- Home
- Blair to take on YALE post
- George Galloway says he’d have a ‘moral dilemma’ if he knew of a plot to kill Mr Blair
[That's what he said - a week before his call to Al Qaeda.]
Go To Start Of Original Post A Challenge For Charon QC
Breaking News: Top Islamist Terror recruiter convicted. Met: Hamid “grooming people to commit murder” - 12 13 Years on – (NOTE, PRE-BLAIR. This threat is NOT of Blair’s doing. He was NOT PM until 10 years ago. Got it?)!
Comment at end
UPDATED 24th February, 2008
Visit CharonQC’s blog to hear GEEK LAWYER’S PODCAST – OR click the 18 minute podcast link below to listen while you read my synopsis here. This was quite surprising. Geek Lawyer sounds almost human!
Some points from the 18 minute podcast, which started on the present debate on internet file sharing. By the way, Geek says:
“My competence at criminal law is well known as slight”.
ON TAX
Admitting he “evades slash avoids” tax when he can, he says -
“disregarding the legality of it there is no moral imperative to pay tax”.
“Disregarding the legality of it …”, the good barrister says … (?) Yes, we had noticed the flexible confluence you apply to morality and the law, GL.
ON THE PRINCESS DIANA INQUEST
Diana Inquest – On MI6, Licensed to kill.
Charon said that on the instructions of the judge we are not allowed to talk about the inquest; so they proceeded to.
Following the words of the present Head of MI6, Richard Dearlove – that MI6 have not killed anyone in his 38 years -
Geek said that “they engaged in a partial truth” [...] “they will fit people up so that OTHER people will kill those people. So they will, for example, leak information from one side or another with the intent that one of the other sides actually goes out and kills people. They’ve certainly no direct hand but they’ve certainly caused (unclear) and arranged it.”
My goodness, Geek! What a thing to happen!! By suggestion or distribution of information MI6 gets SOMEONE ELSE TO KILL PEOPLE? You don’t mean that actually WORKS, do you? What a thought.
So, if somebody passes around or distributes a nod and a wink and a hint of approval it might affect the behaviour of others? NO? Surely NOT! And I expect the so-and-sos said they wouldn’t participate in it, or encourage it, but that they wouldn’t be upset if it happened. Tchh … tchh … whatever next?
Game/Set/Match?
GEEK LAWYER’S DOWNED BLOG
His thoughts on downloads and file sharing indicate that he understands a fair bit about the internet and its workings, yet he’s not sure if his blog has been hacked as well as ‘DOSed’. Do us a favour, Geek.
Asked by Charon about his old blog, he still maintains that he hasn’t yet got around to getting it back up.
He said he is not sure if the DOS attack is still going on, but that the software had been “buggered up” and the site may have been hacked. But it’ll be down for a week or two, he says, after he returns from his ski-ing holiday. (Then he suddenly changes the subject back to the file-sharing business with which Charon opened the discussion.)
Avoidance or evasion? What’s the difference. Ask me – I’m not a lawyer.
But since Geek Lawyer still hasn’t had the time to get his old offending site back online, and will be on the piste for a couple of weeks, never let it be said that I’d allow the great British public to have to wait in restless anticipation for his return. He says he stands by ALL he said at his blog.
Listen here – Geek/CharonQC 18mins 28secs podcast – He is asked about his dead blog at 16:40, and manages to change the subject by 17:22.
A CHALLENGE TO CHARON QC
I thought Charon QC sounded a decent enough chap with a civilised penchant for fine wines and tobacco, so he can’t be all bad. Why don’t you do a follow-up podcast, Charon, with our mutual friend when he returns from his holiday? Call It “The Death of A Salesman … Blog”. I’d listen in.
Addendum to this challenge, Charon: if GL doesn’t fancy telling us all about the dreadful attack on his blog perhaps he’d like to explain exactly how he is not actually suggesting, coaxing or encouraging Al Qaeda to kill Tony Blair? What IS he doing by using these words? Looking for attention? Showing off his reproductive equipment? Saying the unsayable?
He, surely, has nothing to fear in explaining his account of his innocence in this matter. After all, according to him, there is no case to answer, so he will be giving nothing away. Or is he too much of a coward to rise to this challenge?
Come on GL – FREEDOM OF SPEECH needs you!
12th February, 2008
Update from the blog owner: This lawyer person’s site seems to have been taken down. He is now, in his “blame cultured” fashion accusing someone of a DDOS attack. In case you don’t know, that’s what happens to the Pentagon, financial institutions, or government authorities. Important places. Not to sites like his or mine. It entails millions of e-mails/comments flooding the site. Personally I suggest another authority has asked for its removal. I will be writing a follow-up post at the end of this week. In the meantime he or his followers have cloned a page of my site – well, a bit of it – in an attempt to con people. If you don’t suspect the feigned sycophancy, which you should, look for the misspelling of “Blair ” in the url, if you come across this silly site. If you want my advice, I suggest you don’t comment there.
MY ORIGINAL POSTING, BEFORE THE UPDATES ABOVE:
4th February, 2008
ARREST THIS TW*T NOW!
PLEASE!
I’m fu**ing furious.
I really am; or I wouldn’t use that kind of language.
(I refuse to link you or any civilised person to the sh**hole of a site I am about to refer to. He doesn’t deserve the traffic. But you can have the url privately if you e-mail me at the end of the page.)
Tonight an e-mail popped into my inbox from a Lincoln’s Inn barrister. I clicked the link and was treated to a diatribe of abuse against the Blairs personally.
So what’s new? Well, this …
As well as immature rantings which he obviously thinks funny, the low-life says this of Tony Blair:
“Why oh why oh why oh why can’t the useless rag-head pillocks in Al Queda assassinate him? It would be great PR for them: many of us would revise our low opinion of them if they could do us this one small service. Their ineptness is proof that the terrorism ‘threat’ is laughable.”
This is a barrister! For those from outside the UK, a barrister is a highly-trained lawyer. He or she defends or prosecutes in a court of law.
A “lawyer” or “solicitor” can only advise prior to going to court. A barrister is one step up the ladder, supposedly, and often on his or her way to becoming a judge.
Tony and Cherie Blair are both barristers by training. Cherie is now a part-time judge.
She is a member of Lincoln’s Inn, as was her husband prior to his political career.
I am making enquiries as to this blogging creature’s right to incite murder. But, since he is a lawyer, I expect he knows that this is permitted in our great liberal democracy.
He and other scum, it seems, can get away with murder.
A RETURN OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?
Highly unlikely, of course, as part of the EU. And I am a contented European, most of the time.
But I’m sadly coming to the conclusion that we need to bring back capital punishment and start using it here at the top of the British legal profession. OK, so it’s been a while since we hanged people for incitement. But today we seem to do nothing, NOTHING about anything in prevention of violent acts. Our civil liberties lobby has seen to that.
And here we have the evidence; imbeciles like this in our courtrooms.
We have enough enemies out to destroy our society without this.
It’s shameful.
I’m reading through the Treason Felony Act here on this matter, which as I understand it, applies solely to the monarch. However, I believe, but it’ll need further research, and it’s late, that a charge of “accessory before the fact” as well as “after the fact” could be laid in this case against people who incite others, if the incited eventuality occurred or an attempt was made.
‘Association’ may be a requirement, but reading this fool, NOTHING would surprise me. NOTHING!
Wikipedia’s reference to Incitement is unsupported by sources. More work to be done on the part of those of us who do not believe in taking the law into our own hands or encouraging others so to do.
Perhaps the inadequacy of English Law in this field explains why raving, screaming, placard-waving Islamists in Regents Park last June called for death to the Queen and for others to bring Blair back from the Middle East in a box (”how you do it is up to you”). They were completely ignored by the by-standing British police.
You’ve been warned. The enemy is also within.
P.S. If you ever need a barrister in London, find one who can spell, and not one like this pompous, useless waste of space. The law which they practise, sadly, you’ll need to leave to the “government”.
But in “Al Qaeda”, there is no “u” after “q”. That’s English, not Arabic, you nincompoop.
I didn’t read anything about this in the British press, but if this isn’t brainwashing, I don’t know what is.
British Shia Muslims say – “Martyrdom Is One Pious Activity That the Prophet Himself Longed For”
I sometimes feel we need to search hard, but there are other Britons who think we’re missing the plot here. Go to my next post on the Archbishop’s incendiary statement on sharia law:Heard the one about the Archbishop, the lawyer and the Blair supporter?
The PRODOS Blog – on the Archbishop’s call for Sharia Law:
‘And now The Archbishop turns to one such “Muslim scholar” to illustrate his point:Tariq Ramadan, whom he quotes:
… the idea of Sharia calls up all the darkest images of Islam … It has reached the extent that many Muslim intellectuals do not dare even to refer to the concept [of Sharia] for fear of frightening people or arousing suspicion of all their work by the mere mention of the word.
Goodness! If we believe such awful, horrid things about Sharia WE are the scary ones! WE cause all those brave “Muslim intellectuals” to omit any mention of that which they in fact believe in. WE cause them to hide their Truth.
And this is not just ordinary fear. It is “fear of frightening”.
But it’s not their fault!! It’s YOUR fault, you bigoted infidels!’
ADDENDUM – UPDATED on 23rd March, 2008
I have now removed my copy of Geek Lawyer’s page since he has somehow managed to re-instate it in all its glory. Amazing what those who don’t seem to be able to differentiate between right and wrong can do when they try.
Click here to read the post which some of us found very offensive, if not worse. (Found under the BLAIR tag on the right of his homepage).
Another post in his site archives, coincidentally discussing DDOS attacks, says this below (my emphasis). (He likes to talk in the third person. I expect it helps him keep a safe distance from himself.)
Interestingly, GL seems to approve of THIS particular DDOS attack. Inconsistent? Nah! Characteristic of the illiberal liberals, that’s all.
THE WORD – ACCORDING TO THE GEEK – third person, SINGULAR
Scientology and DDos attacks
Broadly Geeklawyer would say that Denial of Service Attacks were, and should be, criminal offences.Ah yes, you say, a ‘but‘ is in the air;There has been a recent sustained attempt to remove this evil quack religion/business/multi-level-marketing-scam from the Internet by online vigilantes who are engaged in DDos attacks.Fucking good job too. Scientology is the scummy scam product of the fraudster Ron L. Hubbard who confessed to a friend that creating one’s own religion was a great way to make a fortune. Geeklawyer would not, of course, encourage assist aid or incite the commission of any offence, except the murder of Tony Blair, but he remains supportive of their objectives. If they wish dogged vicious intractable and determined pro-bono legal aid in the event of their capture then they may have Geeklawyer’s services gratis.[...]
This entry was written by , posted on January 25, 2008 at 10:44 pm
And yet I could have sworn he said he wouldn’t encourage assist etc – hang on, I’ll go and find his words. Back in a mo.
Here’s GL’s comment, 11th February at 10:02pm saying that he would not etc. It’s in the comments section in this post, below.
“I do of course very much wish that someone somewhere someday kills Blair. [...] but I reserve a special bile for Slimy Tony. I am, howeverk not inciting it or encouraging it, nor would I assist or cooperate in it – but I am saying it would be a great thing to happen. Merely to say I hope this happens is not to arrange or cause it to happen – unless one is King John perhaps.
To say “why can’t [terrorists] kill Tony Blair?” is not the same as “please, *someone* kill Tony Blair” The difference is not that subtle for anyone with an IQ higher than a carrot: not least because of the context in which it is written which is manifestly a rant. Not least because despite being Al Queda’s main supporter, financier and founding member I have no influence over them. You see, foolishly I lost Osama’s email address some time ago; we used to chat on IRC all the time about the old days: the booze & whores – you know, the usual.”
Pleasant, classy, bright type, isn’t he?
AH, BUT WAIT! In the archives of his blog is this little piece of evidence … verbiage:
“Geeklawyer would not, of course, encourage assist aid or incite the commission of any offence, except the murder of Tony Blair”
And that was a couple of weeks prior to the AQ remark. And here you say, Mr Geek Lawyer, that you WOULD “… encourage, assist, aid or incite …”
“Form”, eh?
RANT OR CREDO?
I suppose he’d say this too is a “rant”. I wonder how many judges would consider it so? Or is their IQ, on average, ‘less than that of a carrot’? A rant it may be argued is when one keeps piling it on verbally and increasingly angrily if at times incoherently. I suppose he could try to use that defence as regards his original post, which was all about Blair. BUT, this 25th January post (Burns Night, btw – “oh would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us…”) is hardly a rant. Since he has mentioned it more than once in his blog, it’s more like a credo.
It’s used by GL here almost as an aside, “by the way, this is where I stand” piece of information – thrown into an argument about something entirely different (DOS attacks), for no EVIDENT pertinent reason. Why mention this thought, unless it is an integral part of him?
As such it is at the very least careless. But I would argue that it is representative of thinking which verges on criminal intent or/and support for a criminal act. Accomplice?
CONFESSION BY GEEK LAWYER
January 25, 2008 at 10:44
(Evidence of intent. Geek Lawyer’s “form”, m’Lud )
Related Post
Tags: Al Qaeda, Archbishop of Canterbury, assassinate Tony Blair, British lawyer, Cherie Booth, civil rights, courts, English barrister, Geek LAwyer, islamists, kill, Law - British Domestic & International, legal, Lincoln's Inn, murder, will Tony Blair be assassinated
February 4, 2008 at 3:02 am |
is nt lincolns inn where the blair painting was to be hung and h aparently i read somewherwhere a memberof this organisation was blair himself so i wonder if this is just a personal vendetta not a political one and did’nt blair bring in a law against gloryfying terrorism and couldn’t this be used against this man i hope he doesn’t succed
February 4, 2008 at 3:23 am |
Yes, absolutely right. Both Blairs are members.
It was years ago when Blair was last there. This idiot makes some very nasty remarks about Cherie, so he obviously is not a friend of hers either.
But even if they’ve had a falling out, surely THIS is not on. You might say quietly to colleagues in the pub at lunch what you think of someone. We all do at times, but not on a website! Not in a position of authority.
I’m just disgusted that a BARRISTER thinks this is acceptable!
Yes, there was a “glorifying terrorism” act of some sort – not that Brown & co would have noticed.
And if I write to Gordon, he’ll only lose the letter!
;0)
I’ll have to look another time. It’s late! I see you’re a night owl too, eh?
February 4, 2008 at 3:24 am |
perhaps if this man cant be prosecuted by criminal law he could be prosecuted in a civil court for endangering life
February 4, 2008 at 3:39 am |
Don’t think so, margaret. But I’m going to have to look into this. Seriously. The apathetic average person doesn’t give a damn, or have the gumption to get off their lazy backside to do or say anything. Until it’s too late, of course. And then half of them – like Idiot Face here – would be cheering.
February 4, 2008 at 3:42 am |
it just occured to me that you could write to blair at his offical office and gve the url to him he then could get theproper authorities to investigate as he is the victim of this outrageand would know who to contact like special branch or the antiterrorist squad or even those who are protecting him could be warned forarmed they have a betterchance of stoppingvthis and getting this idiot
February 4, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
Hi margaret,
Yes, I’ve forwarded the information on to several authorities today, and to Mr Blair’s office.
I get this feeling they won’t do anything at all about it, because of fears of upsetting the civil liberties idiots.
I have tried to find out what I can do to raise this issue legally and what chances there’d be of success.
I’ve also contacted the Bar Council. Don’t expect they’d consider striking the bastard off! They might just let him work in the roughest courts in the country, where he’d obviously be comfortable venting his bile. I know what I’d like to do with this bile!
Will keep in contact with you.
February 4, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
[...] Some idiot is trying get me prosecuted! . [...]
February 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
my husband suggested in telling the press but i don’t think it’s a good idea as for blair i think he will do something as he doesn’t seem to be particularly bothered about thesse civil liberty groups .he upset a quite few of them when he was in office
February 4, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
As hateful as this dreadful man is, I think you’ll find it impossible to prosecute as the judges are all in on it as well
February 4, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
Looks like the terrorist sympathiser has noticed.
The press would have been quite able to get this information too. Since the internet is largely the refuge of all and sundry with a brain cell (well one or two of them have) the press ignore much of it. Anyway, it was easy to pick this information up.
Apart from that many in our great British press don’t give a damn. The only thing they are ready and willing to write about Blair is his obituary.
Who do you think TOLD the gullible fool in Lincoln’s Inn and his juvenile readers that Blair is the Devil Incarnate?
The Daily Mail, etc …
The Mail, under Paul Dacre, is as vile, politically motivated and bloody corrupt as the waste of an education who wrote the “Assassinate Blair ” atrocity.
Alastair Campbell last week described the Daily Mail as “evil” under Dacre. I think he is probably right.
And which publications are under their umbrella?
The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, The Evening Standard, London Metro, Irish Mail on Sunday and the advertising publication Loot.
Five of these six are read widely in London by Londoners! No wonder they can’t think objectively.
Well, we’ll see what happens. In the meantime, I hope to keep the little scrote concerned.
February 4, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
Actually yes, I am totally in agreement with Noddy. The problem is that in this country the judges are on the sides of liberals and against decent working folk. My father worked in a mine until he was 50 and got lung disease. Now he needs help he finds it is all being spent on Polish immigrants and third world illegal workers.
What happens when the government tries to do something about it? the judges tell us it is against human rights law. Well what about us decent brits? No forget the judges they wont listen about this rat. And the police are as bad now to – they just let him off cos itd be to much work. In my day they’d have clumped a kid round the ear now its all about hug a hoodie. Political corectnes is gone mad in this country.
Blair would have got it sorted if hed had more time – now we got Brown who is just a bit average we cuold have got better if wed let Tony stay
February 4, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
Hi Noddy,
The judges are all in on … what exactly? Backing Al Qaeda? Keeping civil righters sweet? Getting rid of Blair? Ignoring the law?
I’m interested.
What exactly do you mean?
February 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm |
Not backing al qada but keeping civil writes people happy.
February 4, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
Good find! What a miscreant… a barrister should know better. Good for you for chasing it up. I hope they listen.
February 4, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
Well it makes me really angry how strong these civil rights people have got- you know that woman from Liberty or whatever it’s called. And the thing is the judges have to keep them sweet or the press will be all over them- a friend of mine knows quite a few of the key civil rights people. And you know lawyers – all they care about is keeping their money and position. They don’t give a damn about what really matters. Look at how they went to town over Blair when he said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I think you should keep on at him.
February 4, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
Hi Campbell.
Good name. (My mother’s maiden name.)
Thanks for you comments.
Tony tried for the last few years as PM trying to get over the message that things were moving the wrong way in British society. A lot of the time you needed to read between the lines.
He couldn’t say overtly that multiculturalism hadn’t worked as intended. Nor that the reason for that was the refusal of some ethnic groups to mix with the natives particularly by keeping their women at home and non-English speaking.
He couldn’t say because of several reasons. For a start – the left of Labour; fear of distancing the Muslim & minority Labour vote in the inner cities; the simple admission that it hadn’t worked; the lack of willingness or ability of Muslim leadership to LEAD on modernising British Islam; his motives would have been misread by those such as this barrister as attempting to distract attention from what THEY saw as his “anti-muslim” attack on Iraq … and so on.
But as usual no-one picked up the baton. He was, more or less, on his own.
The problems we have with the Human Rights Act are extensive. I’m frankly sick of hearing voices of such as Shami Chakrabarti CBE (June 2007) of Liberty, who has constantly campaigned against government’s anti-terror laws. She too was trained as a barrister. I’m sure she is a good woman, but why do we NEVER hear of her standing up for many in the indigenous population?
http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=113297&d=301&h=24&f=46
It’s always immigrants, legal or illegal, and suspected terrorists. Did she spend time holding Ruth Turner’s hand when HER rights were, by common consent, stamped on?
In case you’re wondering I would never EVER vote for the BNP or even UKiP. But I don’t see any political party in this country giving these issues the attention they deserve.
Cameron is just as quiet on all of this as Brown. And Clegg? Who?
February 4, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
Hi Harry and Noddy,
Yep, Harry. I’ve now got the little scrag between my teeth. I can be a tenacious so and so.
Great to have so much support from good people in this country who have not been brainwashed.
Any further help or suggestions are always welcome.
————————————————–
Noddy – I echo your “Liberty woman” sentiments, and wrote something about it above before I noticed your message had come in.
The authorities need to sit up and take notice. And soon. They can’t depend on wallies begging Al Qaeda to blow us all up.
The natives are restless.
And on the WMD issue: the press and civil righters treatment of Blair was beneath contempt over WMDs. The whole world knew Saddam had them and the whole world was right. Apart from the anti-war, anti-Blair, anti-Bush, anti-courage types. He’d used them on the Kurds. The antis conflated what they “KNEW” was true, that Blair had lied over it all just to get parliamentary approval, with their need to trash him. And the self-righteous press coalition decided Blair’s honesty was the real issue.
What bloody fools!
I don’t believe he DID lie any more than did Bush or the UN when they too believed the intelligence.
But I tell you something – if he had, I’d rather that, than we sit on our superior ‘honest’ backsides saying we’ll do nothing proactive about terrorism until the bastards poison London’s water or start to kill our leaders and our democracies.
Btw, I’m reading the Litvinenko “Death of A Dissident” story at the moment. His father said he had been killed by a “tiny nuclear bomb”. The HPA described it a a “major dose” of radioactivity.
Because of the radioactivity he cannot be cremated, if that is his family’s wish, for 28 years.
INTERESTING FACT
One gram of polonium is enough to kill half a million people.
Weapons of mass destruction come in many forms.
And the WMD we need to deal with first in this country? The lies and denials of such as this barrister.
February 4, 2008 at 6:34 pm |
I dont think ukip is so bad. I dont think id vote for them but at least they have us in their minds. Maybe if Tony was president of the EU hed make them unecessary and make the EU more frendly to the US who are the goods guys in the wurld. Think about how much terorism has been stoped by hard interogation at guntanamo – sure some were inocent but most were not & remember what churchill said “its better that a few innocent suffer than all the innocent suffer”.
February 4, 2008 at 7:06 pm |
Yes, well UKiP are not the BNP.
The reason I mention that, though, is to reasure people that I’m the average voter – floating at the moment, since Blair went and I see no real leadership. I’m neither a left or right wing extremist. I have many Muslim friends and I have no prejudices, as far as I know. I’m a pro European who loves America and its people.
Churchill spoke wisely:
“I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents.”
“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
“Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed. ”
Sir Winston Churchill, British politician (1874 – 1965)
February 4, 2008 at 7:28 pm |
Ukip are pretty good I think. The EU is such a pain — constant bickering and all they ever do is make stupid rules that annoy everyone. Did you know I can’t buy a liferaft for my boat without spending nearly £1000 because the EU banned all the cheap ones? Nevermind saving lives though — making money for french corporations is far more important.
I hope Blair gives them the what for when he’s running the gig — can’t wait!
February 4, 2008 at 7:55 pm |
Harry – Nigel Farage comes over well, but I just don’t approve in the same way that I don’t approve of the policy of withdrawing from the EU.
MISSION STATEMENT
From:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=26
The UK Independence Party is committed to withdrawing Britain from the European Union. As the debate on the new Constitution has now made clear, the EU agenda is complete political union with all the main functions of national government taken over by the bureaucratic institutions of Brussels.
But yes – Tony will fix it if he gets the job. I sincerely hope he does, but he’s up against it, from ALL sides (except, maybe, Sarkozy)!
February 4, 2008 at 8:20 pm |
Hi all,
Just went and read that lawyer’s blog again. He’s such a self-obsessed smart-arse. I might post something on there.
February 4, 2008 at 8:32 pm |
Noddy – did you do a search to find the smart-arse? Haven’t put his url on here for the reasons I said at the start, but since he’s done me such a favour today – and my visitors have already trebled – maybe I should do the same for him.
He’s a completely obnoxious self important nonentity. I suppose that’s what makes him so envious of Blair, eh?
February 4, 2008 at 8:39 pm |
I agree. Tony could definitely fix it. It’s a pity he’s not still PM — there’s still a bunch of stuff that needs to be fixed and I’m pretty sure he could do it all if he just had enough time. Can’t believe Brown pushed him out.
If he gets made president then maybe we should stay in — otherwise we should definitely be out. I mean just look at the constitution. It’s the same damn thing as it was before! They just changed a few words! Can’t trust em.
February 4, 2008 at 9:04 pm |
Harry,
I think there’s been a lot of media hype about the treaty/constitution. To the extent that we would NOT be voting for that at all if we had a referendum, but just for Europe per se.
The press – AGAIN!- Sorry, they’re my bete noire – winds us up about Europe and we are only ever half-hearted members due to that.
Time we got on with it! Blair could help make us true Europeans. They’re crying out for our kind of de-regulated market, and we can show the way.
Anyway, we need to be a stronger force in the world in future decades for reasons of trade, energy, climate concerns, Africa, poverty, terror threats etc.
The USA/China/India/Middle East/Europe.
Where do we fit in?
We’re not Switzerland, so we need to get this sorted.
At least with Blair we’d have a committed European in charge who knows who our friends are.
As for Brown pushing Blair out – it’s an amazing story full of contradictions and brotherly love and hatred. Never having been a Labour party member I didn’t know all that much about it. Now I think I could probably be a Mastermind contestant on it. Once I had started, about 18 months ago, it became fully absorbing. I’ve devoured books and web information on the subject. But my admiration for the younger one increased exponentially.
I really think he has grown hugely into the statesman he is through his experiences. And to think I hardly paid attention for most of his time as PM! Now I think he is the “compleat” (to use the angling expression) politician.
What a thing to do – dump such a man in his prime.
February 4, 2008 at 9:31 pm |
His blog is very easy to find. In fact I think you may have made an error blogging his dammed sight (forgive rude language – im a bit iritated) as he is more visble on google now
I have just written him a very nasty private email!! hoho i’ll tell you if he replies but he wont cos he is to chicken to face people who now the truth.
I started by saying “Your a moron” and then let him have it
Bit juvunile really I suppose.
February 4, 2008 at 9:37 pm |
This Lawyer is a nasty evil piece of work it is bad enough Tony is risking his life out in the middle east without a idiot like him inciting extremists.
maybe people should treat this man with the contempt he deserves.
I have always said intellegent people have no common sense.
February 4, 2008 at 9:46 pm |
My dear “Keep Tony Blair” friend,
It was hard for this American woman to read that Barrister’s filthy ravings and rantings. Thank you for explaining the difference between a Barrister
and a solisitor and about Lincoln’s Inn.
I have seen this same ugly rhetoric written about our President and everyone around him that is decent. I really and truly believe that this person is not a Barrister. In fact I do not believe that he is even British. I suggest that he is a radical moslum (we all agree that he is being inciteful, right?) It’s an old communist trick. To incite; to incite hatred, to incite confusion and to disrupt the general public. It is the same as our liberal media here in the States. It is all about negativity. I have found that there are in realty more human beings like you and me than there are beings such as the little bastard. I have also found that the best way to deal with them is to pray for them. (Bare with me now). The Lord told Job to “bless” his enemies and then God will take care of the enemies.
You’d be amazed at what happens.
I will be remembering you in prayer and praying that the Lord will continue to bless you with wisdom of words and yes, I will pray for our little bastard, too. I will pray that the Lord will bless him with the truth and the truth is here.
Much respect,
Arlene
USA
February 4, 2008 at 10:03 pm |
Campbell, Karen & Arlene – can’t keep up with the comments tonight. It’s gone a little crazy for some inexplicable reason. And I’m still waiting for the hate mail!
