- 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.]
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”.
“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?
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!
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.
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?
‘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 attacksBroadly 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 …”
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 )
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