Follow @JohnPlatinumG
In another sleuth-like piece of worthy journalism Craig Murray shows the Tory government and its servile messenger, the BBC, up for what they are - biased manipulators of opinion. Instead of letting the Scottish people decide their own fate the Tories, it appears, have used a private limited company, with funds which have suddenly appeared from nowhere, with a PR executive experienced in advising on campaigns of countries like Bahrain, Dubai, Israel and England at its helm. The other helmsman director makes key donations to the, guess what, Conservative Party.
To begin with I did not wish to see a breakup of the United Kingdom, but with major insurance companies and banks despicably threatening to pull their Scottish-based business, a dirty piece of attempted leverage, I changed my mind. The more I read about it the more I think independence for Scotland will be a good thing. I think it will be a good thing for England too. Because then we can strive to equal Scotland which already has much more progressive educational system than ours, which is as elitist as the Tory cabinet. Congratulations Craig Murray for digging this story up.
Showing posts with label Craig Murray. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Craig Murray. Show all posts
Friday, May 2, 2014
Sunday, March 23, 2014
The Sock Puppeteer
Follow @JohnPlatinumG
Sock puppeteers are people who comment on blogs and elsewhere using more than one assumed name. Alternative identities are usually assumed names too. Their comments are self-complimentary. They indulge in smarmy sycophantic agreement with other socks the same puppeteer uses. While this is totally dishonest it can also be debilitating for other users. Sock puppeteers, like trolls, target individuals, usually individuals who make valid and intelligent contributions to the blog, to try and destroy their self-confidence with a plethora of insults and derogatory attacks. This can be relentless and I have personally witnessed at least one genuine contributor constantly harassed and harangued by these mindless morons until she ceased, at least for a while, to comment on Craig Murray's blog. I too get targeted myself by sock puppeteers and trolls and look on this as a compliment to my own comments being good argument. Like trolls, sock puppeteers are there to disrupt the blog.
From my experience sock-puppeteers support government propaganda and try to reinforce a false image presented through the mainstream media. They live a lie in changing an identity in order to pretend to support other socks who contribute to the blog. Their existence in the blogosphere therefore survives on a diet of lies. You have to ask yourself if somebody who uses deceit in pretending to be something he or she is not can ever be relied upon to tell the truth in their comments. This is unfortunate for other pseudonymous contributors who share similar views to the sock puppeteer because they fall under suspicion too. The sarcastic cartoon above illustrates sock puppetry on Craig Murray's blog but obviously not all these contributors are dishonest and not all are socks or puppeteers.
Honest people are prepared to write under their own names and these people can generally be trusted. That is not to say that a person writing under his or her own name cannot resort to sock-puppetry. A good example of this is the novelist E J Ellory, who assumed several identities to write extremely positive, in fact first-rate reviews, of his own book. Not only that but these same puppets Ellory created commented adversely on the novels of other novelists writing in the same genre. His crime was exposed by fellow-crime novelist Jeremy Duns.
Because sock puppeteers are fakes themselves, with their false identities, comments they make, however reasonable in appearance, can never really be trusted. As with trolls they have a purpose. Sock-puppets and trolls follow a line supportive of the status quo. If anyone makes a statement not in line with MSM propaganda he or she is accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Whether they are doing this from genuine support for the status quo, or whether they are paid by some pressure-group intent on maintaining the status quo, is difficult to gauge. Though we know paid trolling goes on. Nevertheless, as well as being disruptive, rude and inconsiderate these false people have created a hole in the blogosphere that needs to be fixed. So put a sock in it!
Sock puppeteers are people who comment on blogs and elsewhere using more than one assumed name. Alternative identities are usually assumed names too. Their comments are self-complimentary. They indulge in smarmy sycophantic agreement with other socks the same puppeteer uses. While this is totally dishonest it can also be debilitating for other users. Sock puppeteers, like trolls, target individuals, usually individuals who make valid and intelligent contributions to the blog, to try and destroy their self-confidence with a plethora of insults and derogatory attacks. This can be relentless and I have personally witnessed at least one genuine contributor constantly harassed and harangued by these mindless morons until she ceased, at least for a while, to comment on Craig Murray's blog. I too get targeted myself by sock puppeteers and trolls and look on this as a compliment to my own comments being good argument. Like trolls, sock puppeteers are there to disrupt the blog.