So if you don’t mind, I’ll reply to you all at once.
Well, Campbell, ‘juvenile’ is right up his street; so he’ll get it.
Yes, I may have inadvertently sent extra traffic there, but well, he has reciprocated generously. Very good of the young upstart.
I’m trying to build two websites tonight – NO chance!
————————————————————
Karen – Contempt? Effusively! Most definitely!
I wonder if we are dealing with a normal person here. Mentally ill? Possibly. A real barrister? Possibly not, as Arlene says below.
But these evil bastards need to be outed, whatever.
I’ll wait to see what the Bar Council say in their reply to my e-mail. And if they don’t reply, I’ll write to them.
————————————————————
Arlene – thank you. I wish I had your deep faith. Perhaps this is how Mr Blair deals with it.
But I DO, despite such people as this, have faith in humanity – most of them, much of the time.
Thank you again for your kind and pure thoughts.
February 4, 2008 at 10:26 pm |
Arlene,
REGARDING THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS BARRISTER IDIOT
It’s tempting to think that such despicable stuff is all under false pretext. BUT – and it’s quite a large but – if you scroll down to the bottom of the comments at his page there are many links on there regarding law, as well as (paid?) ads for legal companies such as Symonds, Mowbray/Woodwards, Lawrite and Fentons. These are all real lawyers.
Perhaps we should e-mail the kosher (ooh! how un-pc) lawyers and ask if they are happy about advertising on such an amoral site.
February 4, 2008 at 10:38 pm |
Following on from Arlene’s useful definition of ‘incitement’ above, I thought I’d help you out with a couple of useful definitions:
a) ‘Sarcasm’:
1. A cutting, often ironic remark.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
Y’see, Geeklawyer didn’t actually MEAN that he wanted Bliar to be assassinated. That was an ironic comment, intended to make a point. If you’re not sure about the meaning of ‘ironic’, please consult a dictionary – just to get you started, it doesn’t mean ’sort of like iron’.
I’ve been in fits of laughter over some of the comments here, mind. As a barrister myself, I’m thoroughly glad that people like Geeklawyer raises the issue he does. We need intelligent, well-informed political comment in Britain now more than ever; if this is the alternative, forgive me for continuing to read Geeklawyer’s blog. Even if that does make me a gay Muslim communist extremist pinko liberal cheese-eating surrender monkey…
…rather that than a moron, I fancy.
(Incidentally, you’ll note that Geeklawyer’s kept all your comments up on the post…ten to one says that you won’t be following Voltaire’s famous comment quite so rigorously.)
February 4, 2008 at 10:53 pm |
i was watchin a dvd earlier tonight perhaps you could prosecute this cachi( yery bad shit in welsh)soliciting for murder as some iman was prosecuted in london in2005. i pray for blair every night when he’s in the middle east after this i will pray for him where ever he is
February 4, 2008 at 11:36 pm |
El Presidente! Sir!
HERE COMES THE JUDGE … I mean …. DEFENDING LAWYER!
So nice of you to honour us with your presence, m’Lud. We bow at your feet with humble, unbridled gratitude that you’d deign to bestow on us, undeserving plebs, a moment of your precious time.
IT’S ALL A BIT OF A LAUGH, REALLY
YEH!
Fits of laughter? As a barrister, and if you share chambers with whatsisname, you’re a laugh-a-minute anyway. You hardly need to come here for a giggle.
No, I think you and he fully understand that if GeekThing had said,
“My mother-in-law is such a big-mouthed, fat-arsed so and so (to paraphrase him on someone else) and I wish somebody’d knock her off before the next time she’s due to visit us” … we’d all have got the joke.
WHO he was referring to makes this an entirely different matter. Geek clearly, personally, can’t stand the Blairs, and that’s HIS business. But Tony Blair is an international figure, recent PM, under high level security because of threats on his life from terrorists and others, perhaps. The last thing any of us needs is for an impressionable 19-year-old to read this junk and conclude that killing him is what the legal profession in this country really wants. (Whether or not some of you do!)
It’s the “responsibility” test.
And Geek has failed it. Big time.
BTW – WHAT WAS THE “ISSUE” GEEK RAISED?
I think I missed “THE ISSUE” in his article. Seemed more of a personal diatribe of bitterness and abuse, culminating with a “why don’t the incompetents at AQ kill the bastard” (Oh, yes. ‘Irony’.)
Do me a favour. I wasn’t born yesterday. The fool may not have MEANT to incite murder, but that, in this world of mad misguided miscreants looking for a BANG to go out on, is (legally), imho, what he was doing.
So Voltaire won. Your friend in all his legal complexities wrapped up in semantics and ignorance, lost.
Or might yet.
Anyway, you owe me a tenner!
———————————————–
Margaret – keep praying. You and Arlene both.
What a way he has to live.
Bloody hell!
February 5, 2008 at 12:08 am |
I actually quite enjoyed that response, but I can’t agree with you – if the ‘impressionable 19-year-old’ you mention really did come to the conclusion that the legal profession wanted Blair dead, I suspect he’d have trouble tying his own shoelaces unassisted, let alone coming up with and executing (no pun intended) a fiendish murder plot.
And you were doing so well, too, right up until you bracketed the word ‘legally’ in your argument. Legally speaking, that isn’t incitement to murder, or even close. It might be a good idea to check on these things, if you’re planning on a civil action (not a civil ‘prosecution’; they only happen in criminal cases); having your pleadings come back covered in judicial laugh-spittle isn’t a pleasant experience (or so I imagine. Ahem.).
I don’t share chambers with GL, by the way. I think the issue he was on about was the ex-Dear Leader’s desire to become EU president (a job he’d be welcome to, in my book; you’d need a mind like a corkscrew to get your head round some of the initiatives). It may have been somewhat vitriolic, but hey, it’s his blog, he’s entitled to be just as vituperative in criticising Blair as you are in defending him.
That said, thank you for at least recognising that you’re undeserving plebs; that raised a smile.
PS: The Al Qaida/Al Queda/Al Q’aida thing is academic; it’s a translation from one of the Arabic language and as such has no fixed spelling. Al Qaida seems to be becoming the norm, but it’s not sufficiently entrenched to berate someone over yet.
February 5, 2008 at 12:25 am |
Well of course, if Tony were in charge of it, it would be fine. He’d bring some real gravitas and integrity to it — they’re a pack of lying hounds at the moment.
Arlene, Margaret — reassuring to see you here! I’m so glad that there’s there are others who’ve been saved to pray for the geeklawyer, and Tony too — I think they both need God’s help, but in rather different ways..!
February 5, 2008 at 4:34 am |
[...] In the Blue corner In the Red corner [...]
February 5, 2008 at 10:43 am |
I’m personally with the calm reasoning of El Presidente , as opposed to the the rambling, pseudo- right wing, half UKIP, half slightly pink, painfully correct diatribe posted here to date. The Cult of Blair is alive and well, and, it would seem, rather wild eyed about a storm that isnt even in a teacup.
Do you people HONESTLY believe that TB gives a flying *F**K about whats bieng said here? Indeed, do you honestly believe that he gives a flying *F**K about you, or your opinions? I am quite sure that the man has had more death threats made against him – written and spoken – than you’ve had hot dinners and, were he to attempt to pursue every SINGLE threat made against him as an incitement to hatred his suit would have been thrown out of the Civil Court for vexatious litigation; it certainly would not run in the Criminal Courts.
Consider his present job – “Ambassador” in the Middle East Peace Process; no death threats bieng made whatsoever in that arena, I suppose. Oh wait a minute – perhaps there ARE ! Shall we sue the various parties concerned ? (bit of a bugger that one, bieng out of jurisdiction and the like)
The man was a political opportunist, a charismatic one, I grant you, but an opportunist nonetheless; lets none of us forget that he actually stood as a TORY MP in his early career.Had things been a bit different he could well now be the leader of the Conservative Party; would you have felt the same about him then? Quite probably; your politics are as inconstant and as inconsistent as the Wind bieng blown around this forum.
Ultimately, you are all as full of hot air as TB ; your agruments carry no substance and you have nothing better to do with your time than witter on about another’s right to speak in a free, ironic and it must be said amusing fashion.
One final point. If all barristers are part of a grand conspiracy and will stick together no matter what, it is quite likely that TB and GL, bieng members of the same inn of court, are both lunching together at the aforementioned and having a bloody good laugh at what’s been said here.
February 5, 2008 at 11:00 am |
What a disgraceful thing for a UK barrister to say, truly disgraceful what is this country coming to when a barrister says things like that !!. This sort of comment you would expect from the gutter press but from a UK barrister, words fail me.
Glad to know that you have sent it on to the authorities, hope you get somewhere with it, but somehow feel that you won’t be able to. These comments and threats should not be allowed and yes the Treason act ought to be brought upon this person, it won’t though sad to say.
Things do seem to be getting worse in this country as regards authorities allowing these people to say all these horrendous things and make threats, there doesn’t seem to be any redress to these issues at all for fear of offending the people who say them !! crazy truly crazy !! The authorities including the Goverment should be able to within the law confront these people and get them to answer for their conduct.It has got so bad that the Goverment are afraid to act because of being of out step with the Human rights lawyers and the left, which is ridiculous to say the least.
You probably have read about this in the papers re the Goverment issuing a phrasebook to all their departments in how to deal with the Muslim commuinity and telling them not to mention “War on Terror” for fearing of offending them!!! The terrorists are now meant to be called “Crimminal murderers, thugs etc but not terrorists, watch out we might offend Crimmianl murderers and thugs what are we going to do then?? !!! This is so stupid it is beyond belief , why oh why we can’t identify our enemies, we need to because we need to know who we are up against. I have often thought many times over the past few months what Tony Blair would have said or done, one things for sure I doubt very much he would have changed the word Terrorist for Crimminal murderer or wiped out the phrase “War on Terror”. So if we can’t call a spade a spade how on earth are we going to confront a UK barrister with the comments he has made about Tony Blair.
The other story that seems to be gaining ground with commentators in the papers is that we should get our troops out of Afghanistan. This is a crazy idea and one that should not gather steam, we need to be there in Afghanistan for sure,no matter how difficult it is, we must be there. Like the story of not dealing with people who say horrendous things, and not wanting to offend the muslim population, this is another issue that because we are in Afghanistan that is what is annoying the terrorist and so, we must go home !! it is all our fault !! I only hope that there are some Tony Blairs in the Brown Goverment who have the stomach to fight of these extremists within our country and outside of it.
It will interesting and revealing to know if you get anywhere with your reporting of the UK barrister. Would be great if you would keep us all informed, as I am sure no only myself but others would love to know the outcome.
From Shaz
February 5, 2008 at 11:13 am |
Given the anti-judge, pro-Blair stance on here – what are your predictions for this chap?
http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=131072
February 5, 2008 at 12:08 pm |
hii, I just wanted to say that that article isn’t intelligent El President , as you say it is.
What’s intelligent about someone who would use the facade of a well-meaning polemic to circulate his rather distasteful and slanderous views??
Real intelligence is about being able to make observations and express views with humility and some remorse for the fragility of human nature.
and also El President, if GeekyLawyer can freely denigrate someone in such a public forum, he gives us scope to attack him and his obviously perverse and refractory views regardless of whether you find it amusing or not.
I am 18 and even though I dont agree that I am a ‘impressionable 19 year old’ I thoroughly agree with the sentiment of ‘keeptonyblairforpm’ as youths nowadays do feel estranged from the ambivalence of the political arena in society now, and this sort of stuff (geekylawyers blogs) deters people from articulating their stances in politics.
Thankyou
February 5, 2008 at 12:13 pm |
sorry , just another comment to say
I completely agree with you Shaz, you have voiced all that I have always thought. Thanks
February 5, 2008 at 12:32 pm |
If anyone should be hung it’s Blair for handing over our countries governance to a foreign power (The EU). The news that he maybe EU president is terrible, don’t you see that he is trying to sell us out to the EU Liberal Elite?
Clever Blair struck the Treason Act 1795 from the statue books in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. You are calling for it to be brought back to get this Barrister, but it’s Blair who got rid of it in the first place.
February 5, 2008 at 12:34 pm |
Harry, I don’t think praying will save Geeklawyer. I think he’s too far gone. I believe some of his lawyer friends are noticing now. I’m sure he won’t be in favour for making them look stupid.
February 5, 2008 at 12:57 pm |
Hear, hear!
Arrest the spineless little weasel. I wonder if he’d have had the guts to publicly say the same about Saddam in Iraq a few years ago? No? Thought not!
Anyway, we’re just two months away from the fifth anniversary of his toppling. Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice!
February 5, 2008 at 1:22 pm |
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
thankyou thankyou thankyou I haven’t laughed so much in ages
February 5, 2008 at 1:48 pm |
Hi El Pres (are you Elvis, btw?)
In the way of the articulate barrister you’ve tried to divert attention from the REAL issue here, by criticising other matters.
Whether or not a 19 year old can tie his shoelaces (or a suicide belt round his middle) is NOT the point.
The criticism I make is that someone in the legal profession thinks it’s all right to air the thoughts he did, even (if) in jest.
It’s, no doubt, arguable as to whether he was serious, or just trying to sound controversial. And ignorance of the law – as you will know – is not an excuse.
But it’s the first time anyone in one of the ‘pillars of the land’ has said such a thing, in my experience. Now if he’d said (”only joking, of course”) or if just one of his early respondents had said “hang on a minute, GL” I’d have clicked away and forgotten about it.
But neither happened. Thus the concerns.
As to whether or not this is criminally chargeable as “incitement”, well, you would say that wouldn’t you?
I refer people to this, from the Terrorism Act, 2006:
——————————————————-
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and
(b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he—
(i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or
(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which—
(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
(b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.
——————————————————-
Whole Act here -
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060011_en_1
Yes I went back to his little palace of merry frolics and noticed that it had started off as a moan about the unstoppable Blair, in amongst GL’s chatting up some female visitor. Must be so frustrating for such as your mouthy, sexually obsessed friend, to have so little to work on in comparison to Blair ;0(
Since you guys are supposed to be wordsmiths – that’s why people employ you; can’t be for your charm and political nous – it seemed relevant to draw attention to the AQ spelling business. I don’t think my point was lost on others here. Let me repeat – it is NEVER spelt with a “u” after the “q”. That’s peculiarly English.
WE can all google. Aren’t we all amazingly clever?
“Al-Qaeda (also al-Qaida or al-Qa’ida or al-Qa’idah)”
Oh, and while I’m being a pain about spelling & semantics – one can’t be “vituperative” …. in defending someone. Oxymoronic.
All right, Oxy?
And this,
“… but it’s not sufficiently entrenched to berate someone over yet.”
WHAT! The poor lamb.
I’ll have to find something else to berate him over.
Hard one that! Struggling here. I’ll think of something …
Another litle point. It’s clear that your friend subscribes to the view that the terror threat is all dreamt up. [Wonder if he ever watches any other cases going on outside of his own domain, the one with the full-length mirror.]
Yesterday’s news, for example -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7226425.stm
Terrorism is not an invention of Blair or Bush or anyone in western governments.
Blair has probably been high on the hit list since 9/11. He’s used to it. But I refuse to get used to lawyers like GL.
The secret services aren’t actually making it up that there are thousands of groups and individuals under surveillance, with charges in the pipeline. Perhaps that’s why we haven’t been hit since 7/7.
Credit where it’s due.
February 5, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
BlairSupporter. I’ve seen more intelligent comments on public lavatory walls than on that sad site.
Stop feeding the low life.
February 5, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
Harry, Shaz, Roubella, Usefully Employed, UKIP Supporter, Noddy, Shamik Das, anonymous coward.
Thanks for your contributions. Shaz – my sentiments completely, and I think the lawyers would be surprised if they knew my original political leanings! Shamik, Harry, Noddy & Roubella – all very wise comments, imho.
Yours, Roubella, is a breath of fresh air. Sorry if I insulted teenagers by mentioning the ‘fictional’ 19-year-old in that regard. YOU are not impressionable, clearly, and you are not being manipulated. A lot of teenagers are these days, sadly, as we can see any day on YouTube.
Nice to give anonymous coward something to laugh about. Though if he’s come from GL’s site, why did he bother? It’s a laugh a minute over there.
UKIP Supporter – well, my remark about bringing back the death penalty was tongue-in-cheek. It was made to match the tone GL was using, only not as personalised as his disgraceful stuff. I did NOT call for GL’s neck specifically (as you will notice if you read it again). I’m not THAT daft!
We won’t agree on the political direction for our country, as UKiP wants to take us out of the EU, but ever since the days of the British Empire we’ve been moving unstoppably towards the rest of our geographical neighbours. Unless we had decided to become another Switzerland (which might have been an option once, but it’s too late now) ALL governments have seen the inevitable. Personally I’m proud to be from the European tradition. The culture of Olympic and democratic Greece, as well as the art and music of Michelangelo & Mozart. We are in reality the bithplaces of democracy and the arts.
Anyway, as I recall half of our trade is with the rest of the EU.
Oh and Usefully Employed, I’m not anti-judge or the legal profession. I’m actually very pro. Just very disappointed as to the depths some of them seem to have sunk. But it’s not all their fault. Governments make the laws by which they make their judgements.
Get your EU President’s hat on asap Mr Blair and sort them all out. The Human Rights Act might be one of the first we should look at.
February 5, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
P.S. Added a couple of contributions from our worthy legal profession, via GL seemingly, that I had somehow overlooked in the scrum. The short link will take you somewhere you may not wish to go, eventually.
But that’s free speech for you. And who am I to deny the law that?
After all, some commenter at the linked QC’s page thinks we’re all religious nutters! Now where have I heard that raised before? Was it in defence or prosecution?
(Fun!)
;0)
February 5, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
Just because we trade with the EU, it does not mean that we have to scrap our constitution. Blair has been a big supporter of the new EU constitution and now Brown is signing us up to the Lisbon treaty without a referendum.
Blair wants to destroy British Monarchy and Democracy and place it with worthless EU bureaucrats, which he could lead. He is a power hungry traitor who should be locked up.
February 5, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
UKIP Supporter: We’re not quite scrapping our unwritten constitution. It is ever-evolving as you know and does not comprise of one single document. It comprises laws and many changes made over centuries and many believe it is flexible because of its unwritten nature.
I can see why some are concerned that an EU “constitution” would take over (in written form) from a British unwritten one.
But this is a “treaty” and there have been plenty of those, importantly by two Conservative PMs – Heath in 1971 taking Britain into the EEC …
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicsobituaries/story/0,,1530964,00.html
and the 1992 Maastricht Treaty in Major’s time, 1992 –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty. And Thatcher, despite her Euro sceptic instincts, and her Bruges speech, moved Europe closer, with her vision of a wider, not deeper EU, as has been Blair’s.
It’s easy to castigate motives, and I’ve seen plenty of that thrown at Blair. But I don’t think he is working for his own betterment as far as the EU is concerned. After all “what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
And wiping Britain off the map as a political entity would have that equivalence.
It is NOT going to happen any more than France or Germany will be subsumed. But it IS going to change. The future of Europe, in Blair’s hands (for a bit), if that happens, does not concern me.
But the UK press put the frighteners on us years if not decades ago over the rest of Europe. I see no sign of that changing. Yet.
A referendum, if held over the “treaty/constitution” would be about staying in or getting out. Nothing else. The anti press would have a field day, and the rest of us would have to pick up the fallout.
Disingenuous, imho.
…………………………………………………………..
And to Sam – wiil try to refrain from over-feeding. But I’ve always had a soft spot for the intellectually starved.
February 5, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
Hello Blairsupporter. I’ve had a quick look at the geek site, but really it’s not a place that rational people (who are represented here) want to spend any time is it?
I have to agree with Sam that life’s too short to waste it reading the arrogant silliness, and these sites do only attract a certain type of audience don’t they?
I rather think that regular members of the public don’t even think in the sort of terms expressed there, let alone transcribe them into the public forum, and I expect that the geek and his cohorts (if genuine) are not representative of the trade, just a couple of Buller types having a ‘joke’; poor taste I know, but only what you would expect.
I think you’ve taken the right action by drawing to the attention/shaming those practices who promote themselves there into withdrawing their advertising. It’s an unsuitable place to market their legal services – and under the circumstances one would not be inclined to engage any firm represented on that site.
If I were to offer you advice it would be to delete the lot off and don’t waste your time, energy and good page space in an argument with such idiots.
Incidentally, Steven Glover at the ‘M’ had an outrageous piece about TB the other day, which was predictably too stupidly ridiculous to respond to, bit like the geek Hmmm?
February 5, 2008 at 6:35 pm |
Yes there have been treaties before in the past, but none like the ones we see coming in at the moment. I don’t know how you can call yourself British after what Blair has done to sell us out to the EU. He has also brought in these EU Human rights laws which allow these liberal elite conspirators to get away with things like this Barrister says.
February 5, 2008 at 6:44 pm |
Hello Jenny,
Yes, you’re right. I just thought it was worth drawing attention to SOME in a profession which most of us tend to believe is rational. I didn’t realise they’d started calling them to the Bar at 12.
Worrying to think our solicitors normally find us a barrister. If you’re in London, and you need one, it might be worthwhile saying to your solicitor, “I don’t want Geek Lawyer”!
Steven Glover at the “M”. Is that The Mail? That piece of gutterpress read, possibly, by all good geeks?
February 5, 2008 at 6:47 pm |
Actually, a barrister is not any steps up from a solicitor. In fact, they don’t even take as long to train as a solicitor.
February 5, 2008 at 7:09 pm |
You’re absolutely right, Marcin. I just put that in to catch the so-and-sos out! None of them complained. They’re playing games.
No, untrue!
I should have made it clearer. It looks like solicitor to barrister is a natural progression, which it isn’t. Thanks for clearing that up.
Further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister
February 5, 2008 at 7:38 pm |
Ah well UKIP, I’m British all right.
Blair hasn’t “sold” us out to Europe at all. We’re part of Europe, and the progress may not be to all of our likings, far too slow for me – 50+ years – but that doesn’t make us any less British.
The Human Rights thing IS an issue for a lot of us. One of the barristers/legal beavers at the other site extols it hugely. I think he’s hoping to potect Geek’s back under that sort of pretext.
I’m not completely against it in principle. It’s just that it seems to have had some unintended consequences. Blair knows about them
Once and if he is Mr President, EU, I have little doubt that that will be pursued by more than just the British. It’s messed up other countries’ attempts to deal with certain problems too.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1
A greater and wider EU – a natural progression, imho.
February 5, 2008 at 7:44 pm |
I just reread your comments and I agree with that integration thing and I’m sure your not anti-muslim either.
I am a bit i reckon but only a bit, but some of those people are OK. Down my way we have an indian takeaway and I go there a lot and every time I say to the owner bloke who is a Hindu or muslim “I’ll have a Shiva and pork vindaloo Mohamed, and I don’t care if it is the festival of ramadamadingdong!” He always smiles at that everytime I say it cos he’s got a sense of humour – unlike them loony ones on the marches.
Try telling that joke to them and you got a problem. And he speaks english and is integrated, unlike his wife who like you say doesnt or pretends not to but if you left the takeaway without paying youd see if she did or didnt!
Tony had some good ideas on integration but didnt get time to implement em. All this terrorism would go away if these loons become english properly like us. Idiots like that lawyer make the problem worse by letting them not have to do it.
February 5, 2008 at 10:55 pm |
That blog was just nonsense and it’s not worth even to be discussed.
We all know, if we want to be objective, who TB is and what is his legacy. He is highly regarded in US and he is considered one of the best european politicians in Europe itself. It’s only the british-not all of them-that don’t seem to realize what important political figure they had.
What make me sad is this outrageous language so often used when Tony Blair has to be judged. I remember George Galloway justifying an attack by a suicide bomber against Blair as retaliation against his decision to go to Iraq, not to mention those pathetic bloggers in the guardian who spend their time insulting Blair whatever he does even as former PM, that is private citizen.
If Britain wants to be the great country it deserves to be, it’s better to change language and give credit to a person who did his utmost to make Britain. So please, just a lesson of humility.
Blair would be a great european president and Britain should be proud of it.
February 5, 2008 at 11:55 pm |
Thank you Campbell.
Your words and the comment from our American friend PortswooD got me thinking.
Perhaps it’s time we took a page out of the US’s book on immigration.
They’re a land of immigrants (although we are too, if you go far enough back), yet America seems to absorb its disparate peoples so much more effortlessly and naturally than we do.
Yes there are issues, not yet resolved in the USA. And one of the major issues still is the reason Obama probably won’t win the democratic candidature in the end, despite his present position.
BUT Americans of all shades and religions feel American first.
It is now the thing in the UK, if you are a Muslim, to feel Muslim first. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel Christian first, and never have. I’m British! I wouldn’t dream of identifying myself or others by religion.
But we failed to notice when we should have, in our conceit and tolerance (a potent mixture), that others didn’t think like that. They had different priorities inculcated from childhood.
And, imho, being “muslim” first in Britain, is not innocent, devout religiosity. Hindu, Jew, and others yes. But Islam has been hi-jacked by a political agenda, and this agenda has been around since at least 1953 when Hizb ut-Tahrir was launched with its worldwide caliphate ambitions.
And the lack of structured leadership at the top of Islam means that they don’t always sing from the same book.
‘I have no country’, wrote a British Muslim I read recently. ‘I am muslim, and wherever I am, is my country.’
Sounds innocent, but has the potential to be the complete opposite.
The Americans are much more religious than we are and yet they are still ‘Amurican’ first. But somehow or other, despite Britain’s open-door and liberal multi-culturalism, it’s gone wrong here.
LACK OF PRIDE
I believe it is the lack of pride in our country and in our traditions, which we were encouraged to lose from at least around the 1970s, with an embarrassed shrug.
We were too careless. We wanted to assuage incomers’ fears of their old colonial masters, with a “Don’t worry about us. We’re not the Americans. You won’t have to sing God Save The Queen, or salute the flag.”
“And our soldiers .. ah, forget ‘em. When they return from Northern Ireland or Cyprus or wherever they’ve been … er …doing whatever … they’ll get out of their uniforms, stick them in the attic never to be brought out again, and they’ll be civvies in no time. You won’t be reminded of our (wicked, colonial, military) past. Don’t worry, dears. We’re not proud.”
And in losing that pride, we lost a lot more.
You can see it in the contributions on that lawyer’s blog. Intelligent, educated people sounding superciliously self-satisfied, cynical and oh-so-wise. Knowing it all and yet, knowing nothing.
DON’T LET THEM FOOL YOU – IT DIDN’T START WITH IRAQ
The fundamentalist exclusivity of minorities hasn’t just happened since 2003. True, the Iraq invasion following 9/11 became the catalyst around which many gathered hungrily, ready to use that as an excuse for kicking the host country in the teeth. We, and especially our leaders, were ‘nu-colonialists, oil-grabbing, big business, secret society, greedy bloodsuckers, who cared less for the deaths of a thousand non-caucasians, than for running over a rabbit caught in the car headlights.’
And the liberal left and the pompous press say – “OK. You’re right. We were wrong. Our leaders are evil, and always were. But the rest of us are big enough to admit it; we can take it. And yes, of course we agree the Prime Minister is beneath contempt. But we can’t hang him. Sorry. no, honestly, sorry. We wish we could.”
Here, probably for all the right reasons, and due to the REAL enemy – the liberal left intelligentsia, even 20 years ago, our governments have taken the line that they can bring their culture with them, and we Brits are big and generous enough to absorb all. In the meantime, they can choose to NOT absorb us. And that’s how it’s gone.
