The Sorry Tale of the Archbishop, the Lawyer, and the Blair supporter

• Home
• This post is a follow-on from this: “UK Barrister Urges Al Qaeda to “Assassinate Tony Blair”

UPDATE 8th September, 2008: This page is suddenly getting a lot of visitors. Not sure why. Perhaps it has something to do with recent charges for incitement to and/or glorification of terror under the 2006 Terrorism Act. Well, I DID try to warn our legal friend (see the previous post) on possible culpability over his remarks. He only needed, imho, to apologise or take them down permanently. See here for my thoughts on this.

• The Geek Barrister’s comments at his downed website
• Down but not out, GEEK LAWYER says – “I do of course very much wish that someone somewhere someday kills Blair” Read Geek Lawyer’s full comment here
• The Archbishop’s Apology/Explanation
• Graphic picture and video at end – WARNING! Take a deep breath
• Blair to take on YALE post

Comment at end

24th February, 2008

Just thought I’d let you all have a quick peep at Geek Lawyer’s offensive post, at the site which he evidently hasn’t had time to re-instate, despite saying he would. He stands by all of this, so I’m sure he’ll be very grateful for my help here.

18th February, 2008 – Updated with additions; nothing original removed.

---

ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS

15th February, 2008

Sorry, GEEK LAWYER (a.k.a. the man who inadvertently gives …
… all other lawyers a (relatively) good name.)

Sorry? Aren’t we all?

Since we’re talking religion so much these days, time for confession.

I apologise.

I apologise?

OF COURSE I’M ONLY JOKING!

And you know all about jokes, Mr Geek Lawyer.

So when I apologised in a comment near the end of my last post, I was being deliberately opaque. I WAS apologising. But not to Mr Geek Lawyer, barrister in residence at Lincoln’s Inn, London, Great Britain.

I was apologising to the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose words in his speech last week filled me with such incredulous horror that I said he was being treacherous. That was unfair, and ungracious and yes, I should not have said it. He was being what he is – a thinker. He is better suited to the halls of academia than meddling in religious politics at this time of worldwide unrest and insecurity emanating, largely and/or purportedly, from a “religious” doctrine.

But I shouldn’t have said it, Dr Williams, and Sir, I do apologise.

But as for YOU, Geek. You didn’t think I was throwing in the towel, did you?

---

THE CYNICAL BAST*** BARRISTER, LOVE & REVOLUTION

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”

[Aside: Why Charles Dickens' 'A TALE OF TWO CITIES' comes to mind right now, I'm not sure. Can't be the doppelganger; couldn't be the leading character Sydney Carton, the self-pitying, cynical barrister who sacrifices himself in the end for love; wouldn't have anything to do with revolutions; nor with Dickens' conclusion that the people on overthrowing their masters in turn become just as evil and corrupt.]

“It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.”

---

Back to the plot.

NOT GUILTY AS CHARGED, M’LUD

Before I continue, and in full confessional mode, let me admit my possible, even likely involvement in the fall from grace of Geek’s blog. I assume that I was the one who started the ball rolling when I took exception to his musings and hoped-for assassination of Tony Blair by Al Qaeda, although others, arguably might have also been concerned, and not gone public.

I wrote my own thoughts on it here at the previous post – http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/uk-barrister-urges-al-qaeda-to-kill-tony-blair/

Others took sides, as expected. I made some enquiries as to how wise such a post was and whether it was actually breaking the Terrorism Act 2006. But I did not contact the police or the government or the Law Society or even the Bar Standards Board. I was advised by another authority that “the Police may be interested in the information you forwarded to this Office.” (full copy of this information on file).

I was almost definitely going to contact at least one of them by today, Friday 15th February, had no words of contrition been forthcoming; or at the very least, some credible explanation as to why it is acceptable to leave that kind of post online forever, virally multiplying.  That’s what happens with the all-pervasive internet, Geekites, in case you hadn’t realised.

And I most certainly did not attack Geek’s site. Despite the arrogant, abusive, supercilious jibes of Geek and his ilk, I am not a “DOS-er“.

Nor am I boasting about his scalp on my belt. Who’d want that dripping appendage releasing unsavoury, odious content all over one?

