Corruption in cricket

The International cricket world is riven by scandal today. The News of the World seems to have caught a go between for some members of the Pakistani cricket team accepting money to rig a game. Although I usually would not believe a single thing published in this gutter rag it does appear to be true. £150,000 was given for certain specific things to happen. These things were certain actions to occur at specific balls in specific overs. The things paid for were delivered and the game was rigged.

As I say I'm not a fan of the NoW but this sting was a good use of their money and talents.

As it happens one of the few things I actually know about is world cricket, and it's organisation. But one does not need to be an expert to know that certain parts of it is corrupt. That has been common knowledge for years. This corruption has been linked to the political infighting within international cricket. Basically non-western countries have been fighting to take control of international cricket for years. Even though England is the fixture that makes all the other teams most money, certain other countries wanted to control the cricket. Some of the people behind such a move have been alleged to being linked to betting syndicates. They have also exploited the fact that England, Australia, etc., are terrified of being called racist if they criticise such moves.

So the corruption of some cricketers, and we are not by any means talking about most, is not a shock. For all the faux outrage by some of the cricket establishment, it is not a surprise at all. Like I said, everyone knew about it.

I have read articles justifying the corruption of some of the Pakistani cricket team by pointing out that they are paid very little in comparison to other countries. This is true. But it ignore the fact that they will make most of their money from advertising, etc. They are well paid. More than that, these people are very well paid in comparison to their fellow nationals and are heros to their country. You cannot buy that.

What gets me about people trying to excuse their corruption (I am of course talking about the corrupt and not the uncorrupt members of their team) is how these excusers fail to understand the size and nature of the corruption. Cricketers are not well paid in comparison to other sports people. Say a cricketer was paid £60,000 a year, which is good for cricket. This is a large income for a country like Pakistan.

Do you think that that would stop some people taking a bribe?

They could earn that for one match. If a person is open to corruption it does not matter how much you pay them they can always be bought. There is simply to much money being offered for those players who are corrupt not to be tempted.

So what will happen?

Nothing. The police will be hampered by the presence of Pakistani consulate staff, and their fear of offending minorities to to anything meaningful. The cricket authorities will not do anything bar rhetoric. To many vested interests you see. To many friends of friends.

We'll not get any real reform or strong action. We may get those people caught banned. Though the last time people were caught they were not punished to any serious extent. They may know get life bans, though I kind of doubt it. This will be a shame for the 17 year old kid, but it's his own fault. But that will only be for show, the real corruption will not be tackled as it is too contentious.

And that will damage cricket. That is what happens when you bring politics into sport.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Julian Assange's actions undermine Wikileaks? Is the Daily Mail serious?

I take rape and sexual assault seriously. I've seen the effects of such abuse to often to take it lightly. The perpetrators of such crime such be brought to justice. No question.

However the charges for rape and molestation against Julian Assange were a travesty. He did not actually rape anyone. We all know who was behind this smear. Basically some in the US don't like Wikileaks.

It is against this background that the Mail on Sunday publish a hatchet job to smear Assange. The story is of two women who pursued Assange with single minded determination and seduced him.

Seems to be a story of adult fun with healthy people jumping into bed with a famous person. However the ladies then found out about the other and were miffed.

At least that there story. I do not know the truth.

The Mail article is a travesty. It demeans women by treating adult, independent, women as victims. It smears Wikileaks in a way that will no doubt please the Americans.

But what I find laughable is the Mail's final line which proclaims that the rape lies undermines Wikileaks and the events will negatively impact Assange's reputation.

Firstly, Wikileaks is more than just an individual. Lies directed against one person does not damage the work of the others.

The second is simply ludicrous. A geek has repent sex with two, beautiful, blond, women within hours of each other. To many people this not only boosts his reputation but makes him a hero to the shallow male.

The Mail on Sunday should be ashamed to publish such a pathetic article.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A minister seeking an injunction: a worrying development?

I simply do not care what other's sexuality is. Unless that said sexuality involves children, animals, coercion, or force I don't care. Our private lives should be private. However there are reports that a unnamed government minister is taking legal action to ensure that allegations, which he says are untrue, about him having a string of gay affairs, including those with journalists and civil servants, from being published. See here

As I understand it you cannot get a gagging order for an untrue story. If a paper prints a lie or a false story you can sue, if you are rich enough. But you can only get a gagging order if that story impinges on your right to a family life, etc.

But to get that the story needs to be true!

Now I don't care about the private lives of others. I don't read the gossip pages. I've also seen at first hand how the press can destroy people and families with their hunger for a 'good' story.

But the use of injunctions by the rich and powerful is worrying. It is a process which gives people with money or political clout the protection that everyone else lacks. No one should be above the law or have any special protection because of how much money they have or because they are a MP.

When that person is a politician though we have a right to know about their private lives. They are the people who plaster their literature with sickly images of their wife and kids. As such they have made it a matter of public interest.

It's more than that though. It is dangerous for politicians to use the law to deter and silence press investigations into their lives and dealings. This is what happened in France, and other countries. This protection allowed some monumentally corrupt politicians to get away with their theft and damages their political system because the press were banned from investigating and publishing details of their private lives. These private lives involved theft.

The press need to be able to root out corruption, incompetence, and lies by our politicians. As such I feel this injunction is worrying.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

MPs, bullying and corrupt

I've written here many times before about the corruption of some, well to be honest nearly half, of our MPs. I've written how they don't think that stealing from us is wrong. Not only do they think it is not wrong, they think it is their right to rob us blind.

But that was in the horrid old days. They've changed now. Well that's what they keep telling us any rate. Now they are all purer than pure. They now understand our anger. They are now honest. Not that they have been anything else but honest you understand. It was the nasty MPs who were dishonest not them. They didn't know them, or knew anything was amiss as they are totally, utterly, innocent.

Well that is the spin.

But they still don't get it. They still think that they can steal and fiddle from us. And any one who tries to limit their stealing is to be bullied, reduced to tears, swore at, or even threatened.

See here. 

MPs have lost the right to automatic deference and respect. They have shown themselves to be bullies, and corrupt. Not all of them but enough to tarnish the rest. This means that any abuse of the expenses staff should be dealt with firmly. Any bullying, like bullying in any other company or institution, should be dealt with seriously. Prosecutions for assault, or threats should be made. Any bullying by MPs should lead to their automatic suspension, without pay, for six months. If they do it again they should be banned from public office for life and a by-election held in their seat immediately. They should get no pay off and no index linked pension.

Bullying, threats, and verbal assault are illegal. Expenses staff have the same rights to legal protection than anyone else. MPs should be punished for abuse.

For all their fine words MPs are being treated with kid gloves. They have been awarded pay rises to make amends for not stealing from us. But they still try to fiddle their expenses.

Enough is enough. All their expenses and staffing needs to be audited with a firm hand. Any abuse of the system or the expenses staff, however minor, needs to lead to criminal prosecution. This is the only way we can get rid of the many bullying and corrupt MPs.

Being nice and respectful to them hasn't worked. We need to treat them the same as we treat everyone else and prosecute them.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Fox News's link with Islam

Fox News, and the whole Murdoch web, are hypocrites. Always have been. However there is something rather amusing with the latest news.

Fox have been running stories disparaging the building of what they term the Ground Zero Mosque. Basically telling their viewers that it will be a vipers nest of extremism and mark a triumph for radical Islam if it gets the go ahead.

