We have made two formal complaints to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, one over my incarceration for Contempt of Court, and one over continuing police harassment including the investigation for “terrorism” of which I am now the subject.
In a meeting with UN staff, we promised to follow up with details of a few of the many others who have been detained, questioned and had their electronics seized under Article 7 of the Terrorism Act. In each case there was no suggestion of any kind – including by the Police – that they have any connection to terrorism.
It is plain that in fact people are being persecuted for political dissident opinion.
In the modern world, access to your electronics – and it is a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act not to hand over access codes to the police when your electronics are confiscated – allows the police to trawl through your entire private life. Most of us access over 90% of our correspondence, all of our financial information, and much of our social relationships, online.
Just think personally for one moment: if the police had full access to everything in your laptop or tablet and phone, including all the history, how would you feel about that?
It leaves the victims, myself included, feeling violated. It is an incredibly intrusive thing for the state to do.
The case of Dr John Laughland is particularly interesting. In his case, judges ruled explicitly that the police had every right to access all his electronics, and to retain all the data, precisely because there was no suggestion of him committing any offence. This extraordinary passage justifying the fascist approach to Dr Laughland’s data comes from Lord Menzies, one of the judges who sent me to jail.
The reference in Mr Laughland’s representations to respecting the presumption of innocence is therefore misplaced – nobody has accused him of anything, far less found him guilty of anything. His reputation is not tarnished by the decision to retain the copied material, and this decision should not be taken as a conclusion that he poses a risk or threat to national security. No such finding is to be implied in this decision.
It is of course quite mad to argue that the police should have access to all your most private information, precisely because you have done nothing wrong. It is the ultimate development of the “if you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear” argument beloved by proponents of maximum state surveillance.
The idea that the state has a right to see everything, and you have no right to private affairs, of course lies also behind the government move just this week to promulgate a law in the UK that allows the state full access to the bank accounts of anyone in receipt of any state benefit, including old age pension and child benefit – over half the population.
Incidentally, whether you or I agree with Dr Laughland’s politics is irrelevant. Freedom is not only important for people with whom you happen to agree.
I do not expect any instant results from the UN. The human rights mechanisms are swamped by the genocide in Gaza. There is already cognitive dissonance among UN officials who do not know how to react to Western government support for that genocide. A complaint against the UK always faces resistance, as the narrative of British support for human rights has strong roots in the history of the UN as an institution; even though that is a false or, at best, very partial picture of historical British behaviour.
But we keep chipping away at the marble façade.
————————————————
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
It seems that the word “terrorism” has acquired a new meaning, “any activity that is not a crime, but of which the state disapproves”. It has been going that way for some time, now, viz the debate on the distinction between “terrorist” and “freedom fighter”. Quite apart from the fact that the two things are not mutually exclusive and it is perfectly possible to be both or neither, in this debate you see the emergence of the idea that people doing things that the state approves of are not terrorists. From there it is but a short step to the converse being true.
https://youtu.be/v6huVdeV1Y4?si=7tFAduaRSKq0tNEz
[ Video: “Terrorist!!!” (YouTube, 3m 29s), featuring a reading of Mhara Costello’s 2011 poem “Just a Word“, which refers to unjust applications of the word “terrorist”. ]
An important step on this path was the definition of “eco-terrorism”, which in many jurisdictions is so inclusive that it covers the most minor damage to property as soon as there is a political motivation related to the protection of nature.
This is part of a shell game: When you complain about the wide definition of “eco-terrorism”, the answer is that it intentionally covers things that are not terrorism, and that you shouldn’t worry about the word. When you complain about an “eco-terrorist” who has never hurt or terrorized anyone in their life as being branded a terrorist, then the story changes to “eco-terrorism” ‘obviously’ being just one of many forms of terrorism.
Bayard. I’m not sure if the ‘State’ (I presume you mean government) has little or any say in matters like Mr Murray is describing. This, to me, smacks of a rogue organisation or ‘deep state’ who run countries and governments to do their bidding with the dubious reward of being in power in name only. When governments can declare illegal circumstances or cases legal, as in the case of the Westminster government which is finding itself in a bind with the Rwanda question it leads people to despair, especially in order to obtain redress. We, the people, have to resort to outside legal entities as Mr Murray has had to do with his co-appellants. What a dreadful world we inhabit.
You are right, by the “state” I mean the people who really run the country, not the elected representatives.
Forgive my language Craig but it’s absolutely fucking scandalous and disgusting what theyre doing to you and your family.
Keep fighting this evil persecution with everything youve got.
Donation sent.
Agreed. However, what they are doing to Craig they can, and could, do to any one of us. That’s the point, it’s not just Craig or Julian Assange, we are all at risk from the fascist regime that the UK has become. Do not think you are not at risk. Everyone needs to consider acting as though ‘the Gestapo’ could knock on your door at any time. As Craig says, just because ‘you believe’ you’ve done nothing wrong and therefore have nothing to fear, is incorrect. The state defines what is right and wrong and gives its enforcers the power to grind their jackboots into your face.
Yes! Today on X there was just an example of a disabled UK housewife who was raided by 5 cops just for expressing sympathy for Palestine. Astonishing that such things could happen in Britain. Stasi Nouveau.
A state that detains a journalist for 10 years for no reason other than telling the truth is a dictatorship. The West in general and in particular the Unted States and Britain resemble nothing more than the worst excesses of the worst states of the defunct USSR. As an African, albeit a white one, I see a more realistic attempt at justice in Africa.
