Irish Blog Whacked

Friday, May 17, 2013


Nigel Farage has described protesters who forced him to flee a press conference as "fascist scum" who were filled with "total and utter hatred" of the English.
The UK Independence party leader challenged the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, to condemn the "pretty ugly" face of nationalist protesters who forced him to abandon a press conference (video) at the Canon's Gait pub on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh.
Farage had to be whisked away in a police van after a crowd of about 50 young demonstrators, including activists in the radical left pro-Scottish independence movement, forced him to retreat four times.
The Ukip leader told BBC Good Morning Scotland: "The fact that 50 yobbo, fascist scum turn up and aren't prepared to listen to debate I absolutely refuse to believe is representative of Scottish public opinion. It is not.
"If this is the face of Scottish nationalism, it's a pretty ugly nation. The anger, the hatred, the shouting, the snarling, the swearing was all linked in to a desire for the union jack to be burnt."
Farage defended his decision to call the protesters "fascist scum", saying they had been "filled with total and utter hatred of the English and not prepared to engage in debate at all".
He criticised the media for failing to report "the excesses of Scottish nationalism and how deeply unpleasant they can be".
He did not blame the Scottish National party (SNP) leadership for orchestrating the protest, but told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "These people were supporters of Scottish nationalism – virulently opposed to the English, all sorts of suggestions as to what we could do with the union jack. I would like to hear Alex Salmond come out and condemn this sort of behaviour and I challenge him today to do that.
"If anybody from Ukip says anything on Facebook that is in any way homophobic or mildly racist you guys jump down my throat and demand that I condemn them and expel them from the party, which of course I do. It is about time Scottish nationalism was put under the same level of scrutiny. It has long been known in Scotland that there are some elements of Scottish nationalism and the SNP that are deeply unpleasant. This needs to be talked about."
Farage defended his decision to link the protesters to the SNP: "They were all campaigners for independence, they were all people who vote SNP. They were all united by a hatred of the English, the union jack and everything the UK represents."
He said he hoped Salmond did not hate the English. But he added: "I do think that here in Edinburgh there is such a level of intimidation that people are now scared to speak out. I have never been anywhere around the UK where I met people, even those with a completely contrary view, that I wasn't able to have a discussion or a debate with. This was just a hate mob and nothing less than that."
Farage was first forced out of the Canon's Gait pub after the landlord took fright as the protesters disrupted his press conference with shouts of "racist", "scum" and "homophobe". Out on the street, as the fingers pointed and taunts escalated, he was rejected by one taxi and turfed out of a second.
Then, finally, the harassed and ill-prepared handful of police officers was forced to push him back into the Canon's Gait, slamming its front doors shut, as the demonstrators chanted: "Nigel, you're a bawbag, Nigel you're a bawbag, na, na, na, hey!".
The etched sign above the Canon Gait's door reads: "Enjoy your visit".
With further verses of "Ukip scum, off our streets" echoing in his ears, Farage was bustled into a police van under the glare of television camera lights.
After attempting to argue back against the repeated accusations of racism and homophobia with protests of innocence, Farage finally had to admit his surprise. "We've never, ever, ever had this kind of response. Is this a kind of anti-English thing? It could be," he said to a reporter.
The protesters disagreed. Many said they were there to protest at Ukip's stance on immigration and the political backgrounds of Ukip's local council candidates; others were there to protest against his party's obscure economic policies. There was no violence, no punches thrown, no missiles lobbed.
Rachel, a young woman in a wheelchair who had wheeled herself on to the Royal Mile to blockade the second taxi Farage tried to take, said simply: "Ukip are just bullshit."
Some were independence campaigners, there to remind him of his nationality: after one, standing just a few feet from Farage, invited the Ukip leader to "shove your union jack up your arse", a flustered Farage said: "Clearly this is anti-British, anti-English. They even hate the union jack."
Farage had arrived at the pub in a buoyant mood, planning for his long-denied breakthrough into Scottish politics.
Compared to the near 25% support in the English local elections, the highest his party has ever polled in Scotland is 5.2% in the 2009 European elections; in many others, Ukip support has rested at under 1%.
The latest Ipsos Mori opinion poll, published in early May, found that just two Scots out of 1,001 would vote Ukip.
He was hoping for a quiet, convivial briefing – hopefully with pint in hand – with the Scottish political press corps. This was to be the official launch of Ukip's campaign for the Holyrood parliamentary seat of Aberdeen Donside – a seat held very comfortably by the SNP.
"We've proved we can get votes in Wales, England and Northern Ireland. We're still untested in Scotland," he said. "We've not had an opportunity to test Ukip policies with the Scottish people for a very long time." Asked about Ukip's chances, he was optimistic. "I wouldn't be at all surprised if we did quite creditably."
Less than 30 minutes after speaking those words, the MEP for South-East Counties was sitting hunched on the rear seat of a police riot van being driven off at speed, his plans to introduce Otto Inglis, Ukip's ever hopeful candidate for the Scottish parliament byelection on 20 June, forgotten.

