Interesting piece from Craig Murray which has the mind wandering to other topics. It was about Ecuador and the CIA but it also made certain general points:
Extradition agreements are government to government international treaties, and the decision on their implementation is ultimately political and governmental – that is why it was Teresa May and not a judge who took the final and very different political decisions on Babar Ahmad and Gary Mackinnon.
CIA supporters in the UK have argued vociferously that it would be impossible for Sweden to give Assange the assurance he would not be extradited to the United States, with which he would be prepared to return to Sweden to see off the rather pathetic attempted fit-up there. In fact, as extradition agreements are governmental not judicial instruments, it would be perfectly possible for the Swedish government to give that assurance.
A reader made the comment:
Most important, US citizens are duped to think that Assange is bad whilst the despicable foreign policy goals of the US world empire are good for their children’s future.
The mind immediately thought of Amanda Knox in this context – the size and comprehensive nature of the false information has a whole nation virtually believing she is innocent but much of Italy concurring with over 30 justices that she is, beyond all reasonable doubt, guilty. I’ve had people come here and say there was no forensic evidence when there very much was.
An example was a mainstream programme giving one of the two convicted murderers, Sollecito, a platform for a book which has been taken apart at TJMK – in fact I did a partial debunking myself – and currently there is an expose of the media campaign.
Leaving guilt or innocence aside, what is not in any dispute is the misinformation and it requires a long, painstaking procedure of research and archiving to be able to refute a lightly-worded untruth they know the average person is neither going to be interested in any more nor is going to be able to devote the time to pursue.
Thus untruths and halftruths exist side by side and each new claim based on the original a priori untruth and halftruth compounds it, to the point that long, long after the original dispute has been resolved, these become the stuff of legend.
The other day, someone attempted a few of those about me, using words like “this has been well documented and established” when it has been nothing of the kind, except by the writer himself, with supposed evidence consisting of cobbled-together fragments out of context and none of the other material incriminating him.
Better than that, there was a reference to a blog group. The words were “ask him [me] why he was kicked out”. OK, so let’s ask me and here is me replying. I was in a group in 2007 which three of us started and I could say that the majority of members were brought in by me over a period of time. There were three people who were admins. One of them I handed over to [male] controlled the mailing list which was the core of the group, not the blog, one nominally headed the group [a female I gave this over to] and then me.
Now that male wants nothing to do with this today because he knows he did a naughty one night near new year and simply shut me, his fellow admin, out of the mailing list, following that with a long diatribe against me in the mailing list, obviously not capable of right of reply from me – everyone knows I would have gone into painstaking detail, in chapter and verse and it was more important that the narrative was accepted.
Now this male was not authorized in any way to do that, as the group rules required such to be put to the vote and those group rules had been put to members. When I emailed the two admins, in no uncertain terms, that this was outside the group rules, they did not reply or reverse it. They did not adhere to their own blog rules.
The troublemaker behind the scenes, the catalyst of all the troubles, whom I’d called out for group rule breaches multiple times, who’d been chipping away at both of these fellow admins but had not the guts to try it on with me head-to-head was the very person who tried this on again the other day. Now I’ve said many times to people close to me that his method is to take the major accusations someone makes against him – and you know I back up anything I say with evidence – then make that, with no alteration, his own accusation in reply.
It’s an amazing method and quite effective because no one gets all the original allegations, just this late one from him. To reverse the lying, one would have to go into chapter and verse in fine detail and let’s face it, no one is interested in that except him. The other reaction is just to ignore the bstd and move on.
Thus, on the “being kicked out” thing, I was not kicked out by the group at all. I was shut out by an admin whom I’d foolishly, as it turned out, given control of the mailing list to, with the connivance of the other admin.
Eventually, two current readers of NO advised me to get a bit of perspective, to move on – a blog group is only a blog group, no real life matter of life or death and that’s the attitude I’ve taken to my own blog here and in helping set up OoL. At the end of the day, it’s just a project and if NO closed down, well, that’s life. Those readers I refer to were members of that bloggroup, they currently read NO and OoL and they are reading this post now and are most likely puzzled why I should bring this up again here, today.
