Say you Want a Revolution… you Know we all wanna Change the World
How do you get a revolution in the UK? The Sex Pistols thought Anarchy might work but that got them no further than Joseph Conrad had long ago predicted.
“It is this country that is dangerous, with her idealistic conception of legality. The social spirit of this people is wrapped up in scrupulous prejudices and that is fatal to our work.
― Joseph Conrad, The Secret Agent
England of course had long since had it’s Glorious Revolution.
To understand why James II’s most powerful subjects eventually rose up in revolt against him we need to understand the deep-seated fear of ‘popery‘ in Stuart England. ‘Popery‘ meant more than just a fear or hatred of Catholics and the Catholic church. It reflected a widely-held belief in an elaborate conspiracy theory, that Catholics were actively plotting the overthrow of church and state. In their place would be established a Catholic tyranny, with England becoming merely a satellite state, under the control of an all-powerful Catholic monarch, (in the era of the Glorious Revolution, identified with Louis XIV of France). This conspiracy theory was given credibility by the existence of some genuine catholic subterfuge, most notably the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.
Four hundred years later we have the European Union and the Muslim Caliphate to frighten us. Will the English become a Revolting Nation again? England certainly has been being painted as a revolting place for quite a number of years now. Cast your minds back as to how Blairism and New Labour arose on a tidal wave of sleaze by the highest in the land. Then, there was Jonathan Aitken and his famed ‘Sword of Truth’.
Jonathan Aitken’s downfall began in April 1995 when he decided to sue for libel over a series of allegations made against him by The Guardian and World in Action… Standing in Conservative Central Office, the former journalist famously declared he would cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism with “the sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play”… The Guardian’s source for the Aitken story was Mohamed al-Fayed, the owner of the Ritz and Harrods. Furious at the government’s refusal to grant him a UK passport, Mr al-Fayed made sleaze allegations against Aitken and several other Tory MPs.
Like some apparent crazed Oscar Wilde of the 20th Century, Aitken had drawn his sword in the British Libel Courts and promptly jumped on top of it himself. Dead. What was he thinking of? But he wasn’t the first, or the only one.
The allegations followed on from similar claims made about Mr Hamilton and another Tory MP, Tim Smith, in The Guardian in 1994. Mr Smith admitted asking questions for cash and resigned as a junior Northern Ireland minister.
Being the writer of an apparently futile Blog myself, I was bound to be attracted to another blog the old crone upstairs pointed me to a week or two ago. The website she led me to has a much longer pedigree of futility than mine. This one seems to have been hanging about on the internet since that fateful year of Our Lord, 2001!
http://guardianlies.com/
The Guardian newspaper’s “Cash for Questions” story marked a turning point in the fortunes of the British Conservative Party. When it hit London’s newsstands in October 1994 it dominated the news agenda. In October 1996 it raged again. It reappeared the following January and again in March, stubbornly persisting in the run up to Labour’s General Election landslide of 1 May 1997. Since then it has resurfaced repeatedly.
These pages show how The Guardian had not, as it claimed, exposed a story of “Tory sleaze”, but had printed a concocted tale in an increasingly feverish effort to oust the Conservatives from power. This is a story of corruption and cover-up within the British Press. The culprits thought that they had got away with it. Now they hope they can rely on the British media to protect them for as long as this website is broadcast.
But this website will be here for years. In the following pages the guilty are named, the evidence condemning them is laid out, and the mechanism by which they duped the British nation is exposed. The truth cannot be buried forever. So it’s merely a question of time before the perpetrators are brought to book and the history books are rewritten.
I’ll let you look for yourself to judge whether the bloggers valedictory words are a Sword of Truth or a Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, as David Hencke suggests they could be, should David finally gird his loins and enter the Libel Arena, accompanied by his trusty Guardian Angel. A large part of the nub of the evidence lies in the teasing apart of the schemes hatched between Mohamed and The Guardian.
“[Jonathan Boyd Hunt] created a website documenting the Guardian’s role in the “cash for questions” affair that is so mad that it is not even worth talking to libel lawyers to gain redress.”