Scalp for sale, anyone? Some extraneous grey matter attached. Hardly used. Very cheap. Free postage. Click “Buy Now”.

---

‘SO WHAT DID I SAY, WHAT DID I DO, YOUR HONOUR?’, PLEADS THE GEEK

I can hear his supporters:

• What’s so wrong with Blair’s demise in Geek’s longed for fashion?
• He deserves all he’s got coming.
• He lied to us – the papers said so. And what happens to liars? We string ‘em up, oh Mistress Verity.
• He messed up our country.
• He admires Bush.
• He’s still active politically.
• He’s no longer a ’skint’ politician.
• Others respect him.
• He might be running the EU soon! And then – the world!
• He’s still breathing.
• I don’t like his wife.
• The Al Qaeda threat is a false flag, invented to inculcate fear into the masses.
• Al Qaeda are only useless sillies.
• The whole Iraq business was about oil and western domination.
• It’s all a Conspiracy. Big Business. Big Boys’ Clubs. They won’t let ME join.
• I’m a Tory.
• I’m a Socialist.
• I’m a liberal – with any “l” going.
• I vote BNP.
• I’m an anarchist.
• I’m a lawyer.
• No law broken. GL’s a wordsmith. It’s all about semantic interpretation and context.
• What happened to free speech?
• Who do you think you are, Blairite type? THE THOUGHT POLICE?

---

GEEK LAWYER’S ORIGINAL SITE (now defunct)

His blog entry of 4th February kicked it all off. This is the offending part, with reference to 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 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 political stalker before but I think that that is what this person is. He has no interest in politics and is a right wing loony. From his poor inarticulate writing and weak arguments he is clearly not very bright and is manifestly poorly educated – ideal Neo-Labour fodder. I am assuming, from the tone, that the interest in Tony Bliar is a homosexual one.”

I had commented at his site, the first to do so, and fully expected plenty of others to follow suit in the same disapproving tone, but no. Others followed, but not at the start, in MY tone. The comments were truly staggering. Only one early comment following mine, took issue with Geek Laywer. None of his ‘regulars’ said ‘that’s a bit heavy, Geek’. After a while, other more civilised people responded to speak in support of my complaint. Not lawyers, but ordinary voters who DO understand that there has been a threat to this country AND the wider world for decades, which is now using the naive political classes for their own ends.

Ever the prince of semantics and sublety, GL continued graciously, on his unfriendly commenters …

Comment by Geeklawyer

2008-02-04 17:22:14

“[...] Say what you like, the great thing about the Internet is democratisation. Now everyone can see what working class morons think not just their employers. 50 years ago this fellow would have been cutting my lawn. Now he’s attempting to argue a point in public, for all the world to see. It’s very encouraging, but also depressing in that it shows how far we have to still to go.”

And then this … his musings on possible charges, (which I had raised), under the Terrorism Act 2006:

Comment by Geeklawyer

2008-02-04 19:32:54

“I am drafting a skeleton as we speak – I shall try it on for size:“2. The Claimants say that the first Defendant was in breach of Clause 2 of the Agreement and that thereby they suffered significant damage ”Hmmm, yea, worth a go I reckon. What’s the worst that could happen?”

None of his erudite allies or colleagues chose to offer him the benefit of their thoughts on this. Not that he needs or seeks second opinions. This might have been the beginning of the realisation that the great unwashed were causing him to take that site down before charges were laid. Of course, he’ll never admit that.

And then … his remarks on my blog’s comments …

Comment by Geeklawyer

2008-02-04 17:30:51

“There even appear to be idiots who agree with him Scroll down for comments by Noddy and Campbell. Jesus can someone please close down their bit of the Internet please? Thanks”

‘Purlease‘ … says he, ‘or I might have to remove mine!’

ROUND OF APPLAUSE TO … WHOMSOEVER!

This kind of ‘clever’, insulting, pompous and incestuous repartee went on for a few more days at his site and mine until …

On Tuesday morning, 11th February, I had an e-mail from a regular commenter telling me they could not access the site run by Geek Lawyer. He seemed to have been relegated to that great unsolved case in the electronic ether.

