The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[snowychap]

Criticism mounts over UK's post-9/11 role in torture and rendition

Quote

British ministers and spy chiefs in power after 9/11 are facing new calls to explain their “inexcusable” actions after two damning parliamentary reports set out the scale of UK involvement in the torture and kidnap of terrorist suspects.

Theresa May is also under fire for blocking key intelligence figures from giving evidence to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC), which produced the two reports.

The committee found the UK intelligence agencies to be complicit in hundreds of incidents of torture and rendition, mainly in partnership with the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

In spite of restrictions on its investigation, the ISC produced a mass of detail that amounts to a major indictment of the intelligence services, not least that the UK was in breach of the international prohibition on torture.

“In our view, the UK tolerated actions, and took others, that we regard as inexcusable,” said the committee’s chairman, Dominic Grieve.

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary from 2001-06, will face questions over how much he knew and, given that accusations of torture and rendition were widespread at the time in the press, some will want to know why he did not ask for a briefing.

A key passage in the report said MI6 “sought and obtained authorisation from the foreign secretary” for the costs of funding a plane involved in an individual rendition case.

Leading human rights groups issued a joint statement saying the ISC’s reports “revealed shocking new details of UK complicity in torture and rendition” – adding these were “just the tip of the iceberg”.

The statement, issued on behalf of the seven groups, including Amnesty International UK, Reprieve and Liberty, called for an independent inquiry.

Reprieve suggested there should be a police investigation: “The police must also be free to follow the evidence and pursue prosecutions against those who were ultimately in charge and responsible for these appalling actions.”

A Westminster security official said MI6 was confronted with a new environment which it had not prepared or trained for after 9/11. “Given the circumstances, it is understandable, yet regrettable, that, occasionally, we did not get things right.”

But he stressed the intelligence agency had learned from the experience, with clear guidance for MI6 and an expanded legal team. “In Whitehall, there is tighter ministerial engagement in approving operations,” the security official said.

One of the reports addresses the mistreatment and rendition of detainees between 2001 and 2010, while the other considers current issues, mainly the guidance given to spies by their head offices about how to respond when confronted with torture or rendition.

Its publication came a month after May issued a public apology to Abdel Hakim Belhaj who was kidnapped in 2004 with the assistance of MI6 and flown to one of Muammar Gaddafi’s prisons, along with his pregnant wife Fatima Boudchar.

The British ambassador in Turkey, Dominick Chilcott (right) hands over a letter of apology from the UK government to Libyan dissident Abdel Hakim Belhaj. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP

The committee, which began its inquiry four years ago, pinned blame not only on junior intelligence officers in the field but also on senior officials.

“It is difficult to comprehend how those at the top of the office did not recognise the pattern of mistreatment by the US,” the committee said.

In response to the findings of the committee, Straw, who had direct responsibility for MI6 and the surveillance agency GCHQ, said he had been unaware of much of what was revealed in the report.

“Although I was formally responsible for both SIS [the Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6] and GCHQ during my period as foreign secretary [June 2001 to May 2006], I have today learned much about the activities and the approach of these agencies of which I was not aware before,” he said.

He did not reply to a Guardian request for comment about a key passage in one of the reports about his role in a rendition flight.

The passage said that, in September 2004, MI6 “sought and obtained authorisation from the foreign secretary to pay a large share” of the costs of funding a aircraft to render a detainee from a secret location to another secret location the following month. The foreign secretary – Straw – gave the authorisation.

Grieve said that if his inquiry had continued, he would have called on Straw and the former home secretary David Blunkett “to examine what they understood to be the situation at the time and explain why a briefing was not requested”. He had only abandoned the inquiry, which began three years ago, because he could not take it any further. He appeared frustrated that May blocked a request for evidence from four intelligence officers central to events.

“The government has denied us access to those individuals. The committee has, therefore, concluded, reluctantly, that it must draw a line under the inquiry,” he said.

 

In a statement, May expressed pride in the work of the intelligence services, for often working in the most difficult circumstance, but said it was “only right that they should be held to the highest possible standards in protecting [the UK’s] national security.”