From my experience sock-puppeteers support government propaganda and try to reinforce a false image presented through the mainstream media. They live a lie in changing an identity in order to pretend to support other socks who contribute to the blog. Their existence in the blogosphere therefore survives on a diet of lies. You have to ask yourself if somebody who uses deceit in pretending to be something he or she is not can ever be relied upon to tell the truth in their comments. This is unfortunate for other pseudonymous contributors who share similar views to the sock puppeteer because they fall under suspicion too. The sarcastic cartoon above illustrates sock puppetry on Craig Murray's blog but obviously not all these contributors are dishonest and not all are socks or puppeteers.
Honest people are prepared to write under their own names and these people can generally be trusted. That is not to say that a person writing under his or her own name cannot resort to sock-puppetry. A good example of this is the novelist E J Ellory, who assumed several identities to write extremely positive, in fact first-rate reviews, of his own book. Not only that but these same puppets Ellory created commented adversely on the novels of other novelists writing in the same genre. His crime was exposed by fellow-crime novelist Jeremy Duns.
Because sock puppeteers are fakes themselves, with their false identities, comments they make, however reasonable in appearance, can never really be trusted. As with trolls they have a purpose. Sock-puppets and trolls follow a line supportive of the status quo. If anyone makes a statement not in line with MSM propaganda he or she is accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Whether they are doing this from genuine support for the status quo, or whether they are paid by some pressure-group intent on maintaining the status quo, is difficult to gauge. Though we know paid trolling goes on. Nevertheless, as well as being disruptive, rude and inconsiderate these false people have created a hole in the blogosphere that needs to be fixed. So put a sock in it!
Friday, February 7, 2014
Get the protection you deserve
Follow @JohnPlatinumG
In this age of whistle-blowing this blog, as has been seen, is for it. With thanks to Edward Snowden, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, Julian Assange, Craig Murray and all the other whistle-blowers who have helped try to make the planet a better, freer place. All this is in the face of governments, especially the USA, which puts the old Soviet bureaucratic information gathering in the shade. Uncle Sam has become the nosy grandparent who opens other people's mail because through US actions this once great nation has alienated itself. Nobody takes it seriously any more. Nobody writes to Uncle Sam any more. Nobody gets an answer. It has no life of its own with its incessant wars and bankrupt economy so it steals your life.
The US is disgusting thinking itself the policeman of the world. Its spying organisation, the NSA, is an unthinkable encroachment into the privacy of us all. Next Tuesday sees the rest of the world fighting back. If you believe in freedom, and you have a website, register it with this protest which already has nearly 4,500 websites on board.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Don't get on a plane with somebody famous!
Follow @JohnPlatinumG
The number of famous people who die in plane crashes is alarming. After making a comment on Craig Murray's blog, based simply on the huge number of famous people who have died in crashes, I was challenged to provide figures. My comment related to the death of Michael Hastings the American investigative journalist whose car exploded and who was working on some sensitive revelations at the time. I wrote:
"As to deaths in crashes public figures are much more likely to die than ordinary individuals. It does need some thorough research but Hastings’ death was convenient, to say the least, for those he was investigating. Likewise Bob Cryer’s death was convenient for the US military at Menwith Hill. How dare Bob Cryer, an English MP, criticise the US for having a base on English soil without parliamentary approval?"
Although I was convinced I was right, and thought there must be some research to support my opinion, I was unable to find any significant study into the subject, which of course does not mean that no study exists. So I set about researching it myself, admittedly in a non-academic way. Because of the well-advertised safety record of aircraft companies I thought it was a good place to start. What I found was not that there was, say twice as much a chance of a famous person dying in a plane crash but an alarming 27 times the probability, and most likely even higher than that. The figures cover the decade 2001-2010. Column 1 gives the year and column two the number of famous deaths, while column 3, after the colon, gives the total number of deaths for the year. Accumulated totals are given below the line.