Immediately his friends and supporters rallied, all six of them. They were at my blog, accusing, abusing and generally sounding a bit miffed. I was accused of downing a good man; threatening to do away with freedom of speech; holding carelessly aloft the last nail for the coffin of democracy and free speech in this great land.

And GL told us all his site had suffered a DDOS (denial of service) attack. He assumed that I was responsible. Or if not me personally, one of the Blair supporters at my site. He will already know, if such a charge is true, as his blog should have given him a record of IPs posting there which he can check against his blog host’s records.

IS IT WORTH COMPLAINING ABOUT SUCH A DISCREDITABLE MAN?

I’d been disturbed about this particular post at his site since it was posted on 4th February, 2008. Those who have been following it will know why, whether or not you agree that my complaints were valid.

My position was simple. This barrister was, from my interpretation of his words, bemoaning the fact that Al Qaeda had not yet managed to assassinate the former Prime Minister. And if only they could now correct that omission, we would all thank them and re-assess our opinions of AQ.

TERRORISM ACT 2006

According to the Terrorism Act 2006, he may have broken at least two sections herein.

1. Incitement to terror

2. Glorification of terror

My layman’s interpretation indicates these (particularly 2b(ii) and 3, but there may be more), to be the relevant sections:

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.

Back to top

Geek Lawyer, never one to take questioning of his actions or motives seriously, promptly put up another site. He did not re-post the incendiary comments there, although he says he will, when he has time.

And now he and his acolytes accuse me or others of bringing down his site. Diversion tactics don’t work unless there is some truth to them, Mr GL.

He launched it making the point that his words were not illegal – but only words and thoughts. Whereas a DDOS attack is illegal.

So – go ahead. Sue me, Geek.

A DDOS ATTACK ? I DON’T BELIEVE IT

I don’t and can’t speak on behalf of the actions of all who take my side in this argument. The Geekites managed to upset one or two people by their arrogant approach while he was still online in the other place. And they are still doing so now at his new place. But I think that Geek is being illiberal with the verity here.

If he had been attacked in this way, he would be willing to share the evidence with us. His site’s host would have sent him a friendly e-mail apologising (yes, GL, some of us know how and when to apologise), and they’d have told him whether or not his site contents had been backed up on their system. They’d have informed him that his resurrection was imminent, or the same url still available to him for re-building. But if they have, GL has thus far not seen fit to share that information with the rest of us on his new site.

All he says is that a range of IP addresses are being investigated, and he will get the old site back again “when he has time”.

Interesting.

---

Here at my blog, the day after his was taken down, he had the gall and stupidity to post this:

GEEK STILL ‘WISHING’ … BUT NO MENTION OF AQ (this time)

(… but we didn’t have long to wait until AQ surfaced in his armoury. See the first comment at the end of this page.)

GL said on 11th February:

“I do of course very much wish that someone somewhere someday kills Blair.”

His full comment:

Geeklawyer Says:
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 [Note from Editor, BS: 'moon23' said Geek did NOT mean to say that he wished AQ would kill Blair (read below , in red)] 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

Note: this was moon23’s comment which Geek says was wrong:

moon23 Says:
February 22, 2008 at 12:53 pm

“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.”

Go back to top

---

Out of the mouths of babes. By concentrating on dissecting his choice of words on the assassinate Blair part, he seeks to evade attention on the rest: the glorification of terrorism.

Of course he applauds wholeheartedly the release this week by Appeal Court judges of five young men who downloaded literature from the internet. His starting point is that the mere thought of terror, assassination, chaos, supplying, aiding and abetting terrorism is wholly different, entirely unassociated, of no relevance whatsoever to actual terror, in the small Geekish mind. We must wait and watch in impotence until they actually do the act. And then we’ll get them.

That’ll be over some of our dead bodies. And the rest of us will have Geek and his ilk to blame. Very satisfactory.

I don’t imagine for one moment that anyone will take GL to court over this. The government and the previous PM know they are unlikely to win in the present climate of ridicule and accusations of control freakery going on in some establishment circles. And the government and Mr Blair have more pressing things to see to.

But an apology for any ‘misunderstanding’ and a nod to how it could have happened from Geek Lawyer, would be something. Something too far, I imagine, for the proud.

---

BURNING ALIVE? BEHEADING? WESTERN VALUES?

