Monday, 28 April 2014

Lies, Damned Lies, and Fixations

The Dissemination of Deception

There are some for whom truth is a tradable commodity, rather than an absolute. It is something to be deployed when deemed helpful and ignored or indeed crushed when it is not. Such things are not new: they have a long history. Pontius Pilate, the ambitious Roman governor of Palestine, said to an innocent victim, “Truth? What is that?”, almost 2000 years ago. More recently, the great actor Robert Vaughan delivered an immortal line in Bullitt, the 1968 movie starring Steve McQueen as a detective who, in the course of a murder investigation, uncovered corruption and conspiracy. 

"Don't be naive, Lieutenant,” Chalmers said. "We both know how careers are made. Integrity is something you sell the public." 

"Don't be naive...Integrity is something we sell the public"

Bullitt was set in San Francisco - neatly coincidental, as there has been an outstanding example of shameless and cynical manipulation of facts - indeed, the promotion of proven falsehood  - emanating from that city, quite recently.

The fun and games of Easter were rudely interrupted by an online article that was drawn to my attention. It accused various ‘bishops in Uganda’ of ‘calling for genocide against gays’. 

Now, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the recent Bill passed into law in Uganda, which prescribes some pretty draconian punishments for active homosexuality. Even given that country’s experience with AIDS - it decimated a generation and made orphans of thousands of children - I do not see any need for such measures as the Ugandan parliament has passed, and President Museveni, as head of state, has signed into law. In the past I campaigned for sexual equality - I can still remember eyes being rolled and subjects changed among my contemporaries as I raised some burning issue or other - and I continue to uphold the principle that what grown adults do in the privacy and comfort of their own homes is between them, their conscience and whatever consenting adults may be around at the time. Genuinely private matters should not be the subject of criminal proceedings. 

Melanie Nathan, disseminator of dishonesty

'Bishops call for gay genocide' - er... no.

Saying that the Ugandan bishops had called for ‘gay genocide’, on Easter Sunday, of all days, looked to be appalling. The accusations were quite specific: that Bishop Charles Wamika, Archbishop of Jinja diocese in Uganda (which is centred on Kampala), delivered a sermon at St. Charles Lwanga Catholic Church on that Sunday, calling for Jinja diocese to be ‘cleared of homosexuals’ and for parents to hand their children over to the authorities if they were homosexual.

Very serious charges.

And totally untrue.

Let’s deal with the specifics. 

First, there is NO St. Charles Lwanga Catholic Church in Jinja diocese or indeed anywhere in Uganda. The nearest one is in Lusaka, Zambia - over 1600 miles away. So, the place where this sermon was supposed to have been delivered does NOT actually exist. The building is not there, or anywhere else within 1000 miles.

Second, Bishop Wamika did not say anything like the words he is reported to have used. He did not make a call for ‘cleansing’ of homosexuals from Jinja or anywhere else. In fact, he did not say anything at all. He did not deliver a sermon that day; he said nothing, either way. A missionary priest delivered the homily at St Joseph’s Cathedral and it made no reference to Uganda’s homosexual law or to LGBT people at all. None.

I found this out after a couple of days of trying - communications in Uganda are not the greatest. I spoke to Bp Wamika personally and can say he was absolute and firm in his rebuttal of the accusations I advised him of.

A lawyer who is a stranger to basic principles

The person on whose blog these accusations had appeared is named as Melanie Nathan, who claims to be a ‘respected lawyer’ and ‘conflict resolution’ mediator. As a lawyer, one would expect her to be acquainted with the basic principle that accusations should be corroborated. My request for such was greeted with “Duh! Context context context….it’s my BLOG! I am BLOGGING” (I have edited)

It took me a while to work out what exactly was meant by that - but it became clear that the perspective of this individual is that truth is not a consideration when engaging in promotion of a particular agenda. When I came up with the Bishop’s rebuttal - and the clarification that the site of this supposed sermon does not actually exist - the invective and abuse was ratcheted up. Ultimately, the information I provided was not published on the blog - a later tweet said that I was blocked because I am "hell-bent on conspiracy”.

Hmmmm. The determination to obscure the truth - and to attack anyone who tries to disseminate it - is quite remarkable and one wonders what is behind it. As one wonders why the commitment to defend, promote and propagate inflammatory, rabble-rousing untruth.

Ms Nathan now lives in San Francisco but is originally from South Africa. As far as I can tell, her emigration came about 15 years ago, when the Majority government was becoming established and was extending measures such as Economic Empowerment, by means of employment monitoring and compliance grading of private companies. How well they scored would impact on their ability to do business in the public sector.