With earlier immigration from the colonies it was different. Many of those people felt proud to be British colonials and wanted more than anything to be British citizens.
In recent years, there wasn’t always that happy history. Even from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh there had been many problems and conflicts and arguments over land sovereignty. Some, though only a small minority, brought that bitterness with them, waiting for the day it could be rekindled.
That day might sadly be upon us.
February 6, 2008 at 12:14 am |
Campbell,
You can’t make jokes about Mohammed. He was a prophet. I don’t think they are right about Jesus but Mohammed was a prophet and we must respect him.
Mohammed is wrong and the bible tells us that only Jesus can save us, but he was was right about some things. As a Christian, my view is that Mohammed was a good man but God intended him to lead us to Jesus, and for that he deserves our love. I think integration is about respecting their religion but leading them to Jesus.
PortswoodD, couldn’t agree more. Galloway is naive. Do you remember that visit to Iraq where he said he salutes their indefatigable spirit? Awful — he should be supporting our troops. A friend of mine has a son out there and he is risking his life to bring them democracy. How can Galloway not realise the damage he’s doing? I mean, if he spent more time in Parliament instead of in the Big Brother house, maybe he’d have a clue…
February 6, 2008 at 12:54 am |
Noddy,
Didn’t notice your comment before, sorry! No one is ever too far gone for prayer. He is steeped in sin, he probably corrupts all around him. I mean look at that Miss Robinson who sending her bikini pictures to all and sundry — so unchaste.
February 6, 2008 at 1:09 am |
Hello PortswooD,
And thanks so much for your kind words.
I too feel deep sorrow about some of my fellow countrymen who clearly think that skinning alive is too good for Blair.
We have so many idiots in this country who don’t recognise a good man and a great leader when he walks amongst them. And God knows they’ve had enough experience of the other sort.
It’s the uncouth courseness of even the ‘intellectuals’ that bothers me. Amongst other things. Whether or not we are religious, we seem to have lost any gentleness, or basic human compassion. It’s only ‘cool’ to be critical. Always. About everything. Moaning Minnies.
A miserable lot really – at least the Guardian type writer is.
They hide, eyes half-covered behind the screen of righteous indignation where all is clear to THEM, personally, but hidden somehow to anyone with whom they disagree.
There must be a psychological name for the condition. They can’t all be stupid intolerant, narrow-minded bigots. I’m sure many of them had to look up Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine (sic) on a Google map, and yet they scream about the British & American ‘abusers’ and forget the atrocities before we ever got there. And at the same time they tell us that WE do not understand the lessons of history.
I suppose ‘Holocaust Deniers’ comes to mind.
The Guardian CiF-ers! Israel haters. Basically fools on the whole. I wrote this page here some time ago, allowing them the honour of being mentioned in it.
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/tony-blair-obituary-by-george-w-bush/
And as for the “glaikit scunner” Galloway (a Glasgow term of abuse I know he will NOT enjoy)…. if any readers here do not know what he said about informing the authorities if he knew of an assassination plot against Blair, you should take a look at this. Galloway’s a disgrace, but sadly not on his own.
http://robnewman.typepad.com/rob_newman/2006/05/kill_tony_blair.html
Well, I for one am VERY proud of Tony Blair. And he makes me proud to be British, when previously I was just well … drifting along without thinking about it.
He’ll be a great president of the EU, if it happens. He’s only just entering the next phase of his political life. We need to keep him safe from fools, fundamentalist madmen and the intolerant of the world; oh, and lawyers.
Thanks again for sharing your appreciation with us.
February 6, 2008 at 3:56 am |
what’s this about blair being a tory in his early career as an earlier commentator said. he never tried to be a tory mp but his father did. and to blair supporter i will always pray for blair to be safe to god.as for other commentators like el presidente what if neighbours of blair or others died in this attack that he is contemplating for blair something i hope will never happen
February 6, 2008 at 7:36 am |
hi margaret,
Your comment is with regard to one of the followers of GL – kika, above. I omitted to comment on this as it is just abusive, as is their wont. I prefer to look at the positive.
Of course s/he was wrong about Blair’s politics. He was NEVER a Tory.
You’d think anyone who follows politics at all would know by now that Blair’s father hoped to be a Tory candidate until he had a stroke at 40. But, it seems this individual has got his facts confused. Avoid legal beavers who don’t get their facts straight, folks.
kika said:
Let me help you with this, my factually-vacant friend. Read ‘Blair biography’, so far.
I think, kika, our readers can judge better than you or I where the wind is coming from.
As for this –
Well, I did not say that. I have great respect for those in the legal profession. Many of my close friends are lawyers. They manage, thankfully, without the puerile bahaviour of the slavish juvenile followers of the Geek.
A quick search on the net and you will find dozens, possibly hundreds of reports of death threats against Blair, dating back to the beginning of the century. And those are only those we have heard about – usually because of a court case. It’s obvious he is at the top of the hit list, today as much as ever, if not more than before, for obvious reasons.
My cause for concern with the Geek is NOT that he flies this kite, joining the internet imbeciles who bloom and grow in their self-justification, constantly bolstered by equally valueless ignoramouses. No.
My concern is that he diminishes his profession, and the trust the public has in legal impartiality, balance, common sense and tolerance. Oh, and in the law itself.
Not to mention the evident absence of any understanding of others’ humanity.
He and the children at his site seem to have no sense of THEIR responsibility.
No wonder Blair used to talk a lot about values. He had met many lacking this guiding compass at the Bar, it would seem.
I suppose Geek can do us all a favour and let us know what exactly Mr or Mrs Blair did to upset him, work wise. Throwing personal insults does nothing to encourage the objective reader to take him seriously. Does he ever advise clients of the futility of that kind of approach. No? Physician, heal thyself.
February 6, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
Why can’t Campbell make jokes about who he wants to? This is typical of the Blarite attitude of pandering to the needs of the Muslims. Your worse then those idiots, who call themselves intellectuals and read the Guardian at least we know they are the enemy. Saying your respect their prophets, allows them to go on living here and not talking our language or living a decent British lifestyle.
Blair talks about values, but he doesn’t value Britain. If he did then he would never be selling us out to the EU. America isn’t so bad, I could handle it when was working with George, because we have always stood shoulder to shoulder with them, but it wasn’t so long ago that we were fending off the fascist Europeans.
February 6, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
Have just caught up with this thread and am shocked. I thought that I might add a few pertinent thoughts
‘the internet is largely the refuge of all and sundry with a brain cell’ Too right! These sort of people shouldn’t be allowed near a keyboard. There is evidence that they attract others who also only have one brain cell
‘And you know lawyers – all they care about is keeping their money and position.’ Absolutely spot on! Just look at all the examples of politician barristers and their spouses who done just that very thing!
That Liberty Woman, Shami Chapati, really needs help. May the saints preserve her from us, as coated in aspic
‘The whole world knew Saddam had them and the whole world was right’ Two rights definitely don’t make a wrong!. Of course all those weapons inspectors knew the whole world was right and that they had to be wrong, or else the whole world couldn’t have been right!
‘The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, The Evening Standard, London Metro, Irish Mail on Sunday and the advertising publication Loot….Five of these six are read widely in London by Londoners! No wonder they can’t think objectively’ Can I have a bit of help here, please?..Which one isn’t?
‘At least with Blair we’d have a committed European in charge who knows who our friends are.’ Right on! We really need all pro EU Europeans to be committed!
‘I have always said intellegent people have no common sense.’ And you might have added that common sense is no guarantee of intelligence!. Glad to see that someone else has recognised their true place in the order of things!
‘But Tony Blair is an international figure, recent PM, under high level security because of threats on his life from terrorists and others, perhaps. The last thing any of us needs is for an impressionable 19-year-old to read this junk and conclude that killing him is what the legal profession in this country really wants. (Whether or not some of you do!).’ What you should really be doing is to get that impressionable 19-year-old to read this and then go out to work for his re-appointment as PM, like what Rubella said!
‘But it’s the first time anyone in one of the ‘pillars of the land’ has said such a thing’ – I’m sure that that is true of maybe about half of the Labour Party haven’t said that as well!
‘After all “what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”’ You would think that these people think that Mr Blair had already lost his own soul, wouldn’t you!?
viz a viz this ‘geek’ site…’really it’s not a place that rational people (who are represented here) want to spend any time is it?’. Certainly. Humour has no place in a rationalism in which the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive. No-one rational enough to frequent here could possibly want to visit it
‘All this terrorism would go away if these loons become english properly like us’. And these Scots, Welsh and Irish heathens should be forcibly civilised too! But can we keep porridge, oatcakes and shortbread, please, as I like those.
‘And the lack of structured leadership at the top of Islam means that they don’t always sing from the same book.’ That’s so true. Maybe we could help them compile a decent hymnbook and set out in that all their ancient and contemporary religious music?.
‘Mohammed is wrong and the bible tells us that only Jesus can save us, but he was was right about some things. As a Christian, my view is that Mohammed was a good man but God intended him to lead us to Jesus, and for that he deserves our love’ I’m a bit puzzled here. If Mohammed was right, say, about when you become a martyr, God will give you 70 virgins, 70 wives and everlasting happiness, aren’t we then saying that them bumping off Mr Blair is a good thing? That doesn’t sound right, somehow? If he’s on top form on the polygamy issue though, great!
‘There must be a psychological name for the condition. They can’t all be stupid intolerant, narrow-minded bigots’ I have heard the word ‘idiotarians’ used by some bloggers to describe others with silly views. Would that be appropriate here?
‘No wonder Blair used to talk a lot about values. He had met many lacking this guiding compass at the Bar, it would seem.’ Agreed. The House of Commons Members Bar opens to few who have with a guiding compass to begin with and even less when it closes.
Finally, on the comment ‘I am totally in agreement with Noddy’. Well said that man! Big ‘Ear Ears’ in agreement
February 6, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
UKIP – I’m definitely with you on that one.
If there is one HUGE difference between our culture and that of some others, it’s that we are free to laugh at everything, including our religions, without fear of being ’smote down’, AND, without the need to kill someone else for “blaspheming”.
The Danish cartoon business illustrated that clearly, particularly for our western culture neighbours in other parts of this continent, where they had the audacity to publish them!!!
For me – it’s simple. You choose to live within our culture, you leave behind your old culture if it clashes with ours. And WE need to be clear – VERY clear – where and when it clashes with ours. And we need to impose sanctions. Absolutely!
If you and I and our spouses went to an Arabic country, the ladies would have to wear the burkha and would not be allowed to drive . And we couldn’t take each others’ partners out on a shopping expedition (as I understand it).
(Not that we’d necessarily want to swop partners temporarily for shopping or anything else – but we MIGHT).
Perhaps that does not apply to all or even most Islamic lands. If so, I’m sure I’ll be corrected by They Who Know All at Geek’s.
And we westerners would need to go along with their laws, Sharia, or face the Sharia Law consequences.
Those are BIG differences.
We have more worrying concerns, imho, than whether or not the French and Germans are a threat.
We’ve moved on from WW2.
As someone said to me once, can’t recall who – “if God didn’t have a sense of humour she wouldn’t have invented men”.
February 6, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
WARNING: LARGE DOSE OF SALT REQUIRED PRIOR TO IMBIBING SCUNNERED’S OILY CONTRIBUTION.
Far yo gan noo, Scunnered, O’Aberdein.
Dinna rush awa’!
Fit like? Still ticht?
My brain cell has a matching one to rub against; jist aboot!
Anyway, Aberdeen Angus (?). Fit ya dain sae far awa frae hame?
Have you heard the wan aboot the crofter who went to London to make his fortune? Ah can dae it in Inglish, tae! Then you can relay it to your friends at Wee Geeky’s, so they understaun. Don’t know if it might be too heavy for them, though.
Btw, btw. Yir name’s makin me hungry. Fancy a steak … er, stake? I have recently acquired one. Just the right fit for releasing the undead from their misery.
February 6, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
Glad to see you are still fighting the good fight, BlairSupporter. I’m right behind you on this one and have posted the following comment on this narcissistic nerd’s site (or should that read sty?!).
“In these dangerous times calling for the assassination of a public figure is way beyond a joke (or even bad taste). My reading of the anti-terror laws suggests that there is indeed a good case for a prosecution. At the very least you should be carpeted by the Law Society for bringing the profession into disrepute.”
February 6, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
Well said, Mr Rosenthal. Great to hear from you again.
I couldn’t just leave him to such as these wasters and their venting spleens.
Can smell ‘em from here.
And it’s interesting that this post has attracted so much support, isn’t it?
Anyway, that cold turkey after Christmas? … ‘orrible stuff. Withdrawing slowly instead. Now down to 5 a day, as it were.
Get ready to be abused at the little twerp’s site. They take great pleasure in pompously mocking any they consider intellectually their inferior. Even when that rarely, if ever, applies.
Possibly symptomatic of the highly contagious medical/psychological condition acquired immediately on contact with Geek, cutely known as Geek’s Disease.
So don’t hang around there for too long, under ANY guise. One of them’s just been trying to spread the virus here amongst my pure, honest readers.
But in all seriousness, keep in touch. I’m gathering opinion right now from various quarters. My reading is in line with yours.
OK YOU GUYS OVER THERE?
February 6, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
Well yea our missus would have to wear them Burkha things as you say quite right. Although i do think that’s one that those Muslims have got right, the way they treat women. I wish my misses would have some respect like that.
Why don’t you start and online petition to get this Geek prosecuted.
February 6, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
Re – your missus:
I couldn’t posibly comment, UKIP Supporter.
As to the online petition business – not a bad idea. Any suggestions as to a good host? I’ve seen a few, but haven’t used any.
Still gathering stuff, though. Some of them could work a bit faster, I must admit. Obviously not self-employed!
Mustn’t let this cool too much! He could be dead from old age, at the rate some of them work!
February 6, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
What about the 10 Downing street webpage to host?
We could get some T-Shirts printed up too, like ‘ban the Geek’ or no Geek’s head not Tony’s.
February 6, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
No. 10 Petition Page:
Yes, UKIP, that thought crossed my mind too the other day. But I’m waiting to hear back from that quarter.
Hopefully it won’t be necessary.
Could be fun to see such T-shirts all over town, eh? Then again there are so many wallies around, they’d print their own, the other way round.
No, if I get confirmation that he has broken the law, the legal route seems to be the way to go.
There are plenty of decent, honest lawyers out there; as I understand it.
Are you linked in any way to this site:
http://moon23.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/looney-blairites-get-a-bit-too-excited-over-geeklawyer/
Go on, be honest. I’ll admit you caught me, if so.
February 6, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
[...] Affairs I’m enjoying a rather humorous flame war that has developed between Geeklawyer and some sado Blarite. I’ve always wondered who these people were who voted for Blair, and now I’ve discovered one of [...]
February 6, 2008 at 6:59 pm |
My goodness. You must have found a fairly good phrasebook. It even sounds a bit like that hybrid between ‘Pairliamo Aberdein’ and true Doric that I know and love so well. But it should have gone a bit more like-
Hi, Scunnert. Fit like, min? Y’ wer’ny ticht fan y’ wir daein’ this, wir ye?. ‘N fit wey ‘r ye sae far frae hame, onyw’y?
If we work on it, we might make a ‘Torry chiel’ of you yet.
A good start, but the bad news is that you’ve still a long way to go, and a lot of work to do, on your SOH. If you’re taking the ‘Daily Star of the UK legal blogging world’ so seriously, does that mean you believe the real Star too? You need to get a life, min.
Meantime, carry on having fun organising the coronation of Emperor Blair.
February 6, 2008 at 7:33 pm |
Friends, Blairites, Countrymen …
Shall we move on from Scunnered?
I don’t recall having a sense of humour by-pass. But it’s a very personal thing, humour. I don’t think talking about killing a public figure is all that smile worthy really.
Perhaps that’s why I’m not a lawyer; or a terrorist.
Anyway, Aberdeen Angus is having a hairy fit in Aberdonian, which is hard enough for southern Scots like myself to grasp, much less the rest of you.
He’s right about one thing though; I need to get my life back. And I was doing very nicely, thank you, cutting down well, controlling the withdrawal symptoms. Until the Little Man started his nonsense.
Just as well I can triple task. Where’s that coffee and fag?
So I imagine it’s goodnight from him. You’re always welcome back, Abie. But no bullying my friends now, y’hear? It’s bad manners as well as a sign of insecurity. They’re sensitive to that. Never been politicians or lawyers, you see. Most of them.
Btw, I’ll see if I can fix you a front seat at corrie day. No weapons mind. We’ll frisk you, and if we find any we’ll accidently point it the wrong way.
Whoops! Did I say something inciteful? Nasty? Glorifying anything inglorious?
Nah.
(Funny enough for you?)
February 7, 2008 at 12:02 am |
and now this twit is saying we’re all homosexualbecause we like blair and therefore blair is homosexual too .whatever is this clown going to come up with next
February 7, 2008 at 12:11 am |
Having a hairy fit? Bullying your friends? Me? Tsk, that would be totally out of character. I’ve never bullied anyone, ever, and I’d certainly never dream of being as bad mannered as, say, sending your friends, or anyone else for that matter, emails calling them morons or other such direct abuse. But I do apologise if I have inadvertently caused some measurable increase in Global Warming.
I poke fun, yes, but I’ll concede that I may be at some social disadvantage in being able to both laugh at myself and take as good as I give, insofar as that clearly seems not to be an ability that can be practised by many, or one which commands widespread common acceptance.
Was your response funny enough for me? hmmm, so so. Improving.
I did laugh at the offer of the corrie seat, but I think I’ll pass. There will be too many hard-core professionals wanting their place on that front row, to waste it on a mere pussycat such as me.
Oddly enough, I’d actually originally had in mind to politely suggest that you sold the corrie tickets via Anarchists Anonymous, on the basis that they’d be sure to go down a bomb. I reckoned, though, that you’d be up to finding some way of defusing that in a manner that would turn it into some sort of damp squib, so I’d passed that one by
However, as you ‘don’t think talking about killing a public figure is all that smile worthy really’, let me give you another recent example of that sort of humour to see if it might just help you to perceive that there really is a funny side to everything.
There’s an interesting article on the wildly imagined elimination of a major, albeit deadbeat, politician, that you should read. It includes the line ‘So just in case of the worst scenario, I am advised that this handy kit is just the thing for really deading the undead’.
Has a nice matching graphic, complete with instructions for sourcing the weaponry, and a cute audio visual accompaniment too, even if it’s a bit tame by current Jihadist standards
source is here
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/brown-the-undead-government/
Have a read. While it seems to be tongue in cheek, who knows what impressionable 19 year Guardian Reader out there might be tempted to stake his claim for immortality in following it through.
And here’s hoping you can at least see the funny side to that.
Sleep tight….:)
February 7, 2008 at 12:58 am |
Hello Margaret,
Yes, we have fun, don’t we?!
Well, some of us. Though not quite up to Geeky’s Hot Spot.
;0(
February 7, 2008 at 1:15 am |
Yir a right wee stoater, Scunnered! You are, so you are.
Looks like you got me there, Your Honourableness.
That’s me in court with Geeksy now.
No, I did laugh. I honestly did. Almost smart for you chaps.
Almost.
[And yes I think there is a funny side to MOST things. But not death, nor incitement to kill, nor glorifying a terrorist organisation. Don't know why that should be, really. And I think I could defend MY page in court, even against your Aberdonian SoH.
At no time did I overtly say, "why don't you useless Satan worshipping (terrorist-type) twits show us your gumption and hammer the stake home while the (present) PM's having his day time snooze? And if you do we'll be so relieved that we'll forget you're all just as bad as him. In fact we'll probably elect you next time."]
I think my tongue in cheek is clearly discernible here. It’s a million times lighter than Geek’s proposition. Especially since vampires don’t exist.
Al Qaeda do … last time I saw them training kids.
February 7, 2008 at 8:33 am |
I’m staggered; I wonder what pains you people more – the fact that TB is no longer PM or the fact that TB is a Barrister, a member of the same Inn of Court as GB and that , as I’ve stated earlier, they’re both lunching together and having a bloody good laugh at your expense.
I dont believe my post was abusive, though I will admit to finding your fanatical attitude to Blair a bit disturbing; I don’t suppose, in your eyes that he isn’t responsible for at least part of the nations present woes, the War in Iraq notwithstanding. You really do have the attitude of a Cult, you know.
February 7, 2008 at 11:51 am |
Morning kika or UKIP or Aberdeen Angus or Geeks or whoever.
Are you all Geeksie in disguise? We can’t be sure as you seem to take great pride in your various (dis)guises. Ooohhh, clever stuff eh? Get the wigs off, chaps!
I’m speaking on behalf of myself.
You people can’t avoid ridiculing others for their views. You’re doing it right now. It’s amazing how much damning ‘evidence’ you’ve managed to amass in two short paragraphs.
The tactics & points you seem to be making above:
1. ACCUSATION - People who admire Blair are cultists or fanatics, and think he can do no wrong, therefore they are UNRELIABLE WITNESSES.
2. COUNTER-CLAIM - Blair supporters all have it in for the legal profession, therefore ULTERIOR MOTIVES.
3. DISMISSAL & DENIAL - Blair & Geeks are the best of mates really, (Your Honour). Blair Supporter & Friends just don’t underSTAND life’s intricacies. MALICE NOT AFORETHOUGHT.
4. CULTURAL & INTELLECTUAL HIGH GROUND/SNOBBERY - Failure to recognise, understand, respect or apply basic standards of courtesy or even the rights of others to their own democratic opinions if they clash with yours. Particularly evident in GL & cohorts’ elegant & flippant dismissal of others as beneath their ‘intellectual’ level, viz the replies to Sam & Stan Rosenthal at Geek’s little watering hole (a particularly virulent one from someone called kika, as I recall) . Your ‘liberal’ principles in action? OPPONENTS ARE THE UNDESERVING IGNORANT.
5. MORAL EQUIVALENCE - Blair, the ‘Evil One’, (oh and now prospering nicely thank you), is fully deserving of all that’s coming to him, however weakly packaged & delivered or under whichever guise. THE UNDESERVING MORALLY BANKRUPT RICH.
I have no general disregard for legal people. Several of my best friends, some of the most caring & and honest people I know, are in your profession. YOUR particular crowd has got to be the exception that proves the rule. The juvenile writings at The Other Place are beneath contempt (though one or two of the submissions CAN force a studenty kind of smile, to be fair).
I have always said that I don’t KNOW whether there were any goings on going on, behind the seats of power. And there might have been. I hope he and Bush and other world leaders didn’t just sit over a coffee and bemoan the general state of the world. As someone said at GL’s place – might even have been you, kika – politics is complex. But perhaps YOU, rather than Sam, are the one who needs to educate yourself a little more as to its complexities. The facile “it’s all an international conspiracy” fallback is inadequate, whether right or wrong. That’s part of the complexities.
It’s a counsel of despair to dercy ALL sides as equally morally in the same boat. WE should work out, given complexities, who is on OUR side. As far as I can recall, our governments and authorities do NOT train children in terror, nor lock up barristers for rationally arguing a point of view.
That’s why we elect politicians in democracies. To try to resolve conflicts at home and internationally. Not, as it seems with your friends, so that if and when they fall for grace, we can fill them full of holes, metaphorically and/or literally, for disappointing us. Or encourage others so to do.
February 7, 2008 at 11:55 am |
Dear Blairite person,
How do your square this view:
“If there is one HUGE difference between our culture and that of some others, it’s that we are free to laugh at everything, including our religions, without fear of being ’smote down’, AND, without the need to kill someone else for “blaspheming”.”
With your desire to get GL prosecuted for making a joke about Islamic extremist killing Blair?
Do you not think that by introducing these terror laws we at risk of losing the liberty which we are trying to protect?
You should read some Nietzche, least you become to much of a monster..
“He who fights against monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster in the process. And when you stare persistently into an abyss, the abyss also stares into you”
February 7, 2008 at 12:42 pm |
Kika, you are obviously so consumed with your fanatical hatred of Blair that any attack on the man (however loathsome) is considered to be perfectly acceptable whilst the kind of reasoned defence of the man that appears on this excellent site is regarded as deranged.
If anyone needs a reality check I think it is you!
February 7, 2008 at 12:54 pm |
Do you really expect intelligent people to respect you when you are running around implying we should bring back capital punishment for people who make jokes about Blair being assassinated?
Blair and Bush conspired to go to war, and being two different countries it’s international. There is no ’secret conspiracy’, it’s just what they did. People conspire about things all the time, to suggest that world leaders wouldn’t is laughable. Blair and Bush are in many people’s eyes (including a great many in the legal profession) war criminals and deserve everything coming to them.
Blair has created a cult of the personality around himself, basing his arguments on such whimsical notions such as “I just did what I thought was right”. Bypassing parliamentary democracy with media spin masters etc. What he has done is basically created a crappy presidential style of governance which favors style over substance.
If we elect politicians to resolve conflict as you suggest, isn’t there then quite a strong case for ’shooting holes’ in Blair seeing as he took us into a war and helped increase the terrorist threat?
February 7, 2008 at 12:55 pm |
I think a fanatical hatered of Blair is rather reasonble.
February 7, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
‘Not, as it seems with your friends, so that if and when they fall for grace, we can fill them full of holes, metaphorically and/or literally, for disappointing us. Or encourage others so to do’
I’m disappointed. I thought that you had seen that your own stake holding in this regard. Anyway, to move on;
‘You people can’t avoid ridiculing others for their views. You’re doing it right now. It’s amazing how much damning ‘evidence’ you’ve managed to amass in two short paragraphs’
Think of adverse comments and challenges more as the modern day equivalent of the art of heckling. And think how much worse it would be if you were actually on your hind legs at Speakers Corner. You’re lucky this is so civilised. If this grieves you, have a look at the American equivalents. You’re getting a very gentle ride.
As to ‘At no time did I overtly say’. The rather worrying type of ‘impressionable 19 year olds’ who might act on what you wrote can as readily act on an implicit instruction as an explicit one. You might make the Daily Mail yet….something like ‘Distraught Mother blames son’s Garlic Addiction on Blair Supporting Fanatic’
On a brighter note, people who do act seriously on blog content seem reasonably rare.
France still exists. http://calvinists4brownback.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/why-we-must-nuke-france/
No-one has yet destroyed our door-bells
http://calvinists4brownback.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/demonwatch-doorbells/
although i am beginning to wonder if the future of donkeys is safe
If no-one, who already has TB at the top of their list of ‘assassinations to be done today as encouraged by loony Jihadist websites’, has managed to do the evil deed so far, then I think you can be fairly safe that this Geeklawyers limited readership are unlikely to seriously rise up in response to his sarcasm.
TB reclining at table in Lincoln’s Inn, steak knife prominent, saying ‘Et tu, Geek?’, while rather amusing in concept, is extremely unlikely.
Hopefully, that might even tease out another ’studenty smile’
February 7, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
Hello moon23,
So it was a JOKE, was it?
And I hadn’t notice his reference to THAT element of his denunciation.
That’s different.
Only it isn’t. And it wasn’t.
You only need to read the rest of his bitter rantings against Tony Blair to conclude that in GL’s opinion, hell fire and eternal damnation, or the secular equivalent, are too good for him.
THAT’S GL’s starting point. And in airing his “joke”, he forgets the law.
Worrying when barristers forget the law.
It’s against the Terror Act 2006 to incite terrorism and to glorify terrorism. That’s my interpretation of the Act. What’s yours?