OK you can argue about the rights and wrongs of building such a large Mosque on a site actually damaged by the destruction of the World Trade Centre, or the fact it is being named after a symbol of Islamic triumph over local Christians in Spain. The links between the people behind the Mosque and extremists, in some cases terrorists, is worrying. You could even debate the wider extremism within some of the Muslim community.

Such issues are subjects of fair debates and I've no problem with that as long as it it not hysterical and is reasoned.

But the hypocrisy of Fox is striking. They are decrying the mosque as the work of extremists and funded by people linked to terror. But these extremists own a large part of Fox News and it's parent company.

See here http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0821/fox-shareholder-funded-mosque-imam/

IF the mosque's backers are beyond the pale because of their extreme views and alleged links to terror, surely it is unacceptable for them to own significant part of Fox?

But like I said, Fox are hypocrites who thing their viewers so stupid they won't question who own them.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Wikileaks funding: more Fox News hypocrisy

Wikileaks is a thorn in the side of the US. I think we can see how much by the fitting up of Julian Assange.

Fox News is still flogging the dead story by now criticising Wikileaks opaque funding structure. The attack being based an what they allege to be Wikileaks hypocrisy demanding openness of others but not themselves.

See here http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/23/wikileaks-keeps-funding-secret/#content

Thing is Wikileaks does not release EVERYTHING. If they found the secret ingredient for Coke they wouldn't necessarily post it. They would post it if that ingredient was the liver of illegally obtained animal parts.

Wikileaks goes after the illegal and the scandalous not everything.

Wikilekas has not posted shareholder information. But the thing Fox ignores is the fact that Wikileaks does not have shareholders or investors. It has a lot of people who donate small amounts of money or server space. Donations to non-profits aren't illegal or scandalous.

This is simply Fox News trying to flog a dead horse in the hope they can con the gullible to move to the right. This is what Murdoch does.

However if Fox News is keen on openness and probity could they provide details of News International and Rupert Murdoch's tax arrangements. For all their bragging about being a major player, and for all of Murdoch's billions neither pays any tax anywhere.

That cannot be right. Not paying tax makes Murdoch a parasite. So in the interests of openness Fox should publish their data.

Or Wikileaks should.

News International attack others, Wikileaks or those on benefit, but they have not pair £18 BILLION in taxes over the years. I pay more tax than they.

It is in our interests for someone to publish the details of that!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Dr David Kelly, a textbook suicide: I don't think so!

The pathologist Nicholas Hunt is the person who conducted the autopsy on the government weapons inspector David Kelly. As I've written about previously there are calls for the poor man to have a proper inquest and for the records to be opened.

Against this background Dr Hunt has now come out and said that Dr Kelly's death was a textbook suicide, see here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11050587

But it isn't.

Not having an inquest is not textbook, it is unique.

Not having any fingerprints on the blunt knife used to commit suicide is not textbook.

Being the ONLY person in decades, if ever, to actually die by cutting a very small, very hard to reach vein, in not textbook.

To have a situation where all the medical records are sealed for seventy years is not textbook. Most of the most secret documents from World War Two were only sealed for thirty years.

But perhaps the biggest non-textbook aspect of Dr Kelly's death is the fact that dozens of very highly qualified medical experts think it is not textbook. These people are not cranks, or people with a political axe to grid or book to sell. These people are more qualified than Hunt and are at the very top of their profession.

I am not an expert in pathology: but they ARE. If they feel Kelly's death was not textbook we should listen.

As it happens I do nor believe in any conspiracy behind Dr Kelly's death but feel that he deserves openness and justice.

We need an open, independent inquest to lay the doubts to rest.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Julian Assange & Wikileaks smear: an inside job? No!

Conspiracy theories are seductive and much more fun than reality. Julian Assange was, for a VERY brief time accused of the heinous crime of rape. He was utterly innocent and the charges seem to be a very crude attempt to undermine and attack Wikileaks by linking him to rape.

The fact that the US are out to get them meant that such an attack was not unexpected. Though it has to be said that I never thought they'd stoop so low as to use rape allegations as a weapon.

But now there are people out there who are saying that it was an inside job and that Assange arranged to the charges to be brought and quickly withdrawn in order to attack the US by painting himself as victim.

OK we'll accept for a moment that Wikileaks were going to set up this farce as a way to attack the US (for the record I don't believe it for a second. With the documents they are releasing they don't need to manufacture an event to attack the US) you would do something a bit glamourous. Say false accusations of bank robbery, gem theft, fighting a duel. Something that reflects well on you by linking yourself to something apparently brave and daring.

What you wouldn't do is tie yourself to rape allegations. Such things stick to you. Even if you are totally innocent, and proved to be so, there are always people who think that there is no smoke without fire. No one in their right mind would use rape allegations in that way.

The most likely explanation is a bungled smear operation. You shouldn't try to deflect blame form the real villains and blame the victims.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Julian Assange smear : how low can you go?

I've written here about the whole Julian Assange/Wikileaks situation. Specifically how I disagree with some of the things they have done. But mostly I've written about the deranged reaction to them from some, not all thank god, elements in the US.

And today Assange was set up for multiple rapes in Sweden. The warrant for his arrest was splashed over the press, and especially Fox News. They airwaves roared with acquisitions of his guilt.

And then an hour or so later the Swedish prosecutor, a lady, dropped the rape charges as he didn't do anything. See here http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/21/sweden.wikileaks.charge/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1#fbid=6_YasMvE5De&wom=false

Sexual assault is taken seriously in Sweden. For the charge to be so speedily dropped is telling. If there was a scintilla of doubt they would not have dropped it so quickly. No one would let a guilty person off such a heinous crime so quickly. Especially not when the accused is the subject of such pressure from the US.

For the charges to be seen as nonsense means there is not a shadow of doubt of Assange's innocence.

I can think of few things worse than to be accused of rape. This is a truly horrific crime that can destroy a persons life by the mere accusation even if the accused is totally innocent.

If this is due to elements in the US I assume that this is the point. Fox News loved it, as did the more rabid viewer. Strangely the same posters have sent the week calling Assange every gay insult you could think of had to change track and call him a peadophile. The smear was for the rape of thirty year old women not minors or males. It is interesting to see bigots do somersaults in their attacks.

No presumption of innocence on Fox.

I neither know or care what Assange's sexuality is. But the sexuality based insults from Fox posters, condoned by Fox have been sickening.

What type of mentality uses accusations of rape to destroy someone who releases data which includes a plethora of embarrassing details?

Fox News did not tell it's viewers of his innocence for hours after it was known, even though they broadcast his arrest seedily enough. Nor give it the same prominence as the accusation. Why one could miss the whole 'innocent' bit!! An oversight no doubt (not).

Some people lack an understanding of the horror of rape and spit in the faces of the real victims of this horrifying crime by this smear.

Assange is lucky to be cleared so swiftly. Everyone knew that attacks were coming. Luckily it was only smears not kidnap or violence.

And so Assange and Wikileaks are being turned into heros. By the US and this smear. I kind of feel that this was probably not the intention.

This attack makes any chance of Aasange's extradition to the US, or the closing down of Wikileaks near impossible. We can see the sickening attacks from the US. This will not make the people want to do the US a favour. This makes it impossible for any EU government to help the US. It would be political suicide for them to go against their people.

It also means that Assange has a licence to do anything he wants. He could go up to the sweetest of old ladies, in a crowded room, live on TV, and shoot her in the face. People would still believe he is innocent and that it was another US attack.