L’s argument:
Despite the fact I’ve done nothing wrong (and haven’t been accused of doing such) the state’s retention of my stuff affects my reputation, i.e. the way people see me.
M’s retort is basically:
No it won’t. Whatever the state does, it will only affect your reputation if it then accuses you of something. And then you’ll deserve it.
It reminds me of Joe Orton’s Loot:
Truscott: I’ve been having a look round your charming house. Poking and prying.
Hal: Have you search warrant?
Truscott: What for?
Hal: To search the house.
Truscott: But I’ve already searched the house. I don’t want to do it again.
Fay: It’s common knowledge what police procedure is. They must have a search warrant.
Truscott: I’m sure the police must, but as I’ve already informed you, I am from the water board. And our procedure is different.
On Armistice Day, at Westminster, my Palestinian flag was snatched away from me by police officers; they gave me the run-around when I asked for a receipt, and my friend missed her train back to Scarborough. The next day, Remembrance Sunday, on my way to a Quaker peace vigil, I was arrested for wearing activist garb (“breach of the peace”). In custody I was charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act at the behest of a Chief Inspector. I observed the Two Minutes Silence in the holding area and was released without charge after video evidence had been reviewed. Here’s the propaganda:
https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/man-arrested-chelmsford-after-allegedly-8900721
If anyone wishes to ask me about any of this, please open a forum topic rather than posting on this thread. These events are only marginally on-topic, and I mentioned them here only to illustrate other ways in which authoritarianism is spreading.
The entire corporate and governmental surveillance systems are pointing in precisely the wrong direction. They spy upon ordinary Jo Public and deliver the material into private and governmental hands. Rightly they should monitor government offices and corporate board rooms, and deliver that information to the public. Then we wouldn’t need, for instance, a covid inquiry, and we’d know whether SARS-CoV-2 in fact escaped from a laboratory.
Clark. Obviously if the state was really concerned about security and terrorism they wouldn’t be training terrorists and arranging for them to live in the UK. Has there been any terrorism in the UK that the security services haven’t been explicitly involved in? We know who the enemy is, and it’s not us.
Stevie Boy, close; the UK and US states really are concerned about security and terrorism because they train terrorists and arrange for them to live on their territories – see the Covenant of Security as investigated by 7/7 survivor Rachel North, or the testimony of Michael Springmann, former US visa chief in Saudi Arabia. Firecrackers can be very useful but you can’t be sure which way they’ll jump, so you have to monitor them closely.
It is not acceptable that in 2023 the UN should consider Britain a country that supports human rights. The British have been notorious for decades for aiding and abetting human rights abuses in a majority of the world’s most repressive regimes. Not least in regard to surveilling mobiles. Britain is a world leader in interception equipment which it exports to most human-rights–abusing states across the globe, from the Gulf to the Philippines.
In the UK itself police forces have been accused for years of using covert surveillance technology, IMSIs, to track people’s mobile phones and intercept their calls and text messages. Parliament allows them to get away with saying ‘we can neither confirm nor deny’ use of such equipment.
This, and the UK’s key role in global human rights abuse, will be very well known to anyone employed in the field of human rights at the UN. Even its employees in other departments know quite well who is supplying weapons and surveillance for Netanyahu’s mass slaughter of babies in Gaza.
If in the face of all that they’re pretending scepticism that Britain would persecute dissidents I fear you’re just wasting your time with them.
One idea occurs to me regarding the carrying of electronics devices across borders where such intrusive legislation is in force. Rather than carrying emails and other private data that can be slurped by the state security apparatus, one could carry a laptop that is used to create a “remote desktop” back to one’s own house in the UK. As long as all the connection details are not stored on the laptop, the only password that one could be forced to give up is the laptop operating system password itself, and the device would largely be blank. (One would have to enter connection details & passwords from scratch every time).
There are “traceless” operating systems that would be suitable for this. But even Microsoft Windows can be used for the same, to obtain some of the security benefits.
Of course the idea is not foolproof – if an activist normally lives alone then the state could break in to their property when it is known that the activist is overseas. That said, the state could do this at any time, but they largely do not, because they are generally prohibited from doing so (notwithstanding new legislation to allow the state to commit crimes in the pursuit of evidence).
The suggestion also requires a good quality connection. If you’re on a train in a rural area overseas then your desktop is liable to be unusable.
Hi Jon, indeed it is often recommended by infosec departments to travel with a blank laptop if involved in anything with commercial confidentiality etc.. Many countries will take your data, some without you even noticing. I’m not saying this is acceptable, of course.
Maybe have a number of files on your disc labelled ‘suspiciously’ that are in fact virus files. Watch ploddy and spooky infect their systems … just an idea.
Oh, nice one, Stevie. I like your idea immensely!
Create a one-hundred-character pass code. Carefully note the code and send it to a trusted friend not in UK. Give no instructions and make sure he or she is unavailable on your re-entry to the UK. Problem solved!! Perhaps Greenwald or similar. However I would not be totally astonished if they already knew what is on your computer. GCHQ !!
Meanwhile, Orwell and Huxley are commiserating in the great beyond. “But, I meant it as a warning, not a blueprint!” “Precisely, George, precisely. Another round?’
I wouldn’t expect any results from the UN – instant or otherwise. Remember this is an organisation that can’t even prevent scores of its *own* employees from being killed and seriously injured in Gaza.