And it seems to me and others who have engaged here that, in the absence of this aside, GL is dealing in both incitement of and glorification of terror.
If he’d written – “by the way, this ‘kill Blair’ stuff I’ve written is only a figure of speech. I really wish him a long and happy life, much as I don’t think he’s the greatest thing since sushi” – that qualification would have put a different complexion on his comments, imho.
But we cannot avoid being left with the impression that the fool WOULD be content, at least, to see this assassination.
He, you and others who bemoan our ‘loss of freedoms’ (which I haven’t noticed yet, but that’s another argument) are so consumed by your Fight For Our Rights that you have missed the fact that the world is moving on, that threats are multi-faceted and have multiplied and that the law must keep up with it. You’ve missed the fact that many of us consider it unwise to continue to allow slippage in our behaviour vis-a-vis tolerating standards of behaviour versus upholding previously established ‘civil rights’. Those earlier civil right boundaries have needed revisiting for some years.
The Terror Act 2006 was NOT set up to ‘catch’ people like GL (who should have been ahead of the game anyway), but for ALL of us to be protected from political and legal rejectionists.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060011_en_1
As to the squaring the view point – freedom to laugh at religion V prosecuting GL:
This is fig leaf to cover a multitude of failings, and I don’t accept they are all Blair’s, though some may be attributable to him as the leading political figure over the last ten years in Britain.
I was referring to how our culture differs from Islamic culture as seen in many lands – Iran, Saudi Arabia, for example. Sadly we are in no position to demand that ALL Islamic peoples accept our liberal tolerant democracy models, but neither should we by force or misguided toreance of the intolerant, allow theirs to be imported into our country. A joke’s a joke after all!
Interesting, on the lunchtime news to hear Rowan Williams. the Archbishop of Canterbury no less, saying that we should accept Sharia Law and incorporate it into our judicial system. That’s what he said, folks. No wonder Blair’s a catholic!
All about the good Mullah … er Archbishop:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Williams
Got your Khoran handy, moon23? Down to the mosque for bainwashing … er … training.
Oh and night classes for Arabic first, of course.
You understand that there is no recognition of democracy so there will be no White Book for the lawyers to thumb through? You understand you will need to refer to the Khoran to see what Mohammed and/or Allah said about, for example, divorce proceedings? Got the four or is it five(?) ‘brothers’ lined up to support the woman saying she was raped by the fifth (sixth) brother? They all saw it, of course, as required, by Sharia; and stood by and did bugger all.
Reliable witnesses all. IF you can find them.
My desire here is not “… to get GL prosecuted for making a joke about Islamic extremist killing Blair?”
It’s for breaking the law.
Hard to understand?
You asked:
“Do you not think that by introducing these terror laws we at risk of losing the liberty which we are trying to protect?”
I can see this argument, but it depends on whether you think the threat is real, serious and urgent enough. I am willing to give up certain liberties in defence of my, and my country’s freedom. And I know some refer to the thin end of the wedge argument, and we need to guard against that. I don’t lightly dismiss the idea that we cannot and will never be able to take back any ‘rights’ we decide in a less explosive time, that we consider we have lost along the way, by whomsoever’s hand.
As for Nietzsche, well, we can all philosophise. Politicians have to act in the here and now.
I hope I am not becoming a monster. I don’t think so. I do not have extreme views in any direction as far as I know. But if I do turn out to have unleashed the prospect of an abyss opening up before us, I don’t imagine it’ll be quite as deep or far-reaching as the rather selfish and inward looking libertarian one some seem to dress up in human & civil right arguments.
February 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
O Dear, Stan,
You really do have the wrong end of the stick, dont you? I don’t actually HATE Tony Blair – in fact, I was quite encouraged by his appointment following John Smith’s untimely death; but, as the years wore on, he became wrapped up in his own spin, and the country has suffered as a result. Consequently, I find him disappointing; if you cannot tolerate even that which passes for a little criticism of Mr Blair then I would fully suggest that it is you that has the problem, not me; you are the one whipped up into a frenzy of fundementalism when you resort to insult and to name calling; it seems to me, then, that you have lost any reasoned argument you may care to tender; indeed, if your reasoned “argument” was at all reasoned( though I fail to see where in this thread you have actually posted any kind of reasoned defence rather than defame others) you would, at the very least have sat down and attempted to counter what I have to say, rather than succumb to noisy bombast and rhetoric.
February 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
I find it startling that you should quite so easily dismiss philosophy as something abstract and not relevant to politics. I suppose it is symptomatic of the reactionary and aesthetically focused politics that people like Blair have helped. It’s this sort of lack of education which allowed Bush and Blair to stretch Thomas Aquinas’ Just War’ theory to include pre-emptive self defense. I don’t mean to come across as someone aloof and unable to grasp the threat but I sometimes think a bit of philosophical and historical knowledge helps to frame things in the right perspective.
Yes there is a terrorist threat, but throughout history there have always been these types of threats. Islamic extremism is really a bit of a pathetic joke, did you not pick that up nuance in GL’s post?
The reaction that Blair, Bush and his supporters such as yourself have to the threat plays straight into the terrorists hands. Far better to laugh at them and carry on living our lives as normal.
Honestly it’s not that I don’t appreciate the threats, I just think you illiberal attitude is actually making them worse. Like you I find Islamic extremism repellent, but creating things like the Terrorism Act only helps put their views on the political agenda.
I find the notion that the rule of law is so important that we need to enforce unjust laws abhorrent. If you were black and living in 1950s southern America would you follow the law and sit at the back of the bus?
February 7, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
Do I sense a lawyerly conspiratorial pact to tie me up in arguments so distracting me from other things? Perchance? Possibly?
Chat later.
Bit busy right now.
February 7, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
Oh, and coinccidentally, Mr KeepTonyBlairForPM,
I am truly staggered that you can draw out so much hidden meaning from a post of mine which lasts approximately ten lines…….
February 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
Quite right, it must be a busy lifestyle supporting Blair, I should imagine the giant statue of him you are working on in your shed alone takes up many hours each day. Of course then there are all those pro Blair leaflets to deliver, time spent scouring the internet for blogs that offend the dear leader and that’s before you even have a chance to catch any of his many public lectures or book signings. Christ I’m surprised you have time to sleep.
I’d hate to distract you any further, and now you have rumbled the lawyer conspiracy that has been working against you it’s time to say fair cop and hold my hands up.
February 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
Well now – looks like support is fizzling out at the geeks, with the exception of this pontificating time waster 23 or whoever it is.
And perhaps kika might make a brave attempt to try and understand that no-one who comments here is under any obligation to respond back to her/his pathetic begging questions.
Fact is Kika mate, Geeko has said what he’s said, if it’s actionable prepare for action, right?
If you’re geeks big buddy I’d start backing off now if I were you, before the proverbial hits the fan.
Now ‘go away’ or words to that effect – get it?.
February 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
I seem to have sent you my most recent post under the wrong nom d’plume. How quaint. Please feel free to correct it as you wish
‘Not, as it seems with your friends, so that if and when they fall for grace, we can fill them full of holes, metaphorically and/or literally, for disappointing us. Or encourage others so to do’
I’m disappointed. I thought that you had seen that your own stake holding in this regard. Anyway, to move on;
‘You people can’t avoid ridiculing others for their views. You’re doing it right now. It’s amazing how much damning ‘evidence’ you’ve managed to amass in two short paragraphs’
Think of adverse comments and challenges more as the modern day equivalent of the art of heckling. And think how much worse it would be if you were actually on your hind legs at Speakers Corner. You’re lucky this is so civilised. If this grieves you, have a look at the American equivalents. You’re getting a very gentle ride.
As to ‘At no time did I overtly say’. The rather worrying type of ‘impressionable 19 year olds’ who might act on what you wrote can as readily act on an implicit instruction as an explicit one. You might make the Daily Mail yet….something like ‘Distraught Mother blames son’s Garlic Addiction on Blair Supporting Fanatic’
On a brighter note, people who do act seriously on blog content seem reasonably rare.
France still exists. http://calvinists4brownback.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/why-we-must-nuke-france/
No-one has yet destroyed our door-bells
http://calvinists4brownback.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/demonwatch-doorbells/
although i am beginning to wonder if the future of donkeys is safe
If no-one, who already has TB at the top of their list of ‘assassinations to be done today as encouraged by loony Jihadist websites’, has managed to do the evil deed so far, then I think you can be fairly safe that this Geeklawyers limited readership are unlikely to seriously rise up in response to his sarcasm.
TB reclining at table in Lincoln’s Inn, steak knife prominent, saying ‘Et tu, Geek?’, while rather amusing in concept, is extremely unlikely.
Hopefully, that might even tease out another ’studenty smile’
February 7, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
You’re a bit hard on 23 and kika James (and there are others equally worthy of your contempt) after all, being capable of pontificating endlessly and whimpering miserably for England is a worthy ambition.
If only we were interested or cared…
Blairsupporter, it’s becoming a crashing bore scrolling past all this rubbish, do us a favour and bin ‘em off!
February 7, 2008 at 6:04 pm |
Begging questions? Strange; I don’t seem to recall eiether begging, or asking questions.As to pathetic, well, I don’t believe I need comment. Others are perfectly capable of envincing that particular insult entirely on their own……
February 7, 2008 at 6:05 pm |
Oh, and BTW James, I am a woman, and most certainly not your mate. Are you threatening me?
February 7, 2008 at 6:11 pm |
Don’t rise to kika, James. They’re looking for a counter-claim.
February 7, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
Again with the insults Sam. You really cannot master the art of argument, and to be honest, your Rhetoric now rather bores me. your posts are completely irrational
If you truly werent interested and truly didnt care, you wouldnt respond to my posts in such a salubrious fashion.
By way of departure, may I suggest that you visit the following link.
It really speaks volumes about the attitude of the fanatics with too much time on their hands who occupy this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
February 7, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
Sorry Ive been a little busy, folks, to referee here.
Try not to get too upset with each other. It’s the principle at hand that’s the issue not how clever we can all be at knocking points off one another.
I’m sure I might even get on with some of Geek’s friends – just as long as we didn’t discuss politics!
Anyway, there are no threats, kika, to you. Some people just took exception to the supercilious tone at Geek’s site and they have allowed themselves to respond in kind.
An easy and tempting thing to do, after all.
February 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm |
Going out soon for the evening, so do have fun in my absence. But I wonder if we’ve got one of them, while they try to get us?
Is Adam a Goner? See this on this Pakistani site:
“PESHAWAR: Following unconfirmed reports of killing of a high-profile al-Qaeda commander Abu Laith al-Libi, there are now rumours that an American al-Qaeda militant Adam Gadahn, also known as Azzam al-Amriki, had been killed in the alleged Predator attack by the US on a house in Mirali, North Waziristan, a few days back.
32-year-old Adam Gadahn, who is American citizen belonging to southern California, has been accused by the US of praising the perpetrators of September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington and attending al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistani tribal areas.
According to sources, American officials who are yet to publicly confirm the killing of Abu Laith al-Libi, had reportedly sharing information with western media that most likely another most wanted figure, Adam Gadahn, has also been killed in the air strike by the CIA-operated unmanned drone on a house in Khushali Torikhel village near Mirali town.
According to sources, the American al-Qaeda militant, who has been reportedly spending much of his time in Afghanistan and Pakistani tribal areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, had reached Mirali for an important meeting with other senior al-Qaeda commanders for planning the so-called spring offensive against US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.”
Don’t know if it’s accurate, though.
And, it seems, Abu Hamza is to be extradited to the USA. Good news. They’re not quite dhimmi over there yet.
So. What do you legal guys and gals think about the Good Archbishop’s thoughts on Sharia Law, then?
Inevitable?
Give us, please, your considered judgements.
But don’t consider it TOO long, just in case the rules leave you behind.
February 7, 2008 at 8:14 pm |
I’ve read the whole of the AB’s paper. The reporting of this seems to have been a bit selective and provocative. What he says seems eminently reasonable when taken in its totality. I was going to quote sections but you would be better off reading it all without getting bits potentially taken out of context. It can be found at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_02_08_islam.pdf
February 8, 2008 at 2:12 am |
Moving this comment to its own page.
………………………………………………….
Ah, convinced are we, Scunnered?
I think not. Not, that is, unless deconstructing the Good Archbishop’s multi-argument sentences proved too much for you. Always a possibility, but I think you’re wearing your Devil’s Advocate hat again. Suits you, btw.
Thank you for the pdf. I had a quick look and when my head hit the keyboard for the third time, I thought I’d finish it off with some speed reading. Not always the best idea with this kind of polemic, but I got the gist. And the gist is simple:
To paraphrase the Archbishop -
continued here …..
February 8, 2008 at 2:44 am |
the idea that blair is taking away our liberty to protect it is a very peculiar argument as he was not the first pm to do so. winston churchill took away habeus corpus in the 2nd world war and there is nothing so fundamental to our civil liberties as that. and if blair is a war criminal by sending troops into iraq causing civilians to be murdered by terrorists then so is harold wilson for sending troops into ireland which also caused many civilians to die by the hands of terrorists. Isn’t it enough that blair has sacrificed his freedom for his country? enough without wanting to kill him? because of the security he must have he has to have someone with him wherever he goes for the rest of his life. these days even a killer comes to the end of his sentence but blair won’t. isn’t that sufficient without hounding him forever?
February 8, 2008 at 4:14 am |
Margaret. The problem isn’t that ‘blair has sacrificed his freedom for his country’. It’s that he’s sacrificing my freedom in my country. And it’s got bog all to do with terrorism or Al-Qapone. I’d be rude if I could bring myself to be. I’m deeply sorry for you, you seem to have no grasp at all of what that man and his ilk have done, and continue to do, to destroy our liberties and those of our children.
MrKeepTonyinaPaddedCellPlease. I have a confession to make. I am not a lawyer. I have nothing whatsoever to do with Geeky, or the legal profession. Any of his mates reading my stuff must have sussed that by now, I’m sure.
I just came across his site by chance and found you from that hilarious diatribe he had there. I am merely in-between work roles and having some spare time on my hands, have been trolling round some of the whackier parts of the great interwebthingie.
I have had some fun joining in. I thought this might be a parody, like the xxx4brownbacks sites seem to be, and where adding to the general mayhem is enormously entertaining.
Your general terseness did have me wondering though, but it was your exposition of the AB’s paper has led me to conclude that this cannot possibly be a joke, as your analysis and summary is surely too awful for you to not really mean it. As I doubt if you and your devotees would survive my sense of humour much longer (I think Sam/Samantha?, to keep it simple, has had enough), I shall bow out as gracefully as I can
Meantime, thank you for what I now see was maybe patience and forbearance. If you are indeed a lowlander Scot, well, it wasn’t bad for one who’s a mere Sassenach. Work hard on the humour, it was improving, but I’d suggest you give up on the Doric, which wasn’t.
Have fun with the Witch Blair Project. Resurrection is a really hard trick to pull off. Maybe you could contact Houdini and see if he can give you some tips? But remember, if you really do get that man back here with any sort of power, even if dead, I shall come back and haunt you. So make sure you have the garlic by the door and your stake armed and ready. (Can you please have lots of the former, as I just love the stuff? I’ll scrounge some of TB’s teflon to cope with the twig)
Au revoir…well, or maybe not, as the case may be…:)
February 8, 2008 at 9:41 am |
Oh Abie – you’re going? I feel … well … kind of bereft! ‘Missing’ is not the word.
For those still interested, I’m moving my thoughts on the Good Archbishop to another place now. It’s so ‘awful’, it deserves its own padded cell, don’t you think? Some solitary maybe? Like some of the rest of us?
I bet you won’t be able to stay away from this awful place, Abie.
;0)
It CAN get addictive, some say.
Btw, you’re not RW really are you, AB?
February 8, 2008 at 11:42 am |
Margaret, just because other people have in the past taken away our civil liberties, it does not follow that it’s ok for Blair or Brown to do it. This is such a paper think straw man argument you’re laying against civil liberties advocates. I’ve never meet a civil liberties activists who thinks that Blair’s crack down on civil liberties is a unique social phenomena. In fact in order to recognize the patterns in cultural/social behavior that leads one to this conclusion, I would have thought it was a prerequisite to have studied at least a rudimentary amount of politics, history and philosophy.
There have been a number of leaders who throughout history sought to take away the freedoms of people in order to provide what they thought was increased security. I think Blair honestly thinks he was doing the ‘right thing’ but that makes him even more dangerous as he is wrong. At least a leader who fabricates threats to society to enforce his own control is somewhat rationale, unlike Blair and Bush who are actually deluded.
Blair hasn’t sacrificed anything; he’s made a shit load of money and got the power his ego has always craved. I really think he loved being PM and doing his job. If he lived an ascetic life style then your claim might have more credence, but he’s hardly the reluctant leader type is he.
Of course being able to pontificate is a great skill, you may not like my views, but hey at least I’m engaged and passionate about what is going on around me.
At first I thought you were joking when you said you were going to report GL for crimes under the terrorism act. The thought that you would want to lock up a fellow citizens for making a joke on his private blog actually scares me if it’s true. I really thought that people were more tolerant in this country, and that we valued freedom of speech. I know see more than ever how fragile our freedoms are and how close this country is to falling into the abyss of totalitarianism that caused so much harm in the last century.
Hopefully some of you will re-consider your position and realize that you’ve overreacted. Yea there are threats to the UK, but don’t blow them out of proportion, and don’t turn on your fellow countrymen. I know it’s the harder thing to do to allow people a right to speak when you disagree with them, but banning speech and expression will only cause a great deal more harm.
February 8, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Blair is the first person to attack our civil liberties. I thought people in this country were more tolerant and I find your desire to get this Lawyer prosecuted pretty pathetic. In my eyes you are as bad as the Islamic extremist who want ban all humor that mocks the prophet. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
February 8, 2008 at 9:29 pm |
to moon 23 yes there is freedom of speech in this country but with that comes the responsibility of using it and having somone to murder someone else is going beyond that responsibility. by all means disagree with blair but trying to murder him is going down a dangerous path and is taking away our freedoms not protecting or using them. and as for taking away our civil liberties scunnered if he had you wouldn’t be able to say what you have. trying to advocate the murder of someone is no joke and some idiot will try and do what this bloke says. this is the end. not only blair die or be injured but so could other people who just happen to be there
February 8, 2008 at 11:10 pm |
moon23 …..”for making a joke on his private blog”….??
Explain – ‘private blog’
February 8, 2008 at 11:17 pm |
Exactly, Santha.
Good point.
I’ve yet to find one like that, unless it’s password-controlled, which GL’s clearly isn’t.
Let’s see how moon23 explains it. They’ve sure enough got me scratching my head on this one.
February 9, 2008 at 1:49 am |
While we await the no doubt erudite explanation from moon23 as to what exactly constitutes a “private” blog on the worldwide web (a contradiction in terms?) – can I offer this advice to him and his friends?
When you are in a hole, throw that spade away.
I will confess to choking back an occasional ‘microphlegm’ of reluctance in some matters; and I’ve always been in favour of free speech, as have all of us, presumably.
But with free speech comes, or should come, responsibility.
So I’ve been thinking …
Hang on a minute …
… I’ll have to come back to this tomorrow, when I’ve slept on it. I think we all deserve that.
February 9, 2008 at 3:56 am |
i’ve just been on the telegraph site and someone called daz is calling for someone to assasinate blair this thing is snowballing and that,s the problem
February 9, 2008 at 4:05 am |
Margaret have you read Geeklawyer’s blog, other than the post that “keeptonyblairforpm” first mentioned? GL is ranting and expressing his frustrations with Blair & co. His entire blog has a distinctly satirical tinge to it. He doesn’t actually mean for anyone to murder Blair, It’s meant to be very firmly tongue-in-cheek as there are individuals who believe that Blair and his cohort in Washington have excaserbated the issues with regards to “the war on terror” and that by their actions (both Blair and Shrub) have helped to support the propaganda being disseminated in the Middle East by Al Quaida.
February 9, 2008 at 10:50 am |
Margaret is referring to a comment by “Daz” at this article at The Telegraph.
………………………………………………………..
Would Tony Blair make a good EU President?
“Blair is a war criminal, a liar and a traitor. I hope & pray for the day when someone assassinates him. This b****** has always had one eye on the EU presidency from years back. It was a stitch up from the start – he sold our country down the river to those effing Eurocrats in return for a gurantee & a fat fee to be the first EU president. NEVER in my life have I despised any politician more than I do Blair (and that’s saying something!)
Posted by Daz on February 6, 2008 8:48 AM”
………………………………………………………..
Sadly typical of those who have a deep detestation of the man, but not in the same category as GL’s call to Al Qaeda to murder him and the re-assessment we grateful Brits would heap on the worthy killers if they succeeded.
Daz said what he hoped and prayed for. We can all hope and pray for all sorts of things.
Me? For sanity, humanity and balance to return to public discourse on politics and politicians.
A vain hope, I know.
My advice, for what it’s worth –
Know your enemy. Only then will you better recognise your friend.
The enemy is not the EU.
February 9, 2008 at 11:34 am |
I take you point that a Blog on the net isn’t private, what I was trying to get across that as adults we have a choice to read a blog or not read it. It’s not like GL’s blog is read by thousands and thousands of people every week or published in a national newspaper. It’s read by people who understand the difference between satire and promoting terrorism. If you read it for longer than I’m sure your would realize that it’s meant to be satirical.
He doesn’t call for Blair to be ‘murdered’ he says: “Why oh why oh why oh why can’t the useless rag-head pillocks in Al Queda assassinate him? It would be great PR for them: many of us would revise our low opinion of them if they could do us this one small service. Their ineptness is proof that the terrorism ‘threat’ is laughable.”
This is obviously meant to be humorous. He calls the terrorists rag-head pillocks so it is quite clear he doesn’t actually support them. Saying it would be great PR is again a satirical point that highlights the fact that many people don’t like blair.
I know GL and he wouldn’t actually want anyone killed. Yea maybe is humor is sometimes in bad taste, but that’s the point of it. I’m sure Islamic people think some of the Danish cartoons are in bad taste too, but in a liberal society shouldn’t we be allowed to make such jokes?
I just think you are overreacting a bit. There are plenty of genuine terrorist threats out there and the anti-terror police and the bar council have better things to do with their time than waste it investigating this blog.
February 9, 2008 at 12:12 pm |
Really?
February 9, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
Btw, have any of you heard Any Questions on Radio 4 today? The Any Answers comments reflect the country’s thoughts. And mine, for once! Is the embedded, naive Left at the Beeb finally in danger of “getting” the message?
Thank you so much, Archbishop.
They wouldn’t listen to the former PM, but they’re listening to you.
A propos the slippery slope many of us see in future years -read this:
Wonder how many wives some of the blinkered have?
And for those of you who fancy a bit of bedtime reading, here’s a reminder of the Archbishop’s speech in full.
February 9, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
to mary yes i have read the blog in whole from his website as well as other things on this site too so i can see what kind of man he is. but advocating someone’s murder however much you detest them is no joke and a barrister or lawyer should have more sense. you might see it as humourous. i don’t i see it as dangerous but others might construe that is what he seriously might want and try to carry it out. that’s the point and danger. with freedom of speech comes responsibility and he has acted irresponsibly puting the whole of that freedom in peril.
February 9, 2008 at 9:48 pm |
More from geek.
His latest blog entry urges his readers to sign a petition to “Stop Blair getting the EU Presidency”. In agonising despair and frustration he states that TB……”betrayed the interests of his own country merely so that he could have a lucrative retirement”…..(?!!)
And he appears to be echoing the fatuous sentiments of Stephen Glover of the ‘Mail’ (….. ‘the thought that the foreign policy of this country might have been even partly affected by his future financial needs is deeply troubling’…..)
Oh dear. Some of us may well think … OMG – what is he on? – but nevertheless …
What are we to make of it? We know Glover of the ‘Mail’ is such a political ‘authority’ (yeah right) that his risible column about TB has been hilariously, (and we like that), rubbished in Private Eye, and by any normal person who may have had the misfortune to come across it.
We know from moon 23 that geek doesn’t get ‘thousands’ of readers. So not too many signatories from his quarter, then?
We know from Mary that geek is ’satirical’ and ‘tongue in cheek’.
We know from ‘other geek supporters’(?) – No, can’t be bovvered.
Conclusion – the geek’s ‘sign the petition’ is just another of his tongue in cheek satiricals isn’t it, and he doesn’t mean for anyone to sign at all – it’s just one of his many year on year jokes!
The truth is he really – yes really, rates TB and wants him to get that Presidency! So folks, whatever you do – DO NOT sign that petition – ignore it – it’s a geeky joke. Isn’t it?
February 11, 2008 at 10:10 am |
People make jokes about killing people all the time. It doesn’t mean that people will actually go out and do it.
There is a computer game called counter strike that is very popular where you can play as ‘terrorists’ or ‘counter terrorists’. I hardly think that people who play this game then go out and commit terrorist atrocities!
It’s a joke on the internet on a blog. Most of us know that you get more ludicrous statements and jokes on blogs because they are often not widely read. If GL was making this statement as a Barrister in a National newspaper then you might have a point, but he was making it under a pretend name of Geeklawyer on his own blog.
There are Islamic extremist websites out there encouraging people to commit terrorist offenses. These laws are meant to stop these people. Reporting comedians to the police wastes their time. I hope you get a warning for wasting police time and resources that could be working to stop terrorists.
February 11, 2008 at 10:20 am |
True, moon23. Some people make these kinds of ‘jokes’ all the time. I don’t suggest that Geek himself was about to have a go. But, imho, it’s incitement to less well-balanced individuals and/or the brainwashed. And, of course there’s the question of ‘glorification’.
A propos my earlier e-mail I’ve slept on things re free speech – for a couple of days. With the benefit of that, and with the furore over the Archbishop’s unwise words, I … erm …
February 11, 2008 at 11:24 am |
As I said before I don’t think calling terrorists rag-head pillocks is ‘glorifying’ them. Possibly someone who is really unbalanced or a bit mad may act on something he has said, but honestly if someone is that unbalanced or nutty then there are loads of things which might set them off. I mean watching Rambo or Richard and Judy could equally set someone like this off.
Look you obviously care passionately about this which is not a bad thing, but other people react to things in a different way. GL makes inappropriate jokes about everything, you think its bad reading his blog, try going to a restaurant with him! It’s a bit like the episode of Faulty Towers with the Germans…. Some people make jokes about terrorism because humor is the way in which they deal with things and react to them.
The point is that some of us find him very funny and amusing, and others find it offensive.
Attacking people who make jokes like this doesn’t help the ‘fight against terrorism’ it just reinforces the notion that the anti-terror laws are illiberal. If this got into the papers then there would be a huge public backlash against the law. When the terrorism act as brought in many comedians were worried it might impact on their material and the government gave assurances that it would not be used in this matter.
Yes GL has taken the piss, it’s what he does. Christ he takes the piss out of me enough! Just have a joke back at him and put him down, but don’t go running off to authorities which are busy dealing with an actual terrorist threat.
February 11, 2008 at 11:43 am |
A commenter here has just informed me that Geek’s site is unavailable. Perhaps he’s seen the light! Or perhaps someone else has.
We’ll see.
Anyway, I’ll update you all as to my part in this at a later stage, if his site and words of ‘jocular’ wisdom have actually been relegated to the great electronic cesspit.
February 11, 2008 at 1:04 pm |
moon23……”When the terrorism act as brought in many comedians were worried it might impact on their material”….