2001 = 13 : 4140
2002 = 05 : 1413
2003 = 02 : 1230
2004 = 05 : 771
According to the National Safety Council the lifetime odds of death from a plane or space incident in 2008 was a 1 in 7178 chance. Using this as a mean figure it can be seen that the expected total deaths from plane crashes for the decade based on the deaths of famous personalities should be somewhere in the region of 387, 612 (that is 54 x 7178) but actual total deaths amount to 14,380, making it virtually 27 times more dangerous if you are famous. Admittedly this unfunded and inadequate study is not rocket science and more serious research should be embarked upon to corroborate the assumption, or disprove it. Also I do not know how the National Safety Council arrived at its figure of 1 in 7178 but presumed that it was based on the total number of passengers divided by those killed in air-disasters.
The figures may be even more alarming because the famous deaths' column only includes incidents where somebody famous has died in an air-disaster, whereas some incidents involved multiple deaths, for example, in 2010 the crash which killed the president of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, also killed the first lady, Maria Kaczynski, and at least five other high-profile Polish politicians. Being famous appears to seriously heighten the chances of a premature death. Don't get on a plane with somebody famous.
"As to deaths in crashes public figures are much more likely to die than ordinary individuals. It does need some thorough research but Hastings’ death was convenient, to say the least, for those he was investigating. Likewise Bob Cryer’s death was convenient for the US military at Menwith Hill. How dare Bob Cryer, an English MP, criticise the US for having a base on English soil without parliamentary approval?"
Although I was convinced I was right, and thought there must be some research to support my opinion, I was unable to find any significant study into the subject, which of course does not mean that no study exists. So I set about researching it myself, admittedly in a non-academic way. Because of the well-advertised safety record of aircraft companies I thought it was a good place to start. What I found was not that there was, say twice as much a chance of a famous person dying in a plane crash but an alarming 27 times the probability, and most likely even higher than that. The figures cover the decade 2001-2010. Column 1 gives the year and column two the number of famous deaths, while column 3, after the colon, gives the total number of deaths for the year. Accumulated totals are given below the line.
2001 = 13 : 4140
2002 = 05 : 1413
2003 = 02 : 1230
2004 = 05 : 771
2005 = 03 : 1459
2006 = 06 : 1294
2007 = 06 : 971
2008 = 03 : 884
2009 = 08 : 1103
2010 = 03 : 1115
Total = 54 : 14,380
According to the National Safety Council the lifetime odds of death from a plane or space incident in 2008 was a 1 in 7178 chance. Using this as a mean figure it can be seen that the expected total deaths from plane crashes for the decade based on the deaths of famous personalities should be somewhere in the region of 387, 612 (that is 54 x 7178) but actual total deaths amount to 14,380, making it virtually 27 times more dangerous if you are famous. Admittedly this unfunded and inadequate study is not rocket science and more serious research should be embarked upon to corroborate the assumption, or disprove it. Also I do not know how the National Safety Council arrived at its figure of 1 in 7178 but presumed that it was based on the total number of passengers divided by those killed in air-disasters.
The figures may be even more alarming because the famous deaths' column only includes incidents where somebody famous has died in an air-disaster, whereas some incidents involved multiple deaths, for example, in 2010 the crash which killed the president of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, also killed the first lady, Maria Kaczynski, and at least five other high-profile Polish politicians. Being famous appears to seriously heighten the chances of a premature death. Don't get on a plane with somebody famous.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Torture is in fashion
Follow @JohnPlatinumG
At a time when the tortured chickens of UN and CIA rendition are coming home to roost Gulnara Karimova flaunts herself as a dedicated follower of fashion and yoga exponent. She is also described as a diplomat, executing the duties of a UN envoy, a screenwriter, oh, and a jewellery designer. Keeping active is an important feature in the life of a dictator's daughter. She has always been conscious about her image even though two years back she was described, thanks to Wikileaks cables, as the most despised woman in Uzbekistan.
