Click to get your own widget

Saturday, May 21, 2005


Letter in today's Independent
Sir: The last time I met George Galloway, around the time of his expulsion from the Labour Party, he told me: "Tell your New Labour editor to stick his questions up his arse." So I think it's fair to say I don't particularly owe him anything.

But I will say this: I recall, as a young news agency reporter in, I think, 1989 or 1990, reporting on the unveiling of a memorial in a Glasgow park to Kurds massacred by Saddam Hussein's forces. The main speaker at the event passionately condemned Saddam and his treatment of the Kurds, which at that time had received very little publicity. That speaker was George Galloway. He was the only politician there. And not a single newspaper, in Scotland or further afield, used the copy. And it was quite good copy, even though I say so myself.


I've said it before & no doubt will again, that whenever the media start reporting alleged human rights abuses it is purely because they are working up to getting our approval for killing people. The above is a fair example. A current one would be the way we keep threatening Sudan, which dares to sell its oil to China, but do nothing in the far worse situation in Congo or the reporting of our friend Uzbekistan, where no opportunity has been lost to play down the level of murder & assure us that everything is peaceful now, compared to that in Belorus, which the Americans listed as one of the 8 worst regimes in the world purely because the people had freely voted for a pro-Russian leader.

Of all the politicos who have said it doesn't matter that WMDs were a lie, they always wanted "regime change" I would be interested to see if there is a single one who with a record half as good as George's - or if, in future years, there will be a single one who will publicly support democracy in Iraq when the next Washington installed "strong leader" stops Iraqi Shias democratically voting for friendship with Iran.

“I was saved by God to come here and testify to the truth, because only God saved me from the Serbian police.”

This is the evidence, on oath, of a KLA supporter to the Milosevic "trial"explaining why he is alive. He presented the shirt he was wearing, complete with "bullet holes" which, he said, had been shot from 8 metres by a heavy machine gun. Without God's help an HMG burst would not merely kill you it would reduce you to gobbits of meat.

It is clear that another liar who has perjured himself is our very own Nazi Ashdown.

Milosevic's witness has introduced hundreds of police documents, including documents captured from the KLA (not even by a reporter who randomly opened a filing cabinet as they do here). If these, particularly the KLA ones, are not faked then it is undeniable that the KLA, not the Yugoslav police, were the ones involved in deliberate mass civilian murders.
Stevanovic was Serbia’s assistant interior minister during the 1990s.

Stevanovic’s testimony has been accompanied by hundreds of documents. Among his exhibits were KLA documents seized by the Serbian police during raids on KLA facilities. These particular documents were seized in 1998 during anti-terrorist operations in Leskovac.

The documents showed that the KLA had established elite squadrons for kidnapping and assassinations. The KLA had also established illegal prisons and so-called “execution squads.”

The seized KLA documents spoke of the civilian population moving as the result of fighting, not as the result of any Serbian ethnic cleansing. One of the documents spoke of an incident on the Albanian border where forty armed KLA terrorists clashed with the Yugoslav Army while illegally attempting to cross from Albania into Yugoslavia. The document said that the result of the fighting was panic among the civilians and the fleeing of the population.
This is in direct contradiction to Nazi Ashdown's testimony that he had personally seen sufficient illegal acts to be able to tell Milosevic that he was a criminal.

Fortunately for these liars perjury, for the purpose of securing a conviction of a Serb, is not a matter warranting the "court's" attention. What does warrant such attention is the refusal of a defence witness to give testimony to a "court" appointed lawyer while Milosevic was being kept from giving his defence.
In other news, the trial chamber convicted Kosta Bulatovic of contempt on Friday, May 13th. Bulatovic is the witness who refused to continue his testimony in Milosevic’s absence.

Bulatovic was given a suspended prison sentence of four months, which means that he will not have to serve any time in prison unless he commits a crime in the next two years. Mr. Bulatovic’s health is poor and it is not known whether he intends to appeal the verdict.

It is clear that the tribunal intends this verdict to intimidate future defense witnesses. The trial chamber wants to show that it is above the law. It would have been a violation of Article 21.4 (D) of the Tribunal’s statute to continue the trial in Milosevic’s absence. It would have also violated Article 14.3 (D) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees all accused persons the right to be tried in their own presence.

Bulatovic’s refusal to testify under those circumstances was heroic. If he had complied with the Trial Chamber’s demands and testified in Slobodan Milosevic’s absence, then he would have been participating in a flagrant violation of Milosevic’s rights.

Kosta Bulatovic stood firm and scrupulously observed the law even though the Trial Chamber did not. Only at a kangaroo court like the ICTY could a man be sentenced to four months imprisonment for refusing to commit a crime.