Lord MacDonald, the former director of prosecutions, described May’s blocking of the inquiry as “a scandal” and that her justification for doing so was “bogus”.

The ISC found 13 incidents where British intelligence officers witnessed at first hand a detainee being mistreated by others, 25 where UK personnel were told by detainees they had been mistreated by others and 128 incidents of which they were informed by foreign intelligence officers.

It identified two cases in which UK personnel were “party to mistreatment by others”. One has been investigated by the Metropolitan police and the committee raised the question of whether the investigation into the other case should now be reopened.

The committee found “no smoking gun” to indicate the UK agencies deliberately overlooked reports of mistreatment and rendition by the US as a matter of institutional policy. It said: “The evidence clearly suggests that the UK saw itself as the poor relation to the US, and was distinctly uncomfortable at the prospect of complaining to its host.”

UK personnel, in 232 cases, continued to supply questions or intelligence to other services despite knowledge or suspicion of mistreatment, as well as 198 cases where UK personnel received information from foreign services which had been obtained from detainees who had been mistreated or suspected of mistreatment.

Examples of the extent of complicity are scattered throughout the reports. In one exchange, the US sent a message to MI5 about rendition to which the UK agency replied it agreed with the way forward and that, once the detainee had been removed, “we would be grateful for real-time access”.

The investigation was ordered by then prime minister, David Cameron, in 2010. A former judge produced an interim report but, frustrated by too many unanswered questions, the inquiry was passed to the intelligence committee.

MacDonald said May had derailed the ISC’s inquiry by refusing to allow it to interview more junior MI6 and MI5 officers.

“Her purported reason for refusing the ISC access to the officers actually involved in these events – that there was ‘legal uncertainty over the protection that would be offered to officers appearing as witnesses before the committee’ – is completely bogus, as she and her advisers must have known,” he said.

“This was a contemptuous and cynical response to a grave national scandal, doing nothing to develop public confidence in the integrity of the agencies, most of whose members are dedicated public servants whose work is essential and beyond reproach. She has let these people down through her own political cowardice.”

 

18 minutes ago, snowychap said:

In response to the findings of the committee, Straw, who had direct responsibility for MI6 and the surveillance agency GCHQ, said he had been unaware of much of what was revealed in the report.

“Although I was formally responsible for both SIS [the Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6] and GCHQ during my period as foreign secretary [June 2001 to May 2006], I have today learned much about the activities and the approach of these agencies of which I was not aware before,” he said.

I think these activities were flagged by a number of organizations at the time. I believe the likes of Straw (and later Miliband D) were quite vociferous in the denial of any such activities.

Utter shits.

Edited June 28, 2018 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

#imprisonjackstraw

[Davkaus]

If Straw didn't know, it seems very likely that it was because he didn't want to know.

Good to see that the Government are able to work across the divide alongside the opposition when it comes to covering up scandals and protecting their own.

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

If Straw didn't know, it seems very likely that it was because he didn't want to know.

Good to see that the Government are able to work across the divide alongside the opposition when it comes to covering up scandals and protecting their own.

It's very much in Theresa May's interest that politicians look after their own.

All those nasty illegal immigrants currently stuck in Jamaica having been expelled by Capita in an overtly hostile manner would be evidence of that.

[HanoiVillan]

The answer is 'there's one article and one editorial in the Observer, and one article in the Mail' and as far as I can tell there's nothing anywhere else on Fleet Street. Is this not a story, all things considered? That the Foreign Secretary knew the intelligence services were deeply involved in rendition, and openly lied about it at the time? eg:

One thought I've been having lately is that really, Iraq was in many ways the earliest part of the abandonment of elite opinion that eventually led to Brexit. Getting those involved out of Labour politics would be a just and reasonable ambition for the current leadership to have, and frankly centrists would also be better off if they weren't most prominently represented by such morally-compromised figures. Certainly, I can't help noticing that many of the leading online Twitter FBPE's like Lord Adonis and Alistair Campbell were intimately involved in Iraq. I mean, it was definitely amusingly absurd for me to watch Alistair Campbell try to find a logical argument why the Labour leadership should take seriously the concerns of large numbers of people on a march, but giving me an ironic laugh isn't helping centrists actually achieve anything is it. 