Her father is the notorious Islam Karimov, who has pretty well set himself up as permanent president of Uzbekistan and all the speculation suggests she is most likely to follow in his footsteps if he retires, being labelled in one Russian blog as the Mafia Princess. Karimov became president in 1990 and has no opposition, since serious opponents tend to disappear without trace. He is friends with US power-mongers and feels as comfortable in the presence of George W. Bush as Hilary Clinton appears in Karimov's company.
Photo courtesy of Dominic Streatfeild's, A History of the World since 9/11, published in February 2011 (UK) by Atlantic Books, August 2011 (US) by Bloomsbury Press.
The issue of torture in Uzbekistan was raised by Craig Murray when he was ambassador there but because of our transatlantic allegiance it was thought better to get rid of Murray than bring Karimov to international justice. Karimov's human rights record is even worse than that of the United States. As well as the disappearances of his opponents he has been criticised for his regime's widespread use of torture and the exploitation of children in the cotton fields.
Yesterday, both in Strasbourg and the UK, two torture victims were compensated for their ordeals.£2.2 million pounds of taxpayers money was paid in compensation to Libyan dissident, Sami al Saadi, for being illegally rendered back to Libya to face torture under the Gadaffi regime when Tony Blair was still friends with Gadaffi, while from Germany, Khaled el Masri, was rendered by the CIA to Macedonia where in front of Macedonian police, who witnessed the scene, CIA operatives buggered, shackled and beat him. The European Court of Human Rights ordered Macedonia to pay him €60,000 (£49,000) in compensation and requested that the US must apologise and make a voluntary contribution to Mr el Masri. Anybody see a connection that two cases are concluded at the same time? It is not a coincidence. The vast sums are paid to keep names like Jack Straw, and his culpability, off the record. It is hush money!
Today I co-wrote with editorial input an article concerned with Sweden's rendition programme at the behest of the CIA, concentrating mainly on the cases of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al Zery, who were extradited to Egypt where they were both imprisoned and tortured. In both cases the men were paid compensation of 3 million Kronors. Mr. Agiza spent 10 years in prison. We have British citizens, Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, for whom this blog tried to prevent extradition, suffering in US supermax prisons because Theresa May extradited them to the US even though they had already spent unreasonable times in UK prisons without even being charged. They have done nothing wrong but in the US 98% of prisoners confess in plea bargains just to get a shorter sentence because of the harshness of conditions. It too is torture.
Back to Gulnara Karimov and her repressive regime backed by the US and UK. Thankfully not everybody is as complacent as the UK and US governments in seeking to end this human rights abuse. While Gulnara has been posting pictures of herself in suggestive Yoga postures on Twitter, and telling the world how she does not eat meat, only chicken and fish, Andrew Stroehlein has been questioning her country's record, as Uzbekistan's envoy to the UN, on torture, the Andijan massacre of April 2005, child labour, lack of freedom of expression and a whole host of other serious abuses that are not going to go away. So perhaps when she's meditating after her next Yoga session, she can meditate on some of those issues.
Her father is the notorious Islam Karimov, who has pretty well set himself up as permanent president of Uzbekistan and all the speculation suggests she is most likely to follow in his footsteps if he retires, being labelled in one Russian blog as the Mafia Princess. Karimov became president in 1990 and has no opposition, since serious opponents tend to disappear without trace. He is friends with US power-mongers and feels as comfortable in the presence of George W. Bush as Hilary Clinton appears in Karimov's company.
Photo courtesy of Dominic Streatfeild's, A History of the World since 9/11, published in February 2011 (UK) by Atlantic Books, August 2011 (US) by Bloomsbury Press.