‘Cash for questions’ author David Hencke, writing in The Guardian of 12 Dec 2001, following Louis Theroux’s TV documentary ‘When Louis met the Hamiltons’,
It was the combination of David and Louis that really drew me in personally, because David Hencke and his Exaro News Agency has been at the forefront of the political offspring of Operation Yewtree: Operation Fernbridge.
Louis seems to have done so many TV programmes about those who are now in the lowest dudgeon of public regard: Jimmy Savile for one, but also Max Clifford and The Hamiltons. Louis has now left this country and instead is living the dream in the USA: Coincidence?
Max Clifford became snarled up in Operation Yewtree and was probably it’s most unlikely victim. Max Clifford impaled on a sword of truth?! [Ed: Shome mistake here shurely?] Max was one of the very men who, according to his own autobiography, dreamed up the seismic revelations that led to the tidal wave of sleaze which overwhelmed the seemingly invincible Tories back in the 1990’s. Remarkably, Max also tells of being on a retainer from Mohamed Al Fayed, and blow me down, what do I find on page 256 of his book?
In December 2003 Charles Wardle, an ex-Tory and former minister who Max originally met through their mutual connection with Mohamed Al Fayed, asked Max on behalf of Nigel Farage, the front man for the anti-EU United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) if he would handle the …
The recent inexorable rise of UKIP has been against a backdrop of a complete loss of public belief in the British Establishment. The media had already convinced us all that all of our elected representatives were “on the take” and more recently we are now being convinced that they are likely all paedophile child murderers to boot!
David Hencke is classed as a political journalist. Take a look at his output on Exaro. Where is the politics? Then take a backwards glance at Nick Davies, another foremost Guardian journalist. He of course became especially lauded as the 2010 election approached and the Murdoch Hacking Scandal proceeded. The public imagination was said to be grabbed when it was reported that the Mobile Phone of a Child Murder victim had been cynically edited by someone in the Murdoch group, giving rise to a forlorn hope in her parents that she was actually still alive.
From that story all else followed, but we do now know that this crucial turning-point in the story was untrue, just as Jonathan Boyd-Hunt contends that “Cash For Questions” was essentially untrue. Poor Milly’s phone was just edited by the automatic Technology.We also now know that the Murdoch Press was by no means unique in exploiting the security gaps in the answering machine/mobile phone technology in the past. What is also very apparent is that where David Hencke is a political journalist obsessed with child abuse, Nick Davies was a political journalist who used to be obsessed with child abuse.
If the English are as immoveable by Politics as Conrad suggested in his novel all those years ago, how else can they be moved? The answer has always been obvious and the list very long.
Political scandals in the United Kingdom are commonly referred to by the press and commentators as “‘sleaze”.
But, are the stories always actually true? And why are all the same old faces seeming to be popping up all the time recently, one moment as Hero and the next moment as Zero. Are we the people merely pawns in a game played by those in the media with the right friends in the right places at the right times. Is it the politicians we should be living in loathing and fear of? Or is it those who claim to carry the Sword of Truth – the Journalists?
How do we know what politicians say? The media tells us.
How do we know what politicians do? The media tells us
How exactly does a politician even function without the media?
Who really has their hand on the tiller of our ship of State?
Time perhaps that we put away foolish things and started to be men and women who do our own thinking, and listening. And it was then that another quote from Conrad’s cynical book of the past caught my attention.
“The terrorist and the policeman both come from the same basket. Revolution, legality – countermoves in the same game; forms of idleness at bottom identical.”
I looked back at where I had started…
“It is this country that is dangerous, with her idealistic conception of legality.”
How do you make a revolution in a country so idealistic about the concept of Legality?
The answer is startlingly obvious. You get the legal establishment to lead the revolution.
But what if the revolution all rests on lies, including the most recent one: Operation Yewtree.
And, just as the next election comes due… so does the next wave of Sleaze.
Right on cue.
http://news.sky.com/story/1432234/cash-for-access-claims-mps-hit-back
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know we all wanna change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know you better free your mind instead.
- Chromatistes
February 27, 2015 at 8:54 am -
Q. Why didn’t the Reverend Ian Paisley allow dried flowers in his home?
A. He insisted on ‘No Pot Pourri’.
- Jonathan Boyd Hunt
February 27, 2015 at 9:39 am -
Well, wonders do sometimes happen! Thank you Moor, and thank you Anna Raccoon, for not passing my website by after having stumbled across it.
