Thursday, October 03, 2013
Democracy Now - Comparing Judge Dredd and the British Establishment
Yesterday I said I would put up my speech at the EU debate today but Brian Monteith of ThinkScotland has said he will publish it next week so I will not post it here until he does. Hopefully this partially makes up for not having it on YouTube.
So today I am going to draw a few comparisons to how our media are reporting UKIP and warming sceptics, and even Tories -
- with Ed Milband's dad.
This is a letter to all and sundry and not published (a variant went to the Mail but they didn't use it either):
"There has been some criticism, mainly by the state owned BBC, of recent reporting of the political views that Ed Miliband's father taught him.
So today I am going to draw a few comparisons to how our media are reporting UKIP and warming sceptics, and even Tories -
- with Ed Milband's dad.
This is a letter to all and sundry and not published (a variant went to the Mail but they didn't use it either):
"There has been some criticism, mainly by the state owned BBC, of recent reporting of the political views that Ed Miliband's father taught him.
I note that the BBC & their supporters have never made a fuss about reporting that David Cameron's father-in-law makes £350,000 a year from subsidised windmills. Nor should they have. The public has a right to know all such things.
The hypocrisy of the BBC is, however, particularly uninhibited. This is the same BBC that last year broadcast the smear that everybody who doesn't see catastrophic global warming is the moral equivalent of the Rochdale child rapist gangsters. That, unlike your well researched article, was simply an obscene rant for which they have repeatedly refused to either produce any evidence or retract. Obviously the did not even contemplate the possibility of the BBC giving any right to reply to the people they attacked.
As somebody who, and whose party, dispute that we see any sign of catastrophic warming I would very much like to see our state owned broadcaster either trying to produce some evidence for the obscene lie they broadcast, or apologise for it. I would even like to see them living up to their legal Charter duty of "balance" by allowing the people they attack in this disgusting manner, a right of reply as the paper in question did for Milband. I do not think anybody with any real concern for honest reporting could fail to be thousands of times more critical of the BBC than of the coverage of Miliband snr."
====================================
With Adolf Hitler:
A much more disgusting and wholly unjustified smear of a party leader is this, very carefully fabricated picture of Nigel Farage standing behind a microphone. When I say very carefully fabricated it is obvious that there was only 1 position, and probably only 1 moment as he spoke, where parallax would have put the microphone directly in line with the camera in the position of Hitler's moustache.
The difficulty they had in fabricating it is shown by the fact that the light overhead makes it very bad image - that photo would never have been taken from that spot or used at all if a good photo had been desired.
Clearly, unlike knowing what the formative political influences of Miliband were, this is not a factual public interest item.
In fact nobody is going to suggest that this is in any way a factual assessment of Farage's genuine opinions. But it is a deliberate front page in several papers, attempt to produce a false subconscious association. Which everybody knows is not 1/10,000th as true as the association between the opinions of Miliband and Miliband.
All the stronger for being visual rather than factual.
This is why every single beeboid or dependent of a beeboid, who isn't personally a wholly corrupt Nazi propagandist parasite has publicly denounced the BBC as the obscene subhuman murdering animals they all are.
That would be zero so far.
====================================
There was a quite disgusting attempt to prevent Peter Adams standing in the Dunfermline by-election:
"Police Scotland has been forced to issue a clarification notice after wrongly saying it would investigate a Dunfermline by-election candidate.
When contacted by The Courier about the eligibility of UKIP candidate Peter Adams to stand in next month’s vote, the force said “a complaint has been received and will be investigated”.
However, a press release on Friday read: “Police Scotland can confirm that the submission of candidate papers relating to Mr Peter Adams for the Dunfermline by-election has been raised with them by Fife Council through informal discussion but can clarify that no complaint has been noted and therefore no police investigation has commenced.
“At this time, the matter remains in the hands of the council to clarify the circumstances.”
Mr Adams was elected to the board of NHS Fife as a non-executive member in June 2010. Under guidance issued in March 2011, board members were informed they cannot stand as a Holyrood candidate without resigning from their NHS board.
As a result, the general school of thought is it is necessary for members who wish to stand for election to quit prior to their nomination forms being lodged."
In fact Adams had done so before putting in his nomination. Obviously it is common for senior members of all parties, particularly those who are part of the ruling cartel, to hold such positions.
The Courier's original story has now been taken offline.
However, a press release on Friday read: “Police Scotland can confirm that the submission of candidate papers relating to Mr Peter Adams for the Dunfermline by-election has been raised with them by Fife Council through informal discussion but can clarify that no complaint has been noted and therefore no police investigation has commenced.
“At this time, the matter remains in the hands of the council to clarify the circumstances.”
Mr Adams was elected to the board of NHS Fife as a non-executive member in June 2010. Under guidance issued in March 2011, board members were informed they cannot stand as a Holyrood candidate without resigning from their NHS board.
As a result, the general school of thought is it is necessary for members who wish to stand for election to quit prior to their nomination forms being lodged."
In fact Adams had done so before putting in his nomination. Obviously it is common for senior members of all parties, particularly those who are part of the ruling cartel, to hold such positions.