Big bad BOSS

It was all getting to be a far cry from the old days, when BOSS (Bureau of State Security) carried out all sorts of nefarious activities designed to undermine neighbouring countries, to destabilise their economies and to attack and undermine opposition movements at home and abroad. 

I recall Howard Smith, an old comrade from the Anti-Apartheid Movement days, telling me in all seriousness “All white South Africans are racists until proved otherwise”. He meant it.

Nathan explains where Jacob Zuma, President of S Africa, is going wrong. Zuma is a veteran of Umkhonto we Sizhwe (Spear of the Nation), long-time prisoner during the anti-apartheid struggle and a comrade of Mandela.

Things have clearly changed and many whites remained in South Africa, working within the new regime and environment and, clearly, racism is unacceptable. It has been known, however, for prejudices and animosities to manifest themselves in other ways; a campaign against one particular issue can actually be a cover for something else. Hysteria, accusations of savagery, denunciation of black Africans as incapable of complying with ‘advanced standards of behaviour’ and unable to persist with ‘civilised’ laws - it all has a familiar ring to it. A sustained campaign of denunciation, exaggeration, hyperbole, untruths, distortion and downright lies, with elements of rabble-rousing and with sexual overtones is so typical of the tactics that BOSS utilised, back then.

Of course it’s unlikely that an expatriate S African who resorts to hysterical invective and abuse is actually concealing old-fashioned racism under a currently acceptable neo-liberal veneer. 

But it all feels so familiar and I find Howard Smith’s words ringing insistently in my mind. 

Monday, 10 December 2012

Inevitable but Unforeseeable

Another week, another tragedy. What was claimed to be a 'harmless prank' on the other side of the world seems to have led to the death of Jacintha Saldanha, a woman doing her job. It may be coincidence, or course, but would the Australian shock-jocks be without responsibility even if it was?

The radio station management is describing the nurse's suicide as an 'unforeseeable tragedy'. I agree that the particular - such as this incident - is unforeseeable. The general, however - inevitable tragedy somewhere along the line - is totally predictable. This woman's mother-in-law was killed in a manner that was unforeseeable but the frenzy that had built up around her, despite all pleas for responsibility, made some kind of tragedy totally and utterly inevitable.

And now it happens again, with nothing learned - or, if any lessons were genuinely learned at the time, they have been pushed aside by self-interest undiluted by anything resembling enlightenment.

If anything positive does come out of this, it might be a pause for thought for a year or so. But I do not for a moment expect that any outbreak of restraint on behalf the lower reaches of the media will last forever.

I cannot claim to have had a blameless youth and will not try. Like most, if not all of us, I am relieved that my errors and misdemeanours were not played out in public - most of the time.


(You knew that was coming, didn't you?)

I don't think I ever objectified anyone in a Sadian manner, as these two did - and a lot of people to be fair. It has become widespread as we have become more isolated from each other.

Let me explain.

What we saw here was the objectification of other human beings for self-gratification. Let us remember what this was about: a young woman, newly pregnant, is suffering from a particularly severe form of morning sickness - so severe that she has had to be taken to hospital for medication and, especially, to have her fluid levels maintained. The latter was done by intravenous dosage - a drip, quite simply.

While we don't think of morning sickness as life-threatening, this young woman's condition was sufficiently serious as to require close monitoring and supervision.

The reaction to that scenario by a normal human being would be sympathy and, by those who have been through pregnancy or have been closely associated with it, a high level of empathy. Any normal, effectively socialised and reasonably well-Adjusted human being would have felt, primarily, a degree of fellow-feeling and would have left the person and their family alone. Maybe, if they were close enough to the people concerned, they would have asked if there was anything they could do and assured them of their willingness to help anytime it was needed. So far, so normal.

To view a woman suffering from body-wracking sickness, losing fluids, in pain and in a hospital where she was receiving close care and attention as an opportunity for self-gratification is not normal, well-adjusted and effectively socialised. It is the behaviour and mental attitude of the Marquis de Sade. I am not talking about the risqué literary character with a taste for a bit of fun involving leather and dungeons. I am talking about the real guy, who objectified his victims and used and abused them for his own gratification, whose behaviour was so bad his own family locked him up before he caused the death of someone from his own class (servants had already died - he was reported to have been enraged by that; the ideal victim does not die like that but remains to provide the master repeat pleasure). When the Revolution came, he was freed because, naively, the Revolutionaries thought he was some kind of radical who challenged the class structure of his day. Within a few months they locked him up again.