Be in no doubt I am no friend or ‘supporter’ (in the usual sense of the word) of the ‘disgraced’ former Tory MP Neil Hamilton. But I am truly appalled at how a demonstrably innocent man and honourable government minister could have been stitched up by an incurious, homogeneous media, led by the vindictive, conspiratorial Guardian and its mouthpieces the BBC and (shock horror!) the mighty Press Association. George Orwell eat your heart out!
One difficulty with my website http://www.Guardianlies.com is that it asks the reader to accept several huge assertions without actually depicting the evidence that proves them. Among these figure the following:
1) that the Guardian’s Westminster correspondent David Hencke and his Editor Peter Preston had actually invented their original ‘cash for questions’ story of Oct 20th 1994 accusing the lobbyist Ian Greer of bribing Tory MPs Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton.
2.) that contrary to Hencke and Preston’s story, Mohamed Fayed had not in fact levelled any ‘cash for questions’ against anyone.
3.) that Fayed had in fact merely agreed to play along as a whistleblower on Greer, to facilitate the story.
4.) Fayed had no beef against Greer at all, but was happy to see him sacrificed because the Guardian’s story facilitated his own vengeful vendetta against John Major’s government and especially Neil Hamilton, whose refusal to abuse his ministerial post at the DTI effectively torpedoed his chance of British citizenship.Proving that the biggest political scandal of the last thirty years (according to the Spectator of 11th July 2009) was invented and supported by wholesale perjury and forgery is about as big a story as they come. The media’s reluctance to examine the documentary evidence proving that makes it even bigger still.
But facts are facts. Which is why I spent several years making a TV documentary based on the facts, which, unlike my website, allows viewers to examine the evidence for themselves.
So, consumers of this excellent blog, do please have a scout around my website, but then please digest the first five of 47 videos I’ve created which tell the whole story of cash for questions – I believe every single aspect of it. They are:
Cash for Questions 3: An unevidenced tale shored up by lies
http://youtu.be/pMI9ZwXnr5QCash for Questions 44: The proof Neil Hamilton is innocent
http://youtu.be/aFXiQZyLT_cCash for Questions 45: Neil Hamilton’s ‘wrongdoing’ in context
http://youtu.be/AxLr728Gcc8Cash for Questions 46: The Guardian’s lies that Hamilton lied
http://youtu.be/T3mY1jt8nzwCash for Questions 47: The odd behaviour of Lord Carlile QC and Martin Bell
http://youtu.be/wyo9RS3hwT8I hope Anna Raccoon’s readers find these films enlightening and entertaining. Once I have ammassed a few hundered followers, both of YouTube channel and of my Twitter account @JonBoydHunt, I’ll then start releasing the chapters from my documentary that expose the Guardian’s forgery and perjury.
Thanks again Anna Raccoon and Moor.
- Moor Larkin
February 27, 2015 at 10:27 am -
- Chris
February 27, 2015 at 10:58 am -
This is a very interesting film too – Adam Curtis on how business and politics combined & collided in the 80s & 90s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdQ3ztGk0D4
- Chris
- Moor Larkin
- robbo
February 27, 2015 at 10:01 am -
Revolution tommorrow! Ban the keeping of cats and dogs!
- JimS
February 27, 2015 at 10:05 am -
The BBC tells me that Margaret Thatcher wanted a ‘celebrity’ to promote NHS-supporting charities and thereby gave Jimmy Savile a free pass to abuse whomsoever he wanted. So it was all her fault.
The BBC doesn’t tell me who made Jimmy Savile a ‘celebrity’. So nothing to do with them then.
- Chris
February 27, 2015 at 10:43 am -
If any organisation made Jimmy Savile a ‘celebrity’, it was Radio Luxembourg. Prior to the ‘Pirate Radio Revolution’ in 64/65 that in turn gave us BBC Radio One in late 67, Luxy was the main – if not only – outlet for Rock & Roll/Pop Music on the radio aside from the token Pick Of The Pops. It was huge, and had the support and funding of the music industry – and was still producing future star DJ’s well in the 70s.