[VILLAMARV]

11 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The answer is 'there's one article and one editorial in the Observer, and one article in the Mail' and as far as I can tell there's nothing anywhere else on Fleet Street. Is this not a story, all things considered? That the Foreign Secretary knew the intelligence services were deeply involved in rendition, and openly lied about it at the time? eg:

One thought I've been having lately is that really, Iraq was in many ways the earliest part of the abandonment of elite opinion that eventually led to Brexit. Getting those involved out of Labour politics would be a just and reasonable ambition for the current leadership to have, and frankly centrists would also be better off if they weren't most prominently represented by such morally-compromised figures. Certainly, I can't help noticing that many of the leading online Twitter FBPE's like Lord Adonis and Alistair Campbell were intimately involved in Iraq. I mean, it was definitely amusingly absurd for me to watch Alistair Campbell try to find a logical argument why the Labour leadership should take seriously the concerns of large numbers of people on a march, but giving me an ironic laugh isn't helping centrists actually achieve anything is it. 

To be fair, I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by the abandonment of elite opinion correctly. Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things whether I do or not, but I liked the rest of it Major presided over the Maastricht Treaty debacle. I always view that as the start of the path that leads to Brexit to be honest.

The Blairite New Labour years will imho be looked back upon as some of the most worrying of any time by the history books from an internal perspective within the UK. Major was at least more interested in selling Arms and fighting abroad due to him being boring - sorry I meant an Arms Dealer. Blair, Cherie and all the other Lawyers that profited from the incredible amount of new legislation passed under his stewardship was undoubtedly the start of the dismantling of the left as any sort of represented ideology within the boundaries of the debate and the start of the TV politician in the UK. Smile and look good for the camera Tony.

We have not yet responded effectively as a people to the era of politicians smiling while lying to you. It's hard not to keep constantly referring back to Adam Curtis' "Hypernormalisation" or indeed "The Trap - what happened to our dream of freedom" really. But maybe that's not such a bad thing.

The start of the complete unaccountability of Politicians is something I genuinely can't remember being any different all the way back to Thatcher which is where my awareness kicks in. Older posters may have a different marker! The tone and willingness of the press to properly hold people accountable however is what has changed and is definitely something that can be traced back through the lot of them, though with Hillsborough remember it was a tiny minority of the press that ran the lies as fact. What percentage would that be today?

The embedding of Journalists in war time is no conspiracy theory. The death of Dr David Kelly was very real. The attempted stitch up of George Galloway (culminating in his moment in the sun in front of that Senate Committee) was very real. The Iraq 1 to Iraq 2 timeline matching up with a leaked IMF report back in the 90's (by Greg Palast) is very real. The march to war by Bush Jr, the Patriot Act, The abolition of adherence to the Geneva Convention, The reclassification of 'Terrorists' as 'non-enemy combatants'. None of these things are conspiracy theory. Nor is the unexplained and seemingly unimportant 'loss' of a major government inquiry into child abuse in the UK from the 80's by someone with access to the system at the very, very least. Which cost millions by the way, and continues to aswell.... Saville, Cyril Smith etc etc etc. Quite how, with these things setting the tone, the idea that there definitely isn't some sort of 'secret-state in league with some dark forces' as your man there puts it is quite simply fanciful.

The dissenting voice has been controlled since the country seemed to completely accept the massive lurch to the right we took as a nation under Blair and Campbell though. That is something that I think we've all witnessed when we are honest about it. Iraq II and the torture uncovered in Abu Ghraib, Syria and beyond over the last 20 years was the point at which we in the West lost any moral high ground internationally we may have had left to cling on to and all backed by a weekly dose of 24 reminding us all every week that it's ok really. And panel shows over here or Daily Show rip-offs over the pond providing a sanitised opposition voice reminding you what your dog in the fight is at every twist and turn is never going to cut it. However much we laugh when they are allowed to comment on something real.