Hmmmm, just trying to remember which comedian has joked about ragheads and assassinations recently, and no – I can’t think of one. But perhaps you can point me in the direction of those who have?
I think it’s mostly ‘the material’ of on-line extremists, brain dead idiots or arrogant lawyers all hiding their real identity huh? Such an intellectual crowd for the likes of you to be associated with moon. And as you rightly say, geek is hardly going to demean TB under his own name and in the Telegraph, when he can ‘joke’ about him on an unidentifiable blog.
It seems to me that there’s too much explaining and back peddling happening here, and I’m suspecting that moon and geek are the same person.
..”relegated to the great electronic cesspit?”… let’s hope so.
February 11, 2008 at 1:20 pm |
It’s nice to see how much you value free speech. You could really end up regretting this.
February 11, 2008 at 1:37 pm |
Keeptonyblairforpm doesn’t post under his real name either. Not many people do on the internet.
I hardly think a mainstream comedian is going to joke about ragheads in the mass media. Talk about career suicide.
You can hope that GLs site gets taken offline as you seemed to have achieved but you can’t stop people saying what they want or thinking what they want.
In the end ignorant bigots like you never get your way.
Tony Blair is relegated to the political scrap heap, and every day more people are turning against your way of thinking.
PS There is no way GL is the same person as me, he doesn’t think there is any point in trying to reason with you.
February 11, 2008 at 1:41 pm |
anyway i’ve said that all that i’m going to say. I know you disagree with me, but hopefully you can at least respect the fact that i’ve stoped joking and actually tried reasoning with you sensibly.
I’m not going to keep on about it anymore.
I just think it’s a shame you are trying to stop people saying what they want and hope that you never have to face the same censorship of your views.
February 11, 2008 at 1:46 pm |
Hello Mr Smith,
Some may interpret your words as a threat. I don’t. I just think you honestly feel that by GL’s internet demise (he will rise again, I’m sure) I have given the green light to internet censorship and stopping free speech. You won’t be surprised to know I don’t agree.
This is not my full response to what seems to have happened today (I’ll do that later), but suffice it to say, that if his site has been removed it may simply be because GL has broken the letter of the law on two counts. Many break the spirit every day. But the letter of the law? Well it’s the first time I have come across this.
Others seem to agree.
Compared to having charges laid against him, as the viral nature of the internet spreads our words far and wide, this loss will be something he can cope with.
February 11, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
How dare the defenders of this dangerous clown claim any sort of moral high ground on this matter! Free speech never encompassed the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, for a joke. Nor should it encompass the right to call for the assassination of an ex-Prime Minister in the charged atmosphere of today’s politics, even if that call is made in jest.
If the GL site has indeed been closed down this is a blow not against civil liberties but against arrogant hooray henries with a seriously warped sense of humour. It is also a huge victory for common decency.
February 11, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
I don’t think launching DDOS attacks is a victory of common decency.
February 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
Mr Smith.
Who am I to advise, but perhaps it is unwise to accuse without proof. Personally I had to look up the meaning of ‘DDOS’, so am in no position to carry out this kind of thing. I wouldn’t dream of it anyway.
For the purposes of clarity to my readers, DDOS means “distributed denial of service attack” as described here at wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack
Pasted here:
__________________________________________________________
A denial-of-service attack (DoS attack) or distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS attack) is an attempt to make a computer resource unavailable to its intended users. Although the means to, motives for, and targets of a DoS attack may vary, it generally consists of the concerted, malevolent efforts of a person or persons to prevent an Internet site or service from functioning efficiently or at all, temporarily or indefinitely.
Perpetrators of DoS attacks typically target sites or services hosted on high-profile web servers such as banks, credit card payment gateways, and even DNS root servers.
One common method of attack involves saturating the target (victim) machine with external communications requests, such that it cannot respond to legitimate traffic, or responds so slowly as to be rendered effectively unavailable. In general terms, DoS attacks are implemented by:
forcing the targeted computer(s) to reset, or consume its resources so that it can no longer provide its intended service; or,
obstructing the communication media between the intended users and the victim so that they can no longer communicate adequately.
Denial-of-service attacks are considered violations of the IAB’s Internet proper use policy. They also commonly constitute violations of the laws of individual nations.
__________________________________________________________
Of course, there ARE other means through which a host site may cease supporting a site.
Are you people completely unable to admit when you have made a bad call?
February 11, 2008 at 5:48 pm |
[...] 11, 2008, 5:48 pm Filed under: Current Affairs It’s sad to see that the associated goons at the keeptonyblairforpm have seen fit to launch a DDOS attack against Geeklawyer’s blog. The illogical mistake that some [...]
February 11, 2008 at 5:56 pm |
There are other ways of shutting down a site. There is evidence that a DDOS attack has been launched on Geek Lawyer’s site and the culprit has been traced. They are being asked nicely to stop the attack or else GLs supporters will take action against them.
February 11, 2008 at 7:59 pm |
Oh well, if THEY are being asked nicely, I suppose Geek’s worthy writings will soon be seen by the world again, including the offending post.
But “asked nicely”? Are you sure GL’s supporters know what that means?
Btw, no-one’s asked me yet.
February 11, 2008 at 8:42 pm |
Pathetic. Haven’t you people got anything better to do with your time than put a gag on the free speech that is inherent upon the internet? Why dont you try launching attacks on those sites that truly glorify terrorism and are hell bent on making all its horrors a reality?
Oh I’m sorry, I forgot; planting kisses on Tony Blairs Bony Arse is infinately more important; it is, after all so much more important than free speech……
February 11, 2008 at 10:02 pm |
Hi
I’d thought I’d let you all know I have a temporary blog up: http://geeklawyer.wordpress.com I have done this so that so that you can continue to read my occasional musings on sleazy Tony and more interesting legal matters.
As I am rather busy earning nearly as much money as sleazy Tony defending terrorists and paedophiles I have little time to fix what I’m told is a very poor DOS attack, though I will get around to it soon I hope.
Some points to note: I am not moon23 or this Daz fellow though he seems decent from what you say. In all the breathless and panty soiling outrage here some simple errors of semantic analysis seem to have been perpetrated. Not, perhaps, terribly surprising given the mouthbreathers who are attacking me here. But at no point has anyone provided a cogent explanation of why my words were supposed to incite the murder of Tony Bliar. My non-lawyer friend Moon23 put it correctly and I’d suggest you re-read it.
I do of course very much wish that someone somewhere someday kills Blair. It is wrong, and the only error of Moon23, to suggest that. The same however applies to many other politicians – Retarded George for example, Micheal Howard and Margaret Thatcher: but I reserve a special bile for Slimy Tony. I am, howeverk not inciting it or encouraging it, nor would I assist or cooperate in it – but I am saying it would be a great thing to happen. Merely to say I hope this happens is not to arrange or cause it to happen – unless one is King John perhaps.
To say “why can’t [terrorists] kill Tony Blair?” is not the same as “please, *someone* kill Tony Blair” The difference is not that subtle for anyone with an IQ higher than a carrot: not least because of the context in which it is written which is manifestly a rant. Not least because despite being Al Queda’s main supporter, financier and founding member I have no influence over them. You see, foolishly I lost Osama’s email address some time ago; we used to chat on IRC all the time about the old days: the booze & whores – you know, the usual.
To be able to lose sight of these pivotal points seems to reflect the chronic stupidly of the lowing herd that represents the mercifully few devotees of this child’s notebook masquerading as a blog.
In fact it doesn’t seem to have occurred to BlairSyccophant that half the posts here are piss takes written by myself and fans of my blog. Even with that stunning news the tard won’t be able to figure out which ones.
PIp pip
GL
February 11, 2008 at 10:31 pm |
Well howdy from America again,
Could someone please give me an actual situation where TB has taken away your liberty? You see, we have this group in the US called the American Civil Liberties Union. I can tell you of specific cases where the ACLU has taken away the rights (through the courts) of old veterans and taken away homes from elderly people that have actually lived in the home for generations. They have taken the Ten Commandments out of the school rooms and actually had concrete religious things taken away from Government buildings. Now, this was not the government doing these things, it was, yes the ACLU. The ACLU is made up of liberal lawyers. They have made small towns in America go almost bankrupt from fighting them in the courts. One town had to fight for the right to have a Nativity scene in front of their small little courthouse. This particular Nativity scene in this little town had been going on for over 100 years. It was a tradition. You must be very careful of people that are supposed to represent your civil liberties. They may turn out to be wolves in sheep’s clothing.
So, ok. Give me an instance where TB has actually, personally affected you. Be specific. Think now.
February 11, 2008 at 10:36 pm |
Dear keeptonyblairforpm – I’m Australian and generally like to see a bloke put his money where his mouth is and show he’s not a gutless wonder. And I think what you did re the attack is absolutely gutless. I would rather have seen you respond with argument. You’ve closed down free speech the very thing your beloved Tony would never do.
Sorry but I find it disappointing and utterly spineless to resort to silencing someone because you can’t win.
You have done your cause a disservice.
regard
Ms R
February 11, 2008 at 10:52 pm |
Dear MrKeepTonyBlairInaMuseumPrettyPlease
While I really had no intention of returning, other than to have the odd chuckle to myself, I’ll resurrect myself for a last comment
This is not my really not my fight, merely one I seem to have come across as I traverse the great Pavement of Life. However, if it is true, as it appears to be, that you and/or your supporters are pursuing this Geek bloke for what he wrote, then you do seem to be indulging in pot/kettle hypocrisy on a monumental scale. If your supporters are not aware of this, let me explain why.
Let’s look at what you’ve said on your public blog. As source references, I have inserted your blog pages titles and relevant quotes from each as appropriate
You know, perfectly well, all about the sort of strident banter that is quite normal on line.
The Guardian Cif-ers and other such:
‘when they will temporarily shelve their anti-capital punishment principles and draw lots to decide which of them can have the honour of meting out to Blair his just deserts…Ah, the fools…..ARE THEY ALL FUNDAMENTALIST TERRORISTS?……I mean, how are we supposed to take these people seriously? …They can’t ALL be Islamist terrorists? …Surely not’
Conspiracy Theorists Conspire To Halt Our Free Speech!:
‘And of course, the naysayers LIE. They lie while banging on about ‘lying’ politicians. The difference is that not a few bloggers advocate stringing up politicians for THEIR ‘lies’.
About The Little Bloggers
‘Amazing, when you think of the junk that appears on Staines’ website with information from “sources” damning all and sundry for every sin imaginable. And when people on his blog call, for instance, for the public execution of political figures, there is no suggestion that THEY are inciting others to violence or treason. Libel is more threatening it seems’
Well, unless you actually did do something about them, you clearly didn’t take them seriously, did you?. And when it seems that you actually did do something, insofar as you commented on CiF, you were taken as seriously as had the comments deleted, which seems to say more about a lack of understanding about what you can say than anything else.
You seem quite happy to dish out insults yourself when it suits. Time is limited, so this will have to do
Closing ‘Tony Blair’ Blog: Cold Turkey Time:
‘Next leader? Harriet Harman – NO NO NO!!! The wicked witch of the left.’
You say you have no time for people making fun of other’s proposed death. Your site is riddled with similar humour.
There’s the example I quoted above, which I was happy to make a joke of at the time. Here’s some more, though
Coup – Brown: “Nuffink to do wiv me, Guv”
‘How to kill the leader, and get away with it Or, as translated from one colloquial to another: “Whit, ME? Ah didnae dae it! Honest, constable. Never touched ‘im! Goat any proof? That’s no’ ma knife, by the way, by the way!”
In other words, now that Mr Blair has been successfully removed, even if it takes some time to carry him out of Downing Street, he who will be obeyed (the guy … knifer next door), has spoken! Hear and watch him here, if you must……I hang on your every word, chancellor, as should you!’
Hang, should Mr Brown, then?
Closing ‘Tony Blair’ Blog: Cold Turkey Time:
‘But was he now a member of the undead, fated to be around for eternity, or at least until somebody (can’t imagine who) puts the wooden stake in?’
Someone should shaft Brown’s heart then?
2007, 2008 & “Britain out to Kill Putin” tales:
‘These ’senior figures’ should have presented the glass of Glenkillmeoff to Brown instead……He certainly needs it now. Cheers, Gordon. Doon the hatch.’
Poisoning Mr Brown’s drink is OK, then?
None of this is as ‘in your face’ as the comment you seem to have taken exception to, but there is an argument that it’s more insidious for that, in that the obviously ironic and satirical is usually brash and up front. Some of your own diatribe is far more subtle and less obviously clear as to its intent. It’s actually more easy to misinterpret
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t for a moment believe that you personally intended to encourage anyone to do any of these things. But if you are complaining about others writing in similar vein, and that they might be impressionable enough to act on it, it’s sheer bloody minded hypocrisy in the context of some of your own writing.
And I do trust that this helps Stan ‘the man’ Rosenthal come to some clarity that, if he has no sympathy with the Geeky bloke, given his stance in his post today, to quote…
‘Free speech never encompassed the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, for a joke. Nor should it encompass the right to call for the assassination of an ex-Prime Minister in the charged atmosphere of today’s politics, even if that call is made in jest’
….then he should definitely be having no truck with you either. If he has not seen these, I expect to see him condemn you roundly.
Should he not, then he, like yourself, must be making some well hidden distinction between the jokes that Blair Supporters can make and the jokes that other people are allowed to make
Then there is your other, potentially hidden, agenda. You are quite clear that you would restrict the rights of people to say as they think, in keeping with the lead of the Brothers Blair and Brown. For example
Conspiracy Theorists Conspire To Halt Our Free Speech!:
‘After the mess the press made of ‘leaked information’ in the discredited loans for honours fiasco, and their adding up two and two to make five, I begin to think we really DO need to clamp down on the press’s free speech’…….There are so many people out there just waiting for “authoratitive” ‘facts’ – which are in reality at best interpretation and often simply opinion, that it’s becoming dangerous, in my humble opinion…………Unfortunately the long and the short of it is that the conspiracy tendency seems to be a consequence of a ‘mature’ (if that’s the right word) democracy and its attendant freedom of expression
Mr Blair may famously have been of the ‘have to get the little one to switch the computer on for me” mindset, but by February this year the MOD had finally understood that the feral press and rampant bloggers had damned the PM and the MOD and the government as the biggest threats to mankind since – well the last biggest!……..And of course, the naysayers LIE. They lie while banging on about ‘lying’ politicians. The difference is that not a few bloggers advocate stringing up politicians for THEIR ‘lies’. The blogger meanwhile, can say what he likes when he likes without sanction. “Free speech” an’ all that!………..I prefer a democracy to the Anarchist Rule of the Little Bloggers!
Now that the day of the close, trusted, political, assertive spin doctor seems to be over – [Alastair Campbell - you too are history (!) ] – they had all better get up to speed on today’s medium. The internet will be up in arms against you too soon, Mr GB/PM. Perhaps sooner than you think…….It’s The Internet Stoopid!
And from the same blog:
‘Still, this website comes to its own warped and self-serving conclusions and states:…“To paraphrase another serial killer, George W. Bush, if we can’t bring Tony Blair to justice, we must bring justice to Tony Blair.”…..This sentence concerns me greatly. What exactly does it mean?……It’s easy to interpret that statement as a threat to the Prime Minister’s security…..Or is he simply referring to making a “citizen’s arrest” on the PM? If so, why does the writer not attempt to carry out this “arrest”? I think he should clarify the intent behind his words……In view of the fact that the original writer’s letter is linked to an American site which boasts the most “content plagiarised” on the net can we expect that this threat or/and incitement is being spread around the world. Why? Since his words could be intrepreted in more than one way, this kind of inference and freedom to interpret would surely not be permitted to happen in newspapers. Is a lower standard acceptable online?
• Do the British Police recognise the potential seriousness of this?
• Are they making their own inquiries as to intent.
• Or are they acting on this as a “threat” NOW?
• If so, are they closing down such webites? Perhaps they should be.’
So, ‘this kind of inference and freedom to interpret would surely not be permitted to happen in newspapers’? Have you seen the trash written in the last couple of days in the MSM about the Archbishop’s speech? How naïve are you?
Anyway, as we see, being willing to chill, or support the chilling of, other people’s freedom of expression, seems to be right up your street
So, might this restriction in freedom be limited to a maintenance of your particular version of the truth, and the selling of that to the gullible masses as the one true way? You do seem to have such aspirations to such megalomania.
Absurd Islamists – Victims – Radical Extremists – Loopy Civil Righters?:
‘At a relaxed and enjoyable garden party a few days ago I witnessed first hand the effects of the all-pervasive nature of the press’s campaign against Bush, Blair and the British government. (This government, by the way, in which Brown was a VERY high profile mover.)…..Almost to a man and woman, they were convinced Blair is a liar, a war criminal and a war- monger. Oh, and of course 9/11 was an inside job! Bush might be worse even than Blair, only he is not as bright, said they…..These are NOT stupid gullible people. They are people I respect and consider friends.
Fortunately, for this small group there was light at the end of the tunnel. In all modesty – me.’
Really? So you are BlairSupporter, Superhero, Light of the World and the Saviour of Mankind from itself?
Look, I’m sure that you are probably a nice enough bloke. Being nice, however, doesn’t mean that you have any self-awareness and isn’t proof of omniscience or infallibility and you don’t seem to have these in any measure whatsoever
Others might agree that you completely lack any semblance of proper judgment. I haven’t time to go into how you seem to think you know better than Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, former Chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee. People can read up on that nonsense up if they.
This, though, is a classic.
How Would Sharia Law Deal With The Archbishop’s Criticism?
‘But it comes to something when the Head of the Worldwide Anglican community genuflects to a semi-primitive set of uncodified, or badly codified mumbo-jumbo evolved to satisfy Mullah This or Imam That in Islamic State This or … well you know the restWith the greatest respect, it’s absolute rubbish, Archbishop.
[Re-thinking the above - WITHOUT the greatest respect.]
THIS, Sir, and not Tony Blair’s ’sell-out to Christian Europe’, nor his struggle against religious/political fundamentalism, is TREACHERY.’
So, that’s your conclusion about what he wrote? It’s no more representative of what he wrote than, as my old mum would have said, fly in the air. And consequently, from that, it follows that the Archbishop is guilty of Treason? That’s fairly strong, isn’t it? Actionable? Maybe, I couldn’t tell you. But I’m sure that, as a good Christian, he’ll probably turn the other cheek. Reasonable? No, especially as it’s founded on an analysis which is so much rubbish and which makes a ‘Treachery’ conclusion somewhat akin to barking mad. And before you wrote that, you had the gall to say
UK Barrister Urges Al Qaeda to “Assassinate Tony Blair:
‘But with free speech comes, or should come, responsibility’
To put ‘Treachery’ forward to people, on a ‘public blog’, as what anyone in their right mind would reach as the logical conclusion from what the Archbishop said is, frankly, disingenuous. And to try and take in the sort of people who read your blog with that is downright irresponsible
If that’s what you come to from the Archbishop’s paper, it’s no wonder you can’t read other people’s material without coming to a conclusion that would insult the combined intellectual capacity of the content of a box of frogs. And then, if what I have read is to be believed, have the audacity to make some attempt to disrupt someone’s life, and cause trouble for them, merely for what they wrote because you can’t recognize the irony and satire in it when you see them. That’s utterly pathetic.
‘All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens’. That’s a Wikipedia quote, but easy to find
So the geek chappie said – “Why oh why oh why oh why can’t the useless rag-head pillocks in Al Queda assassinate him? It would be great PR for them: many of us would revise our low opinion of them if they could do us this one small service. Their ineptness is proof that the terrorism ‘threat’ is laughable.”
Get it? Let me help. Blair’s legacy is such that, having fouled up our country through politically misadventures, our civil liberties are now being (really) trashed on the basis that the ((purported) reality of a) resultant terrorist threat is overwhelming and (the incongruity between that threat and what is really happening is that) they can’t even manage to bump off TB.
And you had the cheek to suggest to me it might have been that ‘deconstructing the Good Archbishop’s multi-argument sentences proved too much for you. Always a possibility’.
This IS the last word you’ll hear from me. I’ve not got the time to waste, regardless of how much fun it might be. I’m just not letting you and your devotees away with such nonsense. I don’t know this Geek chap from Adam, but if you are really serious about messing him about on the basis of a piece of flim-flam, then I’m not going to sit on the sidelines without saying something about it .
Your complaining smacks more of a vexatious vindictiveness because someone has taken the proverbial out of your hero, and your hagiographical site, and sent yourself and your supporters off with a well deserved flea in their ear for a mixture of whingeing and being so gullible as take the blessed one at face value
I had been prepared to merely pass on and say, as might Tony, ‘Hey!’, accepting you as some merely rather harmless soul from the odder edges of the net, entitled to put out his views as much as the rest of us; attracting a few hangers on; someone who may be a bit naive and at whom a few people might poke a bit of fun along the way, much as I did, but who will otherwise just fill up the ether with a bit more noise
I’m inclined to think that I was wrong and that really you’re a rather pompous waste of space, with an over-inflated opinion of yourself. And that, as ever, is the most polite version I can muster.
I’ll leave you with the appropriate, jocular, ‘Gleska greetin’ to such as yourself. ‘Awa’ ’n play wi’ a bus’. Oh, and in case you are in any doubt whatsoever, that’s truly black humour.
Please note that should you set your heart on a Darwin Award, and decide to try that, the moral responsibility for doing so in the event of any adverse outcome is all your own, insofar as you would merely be giving a tangible demonstration of suitably qualifying innate stupidity.
On a more serious note, (I aways at least try to take the shovel from people) I do hope you do what is needed to get this sorted sensibly. There’s enough hysterical nonsense about at the moment without the world needing any more
This is going to get posted elsewhere too. I don’t trust you one whit on matters relating to freedom of speech so I want people to see it in un-moderated form elsewhere
February 11, 2008 at 10:56 pm |
But you’ve not yet actually come out and said that you disagree with action such as denial of service attacks, or that if it’s been done in this case you condemn the perpetrators. That’s what Tone would have done. Beause whether or not GL’s comments were illegal, DoS certainly is:
http://www.out-law.com/page-7462
February 11, 2008 at 11:49 pm |
OK, OK – I got the message.
I got Geek comPLETELY wrong. Believed he was a professional. The spelling on the url for his new blog told me the truth:
http://geeklawyer.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/ireprescable-as-ever-geeklawyer-returns/
Though he did have the sense to do a spellcheck before writing the headline.
Be back later – got something to do before midnight.
February 11, 2008 at 11:58 pm |
Good grief. Commentators here are being accused of shutting down the geeks site now. Whatever – yawn.
But he’s revived and back to his joking old self. ;0(
Sorry to tell you smith, kika and discordian, that I had never even heard of DDOS until I read about it here today, and I suspect most other commentators probably hadn’t either. Not as expert as you guys?
As to saturating his site (according to smith) all the comments there were in his favour, so shock horror! perhaps it was you lot that brought him down in your own desperation to keep posting support for his arrogant stupidity.
But I tell you what and for sure, as for me commenting there, I really couldn’t stoop low enough to do that, let alone be part of a ‘conspiracy’ to spoil sad old geeks ‘harmless fun’.
If’s it’s so easy to attack sites ( and it must be simple if you think us ‘associated goons’ are capable of it?) that glorify terrorrism kika, why haven’t you already done it, or tell us how to, and lets all set to and do some good huh?
And, if as you say you know who’s responsible for closing down the geeks site, don’t be shy, come back here ASAP and tell us, just gagging to know.
And kika, I hate to disappoint you, but when I met TB his arse didn’t look that bony to me! In fact….LOL
February 12, 2008 at 12:22 am |
Life is short, and I’m busy. So unlike Abie’s farewell little notelet (!) – I’ll have to keep this short. Will try to reply to the deserving in episodes.
Geek, you will find wordpress a great system. For a start it provides a record of the IP addresses of those who visit and comment at a site. NOT, don’t worry, a personal address or anything REALLY private – Blair hasn’t dabbled there yet!
But the end result is that you’ll be able to cross-check – if you can be bothered – for messages under different names yet from the same IP.
So, fooled as to your various pseudonyms? It’s called double-bluffing, Mr Smith.
Piff-piff.
February 12, 2008 at 8:36 am |
Good GRIEF Santha, I am not about to accuse you of launching the DDOS attack on Geeklawyer’s site.
Even I know that you are far too stupid and unsophisticated to mastermind such a campaign.
I am sure that you were greatly relieved, upon meeting Mr Blair, to discover that his Arse was indeed not at all bony, as indicated by the loud LOL at the end of your most recent comment; after all, given that your lips were wrapped around it’s wobbly circumference for the length of that meeting, I am frankly surprised that you don’t own shares in Chapstick……
February 12, 2008 at 9:10 am |
I’m still disappointed in you. I frankly don’t really care about DOS or whatever but it occurs to me a man who believes in all that Tony Blair espouses wouldn’t be behaving like an adolescent boy. The blogosphere is full of people challenging each other and we are supposed to handle it like adults. Goodness me, I have parodied a well known sex blogger viciously and she was very graceful.
Once again I think it is totally lacking in any style let alone masculinity to continue parading yourself and you ability to silence Geek, in the manner of a schoolboy.
Your site is no better as a result. Time to stop I think. I really do.
And you know what, if you’re really as cluey as you think you are, why not have a proper debate with the Geek on line? Let’s be really grown up about this. And don’t say he can’t do it. Just say that you can.
February 12, 2008 at 9:51 am |
[...] with the Blair hater, the infidel they call Geeklawyer The Evil Geeklawyer who called for Dear Tony to be assassinated by the terrorist has moved to a new website. It seems he is ganging together with his so called [...]
February 12, 2008 at 10:49 am |
Dear Santha,
Launching a DDOS is illegal and I wouldn’t tell you or anyone else how to do it. Aside from saying you need to write a few lines of script to bombard a host computer with information so it can’t handle everything. People posting a site couldn’t’ do it unless.
This attack is coming from a specific range of IP addresses which have been located and passed onto the authorities. Ultimately after being investigated this could lead to a prosecution or the person launching the attacks being banned from the system they are using. Whoever it is had better hope they covered their tracks very well.
Attacks such as this kind represent harassment and are certainly illegal (unlike Geeklawyer’s satirical comments). If I was Keeptonyblairforpm I’d be saying sorry to Geeklawyer and hoping he continues to find it a fickle amusement rather than something he wants to take serious action against.
February 12, 2008 at 10:59 am |
Just a quickie – I’m rather busy.
I’ll reply fully to this at a later stage – it’s not the quietest week for spare time right now.
But, to those feeling concern over the nonsense coming from the peddlers of rubbish, please understand that some, in their anger and frustration, are issuing lies and damned lies, threats and empty threats.
February 12, 2008 at 12:02 pm |
[...] fans spread vicious lies about me Evil Geeklawyer fans such as John Smith accuse me of launching a DDOS attack! I mean honestly how low these people will go to slur the name of honest Tony fans. Ha I knew John [...]
February 12, 2008 at 12:12 pm |
WARNING! One of these Geekie types has cloned my site, and is posing as me complaining about their lies.
It’s not me, folks.
You can tell it’s not me anyway. There’s no content, just a copy of one page.
You can see by looking at the url in the address box, that their usual trademark is present – inability to spell. Even Blair’s name – and you might expect they’ve had plenty of time to get that right!
If you find it, don’t contribute there.
They are posting comments here at my genuine blog. I won’t be publishing their advertising junk, of course.
February 12, 2008 at 12:26 pm |
Geekie should be spelt Geeky.