The issue of torture in Uzbekistan was raised by Craig Murray when he was ambassador there but because of our transatlantic allegiance it was thought better to get rid of Murray than bring Karimov to international justice. Karimov's human rights record is even worse than that of the United States. As well as the disappearances of his opponents he has been criticised for his regime's widespread use of torture and the exploitation of children in the cotton fields.
Yesterday, both in Strasbourg and the UK, two torture victims were compensated for their ordeals.£2.2 million pounds of taxpayers money was paid in compensation to Libyan dissident, Sami al Saadi, for being illegally rendered back to Libya to face torture under the Gadaffi regime when Tony Blair was still friends with Gadaffi, while from Germany, Khaled el Masri, was rendered by the CIA to Macedonia where in front of Macedonian police, who witnessed the scene, CIA operatives buggered, shackled and beat him. The European Court of Human Rights ordered Macedonia to pay him €60,000 (£49,000) in compensation and requested that the US must apologise and make a voluntary contribution to Mr el Masri. Anybody see a connection that two cases are concluded at the same time? It is not a coincidence. The vast sums are paid to keep names like Jack Straw, and his culpability, off the record. It is hush money!
Today I co-wrote with editorial input an article concerned with Sweden's rendition programme at the behest of the CIA, concentrating mainly on the cases of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al Zery, who were extradited to Egypt where they were both imprisoned and tortured. In both cases the men were paid compensation of 3 million Kronors. Mr. Agiza spent 10 years in prison. We have British citizens, Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, for whom this blog tried to prevent extradition, suffering in US supermax prisons because Theresa May extradited them to the US even though they had already spent unreasonable times in UK prisons without even being charged. They have done nothing wrong but in the US 98% of prisoners confess in plea bargains just to get a shorter sentence because of the harshness of conditions. It too is torture.
Back to Gulnara Karimov and her repressive regime backed by the US and UK. Thankfully not everybody is as complacent as the UK and US governments in seeking to end this human rights abuse. While Gulnara has been posting pictures of herself in suggestive Yoga postures on Twitter, and telling the world how she does not eat meat, only chicken and fish, Andrew Stroehlein has been questioning her country's record, as Uzbekistan's envoy to the UN, on torture, the Andijan massacre of April 2005, child labour, lack of freedom of expression and a whole host of other serious abuses that are not going to go away. So perhaps when she's meditating after her next Yoga session, she can meditate on some of those issues.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Breaking News on Julian Assange
Follow @JohnPlatinumG
I can’t see it being long now before Julian Assange is walking free. Today a Swedish newspaper, Expressen, has published an article which claims that Anna Ardin (though she is not mentioned by name) was friends with a police interrogator on the Assange case. Expressen was the newspaper that first broke the story of Assange’s arrest, so it can hardly be considered pro-Assange.
This is a big turning point in my opinion. Especially since the two women who went to the police station together, appear to have gone at the beginning of this interrogator’s shift. You can almost smell the sweet aromas of a woman to woman phone call before the Anna and Sofia arrived at the police station to be interviewed by a friend of one of them. Only somebody with a passing interest in this case, someone who has been catching all the endless snippets of the words ‘rape’ and ‘Assange’ in the same sentence, can be naive enough to believe there is any credibility to this concocted sex scandal. They are all in the same Social Democratic Party, and this brings us to what chance of a fair trial would Assange have in Sweden? I quote from one of the best accounts of the Assange case regarding secret trials in Sweden.
“Even in this relatively enlightened country, human sexuality is a subject fraught with deep and often subconscious feelings of guilt and shame. “Prosecution witnesses need not worry about other witnesses coming forward to refute their evidence, because their evidence will not be heard in public.” Most of those stories involve the treatment of men accused of sex crimes. It is one of the dark corners of Swedish society that seldom sees the light — most likely because, even in this relatively enlightened country, human sexuality is a subject fraught with deep and often subconscious feelings of guilt and shame.