The Guardian

BBC Rule Britannia

The Left vs. the Liberal Media
Media Lens debunks the BBC’s humanitarian interventionists
By Neil Clark
May 16, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"The American Conservative"- It all started in July 2001 when two men, concerned about bias in the corporate news media in the UK, began to send out “media alerts” to a small number of family and friends. Twelve years on and Media Lens—the brainchild of writer David Edwards, a former manager in sales and marketing, and David Cromwell, a physicist by background—has established itself as the UK’s media watchdog. There’s no doubting the impact they have made. “Without their meticulous and humane analysis, the full gravity of the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan might have been consigned to bad journalism’s first draft of bad history,” is the verdict of veteran reporter and filmmaker John Pilger.
It’s been an eventful twelve years. In addition to the “debacles” of Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve had the (ongoing) menacing of Iran on account of an unproven nuclear-weapons program and Israeli military assaults on Lebanon in 2006 and on Gaza in 2008 and again in 2012. Add in the global financial crash of 2008, and there’s been plenty to keep the two Davids occupied.
David Cromwell’s new book, Why Are We The Good Guys?, discusses these events and the work that he and Edwards have done to counter the “elite-friendly value assumptions and judgements” that characterize their coverage in Britain. Although he is clearly a man of the left—his working-class childhood was an “interesting mix of Catholic and Communist” influences—Cromwell’s not one to be deceived by labels, an important skill to possess in an age when wars are sold as “humanitarian interventions” to gain support from liberals.
Media Lens has been outspoken, when the need arises, in its critique of so-called liberal-left media. Many on the British center-left give the BBC a free pass because they have swallowed the line that the organization is somehow “left-wing.” Yet Cromwell and Edwards have shown that when it comes to propagandizing for illegal wars and peddling establishment views, the BBC has at least as bad a record as commercial news networks.
When I caught up with David to talk to him about his new book, the BBC was in the middle of what has been described by some as the biggest crisis in its 90-year history: the resignation of its Director-General and other bigwigs after the fallout from a “Newsnight” program on child abuse. But while heads rolled over the state-owned broadcaster getting allegations wrong on just one program, Cromwell points out that the BBC was never held accountable for the role it played in the lead up to the Iraq War.
“There was no such pressure for senior BBC staff to go over the broadcaster’s systemic failure to challenge US-UK propaganda over Iraq’s non-existent WMD. This media failure paved the way towards war in Iraq and the subsequent brutal and bloody occupation. Instead of responsible public-service journalism, BBC News provides a reliable conduit for government propaganda, most notably the state’s supposedly benign intentions in foreign wars and international relations. That is the daily news diet we are all spoon-fed.”
No such presumption of good faith applies when journalists discuss the actions of countries that don’t toe the Washington line. “It is, of course, fine for journalists in the West to point to the crimes of official enemies and to mock them for their transparent propaganda efforts. Thus, the BBC’s Emily Maitlis was able to introduce the flagship television program ‘Newsnight’ with a touch of sardonic wit: ‘Hello, good evening. The Russians are calling it a “peace enforcement operation.” It’s the kind of Newspeak that would make George Orwell proud.’
“Maitlis was referring to the invasion of Russian forces into the Georgian province of South Ossetia in August 2008. By contrast, imagine a BBC presenter referring skeptically to the government’s claim of a ‘peace enforcement operation’ for the West’s invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya and describing such language as ‘the kind of newspeak that would make George Orwell proud.’ It just would not happen.”
I ask Cromwell how he would respond to those who say that Media Lens should devote all its energies on attacking neocon über-hawks rather than criticizing the liberal media, which might agree with the group’s standpoints, say, 70 percent of the time. “Media Lens has indeed spent more time analyzing the liberal media than right-wing outlets. Why? Because the liberal media is often regarded as the outlets where the most progressive and the most challenging views can be seen and heard. If you like, it’s one end of the acceptable spectrum of news and views. But if even here there are severe limits on permissible challenges to state-corporate power, what does that say about society generally? It’s like a litmus test for dissent.”
Cromwell believes that the role of the media in promoting the doctrine of “liberal interventionism” has been absolutely crucial. “If the public was better informed, and not so often misled by those in power, there would likely be a stronger rein on the governing elite. But it’s not happening. A major reason for this is that the corporate media acts as an echo chamber and amplifier of government propaganda. Even when challenged, senior journalists say that their role is to report what those in power say and do—even what they ‘think.’
“For example, when the BBC’s Nick Robinson was the ITN political editor, he wrote of the war in Iraq:
In the run-up to the conflict, I and many of my colleagues, were bombarded with complaints that we were acting as mouthpieces for Mr Blair. Why, the complainants demanded to know, did we report without question his warning that Saddam was a threat? Hadn’t we read what Scott Ritter had said or Hans Blix? I always replied in the same way. It was my job to report what those in power were doing or thinking… . That is all someone in my sort of job can do.
“Robinson performs the same compliant role today as political editor for the BBC,” Cromwell says.
In the ’90s we saw an informal alliance formed between neoconservatives and progressives united behind their support for “liberal intervention.” I ask Cromwell if he thinks that a similar alliance can be formed between the antiwar left and the antiwar right. “I’d be wary of an overt alliance with anyone, right-wing or otherwise, who espouses other views that I might find distasteful. But certainly traditional conservatives should be—and often are—vehemently opposed to what goes by the benign-sounding term ‘neo-liberalism,’ which I unpack in the book.”
One of the most riveting chapters in Cromwell’s book is called “Beyond Indifference,” in which he talks about his philosophical influences. He concludes—rather like Aldous Huxley—that if we do want to “free ourselves” and live better lives, it all starts with undertaking “small acts of kindness for others.” And in contrast, he writes,
Violence feeds on violence, as wise people have known for thousands of years. For example, if brutal state repression is met by violence from some elements of society, it provides an excuse for state forces to ramp up fire-power and crush dissent with even more brutal and widespread violence. The current state of Permanent War can only be ended by people coming together peacefully to overcome state power.
Cromwell certainly thinks that in challenging elite state propaganda we’re in a better position now than we were when Media Lens began in 2001. “One positive thing I’ve noticed is that more people are challenging the media, at least judging by the messages posted on our board and Facebook page, the emails we get and the tweets we receive. Often, even before we’ve worked up a media alert, we’ve been beaten to it by our readers—although, to be fair to ourselves, we do typically wait a few days or longer to see how an event is being played out in the media. Ideally, I would hope that in five years’ time there would be less need for Media Lens to be on the internet ‘haranguing’ and ‘vilifying’ journalists, as skeptics and opponents sometimes say! And surely by ten years from now I can be happily retired and pottering about in a garden shed. Preferably my own and not some random neighbor’s.”
Neil Clark is a UK-based journalist, blogger, and writer.