Anyway, in latest Israeli PR disaster news: The head of their PR unit has tweeted a supposedly favourable comparison of the civilian deaths per airstrike in Gaza compared to those in Mosul & Raqqa during Operation Inherent Resolve. As it happens, the US* – which don’t forget is due to be supplying them with $14 billion-worth of free weaponry, much of which I’d imagine Ukraine would like – really doesn’t like people mentioning things like that, especially when, due a misreading of an NGO’s stats, the civilian deaths in the latter (which were already bad enough) have been exaggerated by factors of at least five. As I’ve mentioned before, officially the US ludicrously maintains that only 1300 civilians died during the whole of OIR:
https://nitter.net/EylonALevy/status/1734155933293367438
* This is a country in which, according to a recent YouGov poll, 20% of 18–29-year-olds (who are all allowed to vote) believe that the Holocaust never happened, and a further 23% believe that its official death toll has been significantly exaggerated – and the figures for 30–49-year-olds aren’t that much better.
That’s because Israel is permitted to murder UN employees with total impunity by American, British and European politicians. The young people of their societies overwhelmingly oppose the genocide. No doubt that is why they were shoehorned in for smearing.
Thanks for your reply U Watt. I would imagine that if the British authorities have given Israel carte blanche to murder UN employees, they’re hardly likely to take on board any of its protests about the lawful police treatment of one of their more troublesome citizens. Are you suggesting that YouGov is making stuff up?
You seem to be relishing the fact that the owner of this blog is being persecuted by the state. You also know very little of the real world that you think the police consider Craig Murray one of their more troublesome citizens.
As to that polling, yes I do find it incredible. Young people are the group who are showing they are most anti-genocide. It does not surprise me however that you see nothing suspicious in this sudden, extremely counterintuitive revelation. Or that you wanted to highlight it, apropos of nothing.
Thanks for your reply U Watt. I can assure you I’m not relishing our host continuing to get himself in (easily avoidable) trouble. I may not have a degree from Cambridge, or spend my days tutoring nice, middle-class kids, but I’d wager that I know more about the real world, in which most people without Oxbridge degrees have to live – as well as the police* – than you do. For what it’s worth, I was referring to our host causing issues for the British authorities, and, by expressing his views on the Salmond & Skripal affairs, to name but two things, on this fairly popular blog, he certainly does that. However, most British people cause the police absolutely no trouble at all, so yes, our host is one of the more troublesome citizens from their point of view as well.
The reason that I mentioned the YouGov polling was to highlight the fact that Israel may not necessarily be able to rely on US support for too much longer. US politicians are in hock to the voters (the older generation of which is dying off considerably more quickly than in Europe), and most of them are quite prepared to abandon what principles they do have if it’s in any way expedient – see the Republican Congress’s attitude to Trump.
* For some idea about what the West Yorks version are willing to do to some of their *own*, for nothing more than trying to do their jobs, read the blurb on the back of this (or, better still, read the whole thing):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Drug-Wars-terrifying-inside-Britains/dp/1785037447
Every day’s a school day, as Jim McColl used to say on The Beechgrove Garden.
“Qu’on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j’y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.”
(If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.)
– Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu
On the issue of State Secrets it is worth noting that on 14 Mar 2023 the UK Parliament passed the National Security Bill, replacing the UK’s Official Secrets Act. Under this new bill restrictions are limited not just to traditionally recognized military or State secets but criminalizes conduct “that is reasonably possible may materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out activities in the UK, or activities outside the UK which may prejudice the safety or interests of the UK.”
This restriction governs any person or agency, including the media. And what are the “interests of the UK” and what activities constitute “prejudice” of those interests? The government of the day will decide.
This is a full-on censorship police state where the individual has no right to privacy of any kind. The person has no right to hold proscribed political views or even entertain any such thoughts.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-bill-factsheets/espionage-etc-national-security-bill-factsheet
I clicked on one of Craig’s posts that happened to be included in this site’s “Random Posts” list, and see that in 2020 Craig effectively predicted the persecution the state is now inflicting upon him:
The Russian Interference Report, Without Laughing
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/08/the-russian-interference-report-without-laughing/
– Now the madding crowd has moved on, I take a mature look at the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee on Russia. It is so flawed it is tempting simply to mock it. But in fact, it is extremely dangerous.
– It calls expressly and repeatedly for the security services to be actively involved in “policing the democratic space” and castigates the security services for their unwillingness to interfere in democratic process…
And from further down that post:
– The government endorsed Donnelly/Nimmo operation identified Ian above as a Russian agent. I have no doubt they would count this article as Russian disinformation. They would set MI5 on Ian and I, and ensure our posts would be banned from social media….
– There is a real danger identified by the report. But it is not Russia, it is the McCarthyite witch-hunt the report seeks to promote, ironically based upon an entire sea of disinformation.
You could try deploying health scare tactics against this type of short duration “non detention”. What if you suddenly felt dizzy, faint, perhaps even appear to be having a possible heart attack, fit or stroke that meant they’d have to abandon the interrogation. If you really wanted to enhance this you could covertly take a caffeine pill to get your heart racing or take something that creates a foaming in the mouth or elevates your temperature, etc.
“The idea that the state has a right to see everything, and you have no right to private affairs, of course lies also behind the government move just this week to promulgate a law in the UK that allows the state full access to the bank accounts of anyone in receipt of any state benefit, including old age pension and child benefit – over half the population.”