Not good for the US o fear.

To be frank no one was surprised by this. We all knew the US would do something to undermine Assange. I did not expecting it to be so inept. To make up rape allegations made we incredibly angry. Rape and sexual assault should be above such spin.

Assange has been very lucky to escape free and with reputation intact. It's scary stuff.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Why did Ray Gosling lie?

Ray Gosling has had a remarkable BBC career. This is a seventy year old man who has made some brilliant programmes and been rightly lauded with awards and prestige. He is an elder statesman of British journalism.

For the life of me I cannot comprehend why he lied on a minor BBC programme about murdering a man. Gosling confessed that he murdered one of his lovers who was dying painfully of AIDS and that the doctors covered the crime up.

This confession gave rise to a massively expensive police investigation which led to Gosling's arrest and used considerable police time to track all of, what Gosling admits to be very many, lovers and one night stands to ascertain who he killed.

It now turns out that he did not kill anyone. The police and the public prosecutors are not happy and are talking about charging the idiot with wasting police time.

See here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/20/ray-gosling-charged-partner-aids

I find Gosling's actions incomprehensible. I live a very boring life make no mistake and it would be nice if a little lie could make me seem all glam, especially if I would never me found out. But such a lie would be something silly like being a spy whose activities make James Bond look a sissy. Or being richer than god. Or having sexual intercourse with the majority of the beautiful starlets we see in the movies. Or being the true monarch. Or.....you get the picture.

Such lies, if believed, would raise the profile of a shallow person. It would make them appear more attractive than they are.

Who in their right mind lies and tells how they killed someone? We are not talking about how you killed someone in the heat of battle wining a chest full of medals with your daring do. We are talking about a sordid murder of a harmless, sick, person.

Why would anyone in their right mind make that up?

Ray Gosling has had a remarkable career. One based on his reputation and honesty. He's destroyed that. It makes you wonder what else he lied about during his long journalistic career. If he is a liar how can you trust anything he's ever said?

It's pathetic that a respected elderly man should destroy themselves in order to gain some media attention. To destroy themselves on a minor regional programme is worse.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Lockerbie Bomber celebrates life

I've written here about the Lockerbie Bomber, Al Megrahi, and how I never thought he should have been freed from his Scottish jail in the way he was. If he was innocent he should have been proved to be so an freed an innocent man. If he were guilty then he should have remained in prison until he died. Given the best medical treatment but still imprisoned.

As with most things these days some American commentators and members of the public have gotten themselves into a faux hysterical tizzy demanding that the bomber be returned to Scotland, or the US. That Libya should be bombed to kill him, that it is all about oil, etc. The last thing always amuses me as one has only to look at the wars America has fought for oil. They also forget that forty US companies are working with the Libyans to drill for oil.

Such ignorant rants are par for the course for SOME members of the US media and public.

The media is in full flow that Al Megrahi may live until 2017. This is a cue for a column filling mock outrage. This is useful in a quite news season.

When I read still like this I think "so what?". It does not reduce my disagreement on his release in the first place. It's just that the story is a non-story put in to waste space.

If the media is to be believed the mass murderer may live another seven years. This is not good for a man released due to his immanent death. But they miss the important word "may".

He may live another seven years. He may live a year. He may live a week. He may die tomorrow.

Medicine is not an exact science. We are not handed our expiration time by god-like doctors in order for us to put our affairs in order and kiss our loved ones goodbye. We are not going to be sitting in a comfy seat, brandy on hand waiting until the clock strikes ten when the medics say we will die. We are not replicants in Bladerunner.

The best doctors can do is give us their opinion based on their understanding of medicine and their experience of other people. People, and their biology is far too complex to do anything else. People do live longer than predicted for reasons that are not well understood. This is not due to a vast conspiracy, or oil. It is simply a fact of life.

For rabid conspiracy nuts, with zero medical training, to try to say otherwise is frankly ignorant mewling from the foolish. This case is not about oil or BP.

Get over it.

As an example of the subjective nature of life expectancy I give you the case of my dear dad. When he was nineteen he suffered a terrible injury in the military. During the operation to treat this injury he was discovered to have a serious ailment. They did their best but the very senior and prestigious medical man told this nineteen year old that he had two years to live.

For anyone to be told you're dying must be devastating. When you're nineteen it must be horrific. But he didn't die in two years. He met my mother. They fell in love, married, had me, and built a life together. He went on to do amazing things and became one of the worlds greatest experts in his field. He spent his life helping others.

He passed away nearly sixty years after being given two years to live.

People are not simple machines the variety and the complexity of disease's interaction with individual biology makes life expectancy a guess.

It is pathetic to think otherwise.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Dr David Kelly: the case for an inquest

As a rule I am not a conspiracist. I see them as the result of a general mistrust of government. Such mistrust is healthy as our governments are dishonest and incompetent.

There ARE conspiracies out there no doubt. But mostly they are not there. Conspiracies are interesting. I mean to say having the world run by our little Queen, who is a nine foot lizard is a hell of a lot more interesting than reality.

To take another case, alien life, I am a believer. I think that the sheer size of the universe makes it statistically likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere if not here. I am aware that there's arguments why this is not the case and wouldn't be put out if they were correct.

This is a view based on science and statistics.

This is a world away from the UFO scene. I want to make it plain that I don't know if alien UFOs reported in earth are real. I'm sure that many people who see them are honest, trustworthy, and don't make a penny from their claim. But I simply don't know the truth.

But with such conspiracies it is important to understand that it is an industry. The writers and publishers of all the thousands and thousands of books, videos, and those who lecture at all those thousands of conferences, make a LOT of money out of there work. These people have a vested interest in promoting their conspiracies. Even if these conspiracies are not true a lot of people are making a very nice living pretending that they are true. Some have made millions through conspiracy.

And then we have the tragic death of the weapon expert Dr David Kelly. That terrible loss is different to lizards. I do not know if he died by his own hand or at the hands of others. But what I do know is that the unique secrecy surrounding him and the unprecedented fact that he was not given a inquest with people giving testimony under oath raises concerns.

However when real experts in the fields of medicine, forensics, and the law ask for an inquiry into ANY death that death should be reinvestigated by independent experts. Openness and truth is the only way that Dr Kelly's to be laid to rest, as it were. He deserves the truth, his family deserves the truth, and we deserve the truth.

If Dr Kelly did kill himself we need to know if labour and their media stooges drove this good man to kill himself. Those people need to be named and shamed.

IF it were murder than they guilty need to be punished.

If no one else is to blame we need to know it to lance the boil of distrust this case has fed.

There needs to be a full, independent, open, and honest inquiry into Dr Kelly's death. We need the truth.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Nazi Anti-Semitic poster

Look at the above poster from 1944. One does not need to be an expert on the finer points of racism to understand that this is an attack on the Jewish people using cartoons to inflame.

The above is using photographs of real people to inflame the readers of the Nazi rag Der Strumer in 1923.

These are crude, horrific examples of the use of propaganda for political purposes. The later to win power by attacking Jews, and the former by escaping blame by blaming Jews.

These are horrific. We all know what such terrible images led to.

But that was over sixty years ago in a country far away. How is it possible that in modern Europe a leading member of the governing party, with the contrivance and permission of that government, release any literature which harkens back to these targeting of a group with in a society? Who thought that it was acceptable to do so?

Phil Woolas and labour did so, see my previous post.

