| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: Monbiot hints - MI5 dirty tricks at the Evening Standard |
 |
|
| Quote: | Shameless exaggerations of the climate protesters' dastardly plans have left us baffled at the camp
George Monbiot
Saturday August 18, 2007
The Guardian
The allegations have been plaguing the Heathrow climate camp all week. They began in the Evening Standard: "Hoax bombs to cause alerts. Assaults on airport fence ... Protest leaders calling themselves 'The Elders' advised 'clashes with police will happen'."
When I was asked on to Newsnight to discuss the issue of whether climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, we kept being dragged back to the hoax bombs. The story was later picked up across the media, including appearances in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, and by Friday had been embellished with some lurid new quotes from the Metropolitan police in the Daily Express, which warned: "Extremist yobs hijack airport demo in plot to cause mayhem".
All this has left us at the protest camp scratching our heads. The actions planned for tomorrow have been discussed openly at huge meetings. But nothing even resembling the schemes proposed by the Evening Standard has even been mooted. The campers will certainly be breaking the law by taking direct action - all protests can now be deemed unlawful - but they will be governed by strict non-violent principles.
There are quite a few of us veterans here but age, sadly, confers no privileges: the camp is non-hierarchical, and no one has heard of "The Elders". There are plenty of anarchists, but the last thing they want is a ruck with the police, not least because - armed with nothing more than a sheaf of scientific papers - they would lose. As for scaling the perimeter fence, it has been ruled out on the grounds that we would probably be shot. Invading Heathrow's massive runways would put the lives of thousands at risk.
So where did the story come from? It was, or so the byline claimed, written by Robert Mendick, the Evening Standard's chief reporter. One of the campers phoned Mr Mendick and asked him what was going on. "I'm very constrained about what I can say for various reasons," Mr Mendick replied. "Suffice to say I understand what you're saying and I can't go into it. Er, and I would further say it's, er, not something I was actually massively involved with and, er, I'll leave it at that." "What do you mean?" "... I really can't go into it."
So what does he mean? Why is Mr Mendick unable to say where the claims in his story came from? How did he manage to write an article that he was not "massively involved with"? Is there a computer programme at the Evening Standard that composes reporters' articles on their behalf? I left messages for Mr Mendick yesterday but was unable to speak to him.
Protests like this have two peculiar vulnerabilities. One is that anyone can claim to speak on their behalf, either in person or online, whether or not they are involved. The other is that anyone can say anything about them without fear of being corrected, let alone sued: accusations can be levelled at the collective that could not be directed at any of its members. As long as the claims remain in the plural, they can be stretched as far as public credulity will allow.
During one roads protest in the 1990s we were accused of stabbing guards with hypodermic needles filled with blood, setting pit traps lined with metal spikes in the hope of catching and killing the police and arming ourselves with catapults and crossbows to take out the contractors: all nonsense, of course. Yet when some of us were hospitalised by guards (alongside several others, I had a bone broken during an unprovoked attack), most of the newspapers wouldn't touch the story for fear of being sued by the security firm.
Scare stories about anarchist baby eaters are as old as protest. We can't prevent their publication - all we can ask is that you read them with the scepticism their authors failed to employ.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...151275,00.html |
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David WJ Sherlock
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 471
Location: Kent GB
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: Re: Evening Standard bullshitters not journalists |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | Nice one John and well spotted.
Put aside his idiotic piece on 9/11 for a moment.
Good call here from Mr. Monbiot, getting to the hart of what's known as the 'charmed circle' of weasel journalists that are invulnerable to blowback from the real world.
They choose the path of least resistance preferring their 'unnamed sources' and 'unspecified benefits' to their professional integrity.
Luckily the climate campers are media wise and reading everything they write - then getting on the mobile.
The BBC also is moving away from using bylines on the web - their content management system decides whether or not reporters can add their name to an article. The managers know who has written a piece but not other reporters or the public.
It's the pyramid again.
Don't the forces of darkness just love it.