When I first came to China in 2007, an old China hand advised me: “Keep your money in Hong Kong”. While it is essential to hold some local currency in a China bank if you live and work here, the advice still holds. There are some annoying restrictions on what you can do here with your own money, which do not as yet apply in Hong Kong. Just a few weeks ago I had a phone call from HSBC China questioning me regarding the purpose of some payments I had made some months earlier. In fact one was to myself in another jurisdiction and the other to my wife, perfectly and obviously legal transactions, and quite possibly the enquiry had been directed from outside the bank. It did however spur me to transfer most of my foreign currency holding to Hang Seng in Hong Kong. You can draw out substantial sums of cash there without being interrogated as to the purpose. In China bank transactions have to be categorised, online or at the branch. On one occasion when asked what the money I was withdrawing was for, I replied:
“I shall spend some on strong drink, some on loose women, and the remainder, I will squander”.
The clerk thought for a few moments, and wrote down: “Shopping”.
Anyway, the point of my relating these experiences is that I never, ever, dreamed that the day would come when such advice regarding life in China would apply to me, as a recipient of a state pension, with regard to a bank account in the UK, which fortunately I no longer possess. This relentless drift towards authoritarianism it seems is unopposed and unstoppable. When did you last hear someone say:
“It’s a free country”?
When GB News’ resident gloomy Scot – Neil Oliver – highlighted the shift towards the individual bank customer (often of over 20 years standing) having to prove he was not a money launderer, he was inundated with scores of people relating the very same. That’s the problem with capitalism: the banks think it’s their money and they now have enough legal excuses to withhold releasing funds.
For my own part, as a pensioner and UK citizen, I cannot access my UK bank account since I am residing in a ‘hostile country’. I suppose if I starve in a hostile country that my final contribution to UK plc will have been to become a fantastic propaganda story.
” the banks think it’s their money”
It is their money. Cash savings depositors are unsecured creditors in any bank collapse. Government bank-deposit insurance guarantees are worthless in my view.
The Basel Committee of the Bank for International Settlements (BCB) is a private bank group run from Switzerland which sets the global banking regulatory framework. In 2010 and 2011 the BCB made a series of recommendations for protecting the financial markets from any further meltdowns that included dealing with all bank depositors as unsecured creditors. These measures have been signed off by the EU, ECB, IMF and the G20 (which includes the US). Cash depositors fall behind counterparties to banking derivatives trades. That means that if a bank engages in derivatives trades (highly leveraged, usually at 100:1) using its own assets as collateral (depositor funds), and the trades go against them, then counterparties they have to pay out take precedence over bank cash depositors.
The banks are being allowed to gamble with depositor funds at 100:1 with all of the risk borne by ordinary savers.
We are getting it here in Australia too, a persistent theme pushed by the banks to move to a cashless society. This is backed by Left and Right governments pushing the same line to monitor all financial transactions. Our Reserve Bank Governor has just today argued that a time will come when consumers will have to pay a fee for cash transactions. Never mind that our major banks have regular internet breakdowns and country people are screaming that they can’t function without cash payments. The people want their cash and their privacy but the financial and ruling classes want police state controls on everything.
As far as I remember, Walt, it wasn’t long after you went to China that I was contacted by my bank in the UK that wanted to know why I had withdrawn a large sum of money. I told them that I had simply put it in another of my bank accounts and they went away, but it did make me think what business of theirs it was. At about the same time, a friend of my brother was investigated for money laundering because he had, over the course of the year, paid in a large amount of cash into his business bank account in small amounts. He ran a wine shop and those were his takings.
if the cops say you aren’t being detained then you’re free to go?
if they deny you a lawyer but say not cooperating is a criminal offence, then refuse to cooperate, have them arrest you and then get a lawyer?
a french guy, can’t remember the details, got stopped at at pancras, refused to give passwords and nothing much happened iirc, he certainly didn’t have the cops crawling over his private life.
Not giving your passwords is a specific offence if detained under Section 7. You are not free to go. Yes you can insist on not cooperating and get arrested, but then you will be held for at least many hours. The lawyer will tell you that you have to give over your passwords. It is an extremely draconian piece of legislation.
Whilst Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 can apply in any port or airport in the UK, in areas less than a mile from the border with the Republic, and at Newry train station, Nick, it doesn’t apply to St Pancras International (probably because it wasn’t in operation when the act came into effect* and they’ve not since updated it), so maybe that’s why your French friend got off.
* although Waterloo International was, so the idiot lawmakers probably just forgot about about the Eurostar.
“* although Waterloo International was, so the idiot lawmakers probably just forgot about about the Eurostar.”
Waterloo was where the Eurostar went before St Pancras, so the legislation is just out of date.
It’s just Big Brother is watching you. What an odd species we are.
Someone once told me that the true definition of an anti-semite was not someone who dislikes Jews but rather is it was someone Jews dislike. Something similar is going on here with the term terrorist. They are not concerned you are a terrorist rather it is them who seeks to terrorize you. To make you frightened of them, to shut you up, and shut you down. That is real terrorism, is it not?
The idea that Craig Murray is a terrorist is laughable, utterly risible. It is one of the most absurd accusations I have ever heard. What is he going to do, smother people with his woolly jumper collection? Do me a favour…
It just shows the weakness of the state that it has to go after someone like Craig, who I would wager strongly does not have a violent bone in his body, never mind a terrorist one.
I would say it is a joke, but it isn’t. It is sinister, creepy, proto-fascist behaviour that is the thin end of the wedge.
Don’t forget Walter Wolfgang, an 82 year old, was bundled out of Labour’s annual rally – sorry, I mean ‘Party Conference’ – for mildly heckling some lies Jack Straw was telling at the time.
The grounds for his forced ejection? Terrorism.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1499466/Heckler-82-who-dared-called-Straw-a-liar-is-held-under-terrorist-law.html
Of interest.