This young woman - Kate Middleton, let her have a name - was seen by these people in Australia as an object for their gratification - good audience ratings, that warm fuzzy feeling the terminally narcissistic get when they are the centre of attention. She was not a person, she was a 'royal', a 'legitimate target', to get a rise from. Being a 'royal' meant that it deserved it. In hospital? The very vulnerability made it more attractive - there would be fewer problems of access. And if anyone bleated about its exploitation - well, it would be their fault for allowing it to be exploited.

The behaviour of the two Aussie shock-jocks is not that of normal, socially adjusted people. One expects a degree of narcissism in the media; it would not function without it. Similarly, we expect a degree of aggressiveness in everyday commerce; competition would not exist without it. However, the point of socialisation is to keep these things within bounds, so society can continue to function in a social, co-operative manner. The danger with liberality is that it can be abused, to the detriment of society generally. Occasional occurrences can be tolerated; they don't threaten the fabric of society. So long as they are not rewarded and, intentionally and directly or not, held up as examples for those still learning to follow.

We have seen objectification for self-gratification on both sides of the world. In this country, the form it has recently taken that has raised most eyebrows is exemplified by Jimmy Savile, who constructed an entire career for a perverted gratification. And it is getting clearer every day that he was not alone.

One thing that characterises people who behave in a Sadian psychotic way is the extent of their self-pity when frustrated - when caught, held responsible and denied their outlet. The Marquis de Safe is reported to have alternated between rage and 'piteous weeping' - but the only feelings he ever displayed were for himself. He had no empathy for others. When he was locked up, his writings were full of the rage of a caged beast, frustrated that he was being kept from the torture and abuse that he believed were his entitlement. He viewed all others - even his family - as inferior to himself and nothing more than the means to gratification.

We have:
Lack of remorse
Failure to understand what is wrong in their actions
When caught, mewling self-pity - "It was unforeseeable""I feel so gutted". Catered to by their employers, of course.

Do you really want people exhibiting this sort of psychotic behaviour wandering around, unrestricted? If they effectively get away with this, how long before the next 'unacceptable' incident, which will be expected to be accepted, brushed aside and moved on?

Some people say they feel sorry for them and how a 'harmless prank' went wrong. Well, I don't see it as a harmless prank. But I do feel slightly sorry for them, I concede. I feel sorry for the crippling of their psyche sometime in the past, that led them to think and believe this was acceptable. I would not allow them out unaccompanied.

To me, the death of the nurse was an inevitability, as I indicated previously. The real tragedy is ongoing - a society that, even if only in part, sees this kind of behaviour - Sadian psychoses - as acceptable.

Thursday, 22 November 2012

Wow - a very busy day.

In between writing and research about plastic bottles, industrial clean-up and challenges involved in financing commercial transport, has been the tragedy of Savita Halappanavar. At the request of Mark Lambert I wrote a column that he kindly hosted on his blog, which gets a lot more hits than mine! He was then challenged about it and one person, apparently, went so far as to strongly suggest that he should take it down. I can understand one side of the debate getting seriously huffy - after all, if Mrs Halappanavar did not die from the effects of Catholic teaching and being denied an abortion, then the wind in their sails is reduced the slightest zephyr. 

When I began to investigate I thought I would uncover confirmation of medical malpractice or incompetence. (Yes, I went in with some prejudgements already in place. Mea culpa. ) Instead, I discovered an unavoidable tragedy and a matter for concern far away from the current hysterical arguments. Nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with unresponsive medical infections.

Just in case things change, i am going to publish here again the original column hosted by Mark. The Weeping Gargoyle took issue with it and I put my rebuttal below, along with a link to the Gargoyle's post.

(Gosh. One tries to spread a little light in place of heat and it don't work!)

Who stands to gain from tragedy?

If you can’t find evidence of a conspiracy then you aren't looking hard enough…

There is a need to stop this side of David Icke (WELL this side of David Icke) but, sometimes, conspiracy theories turn out to hold water.

The death of Savita Halappanavar is a tragedy that became a catastrophe for her family – that much is crystal clear and pretty much everyone can agree on it. But then things get murkier and murkier. There are agendas at work and the hint of something rather nasty at large.

Mrs Halappanavar died of an antibiotic-resistant infection, specifically e.coli ESBL. She did not die from an abortion, from being denied an abortion, from Catholic teaching or from a confused legal system in Ireland. 


ESBL stands for Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase positive gram negative bacteria. It is resistant to most strains of antibiotics. One of my informants told me: “… the antibiotics given were to no avail…two things can happen if it doesn't respond to treatment. Either the body's immune system deals with it in the normal way and wins or the bug defeats the immune system and the patient develops an overwhelming septicaemia, leading to septic shock. The kidneys start to fail and the blood pressure starts to fall.” They then go on and die – the mortality rate is massive.

