BBC Blog Network

User Profile

conspiracy2012

Listed below are comments made by conspiracy2012 between Sunday, 30th November 2008 and Wednesday, 3rd December 2008.

«Newer
Older»

In retreat 09:58am on 03 Dec 2008 475 shellingout

"He has skilfully managed to turn the media spotlight away from the fact that he (allegedly) spent a week on Oleg Deripaska's yacht"

Some might suggest that he colluded with the media - some outlets in particular - in order to turn the spotlight away from the Mandy aluminium tariffs question. Colluding... doesn't that get both parties busted by terror cops?
In retreat 09:50am on 03 Dec 2008 471 balhamu

"You should perhaps make a complaint to the police about it, and then we can see"

You know, I'm surprised nobody has done just that already, because anybody can walk into a police station and make a complaint about a criminal offence.

And if it's a crime for Damien Green, it's a crime for Gordon Brown.

If anybody has been into a police station to report Gordon Brown, I hope they relate their experiences to the mainstream media.

Better still, why hasn't someone taken the media with them while making said complaint against Gordon Brown so that we can see the police response to such a complaint on video?

The media are really missing out on a damn good story by not having done this already.
In retreat 09:30am on 03 Dec 2008 Just caught the details of Mandy's critique of the Damien Green affair on Sky News.

How odd. A lecture on the conduct of politicians, law and the making of political capital from the King Of Sleeze, Spin and Dodgy Passport and Mortage Applications?

What a strange little world we now live in.

I'll now don my EU subsidised aluminium flak jacket for the responses from the Labour lovers.
In retreat 00:00am on 03 Dec 2008 And the latest from ZaNuLabour HQ... we're all going to have to hand over our papers on demand else be sent to prison:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3543266/Police-and-immigration-given-powers-to-demand-to-see-identification.html

Damien Green... police state anyone?
Meet the Home Office mole 10:32am on 02 Dec 2008 There's another thing come up here this morning. Jacqui Smith - who has banged on about not interfering with police operations - has issued a statement revealing that she phoned the Met's acting head yesterday and asked him if he was sure this case was proceeding with diligence. Her statement, no leak, no innuendo - her statement read out just now on BBC News.

Which is it, Ms. Smith? Is it that you shouldn't interfere with a police operation or is it that you should interfere with a police operation?

Only, the day AFTER you telephone the Met, the Met has called in the boss of the British Transport Police to review the Met's decisions in this case.

This is ridiculous, and yet again it's Jacqui Smith at the heart of the latest ludicrous development.

Her position is now even more untenable than it was yesterday - if that were possible.
Meet the Home Office mole 08:44am on 02 Dec 2008 This is the third day of the same topic, and that's a good thing because I think our Parliament should remain the one place where we, the public, can correspond with our elected representatives in confidence of confidentiality.

Sadly, too many forget that they are our representives. Too many vote in libe with what their party whips tell them, not what their constituents tell them. I find that disgraceful. Unsurprising, but disgraceful.

Coming back specifically to the Damien Green case, I do think that even if a crime had been committed and this goes to court, there are two points.

Firstly, a journalist was cleared of this exact charge last week on European human rights law grounds. The legal precedent has been set, so there's really little chance that this case will get to court. The DPP will be aware of the outcome of the case last week and will know that there is little prospect of a conviction.

Further to that, everybody on both sides of the argument have ensured that, even if there was any criminal act, any even half-dozy barrister could now reasonably argue that the accused has little chance of a fair trial due to the extensive media coverage of the case.

With those two things together, it seems to me that pursuing Damien Green is rather pointless and the police should give him back any and all documents now.

Which all puts the spotlight firmly back on Speaker Martin and Jacqui Smith, both of whom have untenable positions and must resign.

In my view, certain recipients of taxpayers funds for journalism also have untenable positions and should resign for they are failing in the impartiality aspect of their clear guidelines and many members of the public perceive there to be routine and systematic bias. Once that perception is widespread, then certain corporations lose the confidence of those funding their output and, if those concerned do not resign, then that corporation has a duty of care to the public to be seen to correct the charges that the public are laying at it's door.

When this whole affair dies down - as these things invariably do - Parliament has a duty to restore public confidence in their ability to correspond in total confidence with their elected representatives; it has a duty to address the concerns of excessive police powers and abuses of these powers which are perceived as being excessive and abused by many members of the public - the only away to address these concerns in my opinion is to amend the legislation that has led to a slowly developing set of opinions in many members of the public that this has become a police state.