Why does Corbyn appear to upset the establishment so much?, is the question for me. How controlled is he? He appears to have the basic morality our leaders seem to lack, is it that which scares them so much?

I tend to look towards Venezuela since Chavez and the International Community's response to him for the answer to that one.

[VILLAMARV]

Of course I should have just gone with

One for the 'I should have said...' thread

Edited July 3, 2018 by VILLAMARV
fat fingers mashing keypad thingy tidy up

[blandy]

On 01/07/2018 at 13:48, HanoiVillan said:

One thought I've been having lately is that really, Iraq was in many ways the earliest part of the abandonment of elite opinion that eventually led to Brexit. Getting those involved out of Labour politics would be a just and reasonable ambition for the current leadership to have, and frankly centrists would also be better off if they weren't most prominently represented by such morally-compromised figures.... 

Unfortunately, the less centrist members of the parliamentary labour party, and a fair chunk of their more vehement supporters too, are differently, but equally, morally compromised. Whether that be by support for the IRA, Hamas, through vile anti-semitism, rampant cronyism or whatever.....

In oither words, it's not being centrist or leftist that is the indicator of moral corruption, but the indivduals themselves. The left and the centre are or have been represented by wrong 'uns. Getting all of them out would be great, if unlikely.

[bickster]

No one should ever take a political party seriously that spouts such off the cuff populist bollocks as this! Look what's happened in 'merica through electing a gobshite who was saying what thick people wanted to hear.

That tweet there to me says, even less trustworthy than they were this morning

[HanoiVillan]

Sounds fine to me. 

[Xela]

Well if we win the World Cup i'll be 'WFH" the next day, so practically a bank holiday for me anyway 

[LondonLax]

I'm sure the Scots and Welsh and Norn Irish will be thrilled to celebrate that time England won the World Cup every year.

[blandy]

On 02/07/2018 at 02:18, VILLAMARV said:

the idea that there definitely isn't some sort of 'secret-state in league with some dark forces' as your man there puts it is quite simply fanciful.

 The dissenting voice has been controlled since the country seemed to completely accept the massive lurch to the right we took as a nation under Blair and Campbell though

This is just hogwash. It’s the kind of lame-think that powered Trump, and what powers the likes of Farage and the other nobbers. These bumwipes play on that nonsense to garner support. “They are out to [insert whatever prejudice will appall your audience and win you votes]”. So whether it’s turn the U.K. into an Islamic Republic / an offshoot of Brussels / lock up poor Tommy Robinson / betray you on Brexit / diddle you on trade tariffs...etc.

Blair and Campbell didn’t make the nation take a massive lurch to the right. Blair obviously came in after the tories were hoofed out and the country moved to the left. The minimum wage, writing off third world debt more spending on health and education, more support for unemployed people etc etc.  They were too timid, perhaps and should have gone further, faster, but there’s no way the U.K. moved to the right. Scotland and Wales got more powers, Ireland continued on its path to peace, London got its mayor with genuine power.

I’m not at all a fan of Blair and he basically went all mad with the funny George Bush walk, the war in Iraq and all the rest of it. Though he did save Muslims in Kosovo and various other oppressed people in other parts of the world with some military interventions.

But back to this secret state in league with dark forces bollex. Drain the swamp comes along, or Jacob Rees Mogg or whoever. It’s out in the open. Russian meddling is out in the open. Referendum expense rigging is in the open. Boris Johnson, Michael Gove David Davis and the others - their treachery and backstabbing and lying is out in the open. It’s not secret state, it’s public and political apathy and placid acquiescence due to indifference. It’s wanting complex things to be simple, or to just go away so I can go back to celebrity cake island on ITV 3.

The state (the one we know about, not the imaginary secret one) is a bit corrupt, over burdened with arcane tradition, cumbersome, self regarding, disconnected, overly protective of itself and some of the people with their hands on the levers. It’s sometimes a bit racist and discriminatory. It’s backwards looking and dated and can be too close to big business and finance. But also the state is the best protection ordinary people have against exploitation. It rescues us, it protects us and others. It follows the nature of society and embeds tolerance into law. It’s not ideological, it’s not crusading, it’s ponderous in plodding along inefficiently for the most part.