The tribunal is engaging in a classic power play, by convicting Kosta Bulatovic of contempt they are trying to show that they are above the law. They want to sow fear in potential defense witnesses by demonstrating that they can impose a prison sentence on anybody who does not tow their line.
Perjury is OK, refusing to testify in circumstances where such testimony is a breach of law gets you sentenced.

Apart from the fact that this whole thing is a corrupt obscenity it is also a threat to us all. Remember that one of the "judges" here is that corrupt obscenity Lord Bonomy. If he can preside over such a kangaroo court there then, as Scotland's chief judge, he would obviously be willing to do the same in Scotland. If the Scots legal establishment know how corrupt he is & they must, then every other judge who decides to keep quiet about this is no more honest than the German judges who decided to look the other way as the Jews were packed off. Regrettably there are no honest judges in Scotland.




FoNet - May 16, 2005

Glas Javnosti - May 15, 2005

Onasa - May 14, 2005

Utrinski Vesnik - May 14, 2005

Friday, May 20, 2005


The theme here is taken from an article by the Von Mises Institute & I hope you will read it. On December 7th 1940 the US found itself at war but 4 1/2 years later it had ended. If 9/11 was 7th December had been 9/11 then 20th May 2005 would be VJ day when the war ended.

By any objective standards al Quaeda is a lesser enemy than Germany & Japan. By the same standards America has been very successful. Afghanistan has been occupied, Iraq is occupied (we occupied Iraq during WW2 "just in case" too), bin Laden, if he still lives, is in a cave considerably less well equipped than the Fuhrerbunker. There may be some thugs that have escaped to south America, there may even be some who have been hired by the CIA, as happened after WW2 but by any sensible definition the "war" is long over.

This is not to say that we shouldn't keep a look out for al Quaeda terrorists, or new terrorists, Moslem & otherwise but this is not a war. This is where the real problem lies. During wars people put up with serious interference with their freedom for the common good. During WW2 we put up with ID cards, restrictions on travel (air flight to the Scottish Isles is made outrageously expensive because of the same government "security" measures being applied to Tiree as to Heathrow), & all the petty bureaucracies that government breeds. When the war is over we are supposed to go back to peacetime freedoms, or at least in that direction.

Yet this "war", with fewer casualties than 50 days road accidents, is set to restrict our freedoms ever more for as far as it is possible to see. It is a natural function of government to try to keep the people frightened by "an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" (H.L. Mencken) & unlike WW2 this hobgoblin is now essentially imaginary. And yet we are now, after 4 1/2 years, being frightened into accepting ID cards & arrest without trial. What will it be next year?

Monday, May 16, 2005


On Tuesday I sent this to Nicol Stephens, Mike Rumbles, Tavish Scott & Ross Finnie:
I am no longer a Liberal Democrat but run A Place To Stand which is aimed at liberals both within & outwith the party. In my view the most important issues for the Scottish Executive are:

1) The economy. As Bill Clinton charmlessly proved the economy is, in peacetime, the most important issue for most people. The SNP have recently committed to a growing economy whose engine would be low corporation taxes, rates & low regulations as Ireland has so successfully managed. In the event of a pact it is unlikely they would wish to give this up. Would you wish them to?

2) Power. 55% of our power comes from nuclear which is due to close shortly. Kyoto prevents us increasing coal or gas use. Can you guarantee that, relying on wind etc, there will be no blackouts? If not what should be done?

3) The NHS - we spend about 20% more on health per capita than England but have, in many cases, longer queues. Can we improve?

4) Housing. House prices are, over time, rising faster than inflation & there are villages literally being strangled by a shortage of housing. A relaxation of building & land controls, possibly combined by an attempt to encourage mass produced off site construction methods, would end shortages & reduce prices. Should this be done?

While I realise you are limited by the doctrine of collective responsibility are there any of these on which you would like to comment or which you feel to be either unimportant or on which you would not be prepared to serve in an executive committed to technological or market driven solutions?

I will be putting this question to any others standing for leadership as I think you will agree, they are questions readers should have an answer to.

OK I am not a Lib Dem & have no particular right to a response but it does seem to me that the strategic issue of what the party wishes to do has been completely ignored for the tactical one of who they should ally with. For what its worth i think Nicol's position of not ruling anything in or out is tactically sound. Nobody can know what the result of the 2007 election will be tho' it is probably fair to guess that the Lib Dems & Labour will be among the top 3 parties the SNP among the top 4, the Tories 3rd or 4th & the Greens 5th. The odds must be that a majority Lib?SNP government will be impossible tho' a minority one dependent on Tory (or just possibly Green) goodwill will. The fact that the SNP in particular have so publically snubbed the Tories produces obvious complications. However until the voters have delineated the problem Nicol is quite right not to try to publically solve it.

