean explicit and commanding while most astute readers as a general rule would have a done the leg-work and have picked up the back-ground of his ban on Julian’s wedding and his imprisonment for a charge of contempt of court, a mortifying experience that would crush most folk..
Shape up.
Well Said,,And Check out the Graystone
Are the US and Germany now at war with Russia?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9OTzf_sfZk
Thanks Brian – Well I have disclosed here commanders at Northwood think that they can win a nuclear war against Russia using low-emission dial-back nuclear bombs. An absolute ploy or ruse is to trap Russia into crossing a boundary where strong world opinion moves to engaging Russia directly with a military confrontation; an imperative.
The commanders hope to achieve this operation by incrementally supplying Ukraine with long range missiles and fighter jets which are planned to arrive in Poland within the next few months. Northwood need this escalation.
Meanwhile British SAS are preparing sites for destruction while UK military special military operations using private companies are in Ukraine coordinating data within control and command centers.
Nonetheless President Putin will use his intelligence to blue pencil such dangerous, absurd and unbalanced terrorist deceit by a Western alliance intent on maintaining world control and influence with the US at the helm using rules that owe their existence to post WWII domination.
if I may ask:
-is there reliable info whether the Obama directive that would allow for cyberwarfare on Russian soil did also apply for material action (sabotage) ?
While former confirmed, latter still highly disputed.
-what is a “low-emission dial-back nuclear bomb”?
re: NS1 – after Nuland´s smug appearance at the Senate Committee last week where she expressed relief over NS-1 explosion German The Left Party again demands answers from the Scholz government.
(it´s incredible not even the German Christian Democrats that would be Kohl´s and Adenauer´s party and which considers property as sacred would question this entire affair)
In the PNAC universe of America a “new Pearl Harbor” is key to intensifying the Ukraine war to overwhelm Putin’s Russia. An acute sense of fear, the most powerful emotion, exists in the U.S. deep state; fueled by a prediction that it won’t be the sole world hegemon anymore, this drives a massive urge to keep possession of US. world dominance and the $wealth of control.
Thus the resolve is a strike on a Russian town by Ukraine militants that will generate a tsunami of emotion within Russia calculated by UK war planners as the catalyst, the huge motivation for President Putin to reciprocate.
A clean tactical nuclear shell perfected by Israel would murder hundreds of Russians.
The Russian reply will repeat on a much larger scale the attacks on Ukraine’s energy grid and water supply. This will be followed by Russia opening humanitarian corridors to Ukraine civilians and the gift of power and water. Russia is now in full control.
No AG no such information exists in the public domain. Dial-down are 100 ton to 2Kton fission devices such as M785 while I have an interest in the small (150 pounds), portable Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) used by special forces for emplacement and detonation behind enemy lines…
Have you a link to confirm this?
Most people probably realise, but it’s worth reminding those who don’t, that detonating a significant number of nuclear weapons over Russia would result in a high level of radioactive fallout over the entire northern hemisphere, with serious consequences for all of us. “Winning” a war may not be as catastrophic as losing a war, but the difference is smaller than popularly supposed. It took Britain decades to recover from “winning” WW2.
Opinion is free, Mark
You think this is Not Very dangerous DeepGP..
What’s the source for this information?
Is it still the case that UK Special forces have no democratic oversight? The Guardian ran this report over 4 years ago on this topic: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/24/special-forces-need-to-face-scrutiny-from-parliament-say-mps
Seems completely insane that the MoD are given carte blanche to conduct covert operations with no one in parliament knowing what they’re up to. There is a case for secrecy during the planning stage and active ops, but the lack of peer review, is utterly baffling in a democracy. Since the US, like all other democratic countries, DO have democratic oversight, it begs the question: is the US farming out its covert operations to UK special forces to conduct under our blanket secrecy?
Special Air Service (SAS), Special Boat Service (SBS), Special Forces Support Group (SFSG), Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR) and 18 (UKSF) Signals Regiment.
Both Biden and Sunak have ruled out sending combat jets.
This after Chancellor Olaf Scholz criticized this ongoing discussion about the possible delivery of fighter jets, reported on Monday, likening what’s going on to an “outbidding competition.” He also slapped down German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, who said recently, “Germany is already at war with Russia.”