Contentious topics should not be off limits. But Woolas use not talking about immigration in the way that most people have concerns about. For most it is all about the sheer numbers of people entering the country. Most of the new arrivals are white, Christian, Europeans.

But Woolas specificity targeted Muslims to whip up fear of terrorism to garner votes. That is a scandal. Islam, like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, atheism, and any other ism you can think of should be open to debate and questioning. Extremism, of all types, need to be dealt with. Minorities need protecting, but the majority should not be made to feel second class citizens. 

Like I said, all should be up for debate. Honest, rigorous, adult, debate. Woolas did not do that, this is about the basest of politics. That is why it is a disgrace.

Phil Woolas: racist poster?

At election time politics gets nasty. Well more nasty than usual shall we say. All the fine words of incumbents melts to naked fear as they spin what they think their would-be voters feel.

However even a cynic such as I is shocked by the awful racist election literature put out by the ex-labour minister, Phil Woolas. It is important to remember he was immigration minister! The last election was marked by people's deep concern about immigration, and labour's panic about the issue. It was such an important issue that it seriously effected the Lib-Dem vote when it emerged that they want an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

However in an election where illegal and legal immigration was of legitimate concern certain things are beyond the pale. Woolas' literature being a prime example.




The use of specific imagery linking Muslims to bigotry and violence, and ONLY Muslims and nothing about Eastern European who are a major concern to many, makes this literature something that even the loathsome BNP would balk at releasing. This is playing with what he thinks is his voters racist views.

It gets worse than that. Woolas is being taken to court by the Lib-Dem candidate because Woolas also lied about them. He issued literature which falsely linked them to Islamic terrorists, and this is a white non-Muslim man. Woolas released literature smearing him by asking why Islamic terrorist are voting for the Lib-Dem? One does not have to be genius to work out the inference of this smear. Woolas lied by stating that the Lib-Dem candidate was illegally accepting money from foreign Muslim billionaires.

See here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10468410

He wasn't. I am all for talking about immigration. I'm all for criticising the Lib-Dem stance on it. But Woolas is simply using racism to improve his chances for reelection.

The hypocrisy is sickening. To pretend to be the hammer of the immigrants when you were in charge of the largest unregulated inflow of illegal and legal immigrants is taking people as idiots.

For all the fine talk of Woolas and labour in the end he'd say anything, even things that one would expect from a neo-Nazi, to remain in parliament sucking up our money.

Labour think they are better than us. That they can lie and cheat and fiddle and that is fine because they are on the side of the angels. But there are limits. Racist election literature is one.

Woolas should be ashamed and shunned for this. But he won't. It worked and this creep was reelected, though his vote collapsed and he won by a mere 103 Absolutely pathetic.

I hope he loses his court case big time.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Fox News condoning violence?

I'm not the world's greatest Fox News fan. A lot of this I personally put-down to the simple fact that I REALY dislike Rupert Murdoch. This is a good reason in any book.

But it's more than that. Watching the channel one cannot be shocked by how god awful it is. This is supposed to be a major international news player and yet it comes off as the worst kind of cheap local tv. I've lost count at the number of times the news has been interrupted for hours so they can show a simple house fire, not even life threatening ones.

You see this in local tv not world news. Worst of all is the sheer bias exhibited in every broadcast.

To add insult to injury this is a channel which has the barefaced cheek to promote itself as being 'fair and balanced'! This is akin to the Nazi party promoting themselves as the natural home to the Jewish people.

I've always taken the view that is a organisation makes to point to spin such messages it means that they are the exact opposite of the spin.

Which brings me back, once more, to Wikileaks. I am pro-free speech. And the internet is not a nice place sometimes. Extreme, insulting views are the norm. But I do find the willing acceptance of the Fox people to allow posters to post sick remarks about the Wikileak people, and their families without comment, or censor, illustrative of the sheer nastiness of Fox. Leave aside the demands to kidnap people, we'll even forget that they want children kidnapped. The majority of posters demanding people be murdered, tortured first in most cases. And we are still talking about children here. Such calls for violence against people are left for all to see. The Fox channel does not think such sick calls to be wrong. This is a major media company condoning illegal posts. It is not legal to call for murder or violence. As such disturbing posts have been posted for weeks it means that Fox agrees with the calls.

No doubt they'll say it is all down to freedom of expression. But they also deny the same freedoms to Wikileaks.

The hypocrisy of Fox News and it's viewers is breathtaking. They call for Wikileak people to be killed, but not so long ago jumped on the Wikileak exposure of the climate change documents. This information was 'secret'. This was said to have been stolen. That did not stop Fox printing and spreading the details.

They should be embarrassed by such hypocrisy.

The fact is I like America. Ok there are some idiots, but you find them in every country. Fox insults most decent, intelligent Americans and makes them look ignorant, stupid, and psychopathic. America and it's people deserve much better than such biased garbage.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

David Kelly's death

Dr David Kelly was the British expert on biological warfare. More than that he was one of the leading experts in the world of this horrific field. He was found dead after he was outed by the BBC in a shocking failure to protect their sources and subjected to a labour witch hunt. Kelly told the BBC that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction. He has been proven right.

This is a scandalous testimony to the vicious nature or labour's smear machine. Alistair Campbell, the malign force behind the concerted attack, got away with it. He and Blair have Kelly's blood on their hands to go with all the other blood that drench their poisonous souls.

The circumstances of his death, and the fact that Dr Kelly did not have a proper inquest but rather a whitewash set up to protect labour has raised concerns.

People have an innate tendency not to believe the mundane when it comes to the famous or the high profile. You can see this with the unfounded belief that Princess Diana did not die as a result of a car crash because she did not have her seat belt on, and her driver was drunk. If either of these two factors were different she'd be alive now. But that is too boring so it must have been murder. Forget the facts or the truth. The same goes for Elvis not being dead, or Marilyn Monroe's death. Conspiracy theories abound because we don't want to believe the mundane and ordinary truth of these extraordinary people's death. This is fed by the tabloid papers and hungry authors who make a lot of money selling trash to the gullible.

However with the Kelly death their are legitimate concerns. Some say his was murdered. For reasons that make no sense to me. Some are concerned by the lack of a proper inquest. Not having testimony under oath unlike every other inquest guarantees conspiracy theories. The more serious doubts is medical. Doubts about the forensics of the crime scene. The lack of fingerprints, the absence of fatal drugs, and the inability of the wound on his wrist to kill. More seriously there is doubts that he had the ability to inflict the wound on himself due to his disability. To make things worse the stooge labour put in charge of the whitewash secretly changed the law to keep all records of the autopsy and scene of the crime secret for seventy years and didn't tell anyone. This special, unprecedented, treatment virtually guarantees that rumours will abound. It is a travesty of justice.

These are medical and forensic concerns. Now nine medical doctors have written about their concerns and demanding a proper investigation into Dr Kelly's death.

These are eminent doctors rather than the usual conspiracy nuts, these include knights of the realm, professors, medical barristers, and some of the most senior forensic doctors in the country.

See here. 

When such eminent professionals go public with their concerns and demands that the government must open the files and hold an open and full investigation into Dr Kelly's death, something is seriously wrong with Kelly's death. As such the government must agree to do what they ask. If there is nothing wrong openness will scotch the rumours. If there is truth to them then the guilty must be brought to justice.

Dr Kelly was a modest man. He was also a honest and learned hero. He deserves justice.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Wikileaks: Fox viewers want to murder their families!