Paul Mason’s take on having his email account compromised here : https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/paul-mason-russia-hacked-me-the-far-left-smeared-me-now-its-time-to-fight-back/
I still find it hard to believe someone in Moscow thought a pair of nonentities like Paul Mason and Dr Emma Briant, the latter of whom I’d never heard of before Kit Klarenberg broke this story. And the former who barely registers, even in this country (UK) as a worthy target for what he calls a “sophisticated spear-phishing’ operation. Although classed as ‘hacking’, due to the unauthorised nature of the access, I think ‘scam’ is a better description; as the person is ‘duped’ into volunteering their own email account login information.
As for the attribution, Mason appears to find it totally convincing therefore conclusive, but no evidence at all is presented. Our host stated he’d obtained SNP MP Stewart McDonald emails. I’d assume the attribution claims will never be tested in court, unless the two accused Russians present themselves (most unlikely). One of them appears to be a very ordinary Russian citizen with a very open existence and social life, based on the reports. This attributions comes as Ukraine pleads for extra funding in the US, with an increasingly disinclined GoP questioning whether the billions are actually achieving anything other than a meat-grinding stalemate, or war of attrition, that favours the Russians. Therefore the attribution should probably be seen in that context.
In his self-indulgent, self-pitying piece, Mason excuses his own behaviour by claiming he was merely after those spreading Russian disinformation and he was investigating how Russian and Chinese-aligned influence networks operate.
This is a perverse take on what he was doing. He was throwing accusations around like confetti; seeing Russian and Chinese influence ops everywhere. Using privileged State access to organisations, trying to shut down perfectly legitimate media outlets. He was ‘going after left-wing academics,’ purely because he disagreed with their views.
He’s an enemy of a diverse, pluralistic media environment and academic freedom imho. He wants all news filtered through a State filter, in much the same way Israel is trying to control media reports emerging from destroyed Gaza. And he appears to want to drive out academics who challenge Western imperialism.
He finishes with this sinister threat to independent journalists and bloggers, like our host, in light of his current plight :
“Fortunately, thanks to the National Security Act 2023, whose full provisions come into force this month, the state will have better tools to deal with such attacks in future. Under the act, if you damage someone’s reputation, or threaten them, or deliberately lie about them, and you do so intentionally to support an interference operation by a foreign state, you are looking at up to 10 years in jail; and 14 years if it involves electoral interference.
These powers remain untested in the courts. I look forward to them being tested.
—
These powers are wide open to being abused to silence media and academic critics of govt policy.
“By hacking journalists, Russia is trying to stifle our democracy’s information flow”
Goose, this is Mason’s takeaway in the article you
sight.cite. The statement is so “wrong” one might wonder where this Mason fellow has been living all of his life. The “information flow” in “our democracy” is curated by various intelligence agencies CIA, MI5, Mossad etc, none of which are Russian – this is ancient history – Mocking Bird, Stellar Winds etc, etc.You mentioned that recent convert to Judaism, Keir Starmer, has a Mossad officer in his office!
Having a debate with this Mason would be like taking candy from a baby. Shills can’t debate, only sing their tune and get paid. Which is what he does in that article. Another supporter of oligarchy stating his credentials – loathsome and pathetic
When his absurd assertions are contested he gets ruddy-faced, overly defensive and very angry.
In one such outburst he, laughably, accused Owen Jones of pushing Kremlin talking points. It was in a Novara media hosted interview iirc. Like Andrew Neil, he holds a belief that western intelligence is comprised of incorruptible, infallible truth tellers.
Personally, for what it’s worth, I don’t think Russia and China are doing much of anything in the West by way of interference. The idea of this great unseen malign threat undermining our democracy, no doubt plays well in terms of funding arguments for various agencies and thinktanks. And for the burgeoning censorship industrial complex: the anti-disinformation experts and pseudo-psychologists. Yet it’s funny how there is not a single example of this massive Russian disinformation flow we’re supposedly drowning in. They’ll typically point to some obscure website hosted in say Latvia, or some twitter user with a couple hundred followers.
If Russia and China ever take the gloves off and become as aggressive as officials pretend they are now, we’d have something to worry about.
Goose there is a long Philip K Dick short story, “Faith of our Fathers”, in which the protagonist works as a textual analyst for a monstrously powerful police dictatorship. His job is to parse written statements and determine the ideological purity of various candidates for promotion in the all-powerful uniparty that rules. I suppose it is a variation of the above commentator Carl’s “Richlieu” rubric, “give me six lines etc etc”. In the Dick story we see several detailed examples of how this trick is done. It has always fascinated me and I have given this idea a lot of thought over the long years since I first read the story.
A while ago, I became aware of American, Peter Hyatt, a former police officer, who had begun performing detailed textual analysis on statements produced by people accused of criminal behaviour. His work has been taken seriously by several American states and the federal DHSS. It focuses on affirmation and denial of truth, mainly in its written form (for ease of definition rather than any functional difference with speech) and may have far-reaching implications in several disciplines – criminal jurisprudence, criminal psychology, psychology, etc. etc.
It seems for Hyatt, in most cases accused people acquit or condemn themselves by their own words when talking about the crime. His work is applied, unlike Dick’s story which is theoretical in nature. Both point to the richness and importance of statements made by specific individuals – analysed in terms of set theory and ontological assumptions by seasoned analysts. We get to see “the Devil” in any particular detail.