Could this be the same Evening Standard that refuses to run my article on Comverse Technologies the London Underground CCTV parent company that was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and whose CEO is accused of wiretapping the US justce department and has just dodged another extradition hearing from the comfort of his uranium mine in Namibia?
Is this the same Associated Newspapers owned Evening Standard whose Deputy News Editor told me a few weeks ago that "just because some of the directors", three to be precise, "are accused of a crime", 35 crimes actually, "that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the company"?
It certainly is. |
Being a local resident to Biggin Hill. We have seen the police ignoring the Biggin Hill protesters for hours before they were stopped. You guys should realise that if they protest against GW. They are on the side of the goverment spin to indorse it. Therefore they must believe what the governmemt and the Media are putting out. WAKE UP!!. Oh yeah, By the way. 9/11 was an inside job. Just incase you have forgot. I was not Arabs.
_________________
"It's called the American Dream, because you have to be alseep to believe it"
See my videos at:
http://www.myspace.com/GlassAsylum For D WJ Sherlock |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Judging from Monbiot's argumentation around 9/11, it's obvious in my mind that he is part of that dangerous clique: the gatekeepers of the left.
I have no empathy for the man or his causes.
Other honourable members of the clique: Pallast, Goodman, Chomsky.
Pallast called Dr. Jones a 'fruitcake' (he apologized later).
Goodman won't touch 9/11 in her speeches.
Chomsky says no one cares about 9/11.
The most intelligent aspect of the puppeteers' plan: the contrived left-vs-right dilemma. When both sides are owned.
The banksters publicly decried the Federal Reserve act.
Trotsky and Hitler were financed by City and Wall St. financiers.
And now the Royal Society blames Exxon for funding climate change denial. Ha!
The story goes on, and on.
Climate protesters? Protesting against what? The lousy UK weather?
Imho, and forgive me for being blunt, these people are 'useful idiots'.
Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace:
http://www.itssd.org/Issues/UKRoyalSocietyPlaysPoliticalBlameGameonGlo balWarming.pdf
Would you be happy to pay a carbon tax to help combat the effects of global warming? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 1451
Location: UEMS
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Re: Monbiot
| Quote: | | Put aside his idiotic piece on 9/11 for a moment. |
Did anyone else consider his 9/11 'hit pieces' in the Grauniad to be nothing more than devil's advocacy? After all, he has always prided himself on being a 'Professional Troublemaker'.
Receiving Rockefeller funding doubtless is no bed of roses...
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Useful Idiots is right. But anything that can be construed as Civil Disturbance, will be. Lets get the police powers increased and the public even more scared. Lets throw in lots of knife and shooting news as well.
This is a pre-emptive strike against us, I suspect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulStott
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 326
Location: All Power To The People, No More Power To The Pigs
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| acrobat74 wrote: | Pallast called Dr. Jones a 'fruitcake' (he apologized later).
|
What for?
Jones is the sort of bloke who 15 years ago was running round calling Bill Clinton a communist, at best he's a snake oil salesmen, at worst a loon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: Monbiot hints - MI5 dirty tricks at the Evening Standard |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | Shameless exaggerations of the climate protesters' dastardly plans have left us baffled at the camp
George Monbiot
Saturday August 18, 2007
The Guardian
The allegations have been plaguing the Heathrow climate camp all week. They began in the Evening Standard: "Hoax bombs to cause alerts. Assaults on airport fence ... Protest leaders calling themselves 'The Elders' advised 'clashes with police will happen'."
When I was asked on to Newsnight to discuss the issue of whether climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, we kept being dragged back to the hoax bombs. The story was later picked up across the media, including appearances in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, and by Friday had been embellished with some lurid new quotes from the Metropolitan police in the Daily Express, which warned: "Extremist yobs hijack airport demo in plot to cause mayhem".
All this has left us at the protest camp scratching our heads. The actions planned for tomorrow have been discussed openly at huge meetings. But nothing even resembling the schemes proposed by the Evening Standard has even been mooted. The campers will certainly be breaking the law by taking direct action - all protests can now be deemed unlawful - but they will be governed by strict non-violent principles.
