Home, The Feral Press

• Telegraph’s Ben Brogan notices the Ban Blair-Baiting petition
• Call by “Libertarian Alliance” for Parliamentary Bill for Execution of Tony Blair!
• That other irritating blog

18th February 2011

In case you have any doubt that we are being misled and maliciously misinformed by our press, you should know that I could write daily on The Guardian’s lies and distortions. As it happens, CiFWatch does that very thing.

Today, CIFWatch has this The Palestine Papers and the Malice of Journalism (For more from CIFWatch see list at end)

This is cross posted by Kendrick Macdowell, who blogs at The Prince and The Little Prince

“The Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and cannot create the state.” —Tzipi Livni, 2008, then Israeli foreign minister

Let that statement sink in for a moment, and you will appreciate one of the most disturbing pathologies about the Middle East peace process—but not the one you think.

The quote was featured prominently in the liberal British newspaper The Guardian as part of its coverage of the so-called “Palestinian Papers”—1,600 documents about Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations leaked to Al-Jazeera and provided to The Guardian.

Here is what Ms. Livni actually said:

“I understand the sentiments of the Palestinians when they see the settlements being built. The meaning from the Palestinian perspective is that Israel takes more land, that the Palestinian state will be impossible, the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and cannot create the state.”

Consistent with its policy of active malice against Israel, The Guardian deliberately converted a statement by Ms. Livni describing Palestinian perceptions into a declaration by Ms. Livni of actual and pernicious Israeli policy. In short, The Guardian brazenly lied.

Ever determined to demonize Israel as the obstacle to peace, The Guardian introduced the Palestinian Papers with the blaring banner, “Israel spurned Palestinian offer of ‘biggest Yerushalayim in history’.” (Yerushalayim is the sonorous Hebrew word for Jerusalem.) Yes, the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, spoke the phrase “biggest Yerushalayim in history”—much exploited elsewhere by The Guardian—just as Tzipi Livni spoke the words attributed, with scissoring malice, to her. But Erekat’s words in context belie the Guardian narrative of Israeli intransigence:

Israelis want the two-state solution but they don’t trust. They want it more than you think, sometimes more than Palestinians. What is in that paper gives them the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history, symbolic number of refugees return, demilitarized state…what more can I give?

So Israel does want a two-state solution, sometimes even more than the Palestinians. The Guardian, evidently less so.  And just to make sure there was no lingering ambiguity about The Guardian‘s bigotry, it published a cartoon of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dressed up like an Orthodox Jew toting an Uzi-like gun— drawn by cartoonist Carlos Latuff, known for his viciously anti-Israel work. What a splendid contribution to peace.

The revelations from the Palestinian Papers are not especially surprising—negotiations were cordial, frank, serious, and constructive—but the “journalists” at Al-Jazeera and The Guardian are full of fraudulent and bigoted surprises. Even more disturbing than the apparent intractability of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (for which the Palestinian Papers actually suggest a ray of hope) is the despicable state of much “journalism” concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (for which there is evidently no hope).

By comparison, WikiLeaks’ impish and reckless Julian Assange, who simply dumps secrets that imperil human lives, looks cherubic.

While The Guardian anchored the anti-peace process in the West, Al-Jazeera ensured hostility to peace in the Arab world, with particular attention to slandering Palestinians. Declared Al-Jazeera in one “news” article: “The Palestinian Authority (PA) has shown operational willingness to co-operate with Israel to kill its own people, The Palestine Papers indicate.” This is not journalism. This is cynical and fraudulent hate-mongering.

The slander about craven Palestinian negotiators making unprecedented concessions has already sent Palestinians scurrying for cover, immeasurably complicating an always delicate negotiation dynamic. In fact, Palestinian negotiators acted as sophisticated diplomats, in pursuit of a realistic peace that neither Al-Jazeera norThe Guardian want.

But then, surrounding Arab regimes have always had an interest in perpetuating the suffering of the Palestinian people. PA President Abbas condemned Al-Jazeera’s agenda as sparking a Tunisian-style uprising among Palestinians. Maybe so, maybe no, but Palestinians, thinking that surely 23 Arab states and 57 Muslim states have their backs against one Jewish state, have put so much misplaced faith in a fake solidarity that has failed them for 60 years.

Ghassan Khatib, Executive Director of the Arab Reform Institute, straightforwardly called Al-Jazeera’s coverage “malevolent.”

Al-Jazeera, which already pursues an Islamic political and ideological agenda, not only posted these documents on a website, but produced four major television programs “presenting” the documents. Al-Jazeera maliciously took things out of context with the objective of exaggerating the negative light they cast on the Palestinian Authority.

Negotiations may be suspended—but I see a tiny ray of hope. I see Palestinians and Israelis both recognizing that no one else in the world has as much shared interest with either of them as they do between themselves. I see Palestinians finally recognizing the cynicism of their Arab brothers in surrounding autocratic regimes that have exploited Palestinians for decades, and used Palestinian aspirations for their own cynical purposes while contributing nothing of consequence to—and often actively thwarting—the betterment of the Palestinian people and the peace process. I see Israelis resolving to trust again, to use power sparingly, to partner with their Palestinian brothers and make Semitic peace. I see recognition by Palestinians and Israelis that their lives, their livelihoods, their peace and security have become a ghoulish global sport, with hateful-half-baked and massively misinformed opinions traded like baseball cards. I see Palestinians and Israelis recognizing that hate and bigotry are imports from this global ghoulish sport, and resolving with vigor befitting their children to be done with them in their respective communities. I see honorable Palestinians and honorable Israelis re-committing to negotiating peace on terms that honor their children, rather than the distorted politics of foreign cynics. Yes, I see peace.

It is, admittedly, a tiny ray of hope, and perhaps one I’ll not be privileged to see realized in my lifetime, such is the anger and hate and suspicion that plasters the region. But I believe my son’s generation will make it happen. And I honor him and them in hopeful anticipation.

__________

RELATED

Tony Blair said at the end of January that  the “leak of Palestine papers was ‘destabilising’ for peace process” and the intention of the leak ‘was to be extremely damaging’. Tony Blair also said the leak had damaged the peace process.  Mission accomplised, The Guardian and Al Jazeera. Well done. [Photograph: Vincent Kessler/Reuters]

• Harriet Sherwood’s Cultural Baggage.
• The appalling moral blind spot of the Guardian’s Michael Tomasky
• Jihad St. Diarist (Live Blogging in Ramallah)
• The radical affiliation of CiF commentator Salah Abdel Maqsoud the Guardian chose not to reveal
• Cartoon of the day
• The intolerance of Nir Rosen
• The Guardian’s Mya Guarnieri plays Nazi card in phrophesizing the “the death of Israeli democracy”
• The Guardian continues to promote endless misery for “refugees”
• Why was this deleted?
• Jonathan Hoffman: “Boycott the Guardian”
• Non-Israeli privilege
• The Palestine Papers, & the speech to Palestinians that Mahmoud Abbas will never give
• Simon Tisdall’s “Arab Street” in action outside a synagogue in Tunis
• Comment is Free: Where even the travel section is influenced by an anti-Israel agenda

Telegraph’s Ben Brogan notices the Ban Blair-Baiting petition

14th February 2011

Link for this post: BBC’s sneering Paxman carpeted as “partial” by Helen Boaden, via Stan Rosenthal

The BBC AND its lice lies-ridden bedfellows are in my sights today

PAXO STUFFED … AGAIN

Happy Valentine’s Day, Jeremy Paxman. You know you’ve got it right wrong when your untruths and opinions are repeated as fact at our wrong-headed anti-liberty/anti-democracy/anti-Iraq war commentary pages.

Your own boss may well have stated that your remarks are untrue, unjustifiable and just YOUR opinion, but, hey, the rabid, know-all, left-wing, anti-Blair commenters still love you!

STAN ROSENTHAL SOCKS IT TO THE BEEB’S JEREMY PAXMAN

I am particularly proud to report on my good friend Stan Rosenthal’s success in this mission. You may recall he had already pursued another “senior” BBC broadcaster, Laura Kuenssberg, with some success. Then a month or so ago, in a move which did not surprise me or him, he was informed by the BBC Complaints Department of a delay in publishing their final findings (these things have a habit of going on) regarding the issues around their reporting of the first of Blair’s appearances at the Iraq Inquiry – BBC’s “impartiality” complaint. Findings delayed until AFTER Blair’s appearance at the Iraq Inquiry

Earlier reports on the lead-up to this:

• PRESS RELEASE: BBC Trust ruling confirms BBC anti-war/Blair bias is allowed on Iraq Inquiry coverage
• BBC’s Iraq Inquiry Coverage (& Impartiality Rules) Under Scrutiny
• Top BBC reporter guilty of misrepresenting Iraq Inquiry evidence

I can imagine BBC canteen chats, between clenched teeth, include such as  – “have you made sure Stan approves first?”

Helen Boaden upheld part of Mr Rosenthal’s recent complaint over Paxman’s article on 13th November 2010 at The Guardian in which Paxo did a demolition job on Blair, Bush, the USA and the Iraq war.  The parts she hasn’t upheld are being appealed by the redoubtable Mr Rosenthal. Still, congratulations thus far, Ms Boaden. Good to see that some at the BBC understand what they’re there for.

Director of BBC News Helen Boaden said the article was inappropriate

There is just SO much one can pick holes in, in this biased and targeted article. From Paxo’s feeling haunted by Saddam’s hanging (I wonder if he’d feel so haunted  if this fellow-traveller got his way with a noose around another neck?) to his silence over the deaths of thousands under Saddam’s tyrannical 30-year rule. Do they equally haunt him?

From repeating as though he actually KNOWS all the facts – “the initial lies that took us to war” – to the lack of self-questioning as to whether he has had a hand in making us “a lot more wary about everything we see and hear when powerful states decide to pursue “vital interests”.

All that Paxman has to say in this article makes it clear that from this supposedly “UNBIASED” and “BALANCED”  source of world broadcasting – this beacon of “truthful reporting”  – we are fed LIES ad nauseam. Lies, posing as truths, placed as opinion, posing as fact. And we lap it all up, subliminally unaware that we are being manipulated. Often we recognise the bias and just ignore it with a shrug.

Mr Paxman must be slightly irritated that Ms Boaden sees anything at all wrong with his “iconoclastic” style of (mis)reporting. After all – isn’t he worth his new £3,2o0,000 contract from us, the licence payers?

No. His lack of impartiality proves he certainly isn’t.

Hauled over the coals: Jeremy Paxman broke the BBC's impartiality rules

Go here to read more from the reports on Paxman’s comeuppance:

• Susie Mesure, Independent: Paxman broke BBC impartiality rules – Presenter in trouble for article on Iraq war ‘lies’
• Simon Cable, Daily Mail: Jeremy Paxman warned about BBC impartiality after Iraq war article about Blair’s ‘lies’
• John Rentoul, Independent: Jeremy Paxman: “Inappropriate, sneering, partial”

_____

RELATED

1. The Ban Blair-Baiting Petition is still online and will remain so until our press and the antis stop their relentless pursuit and vilification of our former prime minister. Sign here, please.

2. A propos nothing much apart from daily BBC Bias take a look at the prejudices of other BBC journos, and evidence thereof.

3. In February 2010 I wrote about the fact that Stan Rosenthal had paid out of his own pocket for the ‘no, Blair is NOT a war criminal’ argument to be seen and read – Stan Rosenthal, a moderate voice of NON-pre-Judgement of Blair has to PAY to be heard

4. Here at Paxo STUFFED!, November 2010, you can read Stan’s original complaint to the BBC. The WE ALL KNOWERS were at it then, threatening courts, prison cells, nooses and all the usual ‘justified and justifiable’ retribution for Mr T Blair.  And they are at it again today, blissfully unaware that their determination to pre-judge Tony Blair tells us more about them than it does about him.

5. Which reminds me – I know I’m not the only one to have been put out by the BBC’s pointed and clear negligence on  Remembrance Day last November. As reported below DAVID DIMBLEBY, another “iconoclastic” BBC broadcaster simply IGNORED the very presence at the cenotaph of the former prime minister who had taken the country to the two wars which are still ongoing, Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost unbelievable to even write that. But it’s true. Tony Blair was airbrushed from the TV coverage and worse was not even mentioned, NOT ONCE, by David Dimbleby.  I wonder if his father the late great Richard Dimbleby would have approved? The BBC can expect that some time soon …

BBC BIAS 1 – Remembrance Day 2010, Cenotaph, Whitehall, London

By the way, John Rentoul’s comment in his own article shows us this; one, he has far more patience with fools than I have, and two, we mustn’t confuse fools with facts with which they cannot hope to cope.

_____

JohnRentoul 19 hours ago

• About The Feral Press
• Home, The Feral Press
• SHOCK NEWS: BBC hints at truth on Muslim Brotherhood
• Telegraph’s Ben Brogan notices the Ban Blair-Baiting petition
• That other irritating blog

Or – Tweet this post
3rd February, 2011

UPDATE, 10th Feb: The day after Dr Sean Gabb called for some, any enterprising MP to submit the EDM as below, it seems the Libertarian Alliance’s President, Dr Timothy Evans resigned or “stepped down” (whichever suits your semantics and politics.) Purely co-incidental, I’m sure.  The resignation was announced on the same day – 3rd February – as Dr Gabb’s post on “executing Tony Blair”. The President, who had been in place for five years, may have had resignation in mind for some time. That is not made clear. But I notice that there are no comments AT ALL at that particular post, whereas there were dozens on the “let’s kill Blair” one.  And today Dr Gabb, or/and his organisation is in some state of confusion. Saying that – “This is all so bloody predictable for small organisations – lovey-dovey one moment, foam-flecked screaming the next! I have no doubt I am partly to blame for this. But here is my account of what has happened. Decide for yourselves” – he then proceeds to tell the outsider looking in precisely NOTHING, about the “damage” or about “what has happened”.

“Following our President’s resignation the other day, I sent out a news release filled with lush mutual flattery and with promises of future glory. But this will never do. The truth is that, both morally and financially, the Libertarian Alliance has been severely damaged. I have no doubt that I can repair this damage. Those who have caused it are persons of no long term importance, and their attacks will, in due course fade into obscurity. Even so, I do feel it is my duty, as Director of the Libertarian Alliance, to give the plainest and most truthful account that I can manage of what has happened.”

Is that it? His account? Perhaps we will see that more fully, more plainly and more truthfully  in a later post.

__________

[Reverted to funereal black for this post, except where RED is more suitable]

From the Libertarian Alliance’s Sean Gabb -

EXECUTE TONY BLAIR FOR TREASON

DON’T BOTHER TO TRY HIM IN A COURT OF LAW

(HE MIGHT BE FOUND NOT GUILTY)

JUST WRITE HIS DEATH SENTENCE IN LAW

After the inane we now have the utterly insane!

Insanity may, of course, be a reason to commute the death penalty for Sean Gabb

As published today by Sean Gabb- director of The Libertarian Alliance

Sean Gabb: “MPs often ask for ideas on what private bills they should introduce. In case any of these people are reading this blog, here is my suggestion for a bill.

Of course, other names can be substituted.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. That Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is declared guilty of high treason for his subverting of the ancient and fundamental laws of England and introduction of a tyrannous and arbitrary government over the lives and liberties and property of the people of England;

2. That the said Anthony Charles Lynton Blair shall within thirty days of coming into force of this Act be taken to Trafalgar Square to be hanged by the neck until dead and that the details of this provision shall be arranged by majority vote of the persons named in the schedule to this Act and that the authority of such persons shall for the purpose of carrying this provision into effect be regarded as final and binding notwithstanding any rule of common or statutory law;

3. That all property of the said Anthony Charles Lynton Blair whether real or personal and whether held by him or for his benefit shall be forfeit and that the details of this provision shall be arranged by majority vote of the said persons named in the schedule to this Act and that the authority of such persons shall for the purpose of carrying this provision into effect be regarded as final and binding notwithstanding any rule of common or statutory law.”

_____

REMOVE AND REPLACE GABB NOW!

So there we have it.

Without any room for the possibility that Tony Blair has NOT committed high treason, this copper-bottomed idiot wants a parliamentary LAW decreeing he has!

And by way of this joke of a would-be Law, our former far-seeing prime minister can then be taken [manacled and dragged through the streets in rags presumably] to Trafalgar Square “to be hanged by the neck until dead”!

And just as a little “in case” Gabb says -  the “details of this provision shall be arranged by majority vote of the persons named in the schedule to this Act and that the authority of such persons shall for the purpose of carrying this provision into effect be regarded as final and binding notwithstanding any rule of common or statutory law”.

• Does this fool really think he can find a majority, in Parliament or elsewhere for this reversion to medieval barbarism?
• Does he think the independent judiciary in Britain should have NO say over Blair’s ‘death sentence’?
• Does he really suggest that there should be no appeal, as here -”final and binding”?
• Does he assume we are already a sharia state?
• Does he really suggest that people in his Libertarian Alliance should be happy to have him as their Director?
• Is it April 1st already?

All answers to which to paraphrase John Rentoul the answer should be “no”.

You may have noticed that he does not want Blair to hang for the usual reason from the muddled heads – “war crimes”. It’s all about immigration for Gabb. But hey, one reason’s as good as any other when people lose their moral compasses.

This Gabb man is a dirt-digger of the anarcho-capitalist type. A headline-grabber. An ignorant know-all who understands nothing about politics and human rights. A throwback to a time which we in Britain left behind aeons ago, and many other countries in the Middle East are still today struggling to leave behind.

WIKIPEDIA NOW HAS EVIDENCE OF GABB’S INSANITY

But he’ll be pleased to know that his eye-catching little stunt is now on Wikipedia for all to read. Don’t thank me, Mr Gabb. You’re worth it.

Today, for the edification of a wider readership than his or my blog I added this factual information at Wikipedia’s ‘Sean Gabb Controversy’ section regarding his call for the execution of Tony Blair.

At first I was informed my entry had been “automatically reverted”. In other words, declined. This was a note I received when I re-logged into Wikipedia (In their note below,editing & instructive links from Wikipedia have been  removed by me):

“Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sean Gabb has been reverted.  Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn’t be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/a-bill-for-the-execution-of-tony-blair/.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator’s apologies and feel free to undo the bot’s revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia’s external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! –XLinkBot (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked and Gabb’s site is not banned nor is it breaking any  Wikipedia rules. (Apart from the self-evident one of being written by a nutcase.)  Nor had I broken Wikipedia’s rules by submitting it. So I tried again, in order to get the revert undone.

MY UPDATE TO THIS AT WIKIPEDIA

It is now online at Wikipedia. Thank you. I am sure Mr Gabb is proud of his own words. As proud as the rest of us are deeply embarrassed and thoroughly ashamed.

Democracy surely is, at times, wasted on the people.

UPDATE: One of Mr Gabb’s cronies, or perhaps the man himself, has complained that my addition of this factual information from Mr Gabb, must not stand at Wikipedia. Why not? He said it and is still being responded to, not always supportively, at his blog. The reason Wikipedia has decided to remove it (at the insistence of those in agreement with its call!) is because the press hasn’t made a big fuss about it! WOW! So in this country, where many in our mainstream press would like to tear out Mr Blair’s guts manually and auction them off on eBay, what chance of that?

So I’m asking for your HELP.

Please try to get this post out to as many press sources/major blogs (whatever they are)/the MSM etc as you can. There are a handful of British press sites that might use it, and I’ll be chasing them up. The most likely to understand how wrong-headed this behaviour is would be US sites, though. I do not want the well-balanced among us to turn a blind eye to this sort of incitement online, dressed up as legal and acceptable policy, no matter how insane it all is. It pollutes the hating atmosphere even more than it has already been polluted.

The comment by Paul Marks | 4 February, 2011 at 7:04 pm is worth a look.  And what do you think of the mysterious Mr David Davis? Is he the Tory MP who stood against David Cameron for the leadership and has palled up with Shami Chakrabarti on several occasions? I know what I think.

Did Gabb vote BNP last May?

Just before the 2010 general election Gabb said:

“I like BNP policy on climate change, Europe, guns, smoking, multiculturalism, taxation, and so forth. I don’t like the idea of putting drug dealers to death, though. I think the time has come to stop denouncing the BNP for what it used to be saying, or for its alleged hidden agenda, and to start looking at what it is saying now.”

Yeah, right, Mr Gabb. Don’t put drug dealers to death, whatever harm they do. But write it in law that a politician who is NOT like the BNP should hang.

MORE ON THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

Wikipedia on The Libertarian Alliance - “It has been suggested that their advocacy of complete free speech and the abolition of taxation and government intervention in economic and social life combines elements of liberalism, conservatism and anarchism.^[3]“

The Libertarian Alliance (LA) was formed in 1967 and is Britain’s most radical free market and civil liberties think tank – hosting the world’s second largest libertarian web site after the CATO Institute in Washington, DC.

From the History of the Liberal Alliance page comes this:

The LA currently has nearly 800 pamphlets in print and has published more than 150 authors. It has attracted widespread press and media interest, and has been at the forefront of establishing libertarian ideas as an important part of modern political discourse.

SEAN GABB IS A DISGRACE TO HUMANITY

Watch Sean Gabb on The Big Question, October 2009 on “Should would-be suicides have the right to refuse treatment?”

Gabb is the first speaker in this 23 minutes excerpt and responds throughout defending his position that we should allow would-be suiciders to kill themselves, even if we can help avoid it.

He is in the huge minority here in this debate. He seems to take no consideration of the suicider’s condition of mind, but puts his so-called “libertarian instincts” uppermost -  “It’s her choice – she wanted to kill herself.”

I’d love to see him react if he caught his own child in that suicidal state of mind, blood already pouring from a wrist. Would he say, “Oops, sorry, I disturbed you. Carry on.”?

For his child, see your child or mine.

The man’s an idiot. Clearly Gabb has little or no regard for human life.  I would certainly try to save anyone who had tried to kill her/himself. In fact I have. What about you, Mr Gabb?

Take note of Gabb’s face. Just so you recognise the enemy within if you meet him on our streets.

• There is a list here of the “officers” and some high-profile supporters of the LA.
• Pictures from 2006 of meetings of the Libertarian Alliance. Presumably they’re not all bonkers like their Director, Sean Gabb.

LIBERALISM C/W LIBERTARIANISM

The difference? Arguably, not a lot. The day I hear that anyone in Nick Clegg’s gang of Neo-Liberal Democrats is submitting this motion or anything like it as a private members bill, is the day any sort of “liberalism” dies in once Great Britain.

DEATH PENALTY IN BRITAIN

When was the death penalty abolished in Britain? It was abolished for murder in 1965, in 1998 the Government abolished it for treason & piracy, and in 1999 the Foreign Office abolished it everywhere.

The last hangings in Britain were in 1964 -

Gwynne Owen Evans was hanged by the executioner Harry Allen at Manchester’s Strangeways Prison at 8:00 am on 13 August 1964. At the same time, Peter Allen was hanged at Liverpool’s Walton Prison by Robert Leslie Stewart. These were the last two hangings in Britain.^[1]

The last public hanging in Britain was in 1868. That’s almost 150 years ago.

Excerpt:

“It seems somehow fitting that the last public execution in Britain should have been an affair of enormous public concern, and very probably of rank injustice.

The Capital Punishment Amendment Act of 1868 meant that public executions were to be ended. The supposed exemplary nature of the punishment was deemed of less importance than the appalling behaviour of the crowds on ‘galas’ (the word is derived from gallows).

The last person publicly hanged in Britain was Michael Barrett, a member of the Fenian Society, forerunners of the IRA, found guilty of participation in the deadly explosion set off outside Clerkenwell Prison in London in December 1867.”

Considering that Barrett’s  execution even at that time was considered unsafe, AND considering that he was associated with the Troubles in Ireland, do you see an irony? Tony Blair, Gabb’s present-date candidate for the resurrection of public hanging, actually ENDED the Troubles in Ireland/Northern Ireland. There is an element of surrealism in the fact that the insane like Gabb are still permitted to have a platform for their rants in this land.

Wikipedia – Hanging (around the world)

_____

ETCETERA

John Rentoul on the Evening Standard’s distortions of Jack Straw’s words. Notice how his anti-Blair/anti-Iraq war commenters fail to even concede the point. Proof before their very eyes and they refuse to concede. They all need to be sent for recuperation, or perhaps moved up to secondary school.

_____

Please sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition if you share the sentiments expressed at the petition.

If you don’t share them,  it’s tempting to conclude that you share the sentiments of Sean Gabb and the BNP.

_____

• About The Feral Press
• Home, The Feral Press
• SHOCK NEWS: BBC hints at truth on Muslim Brotherhood
• That other irritating blog

1st February 2011

Tweet

A PLUS POINT FOR THE TELEGRAPH and BEN BROGAN

NOW THERE’ S A SURPRISE!

I promise you that whenever I see the press writing or saying something on Tony Blair or the Iraq war which seems to be fair and without an agenda, I’ll let you know.

It may not be often, but when it happens, they’ll get a mention. They’ll deserve it.

I do realise it’s a painful state to be in to actually suggest that perhaps we Blair supporters might have a point on our former Prime Minister.

We tend to take this peculiar stance: “no, we don’t think he should be hanged, drawn and quartered for lying/treason/war crimes.  In fact we don’t even think he should stand trial for such … “

Not that standing trial is really necessary as far as many of THE HATERS are concerned. And they ARE haters. You only have to read their comments to see that. They are not balanced people.

Ben Brogan, Telegraph journalist

STOP BLAIR-BAITING, NO, REALLY

Mr Brogan tempers his article right from the off.  With the somewhat incredulous, rather apologetic headline, essential in the Telegraph presumably to ward off the whips at his back, his article is headed –

“Stop Blair-baiting. No, really”

But I forgive him the innuendo that Blair-baiting is an understandable game to play.  He’s only repeating what “we all know” after all. Unwilling to elaborate as to WHY his last sentence may well be the case (viz Blair was a winner/he was right over Iraq) Mr Brogan ends his article with -

“He [Blair] is still a cause of embarrasment[sic] for his successors, perhaps because in their hearts they suspect they might have stood a better chance last May if they had stuck with him.”

Mr Brogan, although he wouldn’t think of saying so outright to his hanging ‘n’ flogging commenters, seems to understand that it is not quite the thing in polite, educated, civilised society to pre-judge anyone, far less a man who has given his life to public service. Tony Blair is no convicted “war criminal”. Nor has he been charged with such crimes. Nor is he ever likely to be.

I wonder when Mr Brogan is going to sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition? Or would that be a concession too far?

It’s a great pity most of Ben Brogan’s commenters don’t even see what they are doing with their puerile, nasty, vitriol and evil-minded comments. Or, and more worrying, perhaps they DO see.  It’s a greater pity that the press as a whole does not crack down on it.  The press, surely, understands the power of the media.

Click picture to visit Ban Blair-Baiting website

PLUMBEUS COMMENTARIAT IGNARUS

[Excuse the, sort of, Latin. Sometimes proper English fails me! I'll be better in a minute]

It is my contention that these individuals, these online opiners on comment pages, are not merely practising free speech. They are  in flagrante delicto, and should be taken to task for this, even if they have been tutored to believe they are vox populi. They are nothing of the sort, despite their insistence that they are.

A taste of Brogan’s commenters follows, without correction for spelling. (My emphasis). No more Latin. This lot would sound more at home in Medieval England – “thon gibbet for thee, my man.  Say thine prayers.”

O stint thy clappe, in the name of God!

• “Blair removed the death penalty for Treason. This must be re-introduced. I should like to see Blair charged in the Hague and interred for the entire period of his Trial. Let Blair’s trial be warning to all.”
• “Hanging is too good for this one.”
• “That bloody man should swing.”
• “Blair is an arch criminal and traitor.”
• “The people will never accept this traitor and any government that finds a ‘place’ for him will face the same condemnation as this traitor and war criminal. Cameron take note!”
• “Blair is a war criminal and deserves the same treatment as Milosovic and others. We shouldn’t rest until he is tried and prosecuted.”
• “Hitler had the Honour to end his own life. Blair doesn’t have any Honour worthy of the name.”
• “Blair the man whose lies took Britain into a war that should never have been will never be forgiven. We owe it the many, many victims of this man’s evil deception.”
• “Who do you suggest we forgive next Mr Brogan? Adolf? Pol Pot? Stalin? Henry Kissinger?”
• “… the man is a traitor and deserves a traitor’s death.“
• “Anyone who supports Blair is in my book deserving of a mean spririt,thats the least of it. A noose comes to mind.”

So there you go. If you think that a man who has not been tried for anything should not be vilified as an ‘evil war criminal’ or a ‘traitor’, nor should he be offered as a candidate for summary (mob) justice, it’s a noose for you too!

You’ll have to get in the queue.

There are also better thought-through comments, of course. Amazing how it takes longer to think than it does to bandy about words like ‘criminal/traitor’, isn’t it? Here’s one:

“This is a great campaign as it lets the other voice ‘get heard’ and that is very important however much you may disagree with it if you want a fair and balanced debate particularly in light of the fact that there is so much negative coverage. The ‘other’ side has to be heard.

I do not hold the majority view that Blair lied and that he is a war criminal and am finding it an increasing nightmare to have a proper conversation without the Blair haters yelling over the top of me like my opinion isn’t valid or important or them dismissing everything I say simply because I don’t share their view point.

I feel very comfortable with my view I know I’m a balanced individual that has looked at both sides of the story and not according to the media who seem so often to misinterpret the coverage and evidence at the Chilcot enquiry to fit their own opinions. I can see a lot of the arguments against the war and that people feel very strongly about it but I am still continually astonished at the level of hatred towards Blair and the vile things that are said him which I so strongly feel are not justified. The anger of the families that have lost loved ones is of course easier to understand and accept. This will be the fifth enquiry, none of the previous four have concluded that he lied to take us into war and if this enquiry concludes what I suspect it will that alot of mistakes were made but TB basically DID NOT LIE and made the decision in good faith, the interpretation by the public and media will undoubted be a white wash purely because they will not have the conclusion they wanted. Are we to spend thousands more pounds of tax payers money on hundreds of enquiries till the end of time until someone comes up with a conclusion that the media and public want. What is the point then? Surely those Blair haters are in denial?

I also believe there is a good sizable amount of people that don’t actually care about whether we went to Iraq in the first place! They just want something to vent their ‘everyday life’ frustration and anger out on and TB’s an easy target!

This last comment and a few others are the exceptions at Brogan’s. Most commenters online really are a nasty lot. The old fall-back once-liberal position – innocent until proven guilty – applied so ‘liberally’ to anyone else in our country – deserving or not, transient or not, including infiltrators with terror in mind – does not apply to Tony Blair. Why not? Because – “WE ALL KNOW, DON’T WE?”

It’s also worrying when Mr Brogan himself says he hadn’t been aware of the Ban Blair-Baiting petition before yesterday. The petition owner assures me that he wrote to ALL of the mainstream papers when he launched it. That delete button is just too tempting.

The New Statesman article to which Mr Brogan links is actually a year old, Jan 2010, just as Mr Blair was appearing for the first time at the Iraq Inquiry. I was in attendance on that occasion, as I also was this year. My posts on them -

2010

• Jan 2010 – I was a witness (more or less) to the TRIAL of Tony Blair, aka the Iraq Inquiry
• Tony Blair at Iraq Inquiry – ONE report with NO opining
• Iraq Inquiry Special, New Statesman: Press Release – Ban Blair-Baiting petition

2011

• Blair (the 5% man with 100% responsibility) in the ‘dock’ at the Iraq Inquiry
• BBC apologises yet again, but this time you won’t be hearing about it
• BBC reporter on Control Orders: “And BOTH were cleared”
• Ignore this, please: Blair Supporter’s Thoughts on TB’s 2nd appearance at the Iraq Inquiry
• The BIG (biased) Question – War Crimes & ‘The Downing Street One’
• Greased lightning Tony didn’t have time to hear my THANKS
• Tony Blair regrets. Blair supporters thank him for his political nous
• Off to the Public Hanging. I’ve packed the knitting

I have more to write on his recent outing before Chilcot’s panel. What do you mean EIGHT’S enough? Not nearly enough!  I haven’t even got around to dissecting forensically (as is the wont of the HATERS) Blair’s evidence or even taking a peek at the Chilcot panel’s modus operandi. Believe me, I’ve hardly started.

HOW MANY PRO-BLAIRS DID THE PRESS INTERVIEW?

Funnily enough NONE of the press wanted to interview me after either evidence session. A little busy with bereaved forces’ families it seems.  So, if I have time that could be the ELEVENTH report on the ongoing tale of TB’s pre-Trial Trial, aka the Iraq Inquiry.

You should know that in this FREE SPEECH/FREE PRESS world of ours, Stan Rosenthal, the man moved to writing this article at The New Statesman actually PAID for  it [correction: he paid for the Ban Blair-Baiting advertisement, around which his article was built] and not just a few quid, in order  to get any coverage at all for Mr Blair’s side of the story.  Mr Rosenthal and I and others have long given up expecting anything approaching fair treatment for Tony Blair. Not that that stops us trying.

Despite our sending out numerous press releases, comments with links, posts from my other blog, posts from others’ blogs, Facebook and Tweets and articles by John Rentoul at the Independent (he has posted here on Mr Brogan’s article) , the mainstream press steers carefully away from suggesting that perhaps Mr Blair’s weight and height should not be noted for the gentle peace & love hangers & floggers to do their worst.

The press’s behaviour has been outrageous in its negligence of balance and common sense as regards Tony Blair and the Iraq decisions. Outright abominable.

To repeat – Mr Rosenthal paid out of his own pocket for the article [correction] advertisement accompanying the article at the New Statesman in January 2010.  Mr Rosenthal has, once again paid for an ad in the NS this month, on the Ban Blair-Baiting petition.

He is not in the employ or under the direction or payment of Mr Blair. The same applies to all of us who write in the support of our great former prime minister.

So if the Telegraph is surprised to get a halo from this site which is outing the FERAL PRESS, let me say it won’t happen often. To any of them.

Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that almost the entire online commentariat could be so seduced by a Press Campaign against Blair into believing that they understand all there is to understand about Tony Blair’s decisions over Iraq.  And to know, uncorrected or unsanctioned by the press, how best to deal with him, trial or not.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

As for halos – the BBC might need to suffer a little more before they get theirs, as it were.

(See SHOCK NEWS: BBC – hinting – truth – Muslim Brotherhood)

__________

RELATED

1. Listen to Tony Blair being interviewed by Nicky Campbell yesterday on BBC Radio 5 Live’s Breakfast. The Quartet’s Representative to the Middle East “told him what Mubarak’s next move should be.” (I DO wish the BBC would get their descriptions right. He’s not the “International Peace Envoy”. It’d be a start, on their way to getting anything right on Mr Blair.)

You can hear the full interview on the BBC Radio 5 live website.

__________

2. The Guardian on madness. The GUARDIAN? How ironic.

Serial killer Harold Shipman wasn’t diagnosed as mad, yet somehow it seems politicians may well be. Am I imagining that this expert is suggesting Tony Blair, even Gordon Brown were/are “mad”, whereas Shipman wasn’t? I must be mad. Imagining things.

Next for the firing squad? The Guardianistos?

Click here to sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition

Click picture to sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition.

You too Mr Brogan.

You know it makes sense.

_____

Read Brogan on Chilcot’s “grandstanding”

_____

---

• About The Feral Press
• Home, The Feral Press
• That other irritating blog

30th January 2011

Believe it or not I have five posts in draft here. I’m just about to publish one and then something else comes along. Something of more pressing priority.

Like this interesting item at Just Journalism – originally posted Fri. 28 Jan. 2011 @ 16:30 -  UPDATED: Sat. 29 Jan. 2011 @ 13.45 - BBC removes flattering profile of Muslim Brotherhood

(The reference links to the urls in parentheses and in grey below are mine)

The top story on the BBC News website’s Middle East section this morning, ‘Egypt protests escalate in Cairo, Suez and other cities’ contained numerous references to the Muslim Brotherhood (url  – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12303564 )

Just Journalism’s update gives a direct link to a different BBC where the info box is still viewable. I’ve saved it in case they remove it or move it again:

“The BBC has re-instated the info box as part of new article, ‘Profile: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood’, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12313405) which gives an historical overview of the group. The article includes information on the two most famous members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, as well describing how ‘[d]uring the 1980s the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] attempted to rejoin the political mainstream.’

The info box is unaltered except for the amendment of one line, with ‘[w]ants to see the country governed according to Islamic law’ replaced with ‘[w]ants to create a state governed by Islamic law’. There is no mention in the new article of the fears that the Muslim Brotherhood still subscribes to an intolerant, fundamentalist ideology, as suggested by the sources above.”

This is significant. Not just for the last sentence in red, which is TMI right now for the pc BBC to face. Their amendment is actually far more significant.

THE BBC’S AMENDMENT

‘[w]ants to see the country governed according to Islamic law’ replaced with ‘[w]ants to create a state governed by Islamic law’

The Muslim Brotherhood certainly does want to see a state governed by Islamic law.

It’s called THE CALIPHATE. A worldwide state. The same state as Iran wants. Ambitious lot, aren’t they just?

Is the BBC in any danger of starting to tell us the truth concerning such matters?

For comparison, below is the text in the info box as originally used by the BBC, before it thought better. Not well enough, but still better:

____________________

Just Journalism article:

The top story on the BBC News website’s Middle East section this morning, ‘Egypt protests escalate in Cairo, Suez and other cities’ contained numerous references to the Muslim Brotherhood, widely regarded as the largest single opposition group in Egypt. Aside from describing them as a ‘banned, Islamist’ organisation, there is no further information on the group in the main text. However, the following info-box appeared alongside the article, titled, ‘Muslim Brotherhood’, listing key facts:

• Egypt’s oldest and largest Islamist organisation
• Founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928
• Has influenced Islamist movements worldwide
• Mixes political activism with charity work
• Banned from open political activity
• Rejects use of violence and supports democratic principles
• Wants to see the country governed according to Islamic law
• Slogan: “Islam is the Solution”

The info box, which has now been removed, offered a very sanitised profile of the group, in particular ignoring fears that despite public pronouncements to the contrary, it still harbours the desire to implement a totalitarian Islamist society, in line with its local offshoot, Hamas.

While the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has in recent years disavowed the use of force for political ends, there is still considerable evidence that it has a violent, intolerant ideology. For example, following a 2006 court ruling that Baha’i citizens of Egypt could have Baha’i printed on their[sic] identity cards, the Brotherhood called for the minority to be killed. An article published in ‘Current Trends in Islamist Ideology vol. 4’ noted:

‘the Brotherhood reacted with outrage. In the May 3, 2006 parliamentary debate on the ruling, MB deputies said that the Baha’is were apostates who should be killed. Quoting a hadith attributed to the Prophet Mohammed to support their position, they declared that they would draft a law making Baha’ism a crime and branding the Baha’is apostates.’

The Muslim Brotherhood’s website reveals that it also shares the rejectionist line of Hamas, which believes that Israel should be destroyed. Indeed, Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, as acknowledged in Article Two of their Charter:

‘The Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.’

An article on the official Muslim Brotherhood English website from 2007 confirms the organisation’s commitment to jihad in Palestine:

‘Al Banna’s [Muslim Brotherhood founder] thought expressed an early and advanced state of maturity in the dialectics of the relation between the project of the Islamic revival and the liberation of Palestine, as he saw that solving the Palestinian cause will be with [sic] through the paralleled lines of unity and jihad.’

Similarly, the website features an editorial from 2006 praising spiritual founder of Hamas Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as an ‘exceptional human being and charismatic leader’ as well as justifying suicide bombings against civilians:

‘Ahmed Yassin was not a terrorist. The only people he terrorized were the enemies of his stolen land, the killers who slaughtered women and children, the perpetrators of Deer Yassin and the Sabra & Shatilla massacres…Opponents of Ahmed Yassin accuse him of being the mastermind of Palestinian terror, promising “suicide bombers” the achievement of martyrdom if they were willing to die for the sake of the dignity of Palestinians and in view of a longer-term victory against [sic] their occupiers. They consider blowing up an enemy with an explosive belt strapped to the body terrorism because it is the only weapon available.’

UPDATED:

The BBC has re-instated the info box as part of new article, ‘Profile: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood’, which gives an historical overview of the group. The article includes information on the two most famous members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, as well describing how ‘[d]uring the 1980s the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] attempted to rejoin the political mainstream.’

The info box is unaltered except for the amendment of one line, with ‘[w]ants to see the country governed according to Islamic law’ replaced with ‘[w]ants to create a state governed by Islamic law’. There is no mention in the new article of the fears that the Muslim Brotherhood still subscribes to an intolerant, fundamentalist ideology, as suggested by the sources above.

__________

RELATED

The Muslim Brotherhood, Wikipedia – not that hard even for the BBC to google. Excerpt:

The Society of the Muslim Brothers (often simply الإخوان Al-Ikhwān, The Brotherhood or MB) is an Islamist transnational movement and the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states.^[1] The group is the world’s oldest and largest Islamic political group,^[1] and the “world’s most influential Islamist movement.”^[2] It was founded in 1928 in Egypt by the schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna.

The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for … ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state”.^[3] Since its inception in 1928 the movement has officially opposed violent means to achieve its goals,^[4][5] with some exceptions such as in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or to overthrow secular Ba’athist rule in Syria (see Hama massacre). This position has been questioned, particularly by the Egyptian government, which accused the group of a campaign of killings in Egypt after World War II.^[6]

The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt, and members have been arrested for their participation in it.^[7] As a means of circumventing the ban, supporters run for office as independents.^[8]

Muslim Brotherhood website

27th January, 2011

Isn’t our press wonderful? Don’t you think?

From them we get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help us facts, impartiality, balance, rationality and common sense.

From the BBC to the Mail –

From the Guardian to the Independent –

From Sky News to Channel 4.

We only ever get the facts.

The pure facts, undiluted by headline grabbing,  populist prejudice, political bias, pressure-group zealotry, partisan dogma, editorial opinion, journalistic agenda or anything as nasty as corruption. Don’t we?

No. We clearly don’t.

As it happens, and it’s purely co-incidental to the launch of this blog, the press are in the dock of public opinion right now. It’ll be interesting to see how their combined forces report on the re-surfaced phone-hacking scandal.

INSPIRATIONAL AND UNACCOUNTABLE

But our press are inspirational, I’ll give them that. They inspire those with an ‘anti’ agenda, a grievance, a dislike, even a hatred to plumb ever greater depths of irrationality, at times veering towards incitement to violence.   But from their various angles they, the Voices of The People, insist and manage to ensure by claims to “popular” support, that the so-called “freedom of the press” is never compromised by such inconveniences as facts and balance.

Only to themselves is our press accountable. The Press Complaints Commission protects itself from complaints, a little like the BBC Trust, and would be laughed out of court in a banana republic.

As the phone-hacking scandal grips the press – even they can’t spin their way out of that one right now – at last the press are under the spotlight.

Not that they’re the only pillars of the establishment under scrutiny.

THE PHONE-HACKING SCANDAL DEVELOPS

AND TOUCHES THE POLICE

Alastair Campbell, while Tony Blair’s communications adviser, was accused by all and sundry (in the press of course -  from where else do we get our information?) of being His Master’s Voice in all sorts of ‘evil-doings’. As a former journalist himself he has recently touched, fairly gently, on the question of Police corruption in this issue.  He’s not suggesting institutional corruption, at least not yet. We can be grateful for that. I agree with Campbell that our police are wonderful, on the whole.

Hang on! This breaking news today deserves its own post. Maybe later tonight. Back to where I was.

WHY THIS BLOG?

This new blog is partly as a result of a contretemps I had recently with the comments moderator at The Independent. More later on that, if and when time permits. There was another trigger – the ongoing vilification of Tony Blair. Once he was “Bambi”, now he’s a “warmonger” and a “liar”. Worse still, for many on the Left AND the Right, he is now rich with it. And don’t mention his wife!

They and their friends in the press ‘anti’ gang can’t wait for Chilcot’s Iraq Inquiry to conclude. Unless it doesn’t provide what they want. In that case it’ll be a “whitewash”. They never consider that they, as a group backed by many in the media, may be bullying and threatening that committee into producing a “blackwash”.

THE FERAL BEAST

You may recall a speech on the media that Mr Blair gave in 2007, just two weeks before leaving Downing Street . He described our media as a “feral beast.” He should know.

He didn’t seem comfortable delivering it, but clearly felt it needed to be said, not just from his own vantage point but on behalf of others too.

As it happens the only newspaper he named that day was The Independent. Their headline after his speech was that the press didn’t like it.  A supreme example of buck-passing.

THEY didn’t like it. THEY were angry.  Especially at being outed as not exactly “independent”-minded over his Iraq decisions. But they pretended that although they wouldn’t be so vulgar, above criticism or hypersensitive as to feel put over this, others were moaning.

Some of us noticed this tactic, even then.

The second part of the quotes below may have timely resonances today where so many in our press and therefore their readership have clearly made up their minds as to what should be the outcome of the ongoing Iraq Inquiry. (The FIFTH inquiry in different guises concerning Iraq. )

There seems to be a contagion going round. It’s called – try, try, try again, until we get the answer we WANT.

Quote, Feral Beast Speech, June 2007 -

Tony Blair:  “A free media is a vital part of a free society. You only need to look at where such a free media is absent to know this truth.

But it is also part of freedom to be able to comment on the media. It has a complete right to be free. I, like anyone else, have a complete right to speak.”

[...]

“I would only point out that the Hutton Inquiry (along with 3 other inquiries) was a six month investigation in which I as Prime Minister and other senior Ministers and officials faced unprecedented public questioning and scrutiny.

The verdict was disparaged because it was not the one the critics wanted. But it was an example of being held to account, not avoiding it. But leave that to one side.”

(Read his entire speech here, BBC)

But if only The Independent were the only sinner in this mind-control of the masses, things wouldn’t be quite as worrying as they are.

TOO SLOW FOR CONSCIOUS DETECTION

You may think that the words “subliminal suggestion” may be not quite accurate in my meaning here. To many of us, “subliminal” means too fast for conscious detection. Whereas the condition I refer to – press brainwashing – has been too slow for conscious detection.

The second definition of subliminal here at Answers.com suggests that I may well be on the right track with my thoughts on today’s subliminal conditioning.

1. Below the threshold of conscious perception. Used of stimuli.
2. Inadequate to produce conscious awareness but able to evoke a response: subliminal propaganda.

Fast or slow, subliminal suggestion, conditioning, slow brainwashing, propaganda – whatever – it has been highly effective.

And in my opinion that is due to its gradual nature. We have watched the press opine, changing their stances over time, reasonably, many of us might have assumed as facts come to light.  Most of us have failed to realise that we are being manipulated over Iraq and only fed half-truths. Worse than that anything of any value which Tony Blair has done domestically has disappeared from the public discourse, even as the present government takes many of his policies on board and runs with them. Or rather tries to run.  We are so obsessed with watching the three-legged race , wondering who will trip whom up in the DaveNick coupling that we’ve forgotten who gave them many of the ideas in the first place.

BLOGS, SOCIAL NETWORK & COMMENT PAGES

This site won’t confine itself to the mainstream press and how it treats politicians and politics itself, although God knows there’s enough material there to fill several books.

Blogs and social networking sites will be dealt with too. Their follow-my-leader tendency and the damage this does on a viral scale will also be highlighted.

And to add to the mix the commenters.  No, not the journalists commentators. They are covered automatically as I refer to their “views” and “opinions” (aka, in all seriousness, “factual reporting”).  Journalist commentators inform us in no uncertain terms of their opinions. Once there were opinion slots from the occasional expert journalist, knowledgeable in his/her field. Now they all know about everything, even the psychology of political leadership.

Well, they have been leading us astray for years.  They’ve learned on-the-job.

Today our journalists twist their easy, look-at-me aren’t-I-clever words into all sorts of ‘meaningful’ patterns. Their readers like the colours and rise in revengeful outrage. The commenters take the bait, as expected.

The media, in all its embodiments, has had it their own way far too long. I hope to deal with any and all of the masters of the universe public discourse as and when suitable material presents itself.  So that’ll keep me  busy. Especially once the ferals have finally locked up Tony Blair for lying, war crimes, being rich, having a suntan, being more American than British, writing a good memoir, breathing, having a political after-life, being of the Right when he was supposed to be of the Left, being of the Left when they wanted him on the Right… not to mention being Labour’s most successful election-winner ever.

In British politics you know you’re successful when the press and their commenters think you’re not.

Wikipedia - Subliminal Stimuli

Subliminal stimuli (pronounced /sʌbˈlɪmɨnəl/, literally “below threshold”), contrary to supraliminal stimuli or “above threshold”, are any sensory stimuli below an individual’s absolute threshold for conscious perception. Visual stimuli may be quickly flashed before an individual may process them, or flashed and then masked, thereby interrupting the processing. Audio stimuli may be played below audible volumes, similarly masked by other stimuli, or recorded backwards in a process called backmasking. Introduced in 1897, the concept became controversial as “subliminal messages” in 1957 when marketing practitioners claimed its potential use in persuasion. Subsequent scientific research, however, has been unable to replicate most of these marketing claims beyond a mere placebo effect.

And of course if it were Supraliminal we’d notice it. Wouldn’t we? All things being equal, we might.

All things being equal.

__________