Everyone, in some disparate and most often inchoate sense, must be doing this, regarding the various statements by others they chose to focus their attention on. Think of those benighted Sov citizens using the mysterious byways of spoken dialogue to state their feelings regarding the shortcomings of the “nomenklatura”, identify kindred or sympathetic spirits, navigate the perils of the state security apparatus, etc. etc.
I reckon we’ll know if Russia or China take the gloves off – they’ll coup Mexico, beef up the Mex army so it can go toe-to-toe with the US military and install a Spanish-only speaking regime with the support of local compradors and attempt US regime change. But of course no-one is mad or bad enough (not even Putin or Xi, those lovable/unlovable, eastern Leviathans), to try this with a major atomic power, are they? Oh hang on…..
A lot of skepticism required about claims by forensic textual analysts. Even if they’ve been involved with US govt, police, FBI. They can sound more scientific than they are. After Netflix’s Making A Murderer there were experts doing similar, but their theoretical models weren’t backed up in the actual research. In fact the CEO of Reid Inc, who are supposed to hold up standards of guilt-presumptive interrogation, had a degree in deception but was a lying sack himself. He submitted a report against Brendan Dassey instead of against the cops, who blatantly fed and led him to the info he then narrated. That’s partly why the defense said they never called to the stand the expert in police interrogation Dr Richard Leo – despite that being all there really was to the case against Brendan, who is appallingly still in prison. I say that despite suspecting Steven Avery did kill Teresa Halbach.
Haven’t read that one by PKD, will check it out.
Scepticism, yes but if someone is paying them this is also noted. Hyatt is still working, as far as I can tell, with some big clients.
I raised this to indicate my own interest in text and speech analysis. My own working model has become acute in recent years, particularly after focusing the inquiry on my own speech-acts – the penultimate truth maybe?
“Faith of our Fathers” is, for me, the seminal PKD story – it contains all the themes common in his work as well as some raw, unique elements. It is linked to a speech he gave in Metz in 1977, which is on Rumble. He explains the context of his work and references the aforementioned story in the most incredible sense – he sounds like a loon – maybe he was but maybe not. I haven’t decided yet and it has been awhile
Mason is a journalistic non-entity, who latches on to any current topic to try and make himself relevant. His record over recent years is prove enough of his lack of conviction or journalism prowess. He debated the subject of ‘hard left’ Russian state actors undermining UK democracy (!) with Owen Jones and Michael Walker a while back. He was shown to be an idiot, spouting nonsensical garbage. I’m surprised he’s not been seeking professional help, so bad were his delusions.
Hicky
Mason once posed as very much a leftist, if anything, on the far-left, which he now denounces. Once claiming, the sea of Palestinian flags at Labour’s party conference had reduced him to tears. Nowadays, post-Grayzone revelations, that act has been dropped, and the fact he’s firmly in the Anne Applebaum school of thought and worldview, is overtly shown through his warmongering Twitter output.
He bizarrely – at the time – promoted Starmer as the saviour of the left. Claiming Starmer would fight against anyone trying to diminish the left’s influence in the party. And that only Starmer could prevent a purge. A brazen lie, that he’s never apologised over. He also claimed Rebecca Long-Bailey, the leading rival candidate, would be taking orders from the Vatican due to her Catholicism.
His role seems to be that of some sort of fake leftist, trying to promote John-Bolton–inspired foreign-policy orthodoxies, by wrapping them in clunky left-wing arguments. His blanket support for Ukraine and ignorance about that country’s far-right problem and bitter political divisions, is right up there alongside Ursula von der Leyen’s. In terms of being an infuriatingly oversimplified view of recent history.
This post today, from Aaron Bastani, whose Novara media outfit, Mason criticises, encapsulates Mason’s slipperiness:
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1734576735209816417
He’s sure been on a journey.
You can bet Bastani will make a similar journey. At a key stage of the AS “crisis” scam he shut his ears to the obvious reality, being eloquently expressed by David Graeber and Norman Finklestein, and chose instead to validate the lies of Andrew Neil and Lord Winston.
https://youtu.be/zwskQv_qWQg
To this day he has never resiled from this claim that AS is endemic among Corbyn supporters, presumably a significant section of his own audience.
What a pity that the Security Act alluded to by Mason was not in force during the 2019 General election. Then the people attempting to smear Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-semite, almost certainly not merely with the connivance of but under the direct guidance of, the Israeli, embassy. could have been dealt with under the draconian provisions of this Act.
Or am I missing something?
Cornudet
I don’t think our intel services would’ve taken any action to stop any such Israeli interference.
Corbyn was widely disliked, and seen as a threat to their long-standing belief system and worldview. Look how the govt is backing Israel now, ignoring the population. Most institutions in the UK are dominated by privately educated, right-wing conservatives. I’d wager there is no one with what we’d call a ‘leftist worldview’ in all the entire intel establishment?
A peacenik Corbyn govt, a govt wanting warmer relations with the likes of Russia, China, Venezuela and Iran would’ve been intolerable to lots of these people, and certainly unacceptable to the military top brass; they’ve said as much.
The West has gone mad, Congress has just passed a resolution ‘firmly’ stating ‘that anti-Zionism is antisemitism’. The French Senate proposes a law making anti-Zionism a criminal offence with up to 5 years jail, and the Metropolitan Police are hunting down protestors who have placards which the police disagree with.
Craig Murray and other commentators on his blog must be rabid AntiSemites in that case, and must either go to jail or be ostracised from society and lose their livelihoods, Jeremy Corbyn should serve as an example, he has been kicked out of the Labour party, and his former party and the MSM are dancing on his grave; such is the price honest people, who believe in the truth, have to pay.