The great concern – or what should be the concern – is that e.Coli ESBL and other antibiotic-resistant infections are now at large in the community. Previously, such things were limited to identifiably higher-risk areas: hospitals themselves; food processing (slaughterhouses in particular); and farms, where slurry is often used as a fertilizer. But Mrs Halappanavar was a dentist. 


Instead of being concerned that untreatable infections are in the community as a whole and spreading, the debate has been hijacked by special-interest groups. But it is worse than that.

It is proving to be very difficult to get the truth of the fatal infection into the mainstream news media; they are only interested in the abortion angle – if they remain interested at all. As for the medics I have spoken to – they are all concerned for their careers. Getting information has been like pulling teeth. I cannot mention names or attribute their comments even to ‘a doctor/nurse/paramedic at x/y/z hospital/surgery/healthcare trust’. I can’t even mention the area they live and practice; they are frightened of being traced and found out. That could have been put down to the fear that they were passing on hearsay and gossip – but the same story has come from multiple sources. It passes the usual tests of corroboration.


I am getting a message pretty loud and clear that speaking out about this, that going public with the 'wrong' message may very well impact upon an individual's career. "Most people are afraid to comment..." one of my informants has said. Some of my informants are coming towards the end of their careers and are slightly more inclined to speak out but even then there is a great deal of caution. There appears to be real, tangible fear.

Is it a conspiracy? Well, in my experience, you don’t often find doctors and nurses so frightened for their jobs. Patient confidentiality is always respected, of course, but there is so much out in the open now that confidentiality is not an issue. It is odd – very odd – that the ‘pro-choice’ group whose press release triggered off this furore seems to have known about the incident for some days, had access to medical information that was not at the time in the public domain and was, therefore, supposedly confidential. It had the chance to tee up its members and supporters that a major story was about to break. 


It happened shortly after a Marie Stopes facility opened in Northern Ireland, and soon after an RTE broadcast of an undercover investigation that revealed pregnancy advisory services are behaving in an illegal and dangerous manner. One of my informants has pointed out that the consultant in charge of the deceased lady is actually English and mentioned casually that it was unusual to see people coming in from the UK - that the traffic is usually the other way. " may be because she has an agenda", they said. They may be appallingly right. As someone said, there is a lot of money to be made from abortions, as the UK and US experience demonstrates.

The tragedy of Mrs Halappanavar and the ensuing fuss has arrived very conveniently to overwhelm the negative programme - who now remembers it at all - in a tide of prejudice, misinformation and lynch-mob hysteria.

I had to ask some rather distasteful questions to get to the truth and got some fleas in my ear for suggesting the possibility of racism or gender-selective illegally-procured abortion! And then the gates began to crack open, the information started to flow but the fear of my informants has become almost tangible. The enquiry looked like the sort of stitch-up from the old days; it was almost laughable. Now the widowed husband has got a lawyer and is involved in setting the terms of reference of the enquiry – which hasn’t even started yet. If his wishes are not abided by, then he will not allow his deceased wife’s records to be released. I hesitate before making this observation but, of course, if no-one is responsible, if it was a tragic death that was unpreventable, then some interests will be frustrated. There are interests in finding someone or something to blame. Which means that there will be horsetrading going on to make sure it lands in the ‘right’ place. As I said, if you can’t find evidence of a conspiracy then you aren’t looking hard enough. 


A Doctor Clair, from Cork, has had the courage to speak out publicly, in the form of a letter to the Irish examiner that was published on Tuesday 20 November. He is almost alone at the moment but one hopes his letter will get wider publicity. Readers of this blog should disseminate it as widely as they can.

This was originally published on Mark Lambert's blog, here:

My response to The Thirsty Gargoyle's criticism ( was submitted in two pieces. Here it is in all its glory:

Hi, Greg

We do not know each other, I can confirm. Why, you do not even know how to spell my name correctly (It's Ruari. Short for the Argyll Gaelic name but that's what I do to make things easier for the English...)

I was not aware of Dr Clair's letter in the Examiner until Mark Lambert drew my attention to it on Wednesday morning, after I had semi-prepared the information that ultimately appeared on his blog as a guest post. He will be able to confirm that I had been trying to confirm the particular strain of antibiotic-resistant bacterium for some days. I had not told anyone what I had been advised it was, in order to avoid even being seen to be bringing undue influence to bear.