But jurists and other interested parties with direct experience of sex-related cases have become increasingly alarmed by what appears to be a systematic bias that often leads to bizarre and tragic judgements. There are several reasons for this, one being that trials for sex crimes are almost invariably held behind closed doors. “This tradition grew up a long time ago, before the [Second World] war, to prevent the press reporting ‘immoral’ evidence, and was later advanced to protect the privacy of complainants and defendants,” notes one of Assange’s Swedish lawyers, who further explains that his client, “… notwithstanding the avalanche of publicity damaging to him about the prosecution case, will be tried in secret and the public will not be aware of any exposure in the courtroom of the weakness of that case.
Prosecution witnesses need not worry about other witnesses coming forward to refute their evidence, because their evidence will not be heard in public.” Further, “The trial will be heard by a judge and three laypersons who sit with him or her. The three laypersons, appointed by political parties, are often members of the parties that appoint them.… I should add that the danger caused by media prejudice is also present at the court of appeal level, where the hearings will again be in secret.”
Last night Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler and Independent on Sunday columnist Joan Smith almost jumped down Craig Murray’s throat for mentioning Anna Ardin, one of the two women who sought to expose Julian Assange as a sexual deviant. But the truth is her name, and that of her co-conspirator, Sofia Wilén, have been in the public domain for two years. What the media do not want is people searching the internet to find out the truth. The truth is becoming something alien to the media. That is why they want to gag Julian Assange. It is why they want to gag Craig Murray. Ironically it is two years today since Assange was set free on the same charges of which they say he needs to answer questions now.
This is a big turning point in my opinion. Especially since the two women who went to the police station together, appear to have gone at the beginning of this interrogator’s shift. You can almost smell the sweet aromas of a woman to woman phone call before the Anna and Sofia arrived at the police station to be interviewed by a friend of one of them. Only somebody with a passing interest in this case, someone who has been catching all the endless snippets of the words ‘rape’ and ‘Assange’ in the same sentence, can be naive enough to believe there is any credibility to this concocted sex scandal. They are all in the same Social Democratic Party, and this brings us to what chance of a fair trial would Assange have in Sweden? I quote from one of the best accounts of the Assange case regarding secret trials in Sweden.
“Even in this relatively enlightened country, human sexuality is a subject fraught with deep and often subconscious feelings of guilt and shame. “Prosecution witnesses need not worry about other witnesses coming forward to refute their evidence, because their evidence will not be heard in public.” Most of those stories involve the treatment of men accused of sex crimes. It is one of the dark corners of Swedish society that seldom sees the light — most likely because, even in this relatively enlightened country, human sexuality is a subject fraught with deep and often subconscious feelings of guilt and shame.
But jurists and other interested parties with direct experience of sex-related cases have become increasingly alarmed by what appears to be a systematic bias that often leads to bizarre and tragic judgements. There are several reasons for this, one being that trials for sex crimes are almost invariably held behind closed doors. “This tradition grew up a long time ago, before the [Second World] war, to prevent the press reporting ‘immoral’ evidence, and was later advanced to protect the privacy of complainants and defendants,” notes one of Assange’s Swedish lawyers, who further explains that his client, “… notwithstanding the avalanche of publicity damaging to him about the prosecution case, will be tried in secret and the public will not be aware of any exposure in the courtroom of the weakness of that case.
Prosecution witnesses need not worry about other witnesses coming forward to refute their evidence, because their evidence will not be heard in public.” Further, “The trial will be heard by a judge and three laypersons who sit with him or her. The three laypersons, appointed by political parties, are often members of the parties that appoint them.… I should add that the danger caused by media prejudice is also present at the court of appeal level, where the hearings will again be in secret.”
Last night Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler and Independent on Sunday columnist Joan Smith almost jumped down Craig Murray’s throat for mentioning Anna Ardin, one of the two women who sought to expose Julian Assange as a sexual deviant. But the truth is her name, and that of her co-conspirator, Sofia Wilén, have been in the public domain for two years. What the media do not want is people searching the internet to find out the truth. The truth is becoming something alien to the media. That is why they want to gag Julian Assange. It is why they want to gag Craig Murray. Ironically it is two years today since Assange was set free on the same charges of which they say he needs to answer questions now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)