Not difficult to understand these concerns. Effective use of air power involves establishing air superiority. In practice that’d mean NATO pilots destroying SAM air defence systems inside Russian and Belarusian territory. It’d bring Belarus into the war and be a escalation too far for Russia, with unknown consequences. Amazing that Zelensky and those around him demanding fighter jets don’t understand this.
re. the lack of oversight and it offering plausible deniability for UK ministers.
The 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage?
It’s reported that the then PM Liz Truss sent a text message to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken ‘within minutes’ of the Nord Stream gas pipeline explosion simply stating : ‘it’s done’
Given the potentially grave implications and risks of tit-for-tat reprisals. If we had a remotely democratic system, you’d expect parliamentarians would at least be slightly curious? It’s as if we have a parliament stuffed full of shop mannequins for all the curiosity they show.
@Goose
“Seems completely insane that the MoD are given carte blanche to conduct covert operations with no one in parliament knowing what they’re up to. ”
I again watched “Mission Impossible Rogue Nation” by Christopher McQuarrie. It´s fun especially with such new real life background.
AG
I’ve actually seen that film 😉 Ridiculously far-fetched obv. but a decent mindless action movie nevertheless.
If only there were people with the moral character of Alan Hunley, the Director of the CIA in that movie – played by Alec Baldwin. US films always depict these idealised US Presidents and Intelligence chiefs. Leaders whose moral values win through in the end against ruthless sinister types. The reality is quite different, ruthless types prosper, because they will do anything to get results.Thus rise to the top, while the more ethical ‘good guys’ get demoted. It’s as if a perverse incentive scheme rewarding evil operates.
In the UK there’s a tendency to idolise the armed forces, and that prevents MPs asking basic questions, lest be accused of being unpatriotic. If reprisals come such as say cutting our undersea fiber cables, they’ll be dumbfounded as to why we were attacked. Because they never even bothered to pose the correct questions.
@Goose
It´s an entertainment product nothing more. But it´s excellently crafted. I dont expect others to like it of course.
(But: you do know you character names from that film?! respect)
Seriously though, looking at the complete output of media products of this sort they are a powerful tool to form the public mind and establish enemies.
Best and horrific example, hatred against Arabs. What roles, what minds do Arabs display in our media industry products?
Films and meanwhile series that make billions in profit.
That´s why I actually mentioned it.
And from stuff like MI-franchises you see how movie folks perceive things politically. (Also Bond of course and blowing up GCHQ)
– think the 1970s New Hollywood narratives in “conspiracy films” and who the creatives back then were loyal to.
Certainly not Washington unlike today (of course a rather limited intellectual level, but still.)
And if you look into Wikileaks SONY-Leaks and read what Israel-loyal big time producers have to say about the Occupation etc. it sends you shivers down your spine.
Because that ideology will define what films will be made and which ones will not. And thus influence the image of the world as perceived by Hundreds of millions of people.
p.s. “In the UK there’s a tendency to idolise the armed forces”
as German always fascinated by that. And how left-leaning creatives tried to counter that through various cracks in the system.
One reason btw why critcism of the state security and military in Germany is much more easily denounced as “conspiracy” because it never played a prominent role in our popular and our scholarly culture.
In Germany the understanding of what military is and means is only about to be established because FRG was a “pacified” country of a few decades.
AG
Can politicians distinguish between real life and fiction?
Our recent Home Secretary, Priti Patel, attended a James Bond movie premier on the basis that it was a film about an agency she had responsibility for: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/priti-patel-went-bond-premiere-26802708
We seem to have a generation of politicians that are more interested in their careers and protecting each other and their party, than they are in representing the public who elected them. Politicians are meant to be our representatives, frustrating those trying to limit our liberties and freedom, and defending our right to know. The very purpose of democracy risks being undermined by these politicians minded towards secrecy and authoritarian managerialism. It’s why the political class are increasingly despised imho.
—
The 1970s were amazing for creative thinking and film making, a much more enlightened period imho. The zeitgeist was entirely different to that which exists today. The US of course had experienced Watergate, that had shook faith in authority and the intel establishment, Especially after the Church Committee hearings revealed truly fucked up, psychotic, criminal overreach by US intel agencies. The trend towards studio buy-outs and consolidation accelerated in the 1980s and basically destroyed independent film making. Oliver Stone, revealed even he struggled to get funding for academy award winning (in 8 categories) JFK, because of the controversial subject matter.