TL:DR humans are flawed.

[Xela]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

I'm sure the Scots and Welsh and Norn Irish will be thrilled to celebrate that time England won the World Cup every year.

I'm sure it would only be applicable for England as some of the other home nations have their specific bank hols as well

[bickster]

11 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sounds fine to me. 

Sounds like a load of shit to me.

We need less public holidays, not more. If it were me, I'd have Jesus' Fake Birthday, Boxing Day and NYD and be done with it. The rest are utter nonsense. Give me more control over my statutory holidays please, I'd rather choose when I'm off work for my own convenience. Why do I want 2 days in May, 2 days at Easter, whenever the church decides when that is and a day off in August. I'd rather have the extra week off work when I want it.

Firstly this day would come out of your statutory leave, it wouldn't be an extra days holiday, it would be another day's holiday you'd have no control over. 

Secondly, every opportunity they get, Labour start coming out with this extra public holiday horseshit, in the hope that the event does happen, so they can put a motion to parliament to get the holiday and then when its voted down by the Tories as it surely would be (SNP wouldn't vote), Labour can say "Look how mean the Tories are", when in reality they knew there was zero chance of it happening. It's the most transparent of populist agendas but the undereducated will lap it up.

Like I said, make's them even more untrustworthy.

[markavfc40]

In fairness to Labour this isn't a new thing for them as they have been saying for ages they would create another 3 public holidays as compared to a lot of countries we are hard done by in this area.

In an ideal world I'd like more annual leave I can choose to take when I want but I wouldn't turn my nose up to more bank holidays. I'd certainly welcome one with open arms next Monday if England won the world cup to help me get over my hangover, assuming I'd stopped drinking by Monday. Come to think of it maybe they should be calling for Monday and Tuesday off next week 

Edited July 8, 2018 by markavfc40

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

In fairness to Labour this isn't a new thing for them as they have been saying for ages they would create another 3 public holidays as compared to a lot of countries we are hard done by in this area.

1

Those countries are in Europe mainly. They currently get the same leave allowance as we do, so they have more enforced holidays, how is that a good thing?

The more control people have over their own rest time, the better, surely?

It's an absolutely bonkers policy. It gives people less freedom

[VILLAMARV]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

This is just hogwash. It’s the kind of lame-think that powered Trump, and what powers the likes of Farage and the other nobbers. These bumwipes play on that nonsense to garner support. “They are out to [insert whatever prejudice will appall your audience and win you votes]”. So whether it’s turn the U.K. into an Islamic Republic / an offshoot of Brussels / lock up poor Tommy Robinson / betray you on Brexit / diddle you on trade tariffs...etc.

*sigh*

It's that kind of blinkered response to something I thought I had worded in a way as to make the statement so banal it kind of didn't say anything at all that I find quite worrying.

I didn't say "there definitely is"..... I intentionally didn't say "there is" at all and I stand by that statement and how I worded it, The quote from the tweet I'm replying to kind of forces the structure of the sentence to contain those words.

I think the context is important. To paraphrase it all Jack Straw "unless you're saying there's a conspiracy there's no truth to rendition claims" - claims found to contain truth - Question from twitterbot "Sooooooo?" reply from me - I believe there to be much collusion with the US over the Iraq War/Afghanistan and the cover up of torture and our complicity with it.

I will agree with you on this much - Trump, Farage and other nobbers play on fear and they do so/have done so in a way that twists the truth and reality of the situation. Which I assume we can also agree is worrying to say the least.

But (and I'm not suggesting this is you - more a general comment) to suggest the other side of those political coins don't use the exact same tactics is folly. To simply respond to that statement with knee-jerk trump bashing or suggesting it is 'whataboutism' feeds into that folly. As I said in another thread it is easy to fall into a particular mindset that disengages from any real discussion from a position of hubris. To many people the Brexiteers and Trumpistas are THE personification of this that I'm describing. Yet people cannot see, or seem reluctant to admit, that the other sides of those coins - the Bremainers and Democrats do the same thing and have the same human faults as the other humans.