February 12, 2008 at 12:29 pm |
STAGGERING paranoia, KTB4PM, to say nothing of Vanity, Puff, Bombast and Self Importance. Don’t flatter yourself. A site full of hypocrites is not frankly worth the effort it takes to copy; you’ve probably been “busy” doing that yourself. What a cheap and tired stunt……..
February 12, 2008 at 12:37 pm |
Geekie or Geeky – you should know, Mr Smith.
And to kika – well, I have the IP address of the cloned page writer.
February 12, 2008 at 12:53 pm |
Wow. Scary.
February 12, 2008 at 1:02 pm |
Not shared with you to “scare”, just to inform
February 12, 2008 at 1:41 pm |
As if someone would bother to clone your site! I don’t even reckon it actually exists this site you are talking about.
February 12, 2008 at 1:44 pm |
A ploy to get me to reveal it, MR SMITH? You must think I was born yesterday. It’ll wither through lack of traffic.
February 12, 2008 at 1:56 pm |
What do you mean ploy? It’s very convenient that you’re hiding it from us, makes me suspect that what Kika says is true and that you are making it up.
How did you find out about it then? Is it on Geeklawyer’s new site or something?
February 12, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
No, Mr Smith. Someone (very helpfully) sent it to me in a comment, as I think you know. With every comment comes an IP address, which can be cross-referenced against others received. I set my comments to be moderated before posting. Thus I can decide who I want to publish.
February 12, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
You could still just be making this up, we don’t have any evidence of this so called clone site.
February 12, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
Just thought I’d let my readers know what sort of people we are dealing with. I have just had several attempts to change the password at my site. I wonder why and by whom – certainly not me.
February 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
The cloned site does exist Mr Smith, but because the readers and owners of this of this site are so terrified of parody were I to give out the URL as part of this post I would either A/ see this comment banned forthwith by the thought police, or B/ see myself bieng reported to my university for daring to express an opinion regarding the Great God Blair( all bow)
February 12, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
Can you not please allow someone to post a link to this clone site, it sounds like a good bit of fun. Sorry to hear someone has been messing with your password. I shouldn’t worry though wordpress is very secure.
Imagine how Geeklawyer must feel with his site down still from a DOS attack.
I’m going to try and find it on google, you said Blair was spelt wrong. How did they spell it?
February 12, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
BTW you update about DOS attacks at the top is a load of toss. Anyone who knows how to write a few lines of scripts can launch one of these. They happen to all kinds of sites all the time.
February 12, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
Kika – You are right in that there is a strong element of paranoia – emanating from ‘your side’
Perhaps it might be a good idea for you and your associates to stub out those funny fags (bad for mental health as we grownups know) wake up your ideas, and address the reality that if people here are – according to you, too stupid to close down geek’s site – who did, and why?
Who is cloning KTB4PM and why?
Soooo intriguing, and don’t I just wish that you were taking computer studies so you could explain it all to me hmm?
Btw, Chapstick? Is it subsidised lippy sold in the Uni canteen next to the crates of cheap beer?
Oooops! Just a little joke kika, don’t go off on one again – that’s what you like isn’t it – a little joke, like you keep enjoying at the geeks?
And ladyrobinson, I have to admit that I’m devastated that I’ll never be able to aspire to the intellectual heights of discourse with the likes of a ‘graceful sex blogger’
Obviously I’m delighted on your behalf that you didn’t miss that important milestone in your blogging career pathway, and (regretful sigh) as for me, I’ll just have to resign myself to living with that lost opportunity.
As for suggesting BS debate with geek, isn’t that what’s happening right now, he’s ‘debating’ the lot of you, slogging it out comment by comment, pour encourager les autres, as you intellectuals love to say, and we gasp in admiration.
Not trying to bring the site down are you? ;0)
And for goodness sake – reading some of the faux indignant splutterings posted does just makes one think of that well known adage about urination and conflagration – sorry to have to say that, but ….
.
February 12, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
Dear me, they really are pathetic aren’t they? Setting up fake websites and the like. Scum.
Hopefully Geeklawyer will be held to account for his heinous acts. One things for sure – he’ll receive a fairer trial than his beloved Saddam or the Taleban accorded any of their victims.
February 12, 2008 at 10:37 pm |
O Dear – More rambling diatribe from Santha, none of which is particularly worth the time or the effort of reasoned response.
After such a post, I have come to the conclusion that its “adults” on this site that give the appearence of smoking far too much of the Wacky Baccy….
February 12, 2008 at 10:42 pm |
PS, Santha: my suggestion that you are a share holder in Chapstick PLC seems somehow apt as, to borrow your own words, both of you are “subisdised lippy next to the cheap beer.”.
A truly nauseating combination, to be sure.
February 12, 2008 at 11:31 pm |
My Dear Blair Fan,
I am worried that you might have misunderstood our friend Geek. He is liable to rant and is not the most diplomatic of men, even when sober.
Perhaps this is why he fell out with Mr Bin Laden and they are no longer speaking. I gather Geek was unsuccessful in securing him royalties from CNN and Osama refused to pay his legal fees.
This was some provocation, but feel it was unwise of Geek to attempt to trademark Al Qaeda in retaliation.
Rest assured that Geek is no threat to Tony .The security forces have nothing to fear from him , unless they are foolish enough to engage his services.
February 13, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
Priceless comment at Geeks new site …….(TB) “is in point of fact a failed barrister who had to do something with his life just to keep up with Cherie”…..
He’s right. Being the Prime Minister for 10 years, leader of the Labour party for what was it, 13 years? and devoting his life to politics is not damn well good enough.
We demand more and better of him!
Here’s an idea. Let’s start a petition.
It could be titled “Tony Blair for President”
Ha! that’ll teach the unsuccessful sod.
February 14, 2008 at 10:34 am |
Ha, I’ve just found the spoof site. It really is rather funny. Have you heard back from the authorities yet? I’m sure cracking down on satirical blogs is top on their agenda of dangerous terror activities that need stamping out.
February 14, 2008 at 2:12 pm |
At least Blair’s failures were on a far grander scale as PM than they ever would have been as a bog standard practising barrister.
I suppose the fact that the country is in a politically correct and impotent mess is the real measure of a successful sod……
February 14, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
Lowering educational standards to allow 50% more students to get to University has had some unfortunate repercussions as we know. To illustrate the point, at Geeky chambers big words beginning with S are so baffling, (ie. Sam, Simple Sam and Stan) that the confused lawyer and his twittering champions assume they are talking to me. Thrilling for them and entertaining for us to read I suppose.
February 14, 2008 at 11:06 pm |
My dear Bloodbrother in honoring Tony Blair,
I was just musing about the admirable manners of the British. As heated as these conversations have become and as mean-spirited as they are, you have tried to maintain some sense of dignity. Good for you.
Margaret and I will surely keep on praying.
Speaking of manners, I just received a letter from a member of the Royal Family. It is a note to thank me for supporting your troops. I am simply in awe of this letter. The wonder of it all!
What this all comes down to is love. Some of us choose to love our countries, support our leaders, support our troops and some of us choose to hate. I’m so glad that you and I are not in the latter category.
God Bless you,
Arlene
February 14, 2008 at 11:38 pm |
Hello Arlene,
Thanks for this. You must have been doing something very noble to have received a letter from that quarter. I know an American commenting here some time ago said that she had sent four or five parcels to the British troops to say thank you.
It might have been you. Forgive me if I have forgotten exactly who.
It’s such a thoughtful thing to do, and I wish we did it here. If it WAS you, perhaps word has got back to the royal family of your many thoughts and selfless actions. Some of them, at least, seem to have an understanding of why our governments have been doing what they have been doing in international relations. If they did NOT understand – as with the press who long ago decided they know best about all questions of war and peace – I’d be more concerned about the future of our country and western civilization in general.
I try to remain calm despite now and again boiling up inside over the cynical and all but treacherous approach of those whose first instinct is to oppose our own governments, civilization and progress. They can never ever imagine that diffficult decisions made by “inhuman” politicians could just, possibly, have been made for the right reasons.
We’re accused by the immatures who follow The Geek – Geekites, I suppose – of “love” with regard to Tony Blair. They confuse, (or aim to), love with admiration and respect.
I suppose since the only “love” many of them seem to know, if their rantings are anything to go by, is of the compulsive physical type, we shouldn’t expect they’d understand anything motivated by greater causes.
Let the Geeks of this world mock if it keeps them off their other compulsion.
Oops … just heard a ten week-old cry from the room next door. Gotta go. He needs my love.
February 15, 2008 at 4:02 am |
to arlene of course i,ll keep on prayingand i hope you do the same
February 15, 2008 at 4:10 am |
some of us use our brains to understand the problems of today and not just take for granted what the press says as fact. BY THE WAY I WAS TALKING TO A TAXI DRIVER last night who doesn’t particularly like blair but even he thinks inciting murder is wrong even though it might be a joke. so there are some anti blair who do agree with us pro blairs that some people have taken their hatred of blair too far.
February 15, 2008 at 4:15 am |
perhaps some people don’t understand our love and respect for blair because in their own lives they have what they think is love only for it to be infatuation so they cannot recognise love in other people
February 15, 2008 at 11:47 am |
… ahh, I see! What then, if anything, do you propose we do about the “problems of the world today” (other than nominating Mr Blair for every office conceivable) other than rain down accusations of emotional dysfunction on those of us who have not seen or basked in the glorious shaft of light emanting from the Blair Backside?
February 15, 2008 at 12:09 pm |
kika, a little tit-for-tat stuff is going on now. Have you ever tried to read dispassionately some of the comments you and your fellow Geekites make? They really add nothing to what we do about the “problems of the world”.
Some of us can see that Mr Blair did try, and is still trying to help in this direction.
You might do no better than listen to those who are suggesting (RUSI report today) that there is something seriously wrong with our elevation of multi-culturalism as the be-all-and-end-all.
It clearly hasn’t worked.
And if it isn’t working – fix it.
I suppose it’s a bit like Geek’s site. Fixable, surely?
February 15, 2008 at 12:11 pm |
Btw, you might recall that a few days ago I said there was something I had to sleep on. Well, I did. And here it is -
I apologise …
February 15, 2008 at 1:03 pm |
Hi,
It takes a lot to make an apology, so well done for saying it!
People like GL want the same things, e.g. an end to terrorism and world conflict. It’s just that they think there is a different way of achieving it. It’s not just that they hate everything. We just happen to think that Blair’s approach makes things worse. You were bound to get annoyed when you saw GL’s post as it went against what you think the solution is e.g. Blarism.
GL’s humor is very close to the bone, but it is just humor. Thanks for realizing that it should be tolerated. Just as we should respect the fact that your allowed to express your views on the matter.
I tell you what; if you ask your commenter to stop launching the attack on Geek’s site then I’ll ask my commenter to take down the spoof site.
February 15, 2008 at 1:26 pm |
Well Kika, how’s that for a model of what civilised debate should be all about. A recognition that put-downs beget put-downs and an apology where things get out of hand.
Perhaps you and the Geek could do the same, but I’m not holding my breath. You could start though just by refraining from the gross distortions of what this site stands for that litter your comments (and your other handiwork?) .
PS As you will have gathered from this comment I am NOT the other person.
February 15, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
your rhetoric still doesnt answer the questions as to your mannifesto of ” how to fix the world’s problems”. I ask, because I am genuinely curious, not expressing a tit for tat argument. Unless of course, much like Blair himself, you are content to loose your self in smoke, hype and spin, meaning that you have no answers, just as you have no opinions, other than the cultivation of an almost fanatical Worship at the altar of the Blairs.
I point to your farcical correlation of an extraordinarily staid and conservative ( small c, dont panic) of the ” compulsive physical” with those who comment on your blog as evidence of this.
Ultimately then, given that your answer to world problems is merely one of “fix it” ; I would suggest that you have no answers at all .
Sad. Very Sad.
You should be a lawyer you know; you simply arent capable of answering a direct question. Ironic, isnt it?!
February 15, 2008 at 6:36 pm |
moon23. BS has already said that he had no hand in taking down geeks site, and so did I.
Stan would have said if he’d any hand in it, and obviously it was not Margaret or Arlene. Sam sounds like he doesn’t give a damn, and James has only commented about once.
Jenny? unlikely, though they know they are all welcome to come here and verify if they choose.
It wasn’t from here was it? Sense must tell you that.
On your own blog a few days ago you and scunner agreed you didn’t know either, and you even said you thought it may be the authorities.
That’s where I may begin to agree with you that it’s possible. But we can’t be certain, and I still suspect that geek may have been responsible. But if he won’t show the evidence – surely there must have been some sort of message telling him that it was closing? how do we know?
So I don’t think this is sorted.
And what is a commenter?
And btw, you can take down your spoof site if you want, and I’m pleased you’ve admitted you were the one who set it up, but no-one has commented there or been deceived so it’s immaterial really what you do about it.
February 15, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
moon23. I wonder if you would ask your commenter, YOUR commenter? does that mean that you are you GL?
Would you ask your commenter if he has any proof that someone who supports TB at this site has tried to do this attack business on GL.
He must have had some kind of notification from whoever was hosting his site, and throwing accusations around is not helpful for peaceful co-existence.
February 15, 2008 at 7:01 pm |
the only way to fight an idea like these islamists is with a better idea like democracy kika. that is why they are fighting us over the world because they know, unlike you that is. the only way they will be beaten and why they don’t like blair is because he was the first leader to advocate it in chicago in 1999 before anyone else realised there was even a problem. it’s now being taken up by most other world leaders and people of influence. but because blair was the first they are terrified of him, knowing that he can beat them especially as he is now middle east envoy.
February 15, 2008 at 10:11 pm |
Are you lot still at it? I really would have expected that you’d have got him inside by now, blairsupporter. Lost your nerve or something?
What are you apologising for? This legal idiot has caused all the trouble by writing the stuff in the first place. And yeh, his site’s been taken down; if you did it, own up. But don’t bloody apologise.
I saw his new site. He’s still abusing people there. He’s a nasty piece of work. No charm, no civilised approach to other people who disagree with him. Just insults. He tries to disarm people with twisted humour. As a lawyer, you’d think they’d want to strike people off who promote killing a politician. Maybe they’ll wait til some kid’s done it, stands up in court and says that Geek Legal Guy said it needed to be done. Apart from that the glorifying of terrorism is something new. Even guidos visitors don’t suggest that.
If you’re giving up bs, I hope you can live with yourself. You saw the signs, started the ball rolling, and gave up after jumping the first hurdle. I know who wouldn’t do that.
February 16, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
[...] followed on 8th February: “update: Some idiot is trying get Geeklawyer prosecuted. Hilarious! Please read the blog, please, it is absolutely frigging hysterical. I’ve never seen a [...]
February 16, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
The geek dumped his own site because he was warned that he’d gone too far and was causing a stink, and on his new blog the original post has disappeared in all that other junk posted there.
If he’d been closed down by any authority he’d have had some sort of warning. The fact he’s never been able to furnish any proof of that in the last couple of weeks shows he’s a liar.
The comments are gone, so have his witterers and whimperers. End of.
February 16, 2008 at 5:49 pm |
Could be, Santha.
So what kind of man would accuse others of a DOS attack, if he has removed the site himself? Weak? Unprincipled? A liar?
The DOS attack, if it ever happened, and I’ve challenged him to show us the proof, could have come from his server responding to complaints from Google or other legal companies advertising on his site.
There are a few impressionable law students who frequent his site. If he had any sense of responsibility, you’d think he’d warn them to be careful of this sort of thing. So obviously he won’t be warning them. Poor innocents. Learning law on the hoof.
Not sure about the warning business. Forewarned is forearmed. And if the host wanted his stuff removed, they would not have given him time to save it.
Luckily, some of us have a touch more foresight.
Anyway, Geekists never admit they’re wrong. Infallibility is their watchword.
February 16, 2008 at 7:24 pm |
Seriously – haven’t you got anything ELSE to obsess about?!
February 16, 2008 at 7:38 pm |
Seriously, lawminx – you ask your friend to admit that he is falsely accusing me or my commenters of a DOS attack. Or if it is not a false accusation, where’s the proof?
Until then, I’ll obsess all I want about dishonest lawyers inciting death to honest politicians, and praising terrorist groups.
February 16, 2008 at 9:52 pm |
Honest politicians?? Is there REALLY such a thing?
February 16, 2008 at 9:58 pm |
I knew THAT remark would bring back an ‘honest’ lawyer or two.
Personally I have known many honest politicians. I believe they are, on the whole, more honest than most people. In fact, again personally, I haven’t known any I’d consider to be dishonest.
Or perhaps I’m contrarian by instinct.
If the average Daily Mail reader believes something is written in stone, I just HAVE to be sceptical.
It must be my ‘mental’ condition. It’s called decontamination syndrome.
February 16, 2008 at 10:16 pm |
Hi, KTBFP
In essence, Lawminx is right. This is an obsession that in many ways has grown to obscure your original issue.
If nothing else I admire your extraordinary energy here. But standing back and looking at your ‘obsession’ (not my words) with GL’s apparent incitement I would only say this: should the police read a handful of political blogs (some that get over half a million hits a year) there will be similar things being said. So I doubt whether our overstretched police will take this seriously when they speak to their own lawyers.
Surely – and it’s only a suggestion – someone who has as much energy as you to write pages of stuff – needs to acknowledge that rather than trying to get people locked up or whatever your best weapon is to write your arguments in a convincing way on as many of these sites as possible. And there are at least a couple of hundred. As you acknowledge yourself, GL’s site is largely populated by friends or interested parties and it seems to me that is a waste of your time, is it not.
As for the DOS attack, well let’s be real here..it was very timely so naturally there would be doubts but – AND think about this – just as you have not accused him in a court of law, neither has he done that to you.
You and I and everyone else knows, the Blogosphere is a strange place.
Now, time for tea.
February 16, 2008 at 10:33 pm |
Anyway, I won’t grace these pages anymore, except to say I’m not a sex blogger to whomever said that.
As we all know, generalisations are bad things.
Good luck KTBFP
February 16, 2008 at 11:22 pm |
Hello theladyrobinson,
My goodness! A civilised comment from a friend of Geek’s. With no abuse. How welcome.
I suppose you mean that I am obsessed with getting GL? Well, no . Not really. Getting an apology would have been something.
If I am ‘obsessed’ by debating with the kind of people who decry Blair as “evil”, and I admit that I wonder myself, it is for this reason:
I admire Tony Blair as a leader and a politician, although I am not a Labour member or even voter. (More grist to GL’s mill on my ‘mental’ state, I suppose.) I think he did a very good job as prime minister, and only ever had the country’s needs in mind. NOT his own, in contrast to what we are constantly told by his enemies.
I believe that Mr Blair has been badly treated by many in this country, mainly the anti-Blair press, who we ‘trust’ to inform us. They have tried him in the court of public opinion and found him guilty of everything and anything. I, and most who visit here, think this is patently WRONG.
I WAS planning to give up the site at the New Year, and was weaning myself off it, as it were. But, sadly, I came across Geek’s site and just HAD to rise to it. If that’s obsession – well, so be it. But I think Geek’s inference that I have a medical condition is a bit of thin ice skating.
It could also be argued that HE is obsessive in his desire for Mr Blair to die – and not of natural causes, but at the hands of sadistic terrorists. He DOES sound rather unbalanced, to be perfectly blunt. And the ‘values’ he is presenting in his hatred for Blair are not British, or Christian, or civilised, or not as we (used to) know them.
Like Geek I have been on the internet for a while – a lot longer than Geek, in fact. But I avoid abusive sites. They’re more suited to Geek’s mentality. Personally I haven’t seen a posting like his. You could be right, and the police might say ‘no thanks’. But it’s a recent law – 2006 – which as I see it is trying to re-balance some standards in this country, and not only amongst youthful AQ material in universities. Our liberal freedoms have been up for grabs for years, and are now playing into the hands of those who wish to abuse them.
Calling for the enemy to kill a leading politician is not only irresponsible, it is EVIL, imho. THAT is a dangerous abuse of free speech and of our liberal democracy.
I didn’t start this little campaign with the intention of getting anyone locked up, nor for them to be discredited within their profession. Unfortunately Geek has a most unpleasant patronising manner, which does not help his position. Dismissing and contemptuously abusing those who disagree with him as more or less beneath consideration is a red rag to some. To some others more than to me; I can handle responding to such as him.
I have written my thoughts on many sites since I first took up this little pastime. And I only once wrote to GL’s old blog – the first comment. I have never commented at his new one, and am unlikely to do so.
I appreciate that you are pouring oil on troubled waters here. But your friend is the one throwing down the gauntlet. He should not so easily dismiss others as cowardly. He could be very wrong.
It’s almost unbelievable that this man is a lawyer.
Geek and I are picking different bones with each other. I think, and I have been advised that it is so, that the Police would be interested in his site. vis-a-vis the Terror Act 2006. The fact that it has now been removed means, perhaps, that they would now be less interested. I understand this. So did GL. That’s why he removed it, imho.
The bone he seems to be picking with me is that I had caused the removal of his website. PATENT RUBBISH! I think he is lying to all of us, and above all to himself.
Resorting to the call for Blair’s murder under great (possibly feigned) outrage regarding war dead (mainly at the hands of their own, as he must know), is a smokesecreen to cause others to compare and contrast. Blair v Geek. Who’re you gonna save?
That kind of disgraceful treatment of those who make the political decisions for our country betrays under contempt for democracy. We don’t hang politicians, literally or metaphorically, because we disagree with them. Nor do we call for the enemy to kill them.
That’s why I’m still obsessing. And if it the 2006 Act has to be tried in the courts to see where our values lie, well, so be it.
Anyway, thanks for writing.
Civilise that guy, please.
February 16, 2008 at 11:27 pm |
Generalisations?
I like this little quote:
“All generalisations are dangerous. Even this one.”
February 17, 2008 at 9:36 am |
KTBFPM
Thank you for replying. Look I still think you have taken the original post out of proportion – indeed I have seen worse things on anti war marches (sorry, I am one of them but no I don’t carry evil placards).
While you are saying you did not organise the DOS attack I can tell you that Geek didn’t either. He was pretty attached to his site and despite what you think is not a coward about keeping his stuff up.
Now, that brings us to someone who was perhaps more outraged than you on your site..and you and I both know that blogs get some strange commenters..even mine. We cannot control what they do and I doubt if they’d tell you what they did. People hide behind their electronic personas.
Personally, I think he’s over the DOS attack since he has a new site but he did like his old one and it was better so I doubt if he’d taken it down. Also he does know his liabilities.
So now we have:
You think TB is wonderful
GL does not like TB
You believe that GL has committed a crime although this is very much a needle in a haystack
GL knows he has not committed a crime
I’d call it impasse
I can’t ‘civilise’ anyone nor would I want to because the GL I know is not the one you know. However I do know he is a lawyer and not as stupid as you think.
So anyway I’ll leave it to you.
regards
Ms R
February 17, 2008 at 11:04 am |
You make your points well, Ms R.
If you don’t mind, I’ll rabbit on a bit here, since I’m pretty sure your friend will take a little peep some time today.
THE DOS BUSINESS
Why doesn’t GL provide us with a copy/edited/pasted job of some little thing to show that he WAS actually DOSed? He must have had SOME notification of this from his host company. Yes, I know he could fabricate this and write it himself, but at the moment most of us on here don’t accept that this has happened at all.
But yes, assuming there was a DOS attack, I have NO idea if someone else has done this. I know I wouldn’t do it, even if I knew how.
FREE SPEECH
GL seems to think that his portrayal of me and others as being against his FREE SPEECH will strike more chords of empathy than my call (that we should not advocate obliquely, OR by innuendo OR directly OR indirectly a politician’s murder by the enemy).
Sadly, imho, GL may be right in this analysis of the values of many people! This ‘loss of freedom’ nonsense has been hyped up by the agenda’d press, and most of our common sense judgement has been suspended too, imho.
He should remember – “First they came for the Jews …”
WHY ARE WE SO AFRAID OF A (TEMPORARY) STEP BACKWARDS?
We seem to be so lacking in confidence of our own values, that we are terrified of slippage in how we balance civil rights/responsibilities.
Why? Do we think ‘once lost – gone forever’?
Our democracy is strong enough to accommodate temporary limits on some freedoms where and when necessary. We are a liberal democracy and we DO vote. If and when the political environment is calmer we can easily reclaim any rights we feel we have lost. Vote out the buggers and elect those who will re-instate what we feel we require. But make the law strong and robust enough to stop evil blighters slipping through the system in the first place.
FREE SPEECH & RESPONSIBILITY
I believe in free speech, of course. But I think today, in particular, it has to be balanced with responsible behaviour. GL thinks it is all right to call for a politician to be killed. He plays semantic games on this, using George Galloway language … “wouldn’t support it, or participate in it …BUT … would welcome it”.
Galloway is a fool. An absolute copper-bottomed idiot. GL does not want to be associated with HIS mindset.
WHY WOULD BLAIR’S ASSASSINATION BE WELCOMED BY GL?
And, btw, I really must ask him WHY he would be so delighted to see Blair killed by terrorists. I can’t think of anyone I’d like to die in this way.
IS IT RETRIBUTION? REVENGE?
GL seems to be calling for retributive justice for Blair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice
Does he call for the same for those he represents or opposes in court? An eye for an eye? No, I thought not.
Sorry but Tony Blair hasn’t got ‘hundreds of thousands’ of lives to lose in retribution. Only one, like the rest of us.
So if GL has his way the terrorists (who share with GL the retribution mindset) will have to do away with the rest of the government and those of us who support Blair to make up the numbers. OK? That’d be fair, eh?
THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF POWER
Has this lawyer any idea about the forces which impact on decision-making in politics? Does he think politicians are all motivated by their own bank balance? Is he on automatic brainwashed mode?
Blair and parliament made decisions on Iraq. The country was over 60% WITH that decision. As the situation dragged on and insurgents started killing Iraqis in great numbers, support was naturally lost. But the leaders are still responsible. If it was right at the start, it is right when it gets harder. We should support those trying to defend our way of life.
GL’s starting point is that he never thought it was right. Tough. Stand for parliament. Show us the colour of your courage, GL. But don’t call for death for our leaders.
MOTIVATION/INTENT/CAUSE & EFFECT
He has convinced himself that Blair personally has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. That again, is just patent nonsense. To say, as he did on my new page, that Blair is more evil than terrorists – because of the numbers involved – is just insane. He does his case no favours here.
Btw, theladyrobinson, I don’t think GL is any more stupid than he thinks I am.
;0)
February 17, 2008 at 1:20 pm |
Hi there ladyrobinson – it was moi who made the cheeky comment about you being a sex blogger. Well, it was in response to what I thought was a rather pompous comment, and if possible I do try to bring a little light relief (!) to fraught situations. So – here I am – hands up and all that.
Nothing for me to add here really, as usual BS has the whole situation under control and certainly doesn’t need the likes of me to join in. I think your friend geek has realised by now that BS is a formidable opponent, and calling him mental and stupid was – well, a stupid response and he needs to do better. Geeks had plenty of intellectual champions like you fighting his corner for him, and all that outrage huh? How dare BS and his band of mouth breathing morons challenge him.
But as you’ve realised, BS – alone – can take you all on and just pish pish you off thanks to his fine brain and amusing anecdotes. Just love it.
I’m so glad I found this site, it’s been an absolute revelation seeing into the real world and arrogant assumptions of the legal profession. The way it’s going I’ll hardly be able to keep up with the copy, paste and distribution.