Something similar is happening to the internet now, with Big Tech consolidation allowing Big Tech to act as gatekeepers. Six companies : Netflix; Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Meta, Amazon and Apple account for well over 60% of all global internet traffic. This is why the politicians love big tech, to answer a question Glenn Greenwald recently posed on his show. It’s not just front-end(websites) its back-end infrastructure and content delivery networks, cloud services etc. That dominance makes attempts to censor the internet, through domestic and EU legislation, much, much easier.
“We seem to have a generation of politicians that are more interested in their careers and protecting each other and their party, than they are in representing the public who elected them.”
It’s simply reversion to the mean. That’s the rest state for politicians, how they have usually been throughout most of our parliamentary history. The more elderly members of our society were brought up in a time when a world war had made our politicians better than that, but the effect of that has now finally died out.
@Goose
thx for the Patel item!
The stupidity is impressive in its scope.
To adequately comment on the grotesque posturing goes beyond my English skills.
This blunt lack of any decency is of course only possible if the question of democratic legitimacy is meaningless and you have not the right but the power on your side. Welcome to the Middle Ages.
A Rumsfeld-ish “I give you the finger” would at least been honest.
It´s this kind of “people” who Corbyn had to deal with as amply described by him in his UK Declassified interview past summer.
I think there are a lot of dangers but am not very sure what you are referring to.I made a very mild criticism of the event which Mark apparently took exception to.
Bayard
I think Rachel Reeves is an example of everything that’s wrong in politics. Just glance through these news reports :
Rachel Reeves ‘utterly immoral’ for using unpaid student staff: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/14/rachel-reeves-utterly-immoral-using-unpaid-student-staff/
Labour shadow chancellor accused of ‘utter hypocrisy’ for not paying a full salary, having previously demanded a ban on unpaid internships
Rachel Reeves 2021-22 expenses £242,779.58 : https://www.mpsexpenses.info/#!/mp/81
Revealed: MPs’ staff bankrolled by climate sceptics and gambling industry : https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/mps-staff-offices-donations-million-business-bosses-gambling-climate-sceptics/
Reeves alone accepted nearly £248,000, far more than any other MP. Her donors include Neil Goulden, the former chairman of gambling giant Gamesys, who gave £20,000 to “support the shadow chancellor’s office”.
And yet these people are presented by our media as a return to high standards of conduct over Corbyn.
By way of contrast :
ISLINGTON North MP Jeremy Corbyn was the lowest expenses claimer in the country – after putting in for just 8.70 for an ink cartridge. : https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/local-council/21247443.islington-north-mp-jeremy-corbyn-countrys-lowest-expenses-claimer/
Goose, British MPs really do think they are above the law, that they are the “in-group that the law protects, but does not bind”.
I can’t manage to post the photo on this site but I have sent to Craig’s email address an impressive 45 metre high mural dedicated to Julian Assange. I came across it in a country now considered hostile to the UK but which Craig knows very well. Welcome to reproduce if desired.
Excellent contributions from all on the panel. Johnathan Cook should/could be coaching young journalists in the intrecacies of overbearing MSM narratives and how not to be haunted by threats, jibes and faux malicious accusations from the likes of Integrity Initiative maulers.
The Bbc today is questioning the resolve of the PM when faced with the not so secret tax fraud of their party chairman.
And with the next breath letting loose a known self grandising liar claiming Putin wanted to ñuke him whilst partying at no 10 in the backgarden.
They want to castigate and get rid of Rishi and take back snort nose de peffel Bojo.
There is no Government, just war mongering profiteers and their narrative of selling off the UK assets to all comers.
My heartiest of congratulation to Julian Assangs Macfadyan award.
Free Julian NOW…
Indeed Why wee Allowing This Shit
So while Corbyn was attending and supporting strikes and JA our beloved Sir was in Davos saying to a journalist that he (Starmer) would rather sit next to Piers Morgan than JC as all of them (me as well) are Arsenal supporters.
This could as well be a comment in the Intolerance thread.
Is there a saying something like
” I would not pi$$ on him even if he was on fire”
I mean Starmer
Starmer seems to be well on the way to being as hated as Thatcher or Blair and he’s not even been in power yet.
It seems that if you’re not outgoing and a charmer, you get hated, whatever it is that you actually do as a politician.
Was Attlee, that “charisma-free zone” hated, then?