The Courier's original story has now been taken offline.
This smear was only lanced by strenuous legal action by UKIP. During that action it became clear that the lie originated at, at least, ministerial level in Holyrood. And that they were quite surprised at the speed and effectiveness of UKIP's legal response.
This is SNP government whose leader commended to fascist mobbing of Nigel Farage a few months ago. Despite this being clearly criminal and involving at least one death threat, the authorities have been noticeably uninterested in enforcing the law.
Radical Independence, the SWP/Fascist organisation who organised this criminality remain an honoured part of the Yes campaign, so we must expect more.
====================================
And with Judge Dredd:
One of the pivotal stories is the Democracy March one in which "our hero" is ordered to use dirty tricks to prevent the people choosing democracy:
"Revolution, published a year later, told of how Hester Hyman's sacrifice had inspired millions to demonstrate for democracy.[14] Political campaign groups, including Hester's husband Gort Hyman, organised a massive protest march through the streets which would end at the Grand Hall of Justice. Chief Judge Silver did not want to ban the "Democratic March" outright, as such overt action would only play into the Democrats' hands. Instead he ordered Dredd to undermine the March by covert action. When Dredd asked if his orders included breaking the law, Silver replied: "on this one you write the law."[15] This moment was itself a turning point in the history of the strip, as a fundamental feature of Dredd's character had always been his utmost regard for, and obedience to, the law.....
later stories would depict Dredd's profound regret for the actions he took to thwart the March, and his disillusionment with the Judge System would have very significant consequences for the strip.
Dredd used various "dirty tricks" to undermine the March. He blackmailed the organisers by fabricating evidence against them and threatening to leak it to the press. He told Gort Hyman that if he did not withdraw he would conscript his children into the Academy of Law to be trained as cadet judges (the Academy does not require parental consent).[17] He arrested an elderly leader on a trumped-up charge (he found a photo of him in enemy uniform he knew was taken at a Halloween party) and made him stand all night without sleep or food, before releasing him minutes before the March was due to start, so that he would collapse from exhaustion along the way, undermining morale. Dredd ordered Weather Control to produce rain to reduce attendance. By the time the March started, numbers were well below the expected turnout. Undercover judges planted as agitators in the crowd first undermined morale by defeatist talk, and then incited violence by throwing things at uniformed judges, giving Dredd the excuse he needed to send in riot squads to break up the March and make arrests. The organisers were sentenced to significant terms of incarceration. Yet publicly, the Judges appeared to have the moral high ground.[18]"
-------------------------------------------
Of course that is just a comic book fascist regime.
You wouldn't get anything like that here - except we already know of children being seized by "professional carers" to bully their parents into quitting UKIP or the EDL (still continuing with the EDL). We already know of faked photographs being used by the media. In Greece we know of politicians being arrested on clearly fraudulent charges, with the approval of the EU and I assume with rulers across the EU watching to see if they get away with it. In Scotland such smears are clearly government directed and we know that the governing part is inciting violence.
And the totalitarian Fascist BBC propaganda organisation knowingly promotes any lie, even obscenities, to promote Fascism and false ecofascist scares and censors to hide the extent of state power (even to the extent of censoring mention of the size of the £3.7 billion subsidy) but censors also any attempt by dissidents to speak.
later stories would depict Dredd's profound regret for the actions he took to thwart the March, and his disillusionment with the Judge System would have very significant consequences for the strip.
Dredd used various "dirty tricks" to undermine the March. He blackmailed the organisers by fabricating evidence against them and threatening to leak it to the press. He told Gort Hyman that if he did not withdraw he would conscript his children into the Academy of Law to be trained as cadet judges (the Academy does not require parental consent).[17] He arrested an elderly leader on a trumped-up charge (he found a photo of him in enemy uniform he knew was taken at a Halloween party) and made him stand all night without sleep or food, before releasing him minutes before the March was due to start, so that he would collapse from exhaustion along the way, undermining morale. Dredd ordered Weather Control to produce rain to reduce attendance. By the time the March started, numbers were well below the expected turnout. Undercover judges planted as agitators in the crowd first undermined morale by defeatist talk, and then incited violence by throwing things at uniformed judges, giving Dredd the excuse he needed to send in riot squads to break up the March and make arrests. The organisers were sentenced to significant terms of incarceration. Yet publicly, the Judges appeared to have the moral high ground.[18]"
-------------------------------------------
Of course that is just a comic book fascist regime.
You wouldn't get anything like that here - except we already know of children being seized by "professional carers" to bully their parents into quitting UKIP or the EDL (still continuing with the EDL). We already know of faked photographs being used by the media. In Greece we know of politicians being arrested on clearly fraudulent charges, with the approval of the EU and I assume with rulers across the EU watching to see if they get away with it. In Scotland such smears are clearly government directed and we know that the governing part is inciting violence.
And the totalitarian Fascist BBC propaganda organisation knowingly promotes any lie, even obscenities, to promote Fascism and false ecofascist scares and censors to hide the extent of state power (even to the extent of censoring mention of the size of the £3.7 billion subsidy) but censors also any attempt by dissidents to speak.
Labels: BBC, British politics, UKIP