There are quite a few of us veterans here but age, sadly, confers no privileges: the camp is non-hierarchical, and no one has heard of "The Elders". There are plenty of anarchists, but the last thing they want is a ruck with the police, not least because - armed with nothing more than a sheaf of scientific papers - they would lose. As for scaling the perimeter fence, it has been ruled out on the grounds that we would probably be shot. Invading Heathrow's massive runways would put the lives of thousands at risk.
So where did the story come from? It was, or so the byline claimed, written by Robert Mendick, the Evening Standard's chief reporter. One of the campers phoned Mr Mendick and asked him what was going on. "I'm very constrained about what I can say for various reasons," Mr Mendick replied. "Suffice to say I understand what you're saying and I can't go into it. Er, and I would further say it's, er, not something I was actually massively involved with and, er, I'll leave it at that." "What do you mean?" "... I really can't go into it."
So what does he mean? Why is Mr Mendick unable to say where the claims in his story came from? How did he manage to write an article that he was not "massively involved with"? Is there a computer programme at the Evening Standard that composes reporters' articles on their behalf? I left messages for Mr Mendick yesterday but was unable to speak to him.
Protests like this have two peculiar vulnerabilities. One is that anyone can claim to speak on their behalf, either in person or online, whether or not they are involved. The other is that anyone can say anything about them without fear of being corrected, let alone sued: accusations can be levelled at the collective that could not be directed at any of its members. As long as the claims remain in the plural, they can be stretched as far as public credulity will allow.
During one roads protest in the 1990s we were accused of stabbing guards with hypodermic needles filled with blood, setting pit traps lined with metal spikes in the hope of catching and killing the police and arming ourselves with catapults and crossbows to take out the contractors: all nonsense, of course. Yet when some of us were hospitalised by guards (alongside several others, I had a bone broken during an unprovoked attack), most of the newspapers wouldn't touch the story for fear of being sued by the security firm.
Scare stories about anarchist baby eaters are as old as protest. We can't prevent their publication - all we can ask is that you read them with the scepticism their authors failed to employ.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...151275,00.html |
|
They seem to have removed this article and comments from their archive. Could someone else check, as I'm not too bright with computers and the web.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I always test a link before posting it, so it 100% was there on Sunday
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PaulStott wrote: | | acrobat74 wrote: | Pallast called Dr. Jones a 'fruitcake' (he apologized later).
|
What for?
Jones is the sort of bloke who 15 years ago was running round calling Bill Clinton a communist, at best he's a snake oil salesmen, at worst a loon. |
Jones is a recently-retired (because of his stance on 9/11?) professor of physics.....so it is surely fair to say that on matters of hard science, at least, he is anything but a loon.
He found thermite on samples of steel taken from ground zeoro. He also demonstrated that whereas gravity could not possibly have caused the collapses and pulverisation we all witnessed, thermite was a plausible candidate for causing much of this devastation.
Name-calling is empty rubbish. This seems to be your stock-in-trade.
I met and spoke to you at the Nafeez Ahmed talk. You seemed like a gentleman.
Be fair Mr. Stott, if you are an honest commentator. Attack and disprove Jones' science or hold your peace.
Even without his work on thermite, his demolition of the fire-and-gravity-driven collapse theory (the official one) is masterful and crystal clear.
It is interesting that those who reject the idea that 9/11 was an 'inside job' hardly ever set about attacking the arguments Jones et al put forward regarding the WTC collapses. They seem much more interested in simply rubbishing the whole idea as just too ridiculous......presumably in an effort to discourage others from taking a look for themselves.
You would have us a 'cult' (a small group of deluded wierdos) wouldn't you, Mr Stott. The trouble is you are quite unable to challenge us on the evidence.
I suspect you know that the official 9/11 narrative is absolutely phony but reject the truth because it interferes messily with the real-politik of the left.
If you actually believe the official conspiracy theory I can assure you, Mr Stott, that it is you that is deluded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shayler...Monbiot... et al.... fool me once shame on you fool me twıce....
Agents are everywhere. But the truth ıs out there too.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dontbelievethehype1970
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 145
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