The massive problem I have, and I think the paragraph that ends with the bit you've quoted lays this out, is that shouting 'conspiracy theory' and 'bigot' at things which are conspiracy theory's or actual bigotry is great, fine, laudable and so on. The problem occurs if it is your go-to response and you miss things along the way. The real problem is if you end up on the wrong side of the argument - screaming down the families of Hillsborough victims for decades and so on.

I get the point you're making and I agree with the sentiment. Just don't agree it's applicable to my statement. As I followed it up with, and Captain Ska say so much better than me, "There's been a War Crime"

Quote

Blair and Campbell didn’t make the nation take a massive lurch to the right. Blair obviously came in after the tories were hoofed out and the country moved to the left. The minimum wage, writing off third world debt more spending on health and education, more support for unemployed people etc etc.  They were too timid, perhaps and should have gone further, faster, but there’s no way the U.K. moved to the right. Scotland and Wales got more powers, Ireland continued on its path to peace, London got its mayor with genuine power.

I’m not at all a fan of Blair and he basically went all mad with the funny George Bush walk, the war in Iraq and all the rest of it. Though he did save Muslims in Kosovo and various other oppressed people in other parts of the world with some military interventions.

We shall agree to disagree. I will always think of the doubling down on Thatcherism through the Major years - followed by the tripling down on it for a decade of Blair. We became more authoritarian under Blair. He re-wrote the Law books. Ditched the Unions and deregulated (with Gordon "I've abolished boom-bust economics" Brown ) the finance and banking sectors. Widened the divisions in our society imho, when he could have been the one to bring some unity after the Thatcher years. Such a great opportunity. Such a massive charlatan.

Quote

But back to this secret state in league with dark forces bollex. Drain the swamp comes along, or Jacob Rees Mogg or whoever. It’s out in the open. Russian meddling is out in the open. Referendum expense rigging is in the open. Boris Johnson, Michael Gove David Davis and the others - their treachery and backstabbing and lying is out in the open. It’s not secret state, it’s public and political apathy and placid acquiescence due to indifference. It’s wanting complex things to be simple, or to just go away so I can go back to celebrity cake island on ITV 3.

Now you're cooking my friend, I'll drink to that . Now apply the same logic to the other point of view from an observational perspective.

Going back to the twitterbot post - if we change (in your quote above) "Russian meddling" to "Rendition" and just delete the word 'Referendum' and then change all the names to relevant names at the time - wouldn't that statement also ring true if we applied it to that topic? (See how interchangeable these responses are)

And then ask yourself...........What would Robin Cook say?........you know......about a conspiracy....at that particular time....

If at this point we still disagree then fine, but please don't fall into the trap of labeling what I say as populist claptrap. Unless you truly believe I am the sort of person who is going to vote a particular way based on a Youtube vid, Russian facebook meme or Farage gif. And, yes, I know those people are out there - AND - that's kind of the problem right? But, as with most things they choose to prey on to that particular crowd it is the element of truth - which is distinct from the illusion of it - within the subject matter that makes it stick. Our inability as a group to identify this and engage with it is what makes the rhetoric dangerous imho.

Quote

The state (the one we know about, not the imaginary secret one) is a bit corrupt, over burdened with arcane tradition, cumbersome, self regarding, disconnected, overly protective of itself and some of the people with their hands on the levers. It’s sometimes a bit racist and discriminatory. It’s backwards looking and dated and can be too close to big business and finance. But also the state is the best protection ordinary people have against exploitation. It rescues us, it protects us and others. It follows the nature of society and embeds tolerance into law. It’s not ideological, it’s not crusading, it’s ponderous in plodding along inefficiently for the most part.

TL:DR humans are flawed.