I was told it was an antibiotic-resistant infection last Friday and got the name of e.coli ESBL on Saturday. I spent nearly four days (off and on - I have a living to earn as well!) seeking to confirm that this was indeed the infection that killed the unfortunate Mrs Hallapanavar and, specifically, that it was not O104:H4, the strain in the 2011 German outbreak that killed 24 people and infected more than 2400. I wanted to confirm that particularly because O104:H4 deploys a particularly effective 'poison pill' defence: it dies quite readily under attack from antibiotics but, as it dies, cells burst and release intense toxins that overwhelm the body's defence mechanisms. As the standard treatment for a pregnant woman presenting with pains symptomatic of bacterial infection is antibiotics, if it had been O104:H4, the cure would have killed her, very quickly.

Had that been the case then, with years of experience, I would understand the fears that could be found to be leading to a cover-up. But it was not O104:H4, it was an EBSL.

In the course of my investigation I asked some pretty  impertinent questions, including enquiries about possible racism and, maybe, cultural influences, including the possibility of procurement of an illegal abortion for the purposes of gender selection. (The racism enquiries were in both directions, btw). I got some pretty strong fleas in my ear for doing so. Like it or not, the suggestion that racism had something to do with the case was rebutted in the strongest possible terms.

I conducted enquiries as exhaustive as they could be, Greg. I did not go off the deep end - I held back from publishing for days in order to confirm what I had been told. I did not (he said, gently) go off down the road that this was about medical incompetence.

Oh, bugger gently. Greg, you talked about medical incompetence in your blog of 14 November. I quote: "... it seems to me that at least on the basis of the facts as reported, this was a straightforward and stomach-churning case of shocking -- possibly even criminal -- medical malpractice with a tragic outcome."

You leaped to medical malpractice; I didn't. I spent days trying to find out what actually happened.

Does that make me a better person than you? I don’t know you so I cannot say. All I can say is that I think I have displayed at least as much level-headedness as you accuse Mark Lambert of possessing. In the middle of this firestorm, I went looking for reliable testimony.

I found it, and I also found fear and trepidation. I will not apologise for saying that, because it is the truth. People are concerned. I asked a few days ago why the Irish government had not raised the possibility of incurable infection, a possibility of which I was already aware. I have not had a satisfactory explanation. I have had shrugs and shiftiness, sidelong glances and slippery looks, but no satisfactory explanation.


When I said, If you can't find evidence of a conspiracy then you aren't looking hard enough, it was intended to raise a smile - but a knowing smile, to be a joke 'on the square', if you like. The old idea that once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and thrice is conspiracy may not always be true but it's worth bearing in mind when headline-consuming firestorms erupt. There may very well be no connection at all between Marie Stopes opening a clinic in Northern Ireland; RTE broadcasting an undercover investigation revealing illegal and dangerous practices in advisory services in Ireland; and the fact that a lobby group appears to have had advance notice of this case, as well as access to confidential patient records. In fact, there probably isn't - it's all just coincidence. Forget I mentioned it.

I agree with you that "... pro-choicers shouldn't be jumping to the conclusion that Savita died because she was denied a termination of pregnancy or because of any supposed uncertainty in Irish law,"

And I certainly agree that "...neither should pro-lifers be asserting that she definitely didn't die for those reasons..." That's why I spent days researching and investigating - past the point where I could have sold the story to mainstream media, btw. (I make my living as a journalist so not selling stories or leads causes me physical as well as financial pain).

However, we draw apart when you talk of "...grabbing at the claim that she died because of some subcontinental superbug." "Subcontinental" implies that this strain of e.coli is restricted to, or originated in this case from, India. That is incorrect and there is no proof of it. A concern among the Irish medics I spoke to is that, far from being restricted to the Subcontinent, this bug has become established in the general public in Ireland. And it isn't a 'superbug' - just an example of evolution at work. There will be many more and we should all be concerned about that reality.

Actually, 'that reality' is my real concern. An informant said to me that they believed it was not a coincidence that the UK's Chief Medical Officer had chosen to release a major paper on antibiotic-resistant infections last week. Did you miss it? Catch up at

If resistance to antibiotics spreads further into the bacterial field, we will be back to the 1930s. Infections we think of as minor will, once again, be killers. All this stuff about whether the law in Ireland needs to be revised is so much eyewash.

Greg, you got to a truth in your post on 18 November, headlined "Paper Doesn't refuse Ink, as my Dad says". A crucial truth was buried in the middle of Kitty Holland's article, to whit: "Whether the fact that Savita had been refused a termination was a factor in her death has yet to be established."

That is a classic 'not me guv' defence: search the article and you will find no absolute accusation that the lack of an abortion killed Mrs Hallapanava; indeed, you can find this note of caution where no-one will look for it - except you, to your credit. 

You think Kitty Holland has no agenda?

Yes, I am pro-life but I was initially going into this story looking for confirmation of my expectation that it was about medical malpractice and misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, as well as Irish medical ethics. And that a dreadful coincidence of those two had led to this woman's catastrophic death.