In case you are still not convinced that Al Qaeda is a murderous operation, and like Mr Geek you think the whole Al Qaeda business is invented or exaggerated, please watch this video. It was originally posted on YouTube in December 2007, and has since been removed. It is highly graphic and quite horrendous.

Plenty of comments there. This is part of one.

The only people sickened and outraged are right-wing bloggers. Not a peep from any international human rights organizations, leftist think tanks, European politicians, Muslim religious leaders…

Imagine white American Baptists doing this.

Only right-wing bloggers demand that Muslims comport themselves like human beings. Therefore, only right-wing bloggers see Muslims as human beings.

Ironic, ain’t it?

Read more on this report of the ‘execution’ of Al Qaeda’a prisoners here. I call it murder.

---

REAL LIFE – REAL DEATH

NO BARBARISM HERE. NOT EVER!

WHY?

This poor soul is, was, it seems, a woman, (if buttonhole positions are universal).

Someone’s daughter, wife, mother, sister.

Man or woman, it is an abomination which we must all condemn and remember.

Why in the name of all that’s holy?

Adultery?

Never here in the UK. Never, never, NEVER!

Please visit the Prodos Thinker’s blog

---

I wrote this page in July last year, 2007, just after Mr Blair left office. It could have been written today. Absurd Islamists – Loopy Civil Righters

---

AGAINST HUMAN NATURE

---

Another enemy within – Sharon Stone: ‘JAFFA, Israel, 19th February, 2008 – Mideast terrorist leaders today thanked actress Sharon Stone for claiming to Arab media the U.S. used the Sept. 11 attacks as “pretext” for launching wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.’

Interesting how these Islamist men listen to THIS particular non-Islamic woman, when their own are handed the “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil” role in life. I hesitate to dismiss any religion as evil or intrinsically wrong, but after looking at the above video, you have to wonder if Sharon Stone is in cloud cuckoo land. I know this does NOT apply to every Muslim land, but if she emigrated to one of the countries she seems to so admire she’d better be prepared to give up acting, and driving, and going out with male friends, and contemplating divorce, and coveting anyone else’s husband. Unless she wanted to lose her head.

If, after this, you feel in the need for something lighter, take a look at this Spoof site: British law to be introduced in Saudi Arabia

Excerpt: ‘Stoning of juveniles will remain in the weaponry of Saudi judges, but the size of the stones used will be reduced to the size of a garden pea, so as not to cause harm to the poor little criminals. ASBOs will be introduced as a deterrent, as they have met with much success in this country.’

Remember this – First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew …

---

The Archbishop Has NOW Started The Debate

---

Two British Muslim Women Discuss Sharia Law in Britain

---

PART OF GEEK’S ‘CALL TO ARMS’ TO AL QAEDA (full comment first one of the comments below)

“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.”

How many more chargeable comments will this man think up?

---

Prime Minister’s statement August 2005, a month after the 7/7 bombings in London, reference the Terrorism Act, later implemented 2006

On August 5, Tony Blair made a statement at his regular monthly news conference which included a mention of the proposed legislation. He said:

“… there will be new anti-terrorism legislation in the Autumn. This will include an offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism. The sort of remarks made in recent days should be covered by such laws. But this will also be applied to justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere, not just in the United Kingdom.”

The statement “the sort of remarks made in recent days” was generally taken as a reference to Omar Bakri Muhammad who had received a great deal of publicity for his reaction to the London bombing. There had been other statements, made by a number of controversial figures, about the September 11, 2001 attacks and attacks on US and UK forces during the Iraqi insurgency. These figures also include Muslim clerics such as Abu Qutada and Abu Hamza al-Masri.

---

---

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Starfucking
• Geek Girl Shirts
• Geek Girls Rule! #17 – Geeks and Racism
• The Geek Beat: The State of the Geek

Tags: Al Qaeda, Archbishop of Canterbury, assassinate Tony Blair, barrister, DDOS attack on GL, Geek LAwyer, glorification of terrorism, hope someone kills Blair, incitement to terrorism, lawyer, Lincoln's Inn, London, ragbags at Al Qaeda kill Blair, terrorism act 2006, will Tony Blair be assassinated