Boris has plenty of charm and is outgoing and plenty of people hate him. All politicians are hated by a few people, only some politicians are hated by the many.
Bayard
Attlee is an exception that proves the rule, as he had plenty of time as minister to prove his worth before winning the election. Starmer has not had the chance, before you condemn him.
As for Boris, I wouldn’t ever claim the reverse was true, although you inaccurately impute that view to me. Though I have to say, it would be a good question whether more people hate or love Johnson.
How much must you hate the left and just plain intellectual honesty to be a Keir Starmer supporter? There is nothing below that individual at the bottom of the barrel, including Boris, Rees-Mogg, Farage… Nobody.
Carl
I am not a Keir Starmer supporter. But, wow!, how you hate him, if you’re willing to tolerate a new Tory government, that lot of corrupt destroyers of the country, rather than have Starmer.
The expression “the exception that proves the rule” does not mean what you think it does*. In this case, Attlee is the exception that disproves the rule. Also, if you wanted to confine your observation to party leaders as party leaders, why did you not say so?
*An example of “the exception that proves the rule” is, on a sign, “no parking except on Saturday mornings”. The exception of Saturday mornings proves that the “no parking” rule applies at all other times, including evenings and Sundays, when you could reasonably suppose that it might not.
“But, wow!, how you hate him, if you’re willing to tolerate a new Tory government, that lot of corrupt destroyers of the country, rather than have Starmer.”
What makes you think that a Labour party that is indistinguishable from the Conservative party either in its policies or its morals will be an advance? The Labour party is now simply a different kind of Tory party and not, necessarily a better one. Starmer is simply completing the work of transformation begun by Blair. For that they should be hated far more than Thatcher or Johnson, who were simply continuing in the Tories’ grand old tradition. Thatcher and Johnson were being true to their supporters, Blair and Starmer have betrayed theirs.
As you know the Tories were intentionally kept in power by Labour rightwingers and their media lying about the last leader and forcing him to adopt a 2nd referendum policy (a scam devised by you know who). That was because they much prefer what the Tories are delivering now to the mild European reforms and spending proposed by Corbyn.
I have no illusions that Starmer would be an upgrade on the Tories in terms of either policy or corruption, certainly not in terms of honesty/ trustworthiness. You have been given no more grounds than anyone else to believe he would be. Ah but sorry, there I am again wrongly assuming you support him!
What a sad case! Starmer is not in the same lying league as Johnson. Believing that he is just means the left will remain in the outer darkness, while the Tories continue to pillage the country, pocketing your money and squandering it on their friends. it’s getting to be grave, but the left prefer to remain in ideological perfection.
I see you’ve confected yourself a pretend Keir Starmer. No doubt a Sir Keir who abhors lying, corruption, neoliberalism, war and authoritarianism. A Sir Keir who would never be celebrated by Tories.
Your description of Starmer sounds more like a pretend personality than my complete lack of approval or disapproval.
“Questioner: “Westminster or Davos?”
Starmer, (without hesitation) “Westminster is too constrained… Once you get out of Westminster, whether it’s Davos or anywhere else, you actually engage with people that you can see working with in the future. Westminster is just a tribal shouting place.”
He has the makings of a great dictator…
Txs for reminding me of that WTF moment .
Being a PM is not big enough for a Sir!
NATO or UN?
Laguerre
“..but the left prefer to remain in ideological perfection.”
That’s not true. The UK left for the most part, are willing to compromise. Look at how the left supported Ed Miliband despite reservations about his timidity and centrism. Many on the right say the left are demanding ideological ‘purity’ over pragmatism, as if the left are making ‘perfect is the enemy of good’. But Starmer isn’t offering ‘the good’. He’s leading an uncompromising, vindictive, vicious purge of the left and rejects leftist political solutions instinctively. Why this Trilateral Commission, Davos wannabe jet-setter is in the Labour party at all, is hard to fathom?
Starmer and Reeves should be unacceptable. These two represent such a radical break from that which members and Labour voters supported under Corbyn, it’s like a completely different party. One that the left are absolutely correct in rejecting. I don’t see any positives for progressives from endorsing Starmer. To blindly support these people regardless of their lack of principles and obsession with reheated Blairism, just isn’t sensible.
Bayard.
re Davos.
Starmer’s reply was indeed shocking, but interviewer Emily Maitlis’ giggling in response was equally obnoxious.