That is not what I found. I stand by what I said on Mark's blog.

Friday, 11 May 2012

What part of 'free speech' do you not understand?

The Stasi, the old East German secret police, seem to be alive, well and living in England. They have assumed different identities and are now manifested as enforcers of sanctions against those they deem to be deviating from their determination of what is acceptable and approvable. The latest example is manifested in attempts to suppress the Coalition for Marriage's campaign against the proposals to 'redefine marriage'.

Now, I don't care where you stand on this debate, for the purposes of this issue. I really don't. What I do care about is the freedom of people to speak in support of what they believe - so long as they aren't inciting murder, offences against the person (including incitement to racial hatred) or other easily-recognised long-standing offences. Disagreements make the world go round and discussion of them often leads to better society and an improved laws (not always, but often). Attempts to suppress free speech (with the caveats outlined above) have a nasty habit of feeding upon themselves and can actually come back round and bite those who first championed them.

 A blogger named Archbishop Cranmer has received communications from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that can only be described as intimidatory. They have said that the enquiries should be kept 'confidential'. It sounds like a Star Chamber inquisition - conducted in secret. 'Archbishop Cranmer' has chosen to make the complaint public, and hats off to him for that. . His offence? To reproduce a promotional gif in support of the Coalition for Marriage. The complaints allege that this gif is 'homophobic' and 'offensive'. In my humble opinion, the complaints are crass and idiotic - as idiotic as that head teacher who, a few years ago, denounced Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet' as 'blatantly heterosexist' and turned down free tickets for her school's pupils to attend a performance by the RSC or somesuch.

Those who engage in such attempts at censorship really should think carefully. I recall several local worthies saying to me that 'what this country needs is a benevolent dictatorship'. They were rather surprised when I responded: what if that dictator agreed with me, rather than with you? Would they still seem so benevolent then?' clearly, the idea that bullies might not be on their side had never occurred to them. It should have, and it should to anyone who thinks that their ias are in the ascendant and they can impose their will on anyone else. That way, damnation and the end of civilised society lies. As and when the backlash comes - and it will - there may be no-one able or willing to speak up for you.

'Archbishop Cranmer' observed: "Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse... "

For those unaware, I am more than happy to reproduce the advert here. If anyone objects, feel free to complain to the ASA. I may exhort you to avoid showing yourself up as a complete idiot but I won't stop you. .

. Archbishop Cranmer's blog can be found at:

Wednesday, 15 December 2010

The lessons today...

What have the kids learned from their encounters with the Establishment?

Peaceful demonstrations (1-2 million people marching against the Iraq invasion, 400,000 Countryside Alliance protestors) change nothing. Violent protest (Poll Tax Riots) get rid of Prime Ministers and change things.

Do the Met want to put their words about facilitating peaceful protest into action? The Anti-capitalist and G20 demos indicate not. They would rather go out and show who's boss - as the reaction to the Countryside Alliance march, G20 demonstrations (Ian Tomlinson died, remember) and student demos Part 2 (not Thursday 10 December 2010) showed. Kettling does not seem to be a tactic of last resort; it is the go-to tactic. And there are some in the police force who would like to go further - see the responses in the Inspector Gadget blog: http://inspectorgadget.wordpre.../

Hugh Orde said that there is a problem if the police are seen as enforcing the government's will, against popular (as in, of the people) protest. He knows whereof he speaks - he was formally head of the Police service in Northern Ireland. If the Met thinks dealing with a few cheesed-off kids is difficult, try the Falls Road in the 1980s/90s. Those guys had guns.

And so we get to the next stage of fear. The police have overplayed the kettling hand, the kids know how to deal wtith it - split up and leave, at maximum knots. If kettled, fight back early and hard, and strong. Those who follow Police instructions or are left behind when others scatter or confront know no better - they are the compliant ones. This time.

So - the police now talk of water cannon and heavier tactics. The demonstrators will work out their way around that. How many steps to, in effect, low-intensity, sporadic civil war? At what point does the police force stop being civilians in uniform, facilitating democratic protest and securing society, and become The Enemy, the domestic arm of the government's will, which Hugh Orde warned against?

Do the readers of the Telegraph and other papers of similar persuasion stand up for that famous female, Laura Norder? That will probably be the knee-jerk reaction but wait - our children are having their heads whacked. Our nieces and nephews are telling tales of cavalry charges out of nowhere, baton charges, kettling (containment) and friends injured, brain--damaged - and, at what point, dead?

The public support may begin to waver.