Surely, however, politics must be about more than jousting for position. All the questions I have raised are important & the 1st 2 are urgent. On those the public, & the party members who are about to elevate Mr Stevens are entitled to know.

(My personal choice would be Ross Finnie but since he isn't standing it seems I will be disappointe. He was the guy who took on all the tough jobs in the last Parliament - Foot & Mouth, Water & Fishing - & scored a B+ on each. I also once found that he is one of 2 UK politicians who suggested well before Black Monday that our linking to the EMU was unsustainable. By comparison Nicol seems to have risen without trace & while he is certainly more photogenic than "Captain Mainwaring" surely that is not enough - The fact that Nicol is a lawyer & Ross an accountant biases me towards the latter.

Should I receive a reply I will publish it.

Sunday, May 15, 2005

NUCLEAR RADIATION IS GOOD FOR YOU - Indy letter not published

This is in response to an Independent letter by a guy who had had leukemia & had been to Chernobyl suggesting cause & effect, an idea also popular with parents of autistic children & those whose paths are crossed by balck cats. This letter is a retread of one of my earliest with new 1st & last paragraphs (I'm not daft enough to write this much for a paper which doesn't print opposing views as indeed they didn't).

First time round I put it to papers all over the UK, US & world & it got publishrd by Pravda! Later I got it into New Scientist's online page, but only online, because they owed me a favour - they had published a letter rubbishing mine in support of nuclear power & not noticed the prat had got his figures out by 4 millionfold.

This is a very major science story which disproves absolutely the anti-nuclear paradigm & which only 1 newspaper in the world (possibly excluding Taiwan) is willing to publish:
Dear Sir,
In reply to Dr Arnold Cooke's question as to whether his visit to Chernobyl was responsible for his contracting leukemia, or whether, as with most things it just happens. It is clearly the latter.

In 1983 a group of 180 apartment buildings was completed in Taiwan. Somebody had made a serious mistake. They had mixed into the concrete a considerable amount of highly radioactive cobalt 60. This meant that ultimately 10,000 people lived in buildings for from 9 to 20 years so radioactive that they received an average of 74 mSv of radiation per year in 1983, declining thereafter as cobalt 60 has a half life of 5 ½ years. This compares with a rate of 0.5 mSv above background which is the normal maximum exposure for radiation workers & total of 15 mSv maximum safe limit for land fit for habitation according to US government standards.

According to the linear no threshold (LNT) theory currently in use world-wide for assessing nuclear risks there is no lower limit to the level at which radioactivity kills (hence the term "no threshold") & this, inhabited for a decade & a half before the radioactivity was traced & measured, should be the site of a truly massive cancer death rate. It isn't. A thorough & methodical tracing of all the 4,000 families by a team led by W. L Chen of Taiwan's Director of Medical Radiation Technology of Taiwan's National Yang-Ming University (the full report is available in English on ) has resulted in an unequivocal & spectacular result. Cancer rates in that highly radioactive building are down to 3.6% of prevailing Taiwanese rates. For many years there has been an unfashionable alternative to the LNT theory called hormesis. This is an effect, long observed in plants & cultures, whereby intermediate level radioactivity actually stimulates life & improves health. There has been significant evidence for this (the deaths at Hiroshima did not appear to fit the LNT pattern, there are places in India & Iran with background radiation of 15mSv or higher with no observed increase in cancer & numerous studies of radon in homes have found a reverse correlation between radon levels & cancer). Nonetheless, such has been our fear of all things nuclear that the LNT theory has been absolutely accepted despite the fact that there has NEVER been any actual evidence for it. This study, however, is so detailed, has such well-defined boundary conditions & in proving a reduction in cancers of 96.4% has such a clear result that there can no longer be any intellectual doubt whatsoever. Radioactivity, up to 50mSv, is good for us. This is reminiscent of the time when Gallileo turned his telescope to the skies & for all time disproved the, then politically correct though scientifically shaky, theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth. True the Pope of the time forced him to recant or be dealt with as heretics then were. True it took a long time to bury. However from the time of Galileo's observations the official theory was dead. Unlike normal life, in science the truth always wins in the end though sometimes the end can be a long time coming & much pain may be caused in the interim. This is because while opinions change repeatable science results remain the same - that is the nature of the universe.

The naturally occuring background radiation in Cornwall is less than that at Chernobyl. Despite it's inhabitants being subject to a lifetime exposure leukemia is not unusually common as it would have to be if the LNT theory were in any way true.
Yours Faithfully
Neil Craig

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.