But it’s really (telling) nice to see you here trying to pour oil on geeks troubled waters, I’m sure he’s desperately grateful.
Anyway, better go now, there’s just about time to pull in a couple of orgasms (won’t take too long, I’m well practiced and know what I like – capiche?) before taking a pre lunch stroll around the garden and paying the groundsmen. ;0)
February 17, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
Once again KTBFPM has shown us how to conduct a civilised and rational debate even with those who are none of these things.
February 17, 2008 at 7:49 pm |
Santha – As well as not being a sex blogger, I’m not a lawyer.
I’m not sure what you’re saying other than gloating but that’s ok.
As for the foreign language refs, well thank you – however I do understand whole posts and not just the odd word in foreign languages.
regards
Ms R
February 17, 2008 at 8:53 pm |
I’m trying, Stan – a statement of mine with which the barrister would happily concur.
February 18, 2008 at 10:47 am |
If GL’s servers have kept logs then their will be evidence of the DOS attack, but it depends on the web hosting company and whether they keep them or not.
Why would GL bother shutting down his own site and starting another one. If as you suggest it’s to get rid of the offending post as he is worried about the authorities then wouldn’t he just delete that post?
Also the police can’t just go around blocking websites unless it goes to court.
I’m not pointing the finger at anyone directly, it’s upto GL investigate who it was. It’s his problem! As far as i’m aware his hosting company are looking into the attack. It would be the mature thing to do to condem the attack though, maybe whoever it is will re-consider their actions.
February 18, 2008 at 12:12 pm |
moon23,
First an apology. Oh, I’m just full of them, aren’t I?
I wanted to e-mail you out of courtesy to explain my “little joke” as regards my earlier apology, since you thought I was apologising to GL. But, sadly, I couldn’t permit you to raise GL’s awareness of my admitted ‘ruse’.
If that was underhand or intentionally misleading, so be it. Par for the course. And it may teach some of us not to jump to conclusions on a few words. The press, in all its omniscience, operates in this way, while washing our brains with THEIR prejudices. Or hadn’t you noticed?
I chose my words carefully.
As to your points today –
1. LOG RECORDS
I assume GL’s previous server had some records as he says they are investigating a range of IP addresses.
2. WHY DID HE NOT JUST DELETE THE OFFENDING POST?
A reasonable question. But I don’t think we are dealing with a reasonable man here. If he had taken down the ‘offending’ post it would have been an admission that he had got it wrong. That it WAS incitement or/and glorification. Much easier, and effective at maintaining HIS integrity and rights to speak his mind, to blame others. And ‘others’ could not take down only one page. Whereas, the evil swines could attack the free speech of a fine upstanding citizen by DOSing! In so doing they’d have proved how right GL was in his condemnation of the man he’d “very much like” AQ to kill. A Police State – The Thought Police … you know the rest.
3. POLICE POWERS ON BLOCKING WEBSITES
I bow to your inside knowledge on this one, moon23. But why not, in this Police State? Hopeless, aren’t they?
;0)
4. CONDEMNING THE “DOS” ATTACK WOULD BE THE “MATURE THING”
The mature thing to do? Are you being serious, moon 23? Or do you accept GL’s pathetic contention that you are dealing with morons here?
The man has posted comments on the worldwide web calling for AQ to do away with the former PM, and saying that we, the British people, would re-think our position on AQ if they did! And not he, nor any one of you, has seen fit to condemn THAT statement, or even to apologise if it was open to misinterpretation.
Yet you are saying here that I should condemn a DOS attack, of which we have NO evidence! Despite requests GL still has posted nothing online to prove his host’s ‘predicament’.
I am expected to apologise for something that is possibly an invention of GL’s brain, to get himself out of a hole!!!
Come on.
Btw, you said in your last comment here:
“I tell you what; if you ask your commenter to stop launching the attack on Geek’s site then I’ll ask my commenter to take down the spoof site.”
YOUR commenter? Oh yes … like talking to yourself moon23?
But why take it down? It’s fun!
February 18, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
I don’t think there is any shame in taking what people say at face value, you wanted to deceive me and you have done. It’s just lowered my opinion of you even more, but I’m sure you don’t care about that.
I’m not going to bother discussing this if that’s who you think it’s ok to behave.
February 18, 2008 at 7:13 pm |
moon23 –
Oops – want the dummy back?
There is no shame at all in taking what people say at face value. I’m accused of it all the time. Gullibility personified that’s me. And now you, it seems.
So sad you’re not going to grace us with your presence any more moon23. But didn’t you say the same thing a while ago?
But before you go, listen, please. Your barrister online acquaintance boasts here that he has been flaming us with aliases, and that I hadn’t realised it.
Is that not deception?
Of course I HAD realised it.
I had warned him on several occasions that all commenters’ IP addresses appear in my admin box. He wrote here in at least one alias, which you might recognise by my reply to that particular alias.
[With IP addresses I don't know people's personal details, of course, unless they choose to reveal them in their e-mail address. And occasionally they accidently trip up and use their REAL name e-mail. I would never reveal that kind of personal information to anyone, unless they intentionally and consistently used that e-mail address with their name attached - e.g. Stan.]
And my “deception” hardly compares with Geek’s upfront words does it? You evidently prefer HIS approach.
My approach threatened no-one; put no-one down; offered no-one encouragement to carry out a barbaric act; did not profess to speak for the whole country; did not disregard the letter or the spirit of the law; and did not try to shift blame elsewhere.
GL has, imho, been bending the truth in this DOS business. If it turns out that he was not DOSed but asked to remove his site by a professional body, or Google, or its advertisers, or some other authority, that will mean that the DOS charge was clearly unfounded and simply fabricated to cover his own pride.
And if he actually removed his site himself because he thought there just might be a tiny possibility that he had been wrong, I’d call that a double deception (towards the rest of us, mainly his supporters.)
But all this is peripheral.
What we’ve been dealing with is a very rude and insulting individual with pretty deranged standards of behaviour, questionable values and a callous approach to the sanctity of life. This latter may be a result of working with some hardened characters in his profession. Who knows? I’m sure he was a gentle baby.
GL failed to recognise that some of us were angry and disturbed by what we saw as his astonishing encouragement of an assassination attempt on the former PM. And we were outraged about the kudos he suggested this event would have given Al Qaeda. And we were furious by his lack of comprehension of the consequences and repercussions of such an eventuality.
I’m sorry to have to say this again – but it’s unbelievable that this man is a lawyer.
Oh and before you go, moon23, have you read GL’s comment on
my latestthis (correction) page (Feb 11th 10:02am) where he says that you were wrong?Geek said: Feb 11th 10:02
In his defence you had suggested that he would not want Blair to die at the hands of terrorists. But he corrects you. He boasts that he would very much wish this to happen, (with a bit of suffering thrown in for good measure in his comment at my latest page.)
Are you sure you are defending the right man here?
Btw, does this rant of GL’s on what he is or is not saying, remind you of anyone? Yes, Gorgeous George Galloway. I have never been known to defend my embarrassingly absurd fellow countryman (GG). BUT at least he did not offer this suggestion of his moral dilemma over informing the authorities if he knew of an assassination plot until he was asked. By Piers Morgan, if I recall correctly.
GL rants for nothing or no-one except his own self-agrandisement. Certainly not on behalf of the Iraqi people, who have never asked him to represent them and who know exactly who is killing them.
And it ain’t the ‘evil Blair’.
February 19, 2008 at 10:45 am |
Yes please, I need that Dummy! Anyway I’ll have one more post then go, more because this is getting tiresome rather than some moral outrage.
It is a possibility that GL has removed the site himself by launching his own DOS attack on it. However I’m sure he also wouldn’t have brought down another site run by a friend who uses the same server space. This person who has nothing to do with GL’s post business is also suffering because of the DOS attack. It is slightly possible that GL is so self-interested that he is prepared to mess up a friend’s site as well as his in some clever double-bluff Dos conspiracy; however I think it is unlikely. You are starting to sound a bit like one of those conspiracy theorists with your explanations of why GLs site is down.
I don’t think GL would be that worried about someone shutting down his site or prosecuting him, after all he is after all a Barrister and knows better than most what is or isn’t legal. If he was that worried about the post, he would hardly come back and boast like he did in the post above, and say I was wrong would he. He actually finds the whole situation rather amusing.
It’s far more likely that someone who reads this blog has been incited by your rant against his post and launched the DOS themselves. People will make up their own minds about why GL’s site is down, but if they know how to monitor the traffic then they can look for themselves and see it is a DOS attack by a few IPs registered to a US company called layeredtech. I won’t reveal them though as I wouldn’t want someone taking matters into their own hands and reversing the attack.
February 19, 2008 at 11:15 am |
Sorry to hear that another person’s site has been affected by this outage.
I don’t suggest that GL DOSed his own site. To get it offline all he needed to do was save it to his hard drive, so that he could pick and choose what he wants to re-publish at a later date on any new site, and then press the “delete blog” button.
Of course you have a point. That in itself should not delete the other person’s blog; well not unless the other blog was affiliated in some way under GL’s blog.
Sorry if I sound conspiratorial. I’m not normally into conspiracies, but I’ve found that I need to get into the mindset of my opponents to be understood.
You may well be right and someone has DOSed him. But he knows it didn’t come from here, if he tracks IP addresses, which he says he does.
And you are also right that this man has no compunction about repeating death ‘calls’. Though wishing and hoping are not, arguably, ‘calling’ as such, when put to the semantics test the legal system uses.
I know you say the above comment is your one last go – but if you can stand it why don’t you come back and tell us what you think of someone who seems to disagree with you, his faithful servants, who tried to tell us he was “only joking”. He admits he wasn’t. He says he meant it. Every word. The man is full of personal hatred and bile which he wraps up in a faux indignation for the poor Iraqi people, imho.
He’s wrong and dangerously brainwashed. His approach is eerily similar to the 5 year-old whose father, convicted yesterday of the plot to behead a British Muslim soldier, indoctrinated the child: “Who do you kill?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/19/uksecurity.ukcrime1
All the above techie stuff on layeredtech is beyond my field of expertise.
GL, on the other hand, thinks he knows a lot of things “better than most”.
February 19, 2008 at 12:36 pm |
Ok… I think that where as I was trying to reason with you on his behalf, he thought it was funny and wants to wind you up.
Lot’s of people wish Tony Blair was dead, he is after all responsible for war crimes.
February 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm |
How foolish, moon23.
YOU and such biased ignoramouses as Geek have elevated your little selves to the powerful position of deciding who has and who hasn’t committed war crimes, without a trial.
You lot are an absolute disgrace!
In this country, until Geek and his like infiltrated their way into the legal system, we don’t DECIDE that people are guilty of anything until it is proven in a court of law. Our system is evidence based and the evidence has not and will not be presented in any court.
Your eminent friend, who is fond of applying semantics in his own case in the interpretation of the law, needs to school himself in the interpretation of international law before he decides that Blair is guilty, and spreads that lie far and wide.
FIRST – a charge
SECOND – a trial
THIRD – a conviction
FOURTH – a punishment
This charge will never be made to begin with, because it is fallacious and politically inspired and led.
Suggesting the meting out of the ultimate punishment to an innocent man is an absolute disgrace and a dishonour to this country.
GL would never, never, NEVER have suggested the death penalty for the Islamist fundamentalist terrorist beheading plotter (jailed yesterday) who indoctrinated his five year-old. In fact I’m sure he’d like this terrorist, whose aim is to kill all of us, to be released in a couple of years in order that he continues, unabated by the suicidal left, to brainwash the next generation of the gullible.
Shameful.
February 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
‘we don’t DECIDE that people are guilty of anything until it is proven in a court of law.’
‘THIS, Sir, and not Tony Blair’s ’sell-out to Christian Europe’, nor his struggle against religious/political fundamentalism, is TREACHERY’
February 19, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
Agreed.
And exactly why I apologised to the Archbishop for my unwise words.
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/the-sorry-tale-of-the-archbishop-the-lawyer-and-the-blair-supporter/
Or, had you, in the time-honoured way of the hypocrite, failed to notice my apology, as you continue blindly to pick out only what is pertinent to your case?
Yes, the charge is hypocrisy.
February 19, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
I did not say that Tony Blair should receive the death penalty for the war crimes he has committed (in mine and many others opinion). I just said that his war crimes are a reason why many people wish him to be dead.
There could be all sorts of manners in which he dies (a car crash, plane crash, shooting, heart attack etc). I never suggested it should be a result of judicial punishment. Anyway I’m opposed to the death penalty, even for Blair and personally I would rather see him locked away for the rest of his life in solitary confinement. In my view can be crueler than death, and a more appropriate fate for him. I’m sure in the end he will suffer for what he has done, I bet he has his own little plot in hell waiting for him.
Blair will never be placed on trial because of the political pressure the UK and US government can apply. As far as I’m aware the US government does not even recognize the international war crimes court. You right the claim will never be brought because of political reasons, but not the ones you state.
Lets face it GL is a funny, witty and thoughtful man who clearly understands politics a lot better than you do.
February 19, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
When you saw the largest ever protest in British history against the Iraq war, did you sit there thinking that everyone was wrong and Blair was right?
February 19, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
To answer you last point first – I’ll come back to your first points later – need to catch the post.
NO.
I thought that those people – who were NOT the majority of the voters but although large, still a small percentage only – had weakened in the ‘fighting terrorism’ cause due to press/political pressure and the ideas propagated by the war’s opponents that Blair & Bush were driven with malice aforethought.
I didn’t accept that then, and I still don’t.
February 19, 2008 at 6:54 pm |
Your earlier points, moon23.
And who said you did? I was referring to Geek Lawyer. He seems to want him dead anyway, anyhow, anytime (to paraphrase him). And he SEEMS to claim it’s because Blair “killed” people. [Hasn't anyone ever told this lawyer we don't execute murderers under our jurisdiction?]
It’s probably something personal from their legal past. A deranged and unbalanced “wish”, imho.
Did you realise that you’ve altered your words slightly, and therefore your meaning. (Speak to GL about this. He knows all about how to say what you REALLY mean).
Saying “in mine and many others opinion” makes statements from anti-Blair/anti-war people just a touch more credible.
Why?
Because it shows that you are a thinking person and not an automaton regurgitating according to instructions or brainwashing from the masters.
It’s only YOUR OPINION.
As it’s only MY OPINION that Blair did not commit war crimes.
Actually I’m under-stating my case to make the point here.
In fact, as I pointed out earlier, no-one, not even a hated former PM, is guilty of anything until proven guilty. We shouldn’t, in a civilised society go about saying that they will suffer more if jailed for life than if executed. If we keep saying that sort of thing we are clearly pre-judging and poluting the minds of others with the “facts ” as we see them. Our beliefs become self-perpetuating myths.
And it usually comes from those who believe we are run by big business or international political conspiracies. They also believe in “love and peace and no war and no punishment”. The Olive Branchers, in other words. That must be why they want to kill people.
If we don’t pre-judge terrorists/murderers/rapists – why do we pre-judge politicians?
So that’s what you “just” said, is it? His “war crimes”. The war crimes he has NOT been tried for?
I had this argument before during the honours fiasco. I imagine that GL and such as yourself thought he’d got away with something then too?
The law is only an ass when it doesn’t kick those we disagree with, eh? (Oops! too many negatives for you to get your head round?)
And some of the time, as with GL’s contentions, it’s morally OK to ignore the law, because his is the just cause against “evildoers”.
So although you are showing signs of improvement in your understanding of how the law works, there’s still a way to go, imho.
See? Easy to say that sort of thing. But my version is slightly more pleasant and less judgemental, don’t you think?
As for your last two paragraphs …
Oh, I can’t be bothered.
Grow up moon23, and work out who’s on your side.
February 20, 2008 at 11:11 am |
Of course when people feel passionately about the thousands of deaths caused by Mr Blair, there is going to be an element of pre-judgement when it comes to accusing him of war crimes. Blair may justify his actions using a utilitarian argument to say the war caused less suffering than a continue regime of Sadam, but of course this argument relies on a counter-factual guess as to what the alternative outcomes might have been.
In an ideal world the legal system would work as you suggest. In such a system Mr Blair wouldn’t have been able to appoint Lord Hutton to oversee the inquiry, and there would have been an international investigation in to the Iraq war as to its legality. In reality far too much political pressure is exerted in the legal system for it ever to be allowed to make such judgements, as the political consequences would be too high for the US and UK government to accept. Yes there are political reasons why people say Blair is a war criminal, but in the absence of any fair and just legal system prepared to investigate him, then can you blame people?
The double-standards that Blair and Bush have with regards to international law and subjects like water board torture and detention without trial etc undermines the whole fight against terrorism and the struggle for global peace, as it undermines the universality of justice. If Blair and Bush had followed proper protocol and worked through the UN to resolve the Iraq problem then you wouldn’t have people accusing him of war crimes. The lasting damage they have done is to undermine the West’s authority in trying to implement global principles.
It seems to me that you just accept the Blair view of the world without any real critical engagement with what he says. You accuse others either being naively manipulated by the media or believing in fantastical conspiracies about global corporations, yet you accept Blair’s view much in the same way as a naive teenage believes every conspiracy theory just because it is anti-governmental.
I don’t think Blair is evil, I just think he is very misguided and that he is prepared to follow his own faith and views of his advisers rather than adopting a more objective analytical and critical view of what is going on around him. His blind faith is what makes him a good leader in people, as it’s contagious. In this age of celebrity, people like his charm, sound bites. They don’t want to hear a rationale argument.
February 21, 2008 at 11:30 am |
moon23,
Are you writing for a university thesis or just having fun?
Since you seem to want to provide the case for GL (no prompting from him, btw … cheating not allowed!) I’ll put a couple of opposing theories your way.
Just, you understand, for you to dismiss and reject. Once we used to discuss and debate. Now we sit in a higher place and simply pick and choose others’ thoughts. And then we judge.
Oh for a touch of self awareness and humility.
We could, and we do, argue endlessly about the rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq. We can regurgitate the pros and cons from our various ‘ethical’ OR POLITICAL standpoints. We can quote philosophy and on deeper research find that each philosophical view has its opposite, viz Utilitarianism (wikipedia is a good source on this).
We can question the legality of the Iraq invasion, and do, ad infinitum. Here too we find arguments on both sides and no consensus, despite your conclusion that it was a “war crime”.
And we can conclude that any politician who takes a decision which we are convinced is wrong, is therefore all the nasty things, and probably none of the good.
But, moon23, in your enthusiasm to understand why such as GL want to see the end of Blair, (see his comment here – “I do of course very much wish that someone somewhere someday kills Blair.”) you should realise that the trouble with your argument and those who prompt … er … agree with you is that you are starting with the wrong premise.
You said – Blair “caused” the thousands of deaths.
WRONG.
The war was initiated by the USA and supported by the British and others. Granted, some in their desperation to blame Blair argue that he was the brains and key mover behind the throne. But, if Blair and the UK had not allied with the US, the deaths would still have occurred, perhaps even moreso. They had been well set in train over decades – hundreds of years of internal fighting. Death in Iraq is part of the furniture, and used as a weapon by many factions.
“INTRACTABLE PROBLEM?” – A COUNSEL OF DESPAIR
There is an argument that says since the longstanding Iraq issues are someone else’s problems (even if the British were involved heavily within the last century) let someone else get on with it. It’s intractable and has been so for thousands of years.
That is a counsel of despair. We should be proud that this political generation does not neglect that “intractable problem”.
ILLEGAL INVASION?
I am fully aware of these arguments. From initially doubting the wisdom of the invasion, which was successful and actually completed within three weeks – (we are now peace-keeping under UN mandate) – I have come to a different conclusion. The complexities are clear to us all now, or should be. But the ensuing deaths, caused in the huge majority by insurgents from within and without Iraq and NOT the allied peace-keeping troops, should not blind us to the need to tackle the threats.
One of these is that Iraq was, and perhaps still is, a sitting duck for eventual Iranian control, with all the possibilites that could follow for the region and the world.
Of course, if you don’t accept that Iran as presently ruled is a threat, you will dismiss this argument as a fig leaf.
But there are other reasons including Iraq’s (Saddam’s) ongoing refusal to comply with UN Security Council requests/instructions.
UNITED NATIONS
The UN has got to be a good idea in principle. The alternative is one big policeman patrolling the world, slapping wrists where required. Entirely unsatisfactory and unacceptable today. And every policeman retires. The next one might not pass the required personality profile.
But the UN itself is not without fault or political alliances and inconsistencies.
It has been known to dilly dally, listening to all the voices in all its ears, and becoming paralysed as a result. With Iraq, its calls had been largely ignored since 1982 during the Iran/Iraq war.
The United Nations Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990. It authorises “member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait…to use all necessary means” to implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and “restore international peace and security in the area.”
So, is this UN authorisation for the invasion?
Quite arguably.
CASUS BELLI –
And then we come to the BIG ONE! We were lied to.
Titchy too. Fancy that. Lies in (international) politics.
Excuse my arguably facile dismissal. But weren’t we dealing with a lying Saddam Hussein? Did he not, by your argument, lie about possessing WMDs? Now if you believe that Saddam’s “lie” is less consequential than the western “lie” on WMDs you’ll frankly believe anything.
So, the legal system in international affairs is complex, convoluted and full of inconsistencies.
Casting doubt on Lord Hutton’s impartiality exemplifies YOUR side’s prejudices. If he had concluded in the Kelly case that the dossier HAD been “sexed up” by Campbell or Blair he’d be the greatest judge ever, would he not?
Do YOU people only accept the laws and judgements you agree with?
It’s perfectly clear we are not living in an “ideal world”.
It is arguable that there was a certain fomenting of insurgent unrest as a result of the invasion, true. But why do you never give any credence to the argument that the invasion was being used as an excuse by these various insurgent groups? The Welsh and Scots might be in a rebellious mood from time to time here in the UK, but if Britain were attacked, I doubt they’d take advantage and start to suicide bomb the English! Then again … you never know ;0)
I think I have engaged critically with what Blair says, but that’s for others to judge. I do not necessarily accept that everything decided was correct, but 20/20 vision and all that …
Unlike your approach from the opposing standpoint, I do not go into automatic overdrive in my determination to prove that OUR side got it all right. There have been errors. But I think I DO know who is on our side.
Did you mean a “rational” argument or an argument about “rationale”? Get that bit clear before submitting for your First.
Sorry, but words ARE important.
February 21, 2008 at 12:57 pm |
P.S. to moon 23 –
Just to clarify things, would you and/or your friendly lawyer let us know where you stand on “death”?
1. Deaths within war situations.
2. Deaths caused by terrorism.
3. Death by capital punishment.
4. Death, if someone else actually causes it, and not you/us, though you/we might be content with the end result?
Just wondered.
And, by the way, Stan has a Progressive website article here referring to our little debate.
http://theprogressive.typepad.com/the_progressive/2008/02/a-barristers-ca.html
Perhaps you’d like to offer him the benefit of your deep thinking?
February 21, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
Looks like the debate has moved on to the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war (the Geek’s infamies having been fully exposed on this site). Let me therefore supplement Blair Supporter’s excellent comment in this connection by giving you another Progressive link, to a piece I did on Iraq entitled “22 reasons why it was right to invade Iraq”. http://theprogressive.typepad.com/the_progressive/2007/02/22_reasons_why_.html
The points made were not seriouslychallenged then and I don’t suppose they can be seriously challenged now – even by someone with the massive intellect of Moon23.
February 21, 2008 at 10:19 pm |
Hello my dear Blair Supporter et al,
It has occurred to me that the Liberal Media is exactly like a Cult.
People that can be easily persuaded, easily fooled and are downright gullible can also be intelligent; if intellegence means you can read and write and take the newspapers’ and liberal professors’ point of view to be fact. Once these members have been completely inducted into the Cult, they are like drug addicts with their convictions. Once they are hooked, the convictions take over their common sense.
President Bush and PM Blair have NOT killed thousands of people. The Middle East has been warring for eons. On 09/11 that war was brought to our homeland and then it was brought to yours when the tubes blew up.
Our leaders had nothing to do with it. But, I’ll tell you what did have something to do with it; our freedom of speech, our freedom to wear whatever we want to wear in public, the freedoms we women have, the freedom to insult our leaders; oh yes, it’s us. It’s our “western ways” that had everything to do with it. What AQ and the Taliban want is for us to go back to the middle ages. That has nothing to do with oil.
Ah, but I degress. Back to the Cult. The Cult would have you believe that our leaders are at fault. The fact is Tony Blair and President Bush are doing everything in their powers to keep our sorry arses safe. You should be thanking them. I do.
Perhaps one day someone will figure out how to deprogram these media cult members. In the meantime it wouldn’t hurt any of you to go to Michael Yon’s site. (just Google it) He’s an independent reporter in Iraq. He has done a series of dispatches on the British soldiers in Iraq. I know that the Cult members have been programmed to think little of their military so here is their chance to get “straight”. The dispatches are called “Men of Valor” and oh my God, are they ever! Now there you will get an education you will never forget. There you will learn something you will be proud to pass on to your children.
WHO RAH!
Bless you
Arlene in the USA
P.S. (I’m trying to learn the King’s English as a second language)
Blood Hell! (How am I doin?)
February 21, 2008 at 10:34 pm |
Thanks Arlene,
A great analysis of the cultists. Interesting how I have been accused of being a cult member by the other side. Their approach is that if you think our own western governments are actually right and on OUR side, then you’re obviously ignorant, gullible, misinformed and a bit odd. The liberal intelligentsia has a lot to answer for.
I’ve linked to Michael Yon’s blog before. Very well researched and so comprehensive. Here’s the link:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
You’re doing alright with the
King’s… er Queen’s English!Hurrah!
February 22, 2008 at 10:21 am |
Firstly please forgive my sometimes poor command of the Language; I’m dyslexic so this isn’t my strong point.
Secondly I think the cult analogy to be very simplistic and not accurate at all. For the following two points:
1. There is no definitive definition of what a ‘liberal’ is. Many people have a mixture of views about different subjects. E.g. You could be an Economic liberal and a social conservative – Neo-liberalism is you will. Alternatively you could have a socialist economy, with a liberal society. Also individuals themselves do not all simply absorb facts and figures without thinking about them. Any study of history will show you that historically ‘Left Wing’ (to use a reductive term) parties are particularly prone to splits and differences. Liberal arguments are not always simple to get across, and often rely on referring to complex thinkers such as JS Mill, Rousseau, Marx etc. There are also big rifts between socialists, democratic liberals, anarchists, Muslim groups that all formed the anti-war coalition. I doubt you could find many liberal professors that agreed with one another on everything.
2. You could just as easily apply the cult analogy to pretty much any social group. It relies on a simplified and stereotypical understanding, of the sort which you complain is often applied by ‘liberals’ to your own views. As you say people have accused you of belonging to a cult too. Are footbal fans a cult too? Are political parties cults? Is this blog a cult?
I agree the view that our Western governments are ‘the bad guys’ is simplistic and naive. It is however just as simplistic to think that the West is blameless in the current problems within the world. It is hard to deny that the US hegemony has contributed to the conflict within Iraq and the middle east. For starters Sadam Hussein was supported by the American government in the Iraq-Iran war, much like Osama Bin Laden was supported by the US to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Mmm.. anyone see a pattern? These things are always more complex, and when it is reduced to sound bites such as “No War for Oil” or “War on Terror” neither argument is really given justice. That’s why I prefer to debate it and refer to the ‘big thinkers’ as you call them.
What is this thing you call common sense? It seems to me what fills people’s brains when there is an absence of critical engagement.