And then to another common theme in my bolitics rants. There's always so much more that binds us than divides us. I agree with everything you have said there and could add a bit more but for once at least I wont ramble on

 

[blandy]

45 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

......And then to another common theme in my bolitics rants. There's always so much more that binds us than divides us. I agree with everything you have said there and could add a bit more but for once at least I wont ramble on 

OK, we clearly differ on whether Blair took the Country to the right. Agree to disagree and all that

On Hillsborough, rendition, Robin Cook etc. I (believe we) agree completely in terms of analysis of shenanigans . Where I take issue is the who or what. I interpreted “secret state...controlled by dark forces” to refer to some kind group of controlling, invisible, schemers and overlords, perched above the governments who perch above us. Sometimes people say it’s the Jews, sometimes people say it’s the CIA, sometimes people say it’s those Bilderberg lot...

My point here is not to pick on your views on say Afghanistan or the content of a tweet. I may agree or not, on a case by case basis. My point is that this notion of a secret, hidden, swamp of conspiratorial dark forces is “what they want you to think”, but the “they” are the people in plain sight. That is to say, don’t blame the secret dark forces conspiring against Hillsborough victims families, or renditioned afghani farmers, or...blame the government, blame the police, blame the people formally responsible in each instance. They are not the same people each time. The notion, even the possibility of there being “secret others” just lets the actual guilty off the hook whilst ironically also serving the nefarious needs of the likes of Farage, Trump, Chavez or whoever. “Don’t blame me, I’m only the Home Secretary, powerless and blameless, ‘cus of secret dark forces, see”

[VILLAMARV]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

OK, we clearly differ on whether Blair took the Country to the right. Agree to disagree and all that

On Hillsborough, rendition, Robin Cook etc. I (believe we) agree completely in terms of analysis of shenanigans . Where I take issue is the who or what. I interpreted “secret state...controlled by dark forces” to refer to some kind group of controlling, invisible, schemers and overlords, perched above the governments who perch above us. Sometimes people say it’s the Jews, sometimes people say it’s the CIA, sometimes people say it’s those Bilderberg lot...

My point here is not to pick on your views on say Afghanistan or the content of a tweet. I may agree or not, on a case by case basis. My point is that this notion of a secret, hidden, swamp of conspiratorial dark forces is “what they want you to think”, but the “they” are the people in plain sight. That is to say, don’t blame the secret dark forces conspiring against Hillsborough victims families, or renditioned afghani farmers, or...blame the government, blame the police, blame the people formally responsible in each instance. They are not the same people each time. The notion, even the possibility of there being “secret others” just lets the actual guilty off the hook whilst ironically also serving the nefarious needs of the likes of Farage, Trump, Chavez or whoever.

Not enough likes on the whole internet blandy for this.

I'm not falling into those traps though in my honest opinion and all that.

(And I am not suggesting either that I am so amazing I can see all the things others cant see and avoid the pitfalls - I have a tendency to sound like it sometimes maybe - but I'm as fallible as the next man, maybe more so.)

There are 2 important factors that drive the thing we are both talking about here which to me is the meat on the bones.

1. Information

Many facets to this debate including the relevancy of state-secrecy in the modern era and especially it's relationship to a free press. Driven by Wiki-leaks and Snowden and the like. Ultimately leading in my mind to the relevancy of Nationalism in a truly Global Society. But mainly propagating itself in the dismantling of credible channels of communication and information. While at the same time - jumping on the 'everyone should have their say' youtube bandwagon rather than fighting back against it. Muddying the waters. And pushing people into echo chambers (like facebook/twitter) for increased repetition. I no more believe this is the work of 'the hidden hand' than I do refuse to accept there was a chap who worked for Putin after the Russian theatre/ballet companies who is credited (and yet who's name seems to be out of reach from my internet searches - help me out/call me on BS here VT) with coming up with this new form of propaganda manipulation who was employed over here by Cameron during his leadership as some media 'advisor'. Tactics adopted by both Farage and Trump to win their respective votes.