irishmen and irishwomen

Lest we forget.

Read this site and weep.

Weep for the agonies and deaths of your people at the hands of genocidists. The authorities who imposed the curriculum, the teachers and professors who funneled it into you, have carefully kept you uninformed as to which British regiment, or that any regiment, murdered your people. Until now, that information was kept from you. You had no access to it.
You do now - you read it on your computer screen! Commit the regiment's name to memory.
Never, ever, forget it!  Learn its British HQ town. As no Jewish person would ever refer to the "Jewish Oxygen Famine of 1939 - 1945", so no Irish person ought ever refer to the Irish Holocaust as a famine.
Is Britain's cover-up of its 1845-1850 holocaust in Ireland the most successful Big Lie in all of history?  
The cover-up is accomplished by the same British terrorism and bribery that perpetrated the genocide.  Consider: why does Irish President Mary Robinson call it "Ireland's greatest natural disaster" while she conceals the British army's role?  Potato blight, "phytophthora infestans", did spread from America to Europe in 1844, to England and then Ireland in 1845 but it didn't cause famine anywhere.  Ireland did not starve for potatoes; it starved for food.
Ireland starved because its food, from 40 to 70 shiploads per day, was removed at gunpoint by 12,000 British constables reinforced by the British militia, battleships, excise vessels, Coast Guard and by 200,000 British soldiers (100,000 at any given moment)  The attached map shows the never-before-published names and locations in Ireland of the food removal regiments (Disposition of the Army; Public Record Office, London; et al, of which we possess photocopies).  Thus, Britain seized from Ireland's producers tens of millions of head of livestock; tens of millions of tons of flour, grains, meat, poultry & dairy products; enough to sustain 18 million persons.
The Public Record Office recently informed us that their British regiments' Daily Activity Reports of 1845-1850 have "gone missing."  Those records include each regiment's cattle drives and grain-cart convoys it escorted at gun-point from the Irish districts assigned to it.  Also "missing" are the receipts issued by the British army commissariat officers in every Irish port tallying the cattle and tonnage of foodstuff removed; likewise the export lading manifests. Other records provide all-revealing glimpses of the "missing" data; such as: ...