I’m not sure what you mean when you ask where I stand on death? Do you mean you want me to explain times where death might be morally justified in the ends justify the means type way? If you want me to answer your question now then here is how I stand on death. I assume you don’t want some mystical musings on the nature of this thing we call death?
Assuming you want something like this: There may be a few times where the death of another is justified, however as soon as we extrapolate from these examples (which are often abstracted thought experiments e.g. man is about to launch a nuclear attack, would you shoot him) we get drawn into create a codified system of morality, that is in turn distorted, manipulated and used to justify the political ends and motivations of the protagonist. In truth most that kill justify their actions with some kind of flimsy moralistic argument, a few psychopaths being the exemption. As such I choose to adopt the rather hypocritical position of advocating in public a more extreme deontological position; that death is always wrong. Whilst in private secretly accepting that I might in the moment choose to kill if I thought it was for the ‘greater good’.
February 22, 2008 at 11:55 am |
moon23 – if you’re dyslexic you have it under great control! Thank Dog!
[apologies ;0)]
Thank you for at least engaging with the arguments here. That’s far better than whatsisname does.
As far as the “cult” thing is concerned – it initially came from GL’s side in their virulent, pompous and insulting remarks on those of us who agree with me on the irresponsibility of his initial statement. (We should remember that is the reason I wrote this post).
And Arlene above brought it up without prompting by me or anyone else. And she did so in regard to the liberal press, not to GL or to you. The ‘cultists’ accusation first came from your side in an effort to discredit my view on GL’s irresponsible words.
As you rightly imply it is somewhat disingenuous and innacurate to describe opposing views on Iraq or Blair as cultist. We simply have come to different conclusions.
The issue here is whether any of us is right to say the kind of thing that Geek Lawyer said while defending his statements by hoisting the Free Speech banner.
We shouldn’t get sidetracked on to other issues in order to try to dilute the main concern which caused me to write this post. Well YOU can if you want to – free speech and all that – but people can make up their own minds about Iraq/dossiers/WMDs/Blair and still conclude that it is not a good idea to goad or urge or challenge AQ to assassinate Blair. Well, reasonable people would still do that.
The problem is that some of you have linked your unhappiness over Iraq and Blair with the feeling that the country is no longer democratic and that civil rights have been thrown out of the window … etc … etc … and so ANYTHING to get back to a different place is acceptable!
Dangerous thinking.
Methinks you do protest too much. It’s the seeking justification for action syndrome. The accusation such as you often throw at Blair.
What did Robert Burns say? “Oh wad some pow’r the giftie gi’ us, to see ourselves as others see us”.
You feel powerless because your arguments have not won through. People went on anti-war marches (even at 1 million, still a tiny percentage of the voters) and policy has still not changed, even with a new PM. So, some conclude, that if AQ could only get their act together and do the necessary, the world would be a better place.
To be blunt – crazy stuff! Crazy for all the reasons that have been mentioned here before.
“Common sense”? Had a quick glance at my last comment. Couldn’t find it. Always the same – sadly uncommon. Actually I seldom use this phrase as it’s subjective. We all think we have it.
Your thoughts on moral ethics and the thoughts of philosophers are interesting, but I don’t think they get us anywhere. This could open endless debates – to those interested. Most of us are more interested in using “common sense” ;0)
But whether we are determinists or existentialists, deontologists or teleologists, philosophers only describe the human predicament. Politicians have to make the decisions. And the fact that one’s best political friend in the past may today be one’s worst political enemy is not something that ALL philosophers would allow for or even be able or willing to explain. Why? Because they are not the decision-makers, but the analysts of the human condition.
So, where were we?
Yes, the matter in hand.
The reason I asked where you stood on “death” had something to do with trying to pinpoint your ethical boundaries. Yours and GL’s, (in his absence). And I think you’ve answered it.
We are finally beginning to work out where those who never once reprimanded GL for his statement on the murder, “sometime, somewhere, somehow” of a politician actually stand.
Terrified of one man.
Pity.
There are a heckuva lot more men of whom to be terrified than this one.
February 22, 2008 at 12:53 pm |
Thank dog for Microsoft spell checker.
I wouldn’t reprimand GL for his comments because I take them in jest. Just as when I hear people on the bus talking about how anti-war protesters should be hung for treason, I know they are just mouthing off and not being entirely serious (I hope).
I don’t know what GL thinks about these issues of morality reality really as I’m not him after all. I should guess that his views are more flippant and humorous than mine.
Of course I feel powerless in changing the outcomes of events. I gave 110% effort in organizing various anti-war protests and it’s always disappointing to see that the political movement made very little difference. I take you point that 1 Million people is not the entire voting population, but those 1 Million are only the people who could make it to London. I’m sure many others would have voted against the war if it had gone to referendum. It was the largest protest this country has ever seen, the fact it changes so little made a great deal of people feel disenfranchised with the political process. No wonder so few people vote these days.
My first reaction to 9/11 was to wake up in bed and go “Yes somebody got the fuckers”.. obviously upon watching the event I then felt sick that I could have been initially pleased. A lot of people thought the US had it coming to them though, sad as it is true. I was even more upset to realize that it had been done by a bunch of crypto fascists who call themselves Islamists (with the help of the US gov who turned a blind eye). Unfortunately it seems their defiance towards US imperialism in the middle-east solidified around a twisted and dogmatic religious prospective, rather than a liberal critique of US actions.
Anyway I’m rambling.
GL is allowed to say what he wants; you can’t fight fire with fire. This is Bush and Blair’s strategy and look where it has got us. If you think we are safer as a result of the ‘war on terror’ then you need a wake-up call. Islamic fascism is as much a symptom of the West’s behavior and attitude as it is a cause of strife. You can fight terrorism, but the way to fight it is to stick by your democratic principles and the rule of law. Investigate and prosecute. Rendition flights, water boarding, ID cards, 48 days edition without trial, control orders, glorifying terrorism offense are all counter-productive in the long run. It’s not that I don’t think there is a threat, it’s just that I think our way of fighting it is making it worse.
PS It is easier to rely on common sense but when two people have different ideas about what the common sense is then how do you know what is common sense? For a lot of people it’s common sense that Blair is a war criminal. I know intellectual debates can go on a bit, and politicians do have to make tough calls, but do you not think they should try and engage a bit more in intellectual debates? You hardly ever see politicians mentioning famous thinkers or big ideas, and that worries me a great deal.
February 22, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
WHY exactly do you take Geeks’s remarks in jest? He didn’t mean them in jest. He reprimands you for misreading him as you will have read here.
At the first comment on my next, Archbishop page, he says this:
‘I repeat, so that you may whip yourself up into a fury of indignation my previous to comments:
“I think Al Queda are incompetent fools and barbaric as your video of them burning hostages alive shows. Only Tony Bliar is more evil. He has the blood of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghan women and children on his hands nt merely a couple of hostages.
I wonder why it is that Al Queda cannot muster the resources motivation and competence to hunt him down in his retirement and kill him. I would very much like them to do so. I sincerely hope that they do so at some point in time at some place where he is not expecting it. I hope he suffers before he dies; and that before he expires in pain the faces of the innocents that he has killed, in order to make money on book deals and speaking tours, come to haunt him.”’
Couldn’t be clearer what he thinks.
As for your reaction on 9/11 – how odd. The only thing I felt apart from sympathy and horror – was that now the Americans will know what it is to be attacked in your homeland by terrorists, as we had been for years by the IRA while many kept funding the IRA, in their misguided innocence. After 9/11 funding dried up for the IRA, largely due to the Americans learning a little more about the use to which the funding was put – weaponry. They listened to Blair on this, and yet, strangely, the same PM was able to get the IRA/Sinn Fein to work with the Ulster unionist parties and the British government to help settle the whole Irish question. And whose idea was it to ask ALL of Ireland to vote for the settlement? Yes, that great dictator, Blair.
(Edited the above paragraph and expanded it a little).
On 9/11 I certainly didn’t feel – “Yes, somebody’s got” them.
One of my American friends was killed in the Twin Towers. But I didn’t know that for days. I’d still have felt sympathy for America even if he hadn’t died there.
Your reaction displays something very worrying. But at least you felt ashamed afterwards. And so you should have.
I expect you and Geek would be toasting the terrorists if the “fuckers” got Blair too. There’s just a small chance you might re-think that reaction afterwards.
Geek – no chance. He’s a lost cause.
February 22, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
Moon23, you suggest that we should engage a bit more in intellectual debate. Yet I’ve noticed that you have ducked my challenge regarding the 22 reasons why it was right to invade Iraq. This is important because it is the lies about Iraq which are responsible for much of the hatred against Tony Blair. There is a link to my rebuttal of these lies by the way in the link to the “22 reasons” I gave in my previous comment.
February 22, 2008 at 5:40 pm |
Well I probably would have some kind of party if someone was to kill Tony Blair that is true. I’d then probably think it was a very bad thing, when it was used as an excuse to stamp out our last remaining civil liberties.
February 22, 2008 at 6:06 pm |
Stan I haven’t had the time to look at your 22 reasons today. I’ve just had a quick glance now.
This is reason 22:
22. That government wants our troops to stay as long as it takes to do the job. To cut and run now would be one of the most ignoble acts in our history.
How is this a reason why the war was right? It’s an argument about what we should do after the war. This does not seem to even make sense as a reason. I actually agree that now we have gone in there we can’t just pull out, but I was against us going in there.
Well I have 21 more points to go. Watch this space lol
February 22, 2008 at 6:36 pm |
Go on then, moon23 – engage in debate with Stan!
And moon23, I’ve realised I can hardly get inside the head of someone like you. Are you sure you’re not George Galloway? You sound just like him. The ONLY reason to support Blair’s continuing ability to breathe is to avoid more stamping out of OUR liberties!!!
What junk!
What utter selfishness!
What about his family and friends and their feelings?
What about those of us who think he is a great man and has been unmatched for all the RIGHT reasons as a political leader in recent years?
I’m really tempted so ask you not to return, moon23. I have a deep gut reaction to people who speak or think like this.
There but for fortune or the grace of God, go you and I.
I’m trying to think if there is anyone I’d be glad to see executed. I don’t think there is anyone I’d like to see as a victim of terror. The only people I’m tempted to talk about capital punishment for are child rapists and murderers. And if I were a relative of one of the desperately sad women from Ipswich, I might well feel as some of them do, I’m sure.
But really as far as British democratic politicians are concerned, now or in the past, there is no-one, NO-ONE I would be happy to see killed by assassins.
By terrorist assassins! By those who kill indiscriminately – you, me and our children, with nothing but pride in the act?
You must be absolutely convinced that Blair is evil. Surely you wouldn’t say this if you thought anything other than that? And yet what do you know? Who has convinced you? Why do you believe your sources to the extent that normal human empathy is pushed from your mind?
If you thought a policy had just gone awry and backfired you wouldn’t hope for this outcome for Blair. If you knew that he sat head in hands asking himself if he was responsible for the insurgent killings. If you thought he sometimes asks himself if he WAS the only one responsible. If he wonders in church if God will forgive him, or even if he deserves to be forgiven. If you knew the doubt that responsibility like this carries.
Blair has said he will carry “responsibilty for the rest of my life”. I, personally, don’t think he should. But he does. Is this a man who deserves to be assassinated by those who happily kill their own in their malevolent cause?
To think people like you would applaud terrorists who might do this is abhorrent to me. Pour encourager les autres, eh? To encourage those who would count themselves fortunate to take YOU down with Blair, even as you held aloft your “Blair is A War Criminal” placard.
moon23 – re-think this attitude, please. Life is too short for all of us.
February 22, 2008 at 7:17 pm |
[...] says loony psycho terrorist friendly terrorist judge Geeklawyer, along with his mates at the keepblairforpm website, have long decried the ‘enemy within’: the lawyers liberal meeja, and judiciary [...]
February 22, 2008 at 7:52 pm |
Thanks for the pingback, GL. My thoughts entirely.
You know me well, I know your smell …
Oh, isn’t that a song? Sort of?
Found it!
‘Goodbye My Lover’! Specially for you, Geek.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xgG32Ockizo
Just imagine yourself here instead of He Who WIll Be
Hated…. Missed.February 22, 2008 at 8:08 pm |
Oh how my heart sunk when I read Moon23’s reaction to 09/11. That is ugliness in it’s purest form. I suppose Moon23 was downright excited when London had the bombing. The Cult I was referring to just showed it’s ugly head. Imperialism?! God, where does this stuff come from? America has been attacked before in almost exactly the same manner; Pearl Harbor. I suppose that attack must have been because of our foreign policies, too, ha? Our Imperialism? England was bombed during WWI and II and we fought side by side in those wars. I guess our foreign policies have been wrong ever since we thought we were right, ha? Both countries must be destroyed for their imperialism! That would make some people very happy. Oh, this is just crap. People that do not learn from History are destined to fail.
Tony Blair Supporter,
How do cuss in the King’s English or the Queen’s? I want to say something really bad here!!!!!! (ha ha)
Arlene (an imperialist American)
February 22, 2008 at 8:45 pm |
I am so sorry this upset you, Arlene. The only reasons I printed this was that, one, as a Blair supporter, I’ve got a teflon coat too. And two, people have to see what kind of strange misfits we’re dealing with.
America is a great country and is a force for good in the world, as is Britain.
You want to learn how to cuss in English – well – it’s a bit like in ‘Amurican’ my friend! A good place to start is at Geek’s original site. What do you mean “it’s gone”? Of course it isn’t. It’s cached on the internet forever. Geek and his ilk and their wise, wise words.
Here’s the link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:GgbUYCv-x4QJ:blog.geeklawyer.org/2008/02/03/unquenchable-fires-and-blair/+http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2008/02/03/unquenchable-fires-and-blair/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
February 22, 2008 at 9:05 pm |
Bless your heart, but I’ve decided to forget the cussing. I do, however want to insert a letter I just discovered at Michael Yon’s website. It is a letter from a very important man in Iraq. I want you to enjoy it and I want Moon23 and Company to read it, too. His written English is a bit broken, but you get the drift. It’s lovely.
1. Dr.Moayad Says:
Thanks Americans
On 14 Feb. our big brother LTC Crider brings my mother the best valentines’ gift in the world , its walid my little brother .we are believing that we will not see walid again .All what coming in Michaels’ article is part of the tragedy we live since more than 9 months .
My mother asking us to be vests to protect LTC Crider solders & now she said that crider is her big son .
The American mothers should be proud with their sons in Iraq , really we need them more than any other time .My family sends appreciations to 1-4 Cav commander & LTC Crider<. lee and any one helps in the releasing of Walid.
The US solders after finished fighting terrorist they start the new fight for establishing justice and democracy in Iraq.
Dr.Moayad
February 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
February 22, 2008 at 9:14 pm |
People here seldom read these kinds of thanks at Michael Yon’s site and at others. Never in the British press who are either so anti everything or they’d think it was too sentimental to print.
Thank you, Arlene.
Remind me – are you the lady who sent parcels to British troops? If it wasn’t you an American lady wrote and told me she had.
I wonder if GL and moon23 & friends spend any time at all thinking of our troops and sending them reminders of home in this way.
No – I don’t wonder. Their self obsession would never allow that.
February 22, 2008 at 11:28 pm |
Yes, it is me. Because of the letters and cards of thanks the British, Welsh and Scots have sent to me I have a profound sense of what it means to “Support the Troops”. I see no difference between our troops and yours. They are all mine and yours. They are the bravest, the finest and the most intelligent troops of this generation. They sacrifice so much, yet they take the time to write to me. Those letters are written with such great affection and brings me great joy and great sorrow. The joy, because they keep their chins up under such hellish circumstances and the sorrow, because I know some will not come home to their families. Did you know that your Royal Highness, The Duchess of Cornwall sends letters to the troops (hand-written)?
You know, the only way to find the truth of something is to get involved, basically to “give” instead of “get”.
You can read until you are blue in the face, but when you actually get involved you just naturally start to gather the truth. You can see it, feel it and embrace it.
Blessings on you,
Arlene
February 23, 2008 at 12:26 am |
You are so right, Arlene.
What you said reminds me of something similar Tony Blair said recently. I think it was at the big fund-raising international event for the Middle East peace process.
He said something like – “the critics & commenters always have the best lines”.
Yes. And the big mouths have the least of value to say.
Some people comment and some do. You’re a doer.
Bless you.
I wonder if the other side even notice the huge difference between your comment and theirs. Even when I asked you about something YOU had done, you automatically thought of others – and mention the Duchess of Cornwall.
The moaners of this life seldom seem to see the good in others. People like you often don’t notice the good in themselves.
February 23, 2008 at 12:40 am |
God Bless you,
You make me blush. I’m off now for the weekend. Hopefully when I check back in I’ll see some brotherly love here.
Keep doing what you are doing. It’s important.
Arlene
February 23, 2008 at 11:27 am |
Moon23, before you waste more of our time by nitpicking the semantics of what I wrote could you please, in any follow-up, break the habit of a lifetime and try to address the actual points that I made. We can then get into a proper debate, without your usual casuistry designed to throw everyone off the scent.
February 23, 2008 at 1:37 pm |
Hello Stan,
While you’re waiting for the philosophy student to get back to you, I thought I’d update my readers.
COME BACK GL – WE’RE MISSING YOU!
You may have noticed that GL has not yet got his site back up, despite his saying here he’d do so as soon as he had time.
Very strange that, as WordPress, with whom, as I understand it, his site was hosted, keep a backup of everything. I know this because I asked them recently when I noticed that moon23 said he was “tempted” to DOS this site in response to his and/or GL’s suspected DOSing from this quarter.
Just to be sure, I contacted WordPress, who co-incidentally host MY site, and was told that they back everything up.
So why is Mr Geek (Honesty First) Lawyer not yet able to get his site back online for the benefit of all the jokers who used to frequent his
blagblog?From my analysis there can be only one reason:
GL might just possibly be being somewhat disingenuous about how and why his site disappeared (construction being carefully crafted here viz charonqc’s little reminder).
And why MIGHT GL be acting possibly, maybe, might have been known, who knows and pigs fly, disingenuously?
Because it’s just vaguely possible that he took his site down himself. And why, I hear you ask, would he do that? I wonder.
OR, perhaps, that another third party authority did.
Time for an update, GL?
Come on now. An honest, upright citizen like yourself surely owes that to his many watchers and fans, don’t you think?
Especially if the Thought Police zapped you!
We NEED to know, ASAP, for the sake of the survival of free speech, civil rights, the country, the EU, the world and the universe generally.
February 25, 2008 at 12:40 pm |
Geeklawyer’s original site wasn’t even hosted on WordPress. So why would they have a backup of his site?
Arelene you really talk a load of rubbish, reading your posts I suggest you apply for the job at the Daily Mail. They would like the way in which you simplify world politics to sentimental notions about ’supporting our boys’ and standing ’side by side with our comrades’. Alternatively you could do voice over’s for Hollywood war movies.
I never said the US and UK should be destroyed, I pointed out a few historical facts that you seem to have missed. E.G the USA armed and trained Bin Laden and supported Sadam. If you can’t see how our foreign polices contributed (note contributed does not mean this is the sole cause) to the current situation we are in, than you are a moron. Did you read the bit where I bemoaned that the twin towers was destroyed by Islamic crypto-fascists? These are possibly one of the few groups of people I despise more than self-righteous Americans, who happily screw over 9/10ths of the world whilst preaching their ‘version’ of freedom, that basically amounts to wage slavery for 99% of people, whilst 1% live in extreme luxury.
I feel sorry for the generally poor working class people who go into the army to fight on behalf of Bush and Blair’s misadventures, but I wouldn’t say I support them, because I disagree with what they are doing. I hope that in the end they will bring peace to Iraq, but already the cost has been too high. Still the price has been paid, so yes I think now they should stay there and do the job.
Stan pointing out your frankly idiotic use of retrospective casualty with regards to point 22 is hardly just a matter of semantics. There are only so many times you can dismiss arguments as ’semantics’ until it starts to sound like a rather lame excuse to cover up you obviously small intellect.
Sorry to disappoint but I’m not a Philosophy student, I know this stereotype would have been a convenient way for you pigeon hole me. The truth of the matter is that I went out to a shop and brought these things called books. I then read them and came to understand more about the world. You should all try it some time.
February 25, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
Geek’s site wasn’t hosted on WordPress, eh, moon23.
Perhaps he or you can explain this to us then?
This, from the source code of his site:
WordPress | Sandbox
This, from another part of his source code:
Podcast
Powered by [....]title=”podPress, the dream plugin for podcasting with WordPress” href=”http://www.mightyseek.com/podpress/” rel=”nofollow”>podPress
(v7.7)
Don’t believe me. Go and check, please.
I am sure you, moon23, with your deep insight into GL’s thinking will know how to view source code. For those who don’t know how, it’s easy.
On any page, click “View” then scroll down to “Source”. The html in all its magnificence will be able to be seen.
And you remember where his defunct site is now for you to check it out?
It’s here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:GgbUYCv-x4QJ:blog.geeklawyer.org/2008/02/03/unquenchable-fires-and-blair/+http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2008/02/03/unquenchable-fires-and-blair/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
Even without viewing the source code, it actually says “WordPress” at the bottom left hand side of the page.
WordPress will host any domain name – which is probably what GL did with this site. But a quick search showed me that his original url is out at the moment. So, it may not have been WordPress that pulled the plog or got DOSed or hacked or some other fictional story. It may just have been, as I submit, that another authority removed his domain. And if so – WHY woud they do that?
Since you don’t know GL personally and have not been able to watch his growing reputation in the big bad world – for good or ill – can I ask why you are so willing to accept everything he says at face value?
As for buying/reading these things called books – you need to move off the fiction section now, moon23.
Arlene work for the Daily Mail? THE DAILY MAIL!? You, moon23, obviously need to start reading newspapers a bit more – online will do – don’t waste good money on most of them. The Daily Mail is, imho, the conduit through which many in this country have been fed lies and distortions dressed up as fact. Of course its readers have swallowed much of it. That doesn’t invalidate the fact that it’s poisonous stuff.
It’s beneath Arlene.
February 25, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
Moon23, if peurile abuse is the best you can come up with regarding my 22 points (and Arlene’s comments) I’m afraid you have failed the challenge, like all the other “group- think” anti-war protesters.
February 25, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
Yes i’ll explain it. He was using WordPress software to write the script, which is why you can see lines of scrip mentioning wordpress if you view the source HTML.
The site was however hosted by Blackcurrant hosting. You can see their message if you go to the site now. Anyway I’m losing interest in this whole episode now, so have fun with your blog. I’m glad you have a space on the internet to voice your views, even if I do disagree with them.
February 25, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
Sorry, Mr GL’s Spokesman, I believe you have got that wrong.
True – his original site – http://blog.geeklawyer.org/ – may have been ‘hosted’ at Blackcurrant, but a quick glance here -http://forums.bcurrant.com/search.php?action=show_24h -
shows that Blackcurrant have never quite got it together.
Ever heard of re-directing a url?
Easy to do when your first ‘host’ is not coming up with the goods.
Not surprised you’re losing interest.
Have fun.
February 25, 2008 at 5:45 pm |
You really have got far too much time on your hands. That forum is just talking about their website isn’t it? Rather than their abiltiy to host sites. Anyway to be honest I neither know anymore, nor care any much. I’m going to get on with my life.
Bye now
February 25, 2008 at 5:47 pm |
Er … no.
Enjoy your life.
February 25, 2008 at 9:36 pm |
Well, so much for the Brotherly Love I was hoping for. My little Moonie child is exactly like the Blame America First crowd that exists here in the states and other places. I may try to simplify things because I simply prefer to be proud of my country and I’m quite sure I am older than you and perhaps (I hope) a little wiser. If you “despise” and “hate”, you really can’t produce anything worthwhile. Whether it’s in public or in your own private lives. By the way Keep Tony Blair, I’m proud of you for outting Moon23. You have outted the Geeky guy, too. I could just see them seething and nothing makes them seethe more than someone like me that would just as soon love them as hate them. I’m sure I would have to give statistics on why I prefer to love them. (I’m a left over hippie from the sixties-you know, the flower children-the Live and Let Live group) (It’s the Beatles’ fault.) It was the damn policies.
Sorry, I just had to inject some humor here.
Seriously, my little Moon23, I know full well about Bin Laden and our supporting him in Afghanistan. So that was a policy we should not have pursued. Then, you must ask yourself, why would someone we supported turn against us so viciously? Seems we’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t. I’m just sick of always hearing that it’s our fault. The US does far more good in the world than bad. Mistakes? Well, yea! Every country, every leader everywhere makes mistakes. People from 80 different countries died in the towers. That’s why there are more than 24 countries represented in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are they all wrong? Apparently they don’t pay attention to the Daily News or the New York Times or they don’t come here where they would find out that they are all just puppets of the US and just blindly follow us like a bunch of snot-nosed kids. Doesn’t say much for their intelligence, does it?
They all know that terrorism is only going to grow it is not stopped. If you look the other way, they will sneak up on you and they will kill you. (Policies or no policies.)
I could go on forever about this, but Keep Tony Blair and Stan are doing such a good job, I’m going to bow out and read your comments for awhile.
Cheerio
Arlene
March 3, 2008 at 12:45 am |
Arlene – did reading moon23’s comments send you to sleep?
He seems to have had enough – He’s even removed the KTBFPM spoof site.
Love is all you need … da da ra ra ra!
Nice to see you’re a fellow Beatles fan.
March 4, 2008 at 10:15 pm |
I thought you shut this page off? I was just listening to the radio.
Love is all need……love is all you need.
Of course, I’m a Beatles fan. You are too funny.
How I wish we were neighbors on land instead of on the Computer Isle.
God Bless you and yours,
Arlene
P.S. I need you over here to take on the Geekies and Moonies. They are just plain nuts. Think you might move? (oh well, I tried.)
March 4, 2008 at 10:24 pm |
Hi Arlene – well, I DID make it password-controlled for a few days, but it’s back to normal now.
Blair is praising Ian Paisley right now on the radio. He’s the 81 year old leader of the new Northern Ireland Assembly. The man who said “
NO! NO! NO!!!” … “Never, Never, Never” for decades as far as working with the catholics in Northern Ireland was concerned. Now, after the devolution settlement he has completely turned around. I wonder if he’ll write about it. I think Blair more than any others, moved him from “No” to “Yes”.You don’t mean you have Geekies & Moonies over there too!?
I MIGHT move, you never know. We come over to NY quite often on business, and we have friends all over the states. Depends how bad it gets here!
March 5, 2008 at 12:45 am |
I really believe it will take some time, but Gentleman Blair will prove his worth in the end.
You have friends in California, too!
I’m going to check out the Proms videos. I have never heard of it. Will have to wait until tomorrow.
All this hard work of yours is paying off in many blessed dividends.
Thank you for all you are doing.
God Bless,
Arlene
March 10, 2008 at 9:24 pm |
“On a brighter note, people who do act seriously on blog content seem reasonably rare.
France still exists. http://calvinists4brownback.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/why-we-must-nuke-france/
No-one has yet destroyed our door-bells
http://calvinists4brownback.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/demonwatch-doorbells/
although i am beginning to wonder if the future of donkeys is safe”
Hello, Ho Hum. I hate to break your anti-American attitude, but my website is for real. I look for things that conservative blogs just won’t talk about (lacking guts?), and then analyse what they’ve overlooked. The rarity of posts I need to make shows that conservative blogs are generally good.
Also, kudos to Tony Blair for supporting America in