The media - the muddying of the waters - the disingenuous disinformation channels and so on. You know.... "You're fake news" and all that. It is SO EASY to see the problem with it when we are disassociated with it. Our response in the US bolitics thread stands testament to that. To Trump's first press conference thingy I'm referring to here. It was a shocking news conference at the start of his presidency. And we rounded on it for the right reasons. To ignore that he has a point however (wherever/whyever it has come from) and disengaging from the argument is part of how we got here. And it's harder to notice it when you are inside of it. There is a massive problem with the BBC in this country. We have a massive problem of a small selection of society owning a massive proportion of our media just as much as anywhere else in the world and to ignore it is to accept it. Analysis on the BBC for instance has shown the effect of the policies that drive their 'fairness and bias' quotas whereby the amount of screen time is counted and the 'message' is not. This bit at least has some relevancy to this thread with Corbyn.

With Trump, I put some stock in the notion that ignoring him and sneering at him all the way to the Whitehouse as he spouted his drivel ended up doing more harm than good, in the exact same way that attempting to deride Farage, rather than his message, emboldened the OUT vote at our own referendum. (Whilst at the same time understanding neither of those votes offered much from the opposing side either in terms of opposition, but certainly and more importantly, in terms of any real progressive change) and that in itself highlights the problem we have with the role of comedy in the 'dissenting voice'. I like laughing at thicky as much as the next guy. Basing political affiliations and opinions on topics from information delivered by John Oliver say or that 'the resistance ' guy in the US, Mock the Week or some alt-right internet halfwit is all part of the same game, culminating in people voting IN or OUT at the Brexit vote based on what celebrities they liked followed which campaign. (I know a few of these people). *Add thing you like here* is great. And I firmly believe anyone should be able to mock anything they want to, just as much as we should be able to laugh and understand the 'why' in why we're laughing.

2. Accountability and the Rule of Law

What you say basically about apportioning blame correctly and holding people (the correct ones obvs) to account for their actions. And what I said about accepting truths and dismissing the illusion of it.

Like I say, there aren't enough likes to express how much I agree with you on the 'secret others' point you make. I'ts just none of that makes any of this reality go away...

At the macro-level of world governance there ARE Non-State-Actors, think-tanks and organisations who drive policy - often for generations (as a measurement of time, not aimed at the uber-rich familys). There are also grey areas and loopholes within International law that unlike our Common Law derived legal systems have no obligation to any 'state' or 'nation' entity any more than they do our own individual rights. The TTIP/TPP/TISA stuff highlights this in the current discourse, as does the 'irregular immigrant' issue. Our course of redress, via the UN at least, appears to be under attack, and that is massively worrying but to point solely at the populism that is taking place all around us ignores the utter ineffectiveness of it as an organisation in recent history. Creating an unseen 'hidden hand' as you specifically allude to for everyone to create a nice group identity or 'other' to blame all our problems on, is a play from the playbook we have seen many times throughout history *Add relevant political ideology/race/religion here*. And it never has a good ending.

It is important to remember that when framing the argument in the current climate we need to be honest - but really honest - with ourselves as a society about what the reality is and not just our individual perceptions of it. Otherwise we can fall into the same traps as the state has and continues to do so in upholding the 'greater good' when never holding the police (on either side of the Atlantic it seems) to account for wrongdoings for example, or the system for creating the climate that produces Grenfell for instance - and that's what I mean about REALLY honest. Yes a company has seemingly committed fraud for profits and a quango thing has ignored residents and that's where the 'accountability' lies within the legal system the state has constructed. But without all the legal loopholes and people acting with best intentions driving the public discourse where does the blame really lie there? It is the line between what is legal and what is right and that is obviously and inherently hard to define. As a species we've been trying for years.

Anyway, none of that suggests there is 'a hidden hand' to me and all these posts have really highlighted as I said last time was look at the response to talking about something real though, and how by jumping to defend your own group identity you feel allied to knocking the 'other' that you are so emboldened (and rightfully so) against.

It's clever this Edward Bernays shit eh?

Anyway this will be only Corbyn's second peripheral mention in a vein attempt to this being in the right place not sure if massively off topic or if there's an actual thread for this sort of thing.