It seems that Wikileaks are going to release some more files. I think we can say it is not going to show the US military in a good life. I know, I'm psychic.

See here.

Again what gets me is the comments of people to this story on Fox. Obviously it shows an incapacity of thought which cannot comprehend that Assange cannot be tried for treason as he is not American. This is par for the course. It also shows an inability in geography. Posters are now beating up on Austria with valid smears about how blond and Aryan Assange is. He's Australian!!!

People want him killed. We've seen than many times. But for the first time I was shocked by a comment. In the insane world of some posters Assange in an enemy, and a traitor (I'll leave aside the reality of the situation). And as such he should be dealt with as a enemy of the US. By this people most posters think he should be kidnapped or murdered in Europe.

I've written before why these options are not good for the US, or indeed Europe/Australia. However you can kind of see where it is coming from. Basically it comes from a million pulp movies where unusually competent CIA people hunt the 'baddies" down and kill them. All without anyone noticing the illegal action.

But like I said a post shocked me. A poster wrote, and the post has not been censored or removed by Fox, that all members of Wikileaks should be kidnapped and spirited into some secret prison. There to be tortured or murdered in secret.

Point one: Wikileaks is not a traditional business. Most contributors don't work for Wikileaks.

Point two: the contributors are over seven hundred people spread around the globe. That is a lot of people to kidnap, especially as I assume they will be hiding once their friends start disappearing.

Point three: you cannot keep the disappearance of Assange, or the several hundred others secret. Worse than that, as soon as a single one of the, goes a bit silent the world and his dog will know it's down to the US. This does not make for a secret mission.

Point four: Europe, Sweden, Ireland, the UK, Germany, Australia, and Russia, Mexico, and many many other countries who have Wikileak people will go absolutely mental. Even countries who are friendly to the US and support their war will be unable to resist the public anger such illegal acts will lead to.

Such things are stupid and par for the course. But this poster went further. They want ALL Wikileaks 'staff' kidnapped taken to a hell hole and tortured AND their families.

Their families!

We'll restrict this to the nuclear families. So this means partner and children. And as the Wikileak people are younger and so we are talking about young children here.

So some Fox News watcher is seriously wants children kidnapped and tortured. What type of mentality leads to a person wanting this insane actions? And the US is supposed to be better than Iran, North Korea? Not if they do that they wouldn't be. Rather their government wouldn't as I strongly believe most Americans are better than that.

It's scary the mentality of some people. You cannot blame the movies for such mentally. I've never seen a movie were the all-American hero kidnaps and tortures children.

So it's all down to Fox News and it's viewers. It does not look good for either.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Fox News on Iran: why do I bother?

I've gotten into to an unfortunate habit of watching Fox News. I've no idea why...it is rubbish. The pap it spews out is ridiculous. Actually it is probably that which makes it so fascinating, in a morbid, watching a car crash way.

Any road up it has a story about how Iran is preparing mass graves for US soldiers in case the US attacks Iran, see here. Not a big story to be fair and is just pointless propaganda on behalf of the Iranian government. Empty rhetoric for home consumption. If they are lucky they may get some brownie points with some of the extreme element of their branch of Islam.

We've seen it before many times.

Now I want to make it perfectly clear that I support the Iranian people who simply want freedom. We witnessed their fight for such freedom and saw how their repressive regime used sickening violence to subdue them. I truly hope to see Iran free and democratic.

But what gets me about the Fox story is the comments spewed out by those people who comment on the story. Bloody hell it's awful. I only hope that the lack of reasonableness is due to Fox erasing comments in order to promote their line. If there are no such comments I worry about the US!

All the comments I read want to drop nuclear bombs on Iran because of this weak propaganda stunt. The more 'reasonable' want to drop a 100 mega tonne bomb of Tehran (ignoring the fact that no one actually has a 100 mt bomb because it is so massive to be useless militarily), others want to drop nuclear bombs on ten cites in Iran, and if they don't do what they're told another ten, and another....you get the picture.

Others want every Iranian killed.

Now you have to say it's a bit rough on those brave people who have been fighting for freedom.

However what really strikes me is the lack of understanding about what an unprovoked nuclear attack means to the US. If only one nuclear bomb is dropped without the US being the victim of attack, and a big one at tat, the US would lose all creditability. It would become a pariah state shunned by all. That would do massive damage to the US politically and economically.

The ignorance about Iran is worrying. Iran is a proud nation who's people want to be Iranian...free Iranian but Iranian none the less. They don't want to be Americans, as some Americans think. Any attack would strengthen the horrible regime in charge.The people may not like their government, but they are proud people who would flock to that hated government if their country was attacked. This is counter-productive, to say the least.

 The fact that Iran with it's new anti-shipping missiles (and it's bought a lot of new ones, 100's of modern ones perfect for stopping oil tankers) could close the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely. That would cripple the world economy a that's the route that most of our oil moves through.

Conventional bombing could conceivably destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure, but the only way to defeat the country is by land invasion. The US, and it probably would only be the US, with perhaps some Middle Eastern countries who hate Iran more than the US (though I would very much doubt they'd lend troops) are much better equipped and trained than the Iranian troops. But Iran doesn't need to have modern arms to win. This is a country which sacrificed a million soldiers in a pointless war with Iran. Think how many a fanatical regime would eagerly lose to win?

If a country is willing to lose millions of troops, and women, and children, it doesn't matter how good your arms are or how well trained. You are going to lose due to weight of numbers.

People need to realise the realities of the situation in Iran and not spout off vile threats. Such rash words feed into an already paranoid and fanatical regime. This is not a good thing to do.

I really should not watch Fox News. Watching it, and reading the comments of it's American viewer-ship is not conducive to one's blood pressure.

CIA doctors and torture

I made a study of war crimes as part of my job several years ago. As part of this I researched medical abuses. Specifically the crimes of medical doctors under the Nazis and Stalin. Their medical experiments on concentration camp inmates will stay with me for life. The abuses by medical doctors under the old Soviet system which used their power to diagnose brave people who strove for democracy as mentally ill remains shocking. The willing participation of medical partitioners in torture around the globe from one dictatorship to another is horrendous.

All these abuses by medical people is shocking and obscene. We trust our doctors so when they use their training to kill and torture it is a betrayal of our trust.

When a medic wants to torture and kill they have the abilities, and equipment, to inflict more pain, and do so for longer, than the layman. They are the stuff of nightmares.

The trials of the medical criminals after the second world war shocked the world.

Such crimes happened after this war, but we like to think only in the most dictatorial of third world hell holes.

Which makes the collaboration of some medical doctors in the CIA highlighted in a report by the American Medical Association, in the torture of suspects shocking and shameful. See here http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/09/report-cia-doctors-violated-medical-ethics/?test=latestnews

I'm not anti-American, or anti-US military, but torture is wrong. Most American people, and troops, will understand this I'm sure. For a doctor to participate in a crime against humanity shows a corruption of ethics of a sickening scale.

What I find sad is the comments from normal people commenting on this story in the above site. VERY few of them think that torture is wrong. Some even deny that water boarding is torture (it is of course, and I'm sure they'd feel so if it were done to them). This is scary. To some extent the American media are to blame. They showed a all-American hero in '24' who tortured with gay abandon. Some people who unable to tell the difference between fact and fiction cannot see that in reality torture is wrong.

Torture is illegal. But it is more than that at stake. America is an advanced, enlightened, democracy which people in repressive states should strive to emulate. The US use of torture tarnishes this.