No, it’s very simple. If he were in the Tory party, he’d rise to Cabinet Minister level, but he’s not talented enough to become PM. (There are a number of scumbags near the top of the Tory party, but some of them are more intelligent scumbags than Keir Starmer.)
Starmer is using the Labour Party as a means to get into 10 Downing Street.
It’ll probably work, too. The Tories are extremely unpopular. This might possibly change, but as of now, the most probable outcome of the next UK election is a Labour government – with Keir Starmer at its head.
What will happen next is anyone’s guess, but it’s unlikely to be anything that Labour supporters would want.
Woody Starmer is just another puppet, the evil zionists and T.Bliar tell him what to do.
Odd that they crucified Corbyn over “antiSemitism” like they did, yet Starmer has kicked many Jews out of the Liebour party since taking over, without a peep from the rancid media. Keep in mind that it was only the pro Palestinian jews that Starmer expelled. Apparently he is only ok with evil manipulative Ashkenazic Jews in the Liebour party.
I find it all very strange given that Palestinians are also Semites. Strange how nobody shouts “anti Semite” or “Holocaust” etc. when Palestinians are being murdered and their lands annexed. Not to mention the many war crimes and international crimes that Israel commits on a regular basis against Palestinians. There is no shortage of real Jewish DNA in the Palestinians. Are some Arabs more Semitic than others?
The hypocrisy and criminality of it all is outstanding.
Starmer is just more of the same old problem, he won’t solve anything because he is part of the problem we currently have in Westminster. He is installed by the same election riggers that kicked Corbyn out. It was blatant what they were up to. He definitely said “stupid people” not “stupid woman”, it was even caught on a house mic but everybody ignored that piece of evidence in the “smear campaign”. I’m no fan of Corbyn but, I am a fan of fair play.
-this is already from Friday,
In Finland 2 investigative journalists were found guilty for a series of articles form 2017 (the trial had started Nov. 2021) about a military surveillance unit.
https://www.voanews.com/a/finnish-journalists-found-guilty-of-revealing-state-secrets/6936746.html
Despite the criticism: What this article does not say, the information “revealed” was publicly known.
that info is here:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1/27/finnish-reporters-convicted-for-revealing-classified-intelligence
and here in (German)
https://taz.de/Urteil-gegen-finnische-JournalistInnen/!5909289/
EU President Juncker said it before: We pass all kinds of laws. And if nobody speaks up we just go ahead doing it.
That´s what we are seeing here re: Assange and the meaning of “precedent”.
News outlets use the term constantly but seem not to draw any conclusions.
I reckon Boris Johnson misheard Vladimir Putin.
Putin didn’t say “Be careful, or I’ll flick a missile at sodding Eton.”
What he really said was “Be careful, or I’ll kick you up the pisshole with my Doctor Martens.”
Easy mistake to make. Just remember that Putin loves Eton.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/31/vladimir-putin-eton-boys-private-audience-kremlin
Boris.
If his lips move he’s lying.
If he’s out of sight he’s properly sh@gging your wife.
Who the Fuck is Boris
Alice’s lover boy.
were does the claim that Liz Truss rang Blinken minutes after NS 2 was blown up saying ‘its done’, please Goose.
any link to that?
Would this mean that the SBS has committed industrial terrorism on another NATO ally?
nevermind
It’s been widely ‘reported,’ just not in the UK,’ just google : it’s done Liz Truss.
Someone has even put in a FoI request : https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/its_done_liz_truss
You know as much as I do. But it seems worthy of clarification, no? It does seem like the sort of error someone like Truss would make.
No point MPs pressing Ministers on these matters, as they simply give the stock reply of ‘we don’t comment on matters relating to national security in this place.’
thanks Goose, juat wondered how far such NATO infighting extends to.
She is a loose canon who realy loves herself
Would this mean that the SBS has committed industrial terrorism on another NATO ally?
If responsible, I suppose so. But judging by all the foot-dragging from mainly Sweden, Denmark and Germany over a joint-investigation. Even if, hypothetically speaking, they are privately certain who was responsible: via satellite, tracking data/ images matched against seismic activity blast readings. They know that upsetting NATO allies isn’t wise when Sweden is seeking to join NATO, and Germany, Denmark host troops and infrastructure.