One such example is the young girl the Metropolitan Police are now hunting down for the offence of holding a placard with pictures of naked Jewish victims of the Nazis, alongside the picture of naked Palestinian captives surrounded by IDF soldiers comparing the 2 pictures with writing underneath ‘what is the difference’?
In an earlier comment I explained that in 1942, on orders from Hitler after the German Reichprotektor Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated, 200 men of the town of Lidice aged over 15 were shot dead in one of the most grave war crimes of the 20th century.
Fast forward 80 years and 20,000 Palestinian men woman and children have been deliberately murdered by the Israeli state, and they have been cheered on by Western Leaders [no ceasefire]. Just think about that comparison at Lidice 200 were killed, just 1% of the 20,000 killed in Gaza. Now the Police are hunting down critics of Israel. This is disgusting.
Again from the “Random Posts” list, Craig was warning us of slide into totalitarianism way back in 2006:
The Crown Prosecution Service
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2006/08/the_crown_prose/
– So, consider the statement by the Crown Prosecution Service at the police conference where the charges were announced on 21 August. I heard this on TV and sat up suddenly. I couldn’t believe my ears. I have just tracked down the quote to confirm I heard aright:
– Susan Hemmings, Crown Prosecution Service:
– “I was briefed in relation to these allegations before the arrest and asked to advise on some preliminary legal issues both before and just after arrest. Together with another senior CPS lawyer, I have been working with the police full time at New Scotland Yard for the last eight days.”
– Source: http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/149_06.html
– What? The CPS unit that took the decision was actually “embedded” with the police investigation in Scotland Yard? Was a party to the turmoil, excitement and indeed hype that has characterised this investigation?
– That strikes me as very strange for the body that is meant impartially to assess the weight of police evidence and decide if there is a case for prosecution.
They seem to like hanging on to people’s electronic devices.
My daughter died on Stirling University campus in nov 2018. Despite repeated phone calls and complants to police Scotland they still have possession of her phone and laptop 5 years later, and seem to have no intention of returning them.
Very sorry to hear that. The police do have a most deserved reputation for not returning ‘evidence’, particularly if they can make a few quid out of it. It just becomes ‘lost’ after they run out of excuses for keeping it.
That’s very sad.
Attacking journalists as terrorists is only the tip of that phantom iceberg going nowhere far the warmer the weather of lively opposition and and honest truthful competition becomes to cause extant status quo misrepresentations major insurmountable problems and self-defeating troubles. ……. and this is no help at all and one presumes is to be used to try and save a rapidly failing global situation from too sudden a certain terminal resolution ….. Al Gore Warns: People Having Access To Non-Mainstream Information “Threatens Democracy”
What a plonker.
Al Gore,an individual whose whole life has been conducted looking through the wrong end of the telescope,deliberately.
Al Gore, one of the rather numerous rich people who, in spite of loudly warning that the sea will rise and drown us all, have invested heavily in prime beachfront property.
Tom Welsh, please participate on the Climate Change Denialists (who get all shy) forum thread. It is time you either put up or shut up.
Al Gore’s Deception. Third section, here:
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/12/12/keeping-carbon-in-the-ground-doesnt-work-how-cop28-missed-the-point/
You may also like section five; “Climate Scientists don’t Actually have the Answers”.
Gore’s a hypocrite, and the science is real. both things can be true. both things are true.
Would a Labour government amend the relevant legislation to deprive itself of these powers?
Of course not.
The opposition rants and raves about laws, powers and taxes enacted by the government, and as soon as they’re in power, they just quietly drop their complaints about it. They’ll keep that tax or law in their back pocket, never know when it might be handy.
Labour, Tories, Republicans, Democrats – all of them do this without fail.
If they had any integrity, they would enact a huge bill right at the start of their term, repealing everything they’d complained about while in opposition. But they never do.
George Galloway has an interesting question on the No Go Israel criticism.
Like all thoughts they can develop into Conspiracy Theory but the question has to be asked:
Why should so called Democratic leaders go along with all the lies and nonsense as well as the media?
It is a very fair question and begs the question as to why the leaders are scared to death of any criticisms or doubts about the Israeli attack on the people of Palestine?
They are more scared of Israel and the US than their own voting public which makes me wonder as to what The Mossad may have on a lot of these Western World Leaders?
I can’t prove anything so it is a genuine question.
Generally I do not believe that the Israeli tail wags the American Dog but the speed of the backing for the revenge assault on Gaza is disturbing and sinister.
Particularly the US. Including Biden and other US politicians.
Why is the dog not in charge of its tail?
“Why should so called Democratic leaders go along with all the lies and nonsense as well as the media?”
Perhaps there’s a conspiracy or two.
All the people you mention would have to share a workplace culture of support for Israel in order to get and keep their jobs, so it’s not a giant step to get them to do, along with the culture of PR and ‘controlling the narrative’ which is a form of conspiracy carried out by people who are ‘not conspiracy theorists’. Since the narrative is tosh, controlling it leads to more outlandish and extreme behaviour, but people stick with it out of group loyalty. For the occasional stray there will be bribery, blackmail and threats. Of course it would be useful to gather information about people against the day when it is needed and to cultivate loyalty by assisting careers, especially of the most blackmailable.
Bribery is not their only weapon – although it is a powerful one when backed up by so many billionaires (and the US taxpayer, indirectly).
As well as the carrot, there is also the stick. And Israel wields a very big, heavy stick – a bludgeon, rather. Since becoming interested enough in Israel to start reading about it a few weeks ago, I have come across more and more evidence of its utter disregard for human life.