The argument given by many is that other countries torture, and do much worse things to their victims. This is true. But they have lost sight of the simple fact that dictatorships may torture, but the US is better than them.

If people come to see torture as the norm then it will be applied to US citizens by other countries as the any US protestations will be ignored as the American's will be regarded as the same as any other country which condones torture. That is a dangerous road to go down.

War is awful. Bloody, difficult, horrific things occur in war. Such things are inevitable in any war even the most just of wars. But torture is not justified no matter how just the war.

A society that seeks to justify the use of torture is doing immense damage to themselves.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Karen Woo a Hero

People have different views about the terrible war in Afghanistan. However I can think of no higher action than to give up a very successful career in medicine and to go to this poor country solely to help the sick and the injured. Regardless of politics or one's views of the war you have to find such people to be heroes.

One of these dedicated doctors was Karen Woo. A blogger ( http://bridgeafghanistan.blogspot.com/ ) who gave up her job and raised money solely to help those in desperate need of medical attention. She was murdered with nine other medical people by terrorists in Afghanistan. See here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10903737

These people, including the leader who'd spent thirty years giving Afghanis back their sight, were murdered in cold blood.

These people are all heros.

Karen was a beautiful, ex-model, stunt woman, and doctor. A woman who dedicated her life to healing people. A person who gave up everything to help people. She wasn't a religious zealot or missionary. She wasn't after riches or fame. She simply wanted to help those in need.

She was a remarkable, clever, brave, and humane person. Her death is a tragedy for her family and friends, the man she was due to marry must be devastated. Her death, together with her colleagues, is an even bigger tragedy for the people of Afghanistan. Without their skills the sick will die, people will be blinded.

What type of people would kill such people?




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Wikileaks: on being turned into heros by the US

Wikileaks is a thoroughly modern phenomenon. Seriously, a few years ago they could not have existed. Technology, software, and the cost of bandwidth meant that they couldn't have existed. We are truly in a new world of media where people have power that the big media could only dream to have.

I've written about my disagreement with Wikileaks about releasing information which will get informants and their families killed. That should not happen. Not checking what was released, or checking that Afghanis were identifiable, is unforgivable.

I've been reading various sites for the American perspective on the situation. I'm talking about mainstream sites here....and Fox News. It's scary. Really frightening. Part of me has a suspicion that they are being orchestrated by someone to turn Wikileaks into heros by provoking a backlash against US interests. The amount of ignorance, stupidly and sickness many, though not all, of these posts exhibit is worrying. I've heard people say that the American people are being fed a biased porridge of news with no real analysis of the world, and that they are ignorant as a result. I've never believed that, I've always found the Americans of my acquaintance anything but blinkered or stupid. However after reading the post it makes you wonder.

I'm amazed that thousands of posters want the Wikileak people tried for treason, even though they aren't American, not living in America, and cannot be tried for treason in America. When posters explain this they are ignored.

What confused me for a long time was the amount of posters who decry Sweden as Nazis who kept then nazi gold safe for the Germans. For a long time this confused me. I kept going over the history of the neo-Nazi movement in Sweden and I couldn't find anything that justified this. Then it hit me .... These many posters confused Sweden with Switzerland. Ok they both start with an 'S', but come on.

Posters were angry with Sweden for not giving the Wikileak people to the US after being saved during the second world war. They weren't. They were technically neutral, though they worked brilliantly with the Danish people to make sure that the Danish Jews were spirited out of Denmark and given sanctuary in Sweden. And 10,000 swedes fought with the allies against the Nazis. Sweden was not liberated by the US. Swedes fought with us freely without conscription.

The way people call for US special forces to parachute into Sweden or CIA hit teams to infiltrate and murder people is frankly odd. The world exists in two states: fiction and reality. Such actions are fine in movies. But movies aren't real. Forget the public backlash after the event, it would be a bloodbath. I once studied the US plan to rescue the US embassy staff held hostage in Iran. The plan went wrong because of an accident and some very brave men tragically lost their lives. However if the plan had worked thousands of innocent Iranians who had no involvement in the kidnap would have been killed. The plan was for the US ground forces to fight through crowded streets to a football stadium protected by a Spectre four engine gunship firing tens of thousands of cannon shells and artillery shells into the crowed streets. It would have been a disaster for the US.

Killing innocent people in a European country would not be popular.

Some Americans seem to believe the movies and see the military attack on an ally as painless: it isn't.

I like a good movie or tv programme. Exciting and dumb are entertaining. But I don't confuse them with reality or with what is acceptable on the real world.

It is worrying that people cannot tell the difference.

The level of ignorance about how the Internet works surprises me. Posters seem to think that Wikileaks is based in Sweden and so can be destroyed simply, with grenades, predator UAV's, or bunker buster bombs, to use examples given many times by posters.

The internet was built by the military. The British Post Office created the structure for the US military for a specific purpose: to create a system that can survive attack. Initially nuclear attack. This means that it is bloody hard to stop sites run by technically savvy people. They are spread over different servers in different countries. And one thing you can say about Wikileaks, they know what they are doing.

It does not matter if the Swedish serves were destroyed. The other servers carry the data. I would imagine that there are servers based in China, or Russia, or France, etc. I cannot see military action being taken on them, can you?

And that's just servers. Using torrents and dark-nets the information is being held in umpteen million computers world wide without the owners knowing about it. They cannot all be attacked.

The information is out of the bottle. It's too late to hide what has been released.

What will do the most damage is the arrogance of the majority of the posters. They treat national sovereignty of other states, even democratic, advanced ones, as if they don't exist. This attitude is going to piss a lot of non-US people off. The US needs friends and allies. This is not how you keep them.

America is an advanced, educated, democracy. One which is held up as being better than Iran, North Korea, etc. Rightly. However the rants by thousands of posters, politicians, and the media to kidnap, torture, rape, and murder people does not look good. Such talk makes the US, and the US people to be the same as the vilest of regimes. This is not the image you want to give to the world.

Posters to threads don't mean much, they are written in haste. What is despicable is those articles and interviews given by journalists and politicians which espouse kidnap and torture. How in God's name can people in such positions call for torture, assassination, never mind kidnap? Something is wrong there.

And things have gone beyond parody when Carl Rove goes on Fox News and calls Wikileaks criminals! And yet that is what he has done tonight.

Carl 'war criminal' Rove!!!!

All this is making Wikileaks look like heros. When the history of these events are written it will mostly deal with what not to handle things if you are a government. The way the US is handling this is frankly pathetic. They are losing this new media war big time.

I have criticised Wikileaks here before and have done for nearly the whole of this blogs existence. My criticism of their placing civilians in danger remains, as is my view on their arrogance. However even a harsh critic such as I feel myself warming to them after the reaction to them and us in the US.

This is not good for the US government and military.

As it happens I've been researching some academic work on the US military and government by some leading American academics for a while now. My notes criticise their work and is anti them. But when I reread my notes over the last few days in light of this fiasco I do find myself thinking they may have a point.

Not good.

Europe and Australia have over 34,000 troops in Afghanistan supporting our American ally. If the US make Wikileaks into heros or martyrs they'll be withdrawn. I don't think the American people want even more American troops placed in danger by the need to replace them. The US needs allies. Don't lose them because of this.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Wycliffe Jean for prez: haven't they suffered enough?

The popular music artiste (mi'lord), Wycliffe Jean has made a lot of money through his talent and luck. Which must be nice. I say luck because even the most talented of people require luck.