Yet another reason why Macron was correct, in saying that Europe needs to take care of its own defence. Totally independent of the US and the Russia/China obsessed ultra-hawks in DC.
Apparently the main resistance to a joint-investigation was Sweden, according to a Reuters report.
Mats Ljungqvist (SPA), the prosecutor involved in Sweden’s criminal investigation into the Nord Stream 1-2 leaks said : “This is because there is information in our investigation that is subject to confidentiality directly linked to national security,” Ljungqvist spoke to Reuters.
German TV programme Tagesschau on German public broadcaster ARD said that Denmark, too, had turned down setting up a joint investigation team.
Adding to the confusion : Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson told Reuters: “No, as I understand it that is not true. We are working together with Germany and Denmark in this issue.”
Stefania Maurizi revealed the Swedish Prosecution Authority (SPA). destroyed or hid thousands of pages of evidence showing their correspondence in pursuit of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange haven’t been found after years of legal action to enforce Swedish Freedom of Information Requests.
Maybe ‘something rotten in the state of Denmark’ needs swapping out for its neighbour.
Maybe Its the moment when potentually new members into NATO are being reminded who calls the shots, not just being bullied with fear, but told that toeing the line on war and proliferation of bases around the world will result in stealing more wealth, changing age old cultures and homogenising them on the altar of unbridled neo colonialist altar of capitalism.
And by any means, division, violence and a bent Justice.
The UN and other so-called beneficial supranational Organisations are obsolete.
Leviathan is on the march.
It’s nothing new, there are many examples in history of officials believing national security needs should trump everything else. Even if that results in their own judicial system being corrupted and injustices, for the greater good.
No one believes Assange will get a far trial if he goes to the US. It’s widely accepted that the system has been rigged against him all along due to heavy political interference. And yet anyone stating this widely held view of a corrupted process, is called a conspiracy theorist.
I always wonder when Jeremy Corbyn turns up at Assange events, how many times did he mention him when he had guaranteed questions in the House of Commons for all those years?
He was disappointing in many areas. But in mitigation, he was a lone left-wing voice trying to manage a party of angry RW Blairites. He simply didn’t have the PLP backing to raise such things.
He never mentioned the plight of the Palestinians iirc, not once, in all those PMQs he did as leader, from 2015-2019. He questioned the Skripal evidence, at the time; telling then PM Theresa May at PMQs, to wait before attributing blame. And look at vicious criticism in the press and from his own MPs he took for doing so. They accused him of siding with Russia, hating the UK. Simply for urging caution. That’s the type of parliament FPTP has delivered us.
Pathetic excuse-making.
Not really. Changing anything requires strength in numbers. Corbyn never had those numbers, he only had around 22 truly loyal MPs in the entire PLP. The only reason he got on the leadership ballot in 2015, was because Blairite MPs lent him their votes, in the belief the party should be seen to be allowing a more diverse range of opinions to be heard.
Despotic Starmer has since raised the MP nomination threshold from 10% to 20% in leadership elections, all but making a Corbyn II repeat performance impossible. Starmer even tried to abolish ‘one member, one-vote’ (OMOV) before that threshold move to consolidate power in the PLP.
Jeremy Corbyn has urged in the Commons that Assange should not be extradited: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-05-10/debates/CBAB1589-5432-4E81-B923-4AC59B611F67/DebateOnTheAddress
As far as I know, he is one of only four MPs who have done so, the others being John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, and the Conservative David Davis.
Justice Must Prevail!
A Question that I have never heard anybody ask… Who told Assange to go to the Ecuadorian embassy?
was that such a bad idea back then?
Or was change of government in Ecuador already too obvious?
but indeed interesting question
15 min. conversation with Kevin Gosztola about how:
“Biden Wants to Renew the NSA Surveillance Program Exposed by Edward Snowden”
https://znetwork.org/zvideo/biden-wants-to-renew-the-nsa-surveillance-program-exposed-by-edward-snowden/
info:
“The Biden administration has formally urged Congress to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the program exposed by Edward Snowden. Section 702 allows the NSA to conduct its unlawful mass surveillance program of Americans’ online communications, without requiring a warrant. Kevin Gosztola, managing editor of Shadowproof.com, curator of TheDissenter.org newsletter & co-host of the podcast Unauthorized Disclosure, discusses how Section 702, continues to operate with very little oversight and why progressives (and Republicans) are not pushing back against the reauthorization.”