There are a few other things I would do. A constitution in writing setting out citizens rights and freedoms - a legally binding contract between state and citizen.

I would also review the five years between elections business. I would like to know that if my elected representative was not representing my views when he or she voted on laws, that I would have a more frequent opportunity to remove them from office than the current (up to) five year wait. Our representatives must represent US, not their party and whatever agenda their party is singing to. I think five years is too long to go to not seek the approval to continue - or not - from local residents who send these people to Parliament in the first place.
The sanctity of the Commons 12:44pm on 01 Dec 2008 James Lansdale just gave an oversight of the current matters in the midday-12.30 stint on BBC News channel.

What stood out for me with Lansdale's piece was his calm, non-sensational approach of the issues and why they have become such a big matter - namely the violation of Parliament.

Not only did Lansdale speak in unsensational terms, but it was impossible to spot any political allegiences in his summaries.

Quite impressed with Lansdale. Maybe if news was presented in the way he just managed, I wouldn't feel the need to be channel hopping so much to try to ensure that I'm getting a balanced picture.

Well, I say a balanced picture. The public is told what the media want us to know. There's the occasionally great, iconic pieces of investigative journalism (David Leigh and Rob Evans in The Guardian), but, as someone else has noted, most 'reporters' have become little more than 'repeaters'.

Can I recommend to any journo who may be reading this a rather well known film..? 'All The President's Men'.
The sanctity of the Commons 11:11pm on 30 Nov 2008 933 - you obviously didn't watch the film in question. That's fine. But it does make it a tad more difficult for you to sensibly make a point about the content. It is not political - it is about the rights and freedoms of every citizen and that does actually include you.

By token of your comment, it sounds like you would outlaw history lessons for fear they may contain a shred of politics. Informing people of historical errors and their consequences through education in a non-partisan way seems very sensible, but you omitted reference to my earlier caveat about an ideal world.

It is, meanwhile, not fine that you suggest I advocate anything about creationism, because my spiritual beliefs - which do not include creationism anyway - are not the subject of this blog. I would prefer it if you could stick to the topic of the blog without trying to ridicule my reaction to a moving documentary on advances towards a police state by making incorrect assertions about my spiritual beliefs and what I might wish to do with them.
The sanctity of the Commons 10:26pm on 30 Nov 2008 920 - I think, in an imagined former ideal world which we're unlikely to find a reverse gear and go back to, it should end up on the school curriculum, yes.

...but I think this matter transcends party politics. This is about fundamental freedoms for you, me and every poster on this blog. I can't abide some people's opinions, but I would be outraged if anybody - and I mean anybody - were to be prevented from having those opinions or locked up on some trumped up charge for having them.

However, as 'Taking Liberties' shows, it's now a daily occurence. I thank the poster who made reference to it first and implore everyone... Conservative, Labour, LibDem, other parties, black, white, young, old, rich, poor to watch it.

The debate on here does become somewhat piffling when you see what is in that film. And this is why the PEOPLE must stay on the Damien Green case and when Parliament prevails over their sanctity, we must insist that they prevail to give us back our freedoms too.

Really, just go to Google and watch the film. I can't write words via a computer to do justice to the video proof they've collated.
The sanctity of the Commons 9:59pm on 30 Nov 2008 897 - the 'Taking Liberties' video is available on Google videos. I've just been watching it and, in my opinion, it goes to the heart of the matter that all of these many, many posts are responding to.

After watching just the first half of it, I have to ask how dare Jacqui Smith deny that this is a police state? It damn well is, and she and her lot have created it.

For this reason, Parliament must now realise just what they have created and I hope that the excessive policing that has now even struck at the heart of Parliament itself will be recognised as a step too far.

Somehow, I doubt it. Somehow, I fear that you and I will suffer more erosion of freedom. All that will happen over the Damien Green affair is that they will exempt Westminster from police raids by official written law.

Meanwhile, what about us? Emmeline Pankhurst is long since gone. We have Boris Johnson and Mark Thomas...

I am, after watching the first half of 'Taking Liberties' incredibly, incredibly depressed. But only because I can see in moving pictures everything that I have believed that has been happening is, in fact, true.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

conspiracy2012