But now he wants to stand as president of the benighted country of Haiti. See here http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/aug/06/wyclef-jean-president-haiti-singer

Before the became a US citizen he was originally from Haiti, but he left long ago.

It is a strange development but not unexpected. Rappers and stars of his magnitude are treated like kings. They spend millions on parties and bling. I suppose one must get jaded. But what better than doing the ultimate in one up man ship and actually get your own country! Puff Daddy would never be able to beat that!

I've nothing against rich people getting involved in politics as such, ok I don't like the rich thinking they have the divine right to power but I'm not against it in principle. I'm not even against stars becoming politicians. Arnold is governor of California, fairly elected, Clint Eastwood was a mayor, Regan became president, and there are others out there. They may be good or bad but at least they stood for election and tried to give back something.

But.....

It would be terrible if Jean became the president of Haiti. He left the country is child and is incredibly rich: what can he really know of the lives of the people of that poor country?

More than that, Haiti needs good, democratic, uncorrupt politicians free from any taint. They need competent people who have the abilities and experience to deliver real change for this poor, tragedy riven country. They don't need Jean.

I've written here previously how Jean set up a charity for Haiti and paid practically all the money raised from others to his lover or to buying ads on a TV station Jean owned.

Haiti don't need another politician using the office to enrich themselves at their expense. But that is what I fear they'll get with Jean. Another man working for his own benefit, enamoured with the trappings of power and prestige rather than sacrificing all for his people.

Haiti have suffered so many of that type of leader before, they don't need another one.

I have no doubt that Jean will win if he stands. He is a star. He will have massive US support. He owns a considerable part of the Haiti media. He'll win.

However political power is not the same as being a music star. You need a political base to operate from. A party that will support you and work to deliver what you want. You need a party and organisation able to protect you from harm. Jean will not have any of these mechanisms. Being president of a third world country, perhaps especially one as anarchy riven as Haiti, is dangerous. Jean could die if he becomes president. I know rap is a dangerous field but compared to this type of politics it is all sweetness and light. I don't think he understands that in his golden life. Stardom is no protection.

I worry about the poor of Haiti being ripped off or ruled by yet more incompetency. I only hope he takes the role seriously and actually works fairly for the people and doesn't steal from them. My fear is that the position of president becomes a bauble for his amusement and he will spend all his time swanning around hanging out with the rich and famous abroad rather than work tirelessly for he people.

Not very glamourous or easy, but such work is what a president should do. Will Jean?

One has to feel sorry for Haiti. The people deserve better.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

No council house for life: a bad idea

We all know that some people are on benefits who shouldn't be. But that number is by no means large. We also know that there are going to be cut backs. However I find the new government's proposal to kick people out of council houses after a certain period stupid and will cost the poor taxpayer a hell of a lot more than the current system.

I must say firstly that is does stick in the craw that MPs are picking out the poorest people for attack whilst they get all their houses paid for by the people, get their furniture paid for, and worse get £400 a month on expenses for food. They are also fighting tooth and claw to protect their fiddling. Like I said they should put their own house in order first.

But that's just me.

Kicking people out of council houses will cost more a lot more money. Council tenants pay a commercial rent if they are in work. If they are not they get help from the taxpayer. This benefit will come regardless of where they are living. Since more private landlords charge a lot more than the council this means that the taxpayer will have to pay a lot more to house the same people.

But things are worse than that though. If you kick out people from their houses you are going to destroy local communities and the family support systems people need. This is important because when people have to find somewhere to live, and if there are thousands of them, they'll have to move away from their local area to find private accommodation. So, I hear you ask. In local communities friends and family look after children when their parents work. If these support systems are disrupted it means the parents cannot work, or the state has to spend thousands per year to look after each child.

By splitting families it means that children cannot look after their elderly parents. Which means a much worse retirement for the elderly. More importantly it means the state will have to pay £600 , or more, per week to pay someone to look after them. Per person.

That will cost a fortune. Much more than that saved.

Carers get taken advantage of by the state. They work for free looking after children, the disabled, and the elderly. Kicking them out of their homes will place the real cost of their free work onto the state. This will cost a fortune.

A local council near me sold off all their housing stock to what was once the council's own housing department. The bosses of which have made a fortune, and whose directors remain councillors. Using John Prescott's stupid government scheme they have demolished thousands of homes that were once council accommodation and built very expensive homes for sale. This means that in that city they made nearly thirty thousand people homeless. These people went private and has cost us all a fortune. Worse it has destroyed the community and the costs to the state have gone through the roof.

The government needs to understand reality and the implications to real people and the taxpayer for any action. My fear is the government, like the last, have no idea how real people live. That is dangerous.

I want people to work. It is better for the taxpayer, and for the individuals themselves. But you cannot attack the vulnerable or refuse to give people the education and skills they need to find employment first.

If the government muck this up their is a danger of real anger and disruption. They need to think carefully.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Wikileaks: twittering to arrogance and destruction?

I've been following Wikileaks on Twitter for a long time now. However their tweets have got very peculiar since the whole leaking of US military secrets. It is actually fascinating to witness.

Twitter seems to exist for people to spout rubbish in the belief that it is interesting. Many times it is. More importantly Twitter has been a boon in the fight for freedom in Iran. It has become a harbinger of the use of the Internet to report governmental abuse. As such it has become an important tool.

What has always struck me is the fact that posts of 140 characters can, taken together, give you a remarkable insight into a person.

With Wikileaks this picture has been marked with a arc to arrogance and disconnect from reality. They seem, to go out of their way to attack viciously anyone that doesn't agree with them. Last week accusing Wired magazine, the bible to geeks like them, of lying and being in bed with the US intelligence community. For a organisation that is supposed to be an adult investigative media source it's pathetic.

Their tweets don't admit that their data release has consequences. That is sad. They live in a bubble were the effects of their actions on the lives of people is ignored, or worse, not even considered. This is playing into the stereotype of nerds being lacking in social skills and being a little autistic.

The self-aggrandisement and pomposity Wikileaks has been exhibiting over the last week or so is actually illustrative of something interesting. They tweet a hell of a lot now. All about how their contributors have been stopped or questioned, how some ridiculous politicians want them arrested/killed, etc, but mostly how Wikileaks is sticking it to the 'man', and how great Wikileaks and the members are.

I do find it sad how they have thrown off any pretence of being impartial and are now bragging how they are winning their war on the US military. This is undermining their credibility as a new media revolutionary. This is a shame.

It doesn't take an expert psychologist to realise, taking the tweets on mass, that far from being triumphant, they are scared.

And that's the thing, all our actions have consequences. As such you have to understand the reality of your actions on yourself, and more importantly, on the lives of others. Most people know and accept that. It seems to have come as a shock to Wikileaks.

I've been a supporter of Wikileaks for some time. They have done some wonderful work. However I fear their arrogance and boasting is a harbinger of their destruction. Not from US action, but because of their own actions.

I've always thought that the Wikileaks people lived in a kind of dumbed down James Bond world where they are the heros of the film. This is reflected by the incoherent position of demanding that others be open and post their secrets at the same time as Wikileaks are secretive with only one person involved being names, and more damaging, keeping their funding secret. Openness needs to apply to them as well as to us. Anything less damages them and undermines their cause. All this cloak and dagger stuff, with bug sweeps, safe houses, and the rest, is all very exciting but until the last few weeks unnecessary. It has however made them forget about the consequences of their actions.