See, for instance, “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations” by Ronen Bergman. A chunky 784 pages, documenting the author’s contention that, “Since World War II, Israel has assassinated more people than any other country in the Western world”.
As a Britisher, one may think first of the 91 people killed (and 46 injured) when the King David Hotel was blown up in 1946 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun, or the many others murdered during the British Mandate. ‘Albert Einstein, in a letter to The New York Times in 1948, compared Irgun and its successor Herut party to “Nazi and Fascist parties” and described it as a “terrorist, right wing, chauvinist organization”‘. At that time the terrorist organisation Irgun, which admitted responsibility for blowing up the King David Hotel, was led by future Israeli PM Menachem Begin.
‘Begin later proudly admitted his terrorism in an interview for American television. When the interviewer asked him, “How does it feel, in the light of all that’s going on, to be the father of terrorism in the Middle east?” Begin proclaimed, “In the Middle East? In all the world!”’
— Alison Weir, “Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the United States was used to create Israel”.
And Einstein was consistent; is it not significant than when offered the Presidency of Israel, he refused?
– “…which makes me wonder as to what The Mossad may have on a lot of these Western World Leaders?”
The Samson Option?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
– “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.'”
– “If you force us yet again to descend from the face of the Earth to the depths of the Earth—let the Earth roll toward the Nothingness.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Samson_Option:_Israel%27s_Nuclear_Arsenal_and_American_Foreign_Policy
– “…Israel threatened to use nuclear weapons on the third day of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, blackmailing U.S. President Richard Nixon into airlifting military supplies.”
‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’
This projection of madness actually was mirrored in the US under Clinton in the drafts for the 1995 US Nuclear Posture Review.
It is little known today that such deliberate intimidation was military policy advocated for in the US.
In a secret document US STRATCOM suggested that the US behaviour should appear crazy and unpredictable in terms of WMD use.
This original document was acquired in 1998 by the British American Security Information Council via FOIA.
I believe it is this (but contains much more): http://www.bits.de/public/pdf/rr98-5.pdf
Noam Chomsky refered to it many times:
“(…) Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational or cool-headed. … The fact that some elements [of the US government] may appear to be potentially ‘out of control’ can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary’s decision-makers… That the US may become irrational and vindictive if attacked if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries…(…)”
Would be interesting to know if there was any connection between this lingo and Moshe Dayan quoted by you.
I think it’s pretty common. Lots of power structures behave like thugs, and always have done throughout history. The more offensive power they have, the more likely they are to be thuggish.
I’ve no idea what might be a solution. Human extinction? Maybe true democracy with really open government would work. It seems to work for Switzerland, at least for preventing military aggression, though not for financing foreign corruption.
Clark
Thanks for that.
Does Israel have its own satellites to guide these missiles? Or does it rely on the US satellites?
Similar question for the ‘pre-loved’ nukes that the UK have been landed with courtesy of the US, who think they are too old for their own use.
Who are the terrorists ? Here’s a clue …
“The US president also said that he felt an “unquestionable” connection to the Jewish community. “I ran into trouble and criticism when I said a few years ago that you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist,” he added,”
https://www.rt.com/news/588960-biden-zionist-military-aid-israel/
Reading Craig’s piece a second time it struck me that in Lord Menzies statement he is trying to have it both ways, on the one hand assuring Mr Laughland that he has not been found guilty of anything but that he might know someone who might have done or said something that might reveal a link to someone who might not have the interest of the state in their mind. Given the six degrees of separation argument I feel sure that we all know someone who might know someone who might know someone else who knew somebody else etc.…
In such a case the law seems to allow anyone to have their phones or computers seized and held as evidence in pursuit of an absurdly complicated plot further along the line and which they could all then be accused of being co-conspirators by not immediately sharing any and all their information with whatever the relevant authority might be. There are no innocent people in this case; it’s all jigsaw identification. We are going to need a lot more jails.
” We are going to need a lot more jails.”
I doubt it. The purpose of this catch-all legislation is for the state (by which I mean the people who actually run the country) to be able to harass people whom they find a nuisance, like our host. There are not a huge number of them and it is probably hoped that all they will need to do is send a few to jail from time to time, pour encourager les autres. It’s the same as the death penalty in the C18th and transportation in the C19th, it was mainly used against people the state wanted to get rid of.
It’s a perennial struggle. George Orwell’s words (below) explain the media’s weird incuriosity when it comes to questioning govt narratives. And the strange disinterest in the abuse of power CM and others have been subjected to – abuse that’s clearly aimed at silencing dissenting opinions. His words explain why Assange doesn’t exist for all intents and purposes.
“The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban…The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain topics. But the same kind of censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was “not done” to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals… “
Democracy Now reports “Russian Antiwar Dissident Boris Kagarlitsky Freed from Detention”
They had imprisoned him on charges of terrorism for criticizing the War.
RU would have a much better case if they let people speak freely on this issue. People there are well enough informed about the war and its history.
Not sure why the government doesn´t get it that freedom of speech in the long run will help them.
Besides it´s totally criminal and unjustifiable and would weaken Western propaganda.
Especially among those priviledged groups working on the mid-level of diplomatic intern. relations between RU and the West who seem to be horribly anti-RU on a completely insane level.
Just the short info (I assume more will come):
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/12/13/headlines/russian_antiwar_dissident_boris_kagarlitsky_freed_from_detention?fbclid=IwAR2z7V8yQbFD7M1rT2n9fUzqjO4uGk0JvJAe_KapQNDR58GbRwG7cThY2i4