What makes me smile is that the very thing the troublemaker accuses me of is what actually happened to him – in a group of around 60 members, 14 voted, including those two admins plus a new one who was part of a triumvirate and the troublemaker was himself booted out in an 11-3 vote.
He never mentions that.
He also never mentions the evidence I have – his own email – threatening a fellow blogger to go to his employer whom he’d somehow found the name and address of. That fellow blogger wrote to me asking for some help and protection, which I gave.
And the troublemaker, a convicted crim in the UK, accuses me of bullying him. LOL.
He also accuses me of driving people off the net. OMG. In 2008, he drove NO off the net by one of his [then] supporters informing Blogger of my “unfitness” and Blogger, who shuts down sites first and investigates later, eventually had to reinstate NO for lack of evidence of this “bullying”.
I’d had enough of this and started up the WordPress version of NO where you read this now. I demanded an apology from Blogger for their guilt assumption but you know how far anyone gets with that organization.
Interestingly, someone [not me] must have informed Blogger of his own unfitness to blog and his blog was shut down, not to reappear again – so who’s the bully and who’s the scurrilous one?
What did he do? He eventually adopted some poor sod’s name and ran a sockpuppet blog, going around to people on my blogrolls and accusing me of the things mentioned above. Now bear in mind that the original dispute was 2007 and this is late 2012. My last post on the matter was in early 2009.
I also put it to anyone with access to these two blogs, to show where I have ever driven anyone off the net. For a start, how does one go about that? The only way I can see is to falsely flag someone to Blogger. There is a way we’ve had to adopt at OoL over a stalker and that was to inform his provider with copies of his comments and let them investigate, which they did.
My approach at NO is different – I just don’t let stalkers in. Simple.
One of his former supporters has actually told me that he asked her to put his letter on NO for him – it was going to be about forgiveness – his forgiveness of me – and in this, he lied to her. That lady and another are reading this now and I’d say thanks for being honest about this. And to the two blogfriends of mine who are wondering why this post now – it’s because of recent activity by the troll and the need to put the record straight.
So OK – let’s speak of forgiveness. Do I forgive someone who has libelled me since 2007, run a campaign of vilification based on falsehoods, run sockpuppet blogs to vilify me and is one of the worst bullies on the net, as all cowards are, let alone his communist principles for society. Do I forgive him?
Well I’m bound to, according to the very Christianity he accuses me of not adhering to. I have two things to say to this richard cranium: 1. I forgive him and 2. Arkell v Pressdram.
[Just a quick word - I'm not going to broaden this into a slanging match from 2007 again so comments on that will not appear. I might take excerpts from the comments but shan't run the comments themselves, neither from those supporting me nor the stalker's side. That's evenhanded and necessary. No names have been named and that's how I'll keep it.]
I’m going to lengthen this, not shorten it, by mentioning another case. My football team’s coach was a bit of a bad boy. In 2005, he and another player deliberately bumped the shoulder of a champ from the other side when that shoulder was injured. The reasoning was that all is fair in football and if the bump was legal and that injured player had stayed on, then he was a legitimate target.
Last year there was a footy programme on TV which dredged all that up. Our coach said nothing while the commentator accused his brother and him of the deed. Now, his brother had never been involved, so as the show ended, he asked if the commentator was going to apologize to his brother. Transmission was quickly closed down and the lie remained in place.
You might say it was not a lie but poor research but the effect was the same.
At OoL, I ran an American Thinker article yesterday where the EDL leader has been treated quite illegally and painted as something he’s not. I don’t mean he’s necessarily a nice guy but he has certainly been tainted by innuendo and false accusations, to the extent that he’s been dragged around various courts and none of it stuck. Why? Because it was a beat-up.
I myself have no connection whatever with the EDL. I just don’t like injustice.
This post was about disinformation and if one broadens that to the Assange situation, the Beeb, the phonetapping and a host of other issues, the received wisdom which eventually comes down to people and becomes enshrined in history books is often skewed at best and utterly false at worst. A bete noir may well not be so if the facts were known.
[H/T Chuckles for the Murray piece]
Filed under: Politics & economics