It is the arrogance and the stupidity which will do for Wikileaks.

As a supporter of them I do not want to see any violence, or kidnapping, or illegality meted out to them by anyone, especially the US. I do however believe that Wikileaks are destroying themselves before our very eyes.

It is a shame that for all the good they've done it should end in such a stupid, childish, manner.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Wikileaks: how to make a disaster much worse

I've written here about the Wikileaks website before. With a prescience for which I am not known I talked about the scattergun nature of the orgnaisation. Bacially they'll go after ANYONE. This is fine if it people you don't like, like the BNP, but not so good if it is people you like or indeed yourself. One only has to think of all the Climategate documents they leaked as well as the BNP one's to understand that Wikileaks is two edged sword.

And now Wikileaks have published 70 odd thousand US military documents. It would be best if those who are against the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, of which there are many, do not gloat as Wikileaks will go after you as well as your foes.

Personally I am saddened that Wikileaks published his mass of data. Espeically when they admit that they published thousands of documents they didn't even read. They did know that the files they published names the people who worked with the US. Naming them will mean that they and thier families will be murdered.

For ANYONE to publish such documents which will lead to people dying is obcene. Their actions are unjustifiable. Even if you don't like the war you have to condemn releasing data that will kill people.

However, the US government, the US media, and some US people are going out of their way to make a disaster for the US so much more. As an example,

'Assange seems to believe, incorrectly, that he is immune to arrest so long as he stays outside the United States. He leads a nomadic existence, operating in countries such as Sweden, Belgium and Iceland, where he believes he enjoys the protection of "beneficial laws." (He recently worked with the Icelandic parliament to pass legislation effectively making the country a haven for WikiLeaks). The United States should make clear that it will not tolerate any country -- and particularly NATO allies such as Belgium and Iceland -- providing safe haven for criminals who put the lives of NATO forces at risk.

With appropriate diplomatic pressure, these governments may cooperate in bringing Assange to justice. But if they refuse, the United States can arrest Assange on their territory without their knowledge or approval. In 1989, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum entitled "Authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to Override International Law in Extraterritorial Law Enforcement Activities."

This memorandum declares that "the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI's actions contravene customary international law" and that an "arrest that is inconsistent with international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment." In other words, we do not need permission to apprehend Assange or his co-conspirators anywhere in the world.'

See here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080202627.html

And this is a mainstream newspaper. Others have called for his assassination. Or even him being tried for treason in the US, though he is not American and the actions were not carried out in the US. Others have demanded that the Wikileaks servers be taken down, even though there not in America and are operating legally in the country they are situated.

Any arrest/kidnap or murder of Assange by the US without the knowledge of, or permission of the country in which he is at the time would turn a US disaster into a international US disaster.

Assange is not American but an Australian. He lives in a European country. How do you think any action, even non fatal action, will go down in Australia, and the European Union. Russia and China will pounce on the actions.

The US lead wars are not popular. However, American action will do the US immense damage with their international allies. The arrogance of the Americans with their contempt of the laws and sovereignty of other countries will undermines US prestige. The longterm damage of our relationships will do massive damage to the longterm interests of America. If they kidnap or kill him the US can say goodbye to finding allies to send troops and may even find the EU taking action against get US. This does no one any good.

I wholeheartedly condemn Wikileaks releasing names in the knowledge it will lead to their deaths. Wikileaks will have their blood on their hands.

However any US action needs to be legal and not alienate their allies and trading partners. The US needs us. They should remember that. We are not their colonies. We are the people they need to get them out of their economic trouble. They need us to buy their products. They really shouldn't piss us off.

They shouldn't make Wikileaks the victim here. That would be stupid.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Clare Balding: 'dykcon

I've talked about the complaint Clare Balding has made because AA Gill referred to her as a 'dyke'. Apparently she finds this offensive and has tried to whip up a twitter frenzy against Gill and the Sunday Times.

My initial feelings can be summed up thus "you're an adult woman, grow up".

My second is that she was a hypocrite because this is a woman who publicly humiliated a jockey after his greatest achievement live on tv and treated the real hurt she caused as a joke.

I've written about this before.

However,

I've now found that Balding is a total hypocrite. She says now that she does not want her sexuality mentioned, even though she outed herself. She also says that the word 'dyke' is a sackable offence when applied to her.

Ok

But she did not complain or make a fuss when the Guardian' Claudia Cahalane made reference to her sexuality and called her a 'dykon'. See here http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/jul/21/clare-balding-bbc-britain-bike

Balding has not complained about this term, or the reference to her sexuality. 'dykon' is the bringing together of icon and dyke. 'dykon' and 'bike on a bike' (cf Gill) both use the world 'dyke' to refer to Balding.

If Balding was upset at Gill she must also be upset at Cahalane. If she is making an official complaint against Gill she must also make an official complaint against Cahlane. If she takes action against the Sunday Times she must take action against the Guardian.

Where are her tweets complaining about the Guardian?

Not taking action against the Guardian undermines her attack on the Sunday Times. It also shows her to be a hypocrite.

I don't like the word 'dyke' as it happens it is ugly. It is not obscene though. Balding is making herself look stupid. This is not good pr for Balding.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Jacqui Smith and the BBC: gissa a job

Everyone knows that the ex-home Secretary, god help us, Jacqui Smith should have been prosecuted for fraud. Her misuse of her expenses is legendary. I've written about her here many times. All you really have to know is she stole hundreds of thousands of pounds from us and got away with it. If there were any justice she would be in the dock facing trial. But she's was to high up in labour for the laws to apply to her.

Any road up the voters kicked her out at the last election. And so she went away to lucrative anonymity whilst we try to repair the damage she'd done.

Well that was how it was supposed to be. She was supposed to live off her golden goodbye and her twenty thousand a year pension. Even rogues are kept well if they were MPs. I always thought that she, like the other ex-ministers, would be snapped up by businesses as directors. That would have brought her serious money.

I am pleased to say that didn't happen. For a person who was the third most powerful person in the country not to find a directorship is telling. Either business now know that labour is dead and over and so won't hire them (which seems not to be the case as all the other labour types have found directorships), or she is too damaged to be any use (if you had a business would you want to associated with an alleged crook?), or she is monumentally useless.

But it seems she is having one last throw with an old labour party friend, the BBC. She has applied for the vice chairmanship if the BBC Trust. A 2.5 day a week job for £77,000 , plus lucrative expenses. All paid for by the taxpayer via a legally enforced licence. If you don't pay for a BBC licence you can be sent to prison.

See here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299288/Jacqui-Smith-applies-BBC-job--half-days-week-77k-expenses-naturally.html

By rights Smith should be a given the job by the Beeb as a matter of course. Their pro labour bias is legendary. But will they be so stupid as to give the job to any ex-labour minister, much less such a sleazy one? Their have been mutterings in Tory circles about cutting the licence fee with some pushing for more drastic action.

In such circumstances would you want to alienate them even more?

In many respects the outcome is interesting. Either Smith is not hired because she is useless which is fine. Or she is not hired so the Beeb can suck up to the Tories. Both options are Ok. What would be interesting is if she is hired. That would show their labour bias in full force. Or, more interestingly, it would show that they think all politicians are the same and that giving a job to one is acceptable to the others as they will want a nice job when they retire. This means that all the tough words in public mean nothing as they are all the same.

I can only hope that Smith just goes away and loses everything. But I fear that the system does not work like that, which is a shame.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad