Craig Murray's Blog, page 165

More Dead Children in Palestine

We do not know who kidnapped and murdered the three children in Palestine. These murders are terrible and need to be investigated. You cannot investigate a murder with bombs and tanks. Tony Blair’s immediate bandwagon-jumping and rush to blame Hamas is typical of a man who has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands through his urge to fix the facts around the policy.

Six Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the past three weeks. That did not get lead headlines in the mainstream media. I should note in fairness that the BBC World News at 9.00 am this morning did mention it, but on standard form that will quickly get censored out of future bulletins.

I don’t recall Tony Blair rushing out press releases as a result if the deaths of those Palestinian children. How exactly does Blair believe his ghoulish publicity seeking on the back of this terrible tragedy is helping anything, except perhaps his long term money-making potential?

I doubt that Hamas killed the children. It would make no sense given its strategy of joining a unified Palestinian leadership and entering the diplomatic dialogue. It must be possible that the children were murdered by a Palestinian individual or group outraged by the recent killings of Palestinian children. It also must be possible that they were killed by an Israeli individual or group eager to undermine the Palestinian unity process and promote the settlement agenda.

All deaths are tragic, and the deaths of younger people always feel more tragic still. Parents are mourning in Israel and Palestine. The answer is not to create more mourning parents and shattered children. All violence in Palestine must be condemned unequivocally.

BBC Bias – The People Have Noticed

Rebekah Brooks

Spot the Cuckold Competition

A jury has been unable to find that, beyond a reasonable doubt. Rebekah Brooks was a party to the industrial scale phone hacking that was going on all around her. A 5 million pound legal team did its job. Such things happen.

But take a considered view of what that means. While she was Editor, and while she was Chief Executive, numerous people who reported directly to her were engaged in an active criminal conspiracy, the results of which she was seeing almost every single day, and to which hundreds of thousands of pounds of company money were diverted without her noticing. The leader of the criminal conspiracy, Coulson, not only reported directly to her, but she was shagging him too. She still noticed nothing.

If we accept that as true – and the jury did – it makes her one of the most incompetent managers and company executives in corporate history. Her negligence and complete lack of grip, over years, on what those immediately beneath her were doing, wiped off billions in shareholder value and lost a major commercial asset in the News of the World title. It also tarnished the company’s image irredeemably. On top of which she was given to shagging people for whom she had line management responsibility – if she were a man the feminists would be screaming from the rooftops about that.

In a rational world she would never be employed in any position of responsibility again. If Murdoch really did not know about the phone hacking, if he were genuinely disgraced and sorry, he would be furious at her for her gross negligence. Instead he has given her 10.8 million pounds.

Outwith the gilded circle of the stinking rich Brooks would never work again, having destroyed the News of the World and the image of News International. But the gilded circle will close around her.

The ultra-rich are not like you or me. They are treated by totally different standards. They also behave differently. They have no problem with being cuckolded. Charlie Brooks sent his best wishes to Coulson in jail. If I were Brooks, I would be sending money in to pay very large men to help him find the soap in the shower. Although presumably like Aitken and Archer, Coulson is going to one of those jails for posh people where you can play golf and go home at the weekend. I never understood Brigadier Parker Bowles either, though apparently his wife’s shagging was good for his military career. Funny people, toffs.

Being a right slapper seems not to have harmed Brooks’ career (feminists please note, I here apply the term slapper purely in the technical sense that she gave Ross Kemp a good slapping). That particular asset of hers has faded fast. But I think we can be quite certain that her future will be very different from that of anyone outside the top 1% of earners who had totally failed in their employment. It rather removes the argument that the disgusting wealth gap in the country relates to achievement and risk.

What 2,000 People Look Like

Various unionist nutters have tried to claim that the outrageous BBC/MOD propaganda lie of 35,000 people at Armed Forces Day in Stirling is true. This picture was taken at 1.30pm when the crowd was largest.

There is a lot to give scale in this photo. Look at the vehicles. Look at the marquees.

Look at the marquee closest to the top on the left. There is a van parked right in front of it. From that van, we can measure that it is a sixty foot by forty foot marquee.

Using simple measurement techniques, it is easy to see that the entire crowd could fit into three – or at most four – of those marquees. Perspective is on the side of crowd overestimate as the marquee is further away from the camera than any of the crowd.

If you observe rationally, and look at the clues as to scale, it is not difficult to work it out. That the MOD can claim 35,000 people is a lie by a factor of about twenty times. That the BBC repeats this state propaganda is worse than anything I have seen recently on Russia Today or Chinese state CCTV.

And here is the crowd by the climax – the Red Arrows fly past at 5pm. I have seen more people at a garden fete.

Stirling Shenanigans

Disappointing Crowd for Open Air Gilbert and Sullivan

1,600 people attended British Armed Forces Day in Stirling. 20,000 attended Bannockburn Live, 1 mile away. Guess which the BBC covered?

The unionists have long been obsessed by the fear that the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn would remind Scots that their ancestors were prepared to die for their national freedom. I have never seen any Yes campaigner even mention it, as the case for independence is nothing to do with the early medieval period. But the British state was so concerned, that it waited until the dates for the Battle of Bannockburn event had been set and all the permissions given by Stirling Council , and then announced they were holding National Armed Forces Day at the same place and same time.

As a result, due to police fears about the overcrowding, Bannockburn Live was forced to slash capacity from 40,000 to 20,000.

Stirling Council should never have agreed to hold both events on the same day. In fact, it is a secret how they did agree. Stirling Council officials, called before a Scottish Parliament inquiry to explain, stated they could not say who at Stirling Council had given the permission, as because the process was irregular it was subject to an independent inquiry.

Only the Labour Party in Scotland could come up with that one – “because we have done something extremely dodgy, it is therefore secret.” Stirling Council is in fact run by a right wing Labour-Tory-Lib Dem coalition aimed to keep the largest party – the SNP – out of power. Stirling Labour Party is therefore the absolute epitome of just how disgusting Labour are.

So today the BBC News lead item was the Stirling Armed Forces Day commemoration, with David Cameron parading about with his soldiers in front of every Tory in Scotland (1,800 people). The BBBC had three crews at the Armed Forces Day plus two radio crews. Not one of them managed even a mention of the ten times larger Bannockburn commemoration just down the road.

On top of which the BBC coverage was as appalling a bit of state propaganda as you could ever wish to see. A fine old retired soldier, they reported, told David Cameron that he did not wish to see the country he fought for broken up. It really was, straight out, as crass propaganda as that. Evidently the BBC were unable to find a single ex-soldier who supports independence.

But for me the piece de resistance was the BBC’s conclusion. It showed that when the BBC really puts its mind to it, the BBC can try to be completely biased in a more subtle way – by use of body language, inflection and expression. In September, the female presenter opined, Scotland would have to choose between what it has to [spoken lightly, trippingly, frivolously high pitched voice] gain, and what it has to [stentorian, serious, loud, low pitch, serious expression] lose.

To explain Bannockburn, I feel the Declaration of Arbroath coming on. This is an astonishing document which predates Locke and Hobbes by well over three hundred years. It is the first declaration in history that puts forward the idea of the sovereignty of the people. It praised Robert the Bruce for defending Scots from the dreadful atrocities of English armies, but then goes on to say:

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

The document is signed by named nobles but is in the name of the “freeholders and whole community of the realm of Scotland”. There is no document anywhere near it temporally that describes the idea of a nation state like this. Unionist historians have done everything possible to denigrate this very plain sentiment, making the obvious point that the signatories were nobles and clerics. Well, neither Locke nor Hobbes were refuse collectors. The appeal to the Pope was of course to be expected in the early XIV century. It cannot be denied, except by those who hate the Scots, that these sentiments encapsulate the “social contract” and an idea of the nation that was a major advance in European civilisation.

Rusbridger the Worst Editor in the World Part II

Good grief!! This is absolutely beyond parody!! There is yet another terrible puff piece in the Guardian – the fifteenth in the last month now I think – about how Gordon Brown will save the union and what a great and respected sage Brown is. This one claims that Brown is the only man to have perceived that the independence referendum must be about the future of Scotland.

No, really, it does, read it through.

I think Rusbridger must be on heroin. Of course I realised something is seriously wrong for anybody to wear that bad a wig in public, but I really had not quite understood just how bad things actually are at the Guardian. I do now.

Freedland is at his most execrable in this piece in the absolute lie that Brown is speaking to packed out halls up and down Scotland. Completely untrue. Actually they might be less empty were it not for the fact that these meetings are strictly no entry except by invite. Not to mention that – and the fact no questions are allowed – shows as if we did not know that Freedland has no claims at all to journalistic integrity, and is just writing pure propaganda.

Miliband Plays Racist Card

Ed Miliband: Labour will close the land border with independent Scotland lest black people and other foreigners get in.

The Muddle of Cameron

There was never the slightest chance that David Cameron will achieve any significant “renegotiation” of Britain’s EU membership terms. This fictitious “renegotiation” is the fig-leaf with which Cameron has sought to appease euro-sceptics, promising an in-out referendum once the non-existent “renegotiation” is completed.

When a non-existent process can be deemed complete is an interesting question.

On Cameron’s side, it has only ever been a fig-leaf to buy time, though I do not entirely discount Britain’s extraordinary capacity to delude itself about its ability to “punch above its weight” diplomatically. The book of modern British diplomatic triumphs would be a slim volume indeed.

But the Emperor has made the mistake of pointing to his dangling naked penis. Cameron stated starkly that the election of Jean Claude Juncker to head the European Commission would be evidence that Europe would not adopt Cameron style reform.

Yes, David. Exactly. Thanks for pointing it out. Personally I never thought you were wearing any trousers anyway, but if anyone did you have now dangled it right in their faces.

Cameron has made it even more plain by linking Juncker’s election directly to Cameron’s thesis that national governments must always be paramount in Europe. Juncker’s election is in accordance with an agreement that the leader of the largest party in the European Parliament will head the Commission. Thus, as Cameron pointed out, the very process itself is an advance of Euro-federalism and Euro-democracy, irrespective of Juncker’s views. Absolutely. Cameron’s thesis that national governments must be paramount over European institutions has already been defeated in what Cameron himself made a symbolic fight. The complete fatuity of Cameron’s re-negotiation claims is exposed.

Personally I am very pro-EU. But whatever your stance on the EU, the outright dishonesty of the Cameron approach must be condemned.

I published a couple of weeks ago that Juncker does not share Barroso’s hostility to Scottish independence: as a former Prime Minister of Luxembourg he does not see the problem with small nations. The British media has been extremely keen to puff up the opposition to Scottish independence by foreign leaders. Cameron and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have invested huge diplomatic capital into persuading Barack Obama and Li Keqiang to make statements against Scottish independence, while standing next to Cameron for the cameras.

The media failed to pay the same attention to a much more significant occasion – Angela Merkel refused to do it. Standing right next to David Cameron at a press conference in Sweden, Merkel rebuffed intense British diplomatic lobbying when she refused to back the continued existence of the state the man next to her was representing. It was a stunning slight, as Merkel knocked back the same question fed to Obama and Keqiang with the sensible (though entirely untrue) reply that she never answers hypothetical questions. Cameron stared at the floor, discomfited.

There was never the remotest chance that an independent Scotland would be excluded from the European Union. And the two people who are most important in that decision – Jean Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel – have not been amenable to the FCO’s frenetic anti-Scottish lobbying. They both are in positions much more vital to Scotland’s future than Barack Obama and Li Keqiang – both of whom will change their tune post-independence anyway.

Cameron’s headaches are multiplying.

Rusbridger – The World’s Worst Editor

Alan Rusbridger, by royal appointment destroyer of hard drives, astonishingly has yet again given space to Gordon Brown’s witterings on Scottish Independence. That is at least twelve articles puffing Brown in the last month.

This one is quite probably the most stupid yet. Brown opines that Scotland will not be a more equal or progressive society after independence. It is a great shame that these Cassandra like powers of predicting the future were not working when his own policies of creating an economic bubble, based on massive boosting of irresponsive speculation in the City of London, led to a crash which has impoverished us all for generations.

Brown’s prognostication is based on his analysis that Alex Salmond’s policies are not progressive. The evidence that the SNP is to the left of the Labour Party is overwhelming. Leaving that aside, Brown makes the presumption that the SNP will be the government in an independent Scotland. It is much more probable that, independence settled, there will be a realignment of Scottish party politics. It will certainly not be a one party state. Pretty well the one thing we can be sure of is that a Conservative government is unlikely – and as that is what the UK is heading for in 2015, I think we can expect an independent Scotland to be at any rate less regressive.

Tuition fees, Academy schools, PFI, NHS prescriptions, bedroom tax – these are all areas where Gordon Brown and New Labour advance the full neo-con agenda and which have been stoutly resisted by the Scottish government. Genuinely left parties and the Greens have consistent representation in the Scottish parliament and are listened to, not openly mocked and abused as Caroline Lucas is when she speaks in parliament.

This nonsense from Gordon Brown is perhaps to be expected. But why on earth does the Guardian keep publishing it?

Criminals

Ed Miliband fulminates about a criminal in Downing St – he supported one living there for years.