When it does, Society is in big trouble. There are those, like me, who argue for reform - an improved system, one that is genuinely responsive to popular concerns. I argue for reform of the Parliamentary system. If that argument fails, if politicians carry on regardless, ignoring protest and the will of the people - as they did with the Iraq demonstration, most notably - where do we go? If the lesson that the children take from these events, compared especially with the Poll Tax riots, which did achieve something, is that democracy doesn't work, that peaceful protest is pointless, into whose arms do they fall?

British society has been very effective at defusing militancy by sharing, by including the alienated into the benefits of stability. Ignoring, confronting or beating the living crap out of our children is not a good idea - the reality feeds back to the mainstream.

"The most dangerous moment for bad government is when it sets about reform" - Alexis de Tocqueville, 'Reflections on the French Revolution'.

Bankers get off scot-free. Young people have the cost of their university access escalated. Taxes stay high. Local services are cut. It sounds like a recipe for middle-class alientation - and if the middle classes are alienated, God help us.

Tuesday, 10 August 2010

The Fantasy of Viscount Monckton

The regular pin-up boy of the climate denialists is a gentleman named Christopher Monckton, perhaps better known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. There are many people whose scepticism of climate change - its extent and drivers - are respectable, well qualified and whose science and scientific background is impeccable.

Lord Monckton could not be counted among them.

His qualifications - a degree in Classics from Oxford and a Diploma in Journalism from Cardiff - impressive as they may be, are not in the right area. That doesn't stop the more swivel-eyed deniers, the ones who see climate change as a political battleground rather than a process that simply doesn't care whether you're Left, right or Monster Raving Loony, from claiming him as a champion and nominating him to be their leading spokesperson.

Perhaps paradoxically, I sincerely hope they succeed because this self-aggrandising buffoon, who has misrepresented his legislative status in public, even to the US Senate, discredits the denialist camp with every public appearance. The more closely his pronouncements - which remind one of Toad of Toad Hall on a particularly puffed-up day - are examined, the more they fall apart.

I came across an excellent couple of posts on other sites that I simply have to share. It would be shameful and selfish of me to fail to do so.

First, Lord Monckton's claim to be a member of the House of Lords - a claim that he made to a US Senate Committee, for goodness' sake. He inherited his title in 2006, on the death of his father. That was seven years after the House of Lords was reformed to exclude all but 92 hereditary peers. Lord Monckton stood for election to the Lords but lost. He got the same number of votes that I did - NONE. And I didn't even stand.

Lord Monckton is not, was not and never has been a member of the House of Lords. Not even a 'non-sitting, non-voting' member, as he has often claimed. He uses a representation very similar to the Portcullis symbol of the UK's Parliament in many of his presentations, as he continues to seek to give the impression that he is a member of the UK's Upper House. The House of Lords is now, at last, taking some kind of action, it would appear. A group called 'Friends of Gin & Tonic' has received a response that indicates they are taking this seriously. See here:

And there's more. For a long time, Lord Monckton was regarded as a bit of a clown on the outer circle of debate about climate change. It must be conceded that, with sheer bravado, chutzpah and more front than Brighton, he has managed to get himself air time and a little closer in - thus the swivel-eyed championing him as a spokesman. That may change, as people start taking his polemical impact seriously. I am delighted to introduce you to 'Lord Monckton's Rap Sheet', which is a list of his misdemeanours, misrepresentations, mendacity and misleading cases - a list that grows daily. Originated by Barry Bickmore, a geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University and an active Republican (so can't be accused of being a Left-wing plottist!), it systematically takes apart Lord Monckton's claims and exposes his misunderstandings (if one is kind - he is a Classics grad, not science) in a digestible way. It is here: lord-moncktons-rap-sheet.

A summary of some of the charges listed:

Shady business dealings
Inflating his Resume (a slam-dunk, I think)
Misrepresenting Scientific Literature
Making up Data (goes with the territory)
Abusing Scientific Equations (to be fair, this could be simply because he doesn't understand them)
Threatening Those who Disagree with him (libel threats fly about like confetti; not all are pursued. In fact, very few are)
"Being a Snake-oil salesman who actually sells snake-oil!"

There is other stuff, too. Big thanks to Barry Bickmore and to the others who contributed to that blog.

It's a jolly start to understanding the nonsense spouted by the denialists generally and the Noble Lord in particular. It even exposes the hollowness of his claim to have invented a cure for a range of diseases, including flu,
Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, food poisoning, and HIV. All out of one bottle! Sadly, it would appear that he has let the patent application lapse. Could be just an oversight but we may never know.

Thursday, 27 May 2010

Of flameboys and moral fibre

An interesting 24 hours.

Between banging out articles, I got involved in a slanging match with the bunch of sycophantic mole rats who follow a certain James Delingpole, who writes a blog for the Telegraph's website.

I don't recommend visiting it - in fact, I recommend against. As has been pointed out to me, the number of visitors to a site is a reflection of how 'big' it is in the Internet playground. As even I hadn't visited this for a few years - I'd completely forgotten about it - it doesn't register as 'successful'. So don't encourage the powers-that-be at the Telegraph to think that this particular columnist is worth what they're paying him by ratcheting up the click-count.

Delingpole has been described as being "Like...a pickled deformed foetus...both repulsive and fascinating"; someone who seems to have "...virtually no interest in science, despite putting himself forward as some kind of 'expert' on global warming and climate change..."; and, in short, a rabble-rouser. His blogs are bombastic, pugnacious and aggressive. There was an unpleasant episode earlier this year, in which he published the name and address of someone who had the temerity to ask a Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate (ppc) a list of questions suggested by some 'green' organisation or another. Outcome: some of his 'boot boys' (as they have been described) disseminated the information and engaged in a campaign of intimidation. He then had the sense to pull the piece and apologise for the upsetting experience the questioner had been subjected to. Well, he apologised after a fashion and prompted one observer to question "...which is worse: Delingpole's lies, hypocrisy, horrible bullying or rabid invasion of an innocent person's privacy?"

(How he, his Tory ppc pal, the person who 'leaked' the original e-mail to him, and the mole rat boot-boys escaped prosecution under the Data Protection Act remains a mystery to me.)

The discussion threads are dominated by a small group of fanboys, who appear to have an obsession with bodily functions - bed-wetting in particular, it seems. The number is certainly less than 10 and seems to be about 6 or 7 - but what a mess a determined handful can achieve! They don't have a monopoly in destructive behaviour - it's a technique favoured by people from the Nazis through the trade unions of the 1970s to football hooligans - and now the Delingpole mole rats.

What they do is completely prevent reasoned debate with a stream of invective and insults, launched in an apparently co-ordinated way (but maybe just unplanned co-operation) against anyone who shows the slightest disagreement with the position of their beloved leader. Or maybe slightly fails to wholeheartedly endorse him.

Once all reasoned debate has been smothered, the column reduces to a cross between an Internet dating chatroom and a boring CB conversation from the 1970s/80s.

Delingpole makes no attempt to encourage open debate or to restrain his fawning pack - rather the opposite. Maybe he likes the adoration, even from such a poor sample of humanity as his mole rats.

Anyway, I occupied some of my time calling them out. In particular, I made it clear that I was more than willing to meet them in person to carry the discussion further. I have provided one of them with my proper name and full address (indeed, I insisted on it) and invited him down. Over a cup of tea (and maybe some biscuits, if I can restrain myself from stuffing the lot in my own face!) we could maybe bridge our differences and resolve our disagreements. Yes, honestly we could!

Is he coming down? Well, it would appear not. Why? No reason given. I'd be more than happy to pay his bus fare, if that's the problem. Alternatively, I could save him the inconvenience of a long trip and go to see him. Will he reciprocate and provide me - in confidence, he has my e-mail address - with his home address? No. Not so far. If he changes his mind, I will let it be known.

But cut back to the obsession with bed-wetting. I've been careful with my choice of words, in order to avoid accusations of intimidation. But still, he accuses me of "...physical threats...". Hope he didn't engage in his obsession so much as to make his clothes unrecoverable!

There is an expression that goes back to the early days of the Internet and e-mail: 'flameboy'. It was attached to people who engaged in big talk from the keyboard but who never backed anything up. The sort of people who would adopt a big, muscular avatar for online gaming - or maybe a feminine persona - in order to compensate for their personal inadequacies or to give expression to their deep-seated, secret fears and fantasies. Whenever I've met a flameboy in person, they've always been rather pathetic.

What the experience of the last 24 hours or so shows is the continuing truth of the 'flameboy' reputation. Big on line but can't hack it in the real world. It shows also, I think, that certain members of today's society simply don't have moral fibre, the personal integrity to stand up, in public, for themselves. What a pathetic bunch of self-abusers. The trouble with the Internet is, it puts these sad cases in touch with each other and leads them to think they're normal

Still, I mustn't complain - the visitor numbers here continue to rise and rise. Carry on like this and I'll be more popular than Delingpole - so long as the unwary take my advice and don't visit the mouthy prat's site.

Update, June 1/2: For the information of any who may be interested, I have taken my own most excellent advice and no longer visit James Delingpole's blog, either as myself or as anyone else, and haven't done since May 28. Any subsequent posts purporting to be from me are shameless impersonations - or, more likely, the deranged after-drippings of an unhinged imagination.