That the BBC have never once pointed this out during the past 30 months is further proof (not that it’s needed) that they are committing harakiri. In fact it’s taken the brave and the under-fire – the late Mike Smith, DLT and various radio men giving evidence at his trials etc – to point out he spent less than an hour a week at the station pre-recording links that producers would make into his ‘Old Record Club’ weekly shows (just as you wouldn’t know unless you spoke to real BBC workers and producers how ‘token’ his role as host of television programmes was)
The BBC is, sadly, full of nasty individuals who feel the organisation is first and foremost a ‘news outlet’ (do we really pay our license fee for a news service? I paid mine for entertainment of the kind we’re starved of now on commercial channels) and consider trading the entertainment heritage — and, lest we forget, the professionalism and reputations of everyone who worked on them – in exchange for breaking stories ‘every journalist would want’
- Chris
- windsock
February 27, 2015 at 11:43 am -
It doesn’t really matter if the cash for questions was true or false does it? Well, not now, anyway. The public “wanted to believe”. Are they being manipulated now over various things – whether that’s Savile, our EU/IMF/NATO roles and what we get up to in various countries, who pays our politicians for which laws get passed, , the situation in the middle east, our budgetary ineptitude, our coming war with Islam blah blah blah? At the end, what do they want to believe?
It’s like the X-Files, but it’s no longer a tv programme.
- JimmyGiro
February 27, 2015 at 12:12 pm -
To appreciate the basis of the “Big Lie”…:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
one has to consider the Pareto Principle…:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
in conjunction with the two seminal works by Asch, and Milgram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
- Moor Larkin
February 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm -
Never thought Joseph Goebbels would make me snigger:
“The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”
Trouble is… if he said it, how can I possibly believe it?…
- JimmyGiro
February 27, 2015 at 3:27 pm -
… it would be ridiculous not to!
- JimmyGiro
- Moor Larkin
- binao
February 27, 2015 at 1:06 pm -
Over many years I’ve lost any belief in widespread conspiracy.
Sure there are secret cartels in business to protect price & market share; sure there’s some very nasty skulduggery in politics, but aren’t these are really just acts of opportunity? The people driving these activities didn’t I suppose get power on the basis of their saintly attributes.
As an aside, what warped mind organises tarts in Nazi uniforms to disrupt a UKIP conference?
That’s one side of it; I think minor compared to the bigger issue of the apparent cultural void between those running the country (executive & elected), and the reality of our lives. These people control what our children are taught, and drive the political & social agenda of the country. The BBC similarly seeks to influence rather than inform.
I still don’t think it’s a conspiracy, I think it’s just the way these people are. Recruiting people ‘like us’ perpetuates this pseudo ‘officer cadre’.
Just a view.
Sadly I don’t think we’re going to get a revolution. I also suspect the apparent desire for full time MPs will make things worse; I think Tapsell has a point.- Jonathan Boyd Hunt
February 27, 2015 at 2:49 pm -
My experience of ‘cash for questions’ — or, rather, my forlorn attempts to persuade the media to examine and air my research — reflects your thoughts precisely.
Naive child that I was, I initially assumed that the suppression of the facts unearthed by my research must be due to a media-wide conspiracy of sorts. I now know that it’s due to all sorts of factors:
1. In the case of the BBC, the shared innate political views of the overwhelming majority of its N&CA staff with the Guardian’s;
2. Ditto in the case of the Press Association;
3. The suffocating power that the above two news organisations have in shaping the output of all the remainder of the UK’s news outlets;
4. The British media’s convention of repeating other news organisations’ stories without accreditation and without checking the facts;
5. The reluctance of journalists working within the London bubble to give house room to radical new research that emanated from a regional freelance (for heaven’s sake!);
6. the innate left-of-centre, Guardian-sympathetic politics of the majority of news journalists on all newspapers, including the supposed Tory press;
7. the reluctance of journalists/news organisations to report a story differently to the stance they had originally taken;
8. “Pluralistic Ignorance”;
9. “The Rule of Seven”;
10. etc.
- Jonathan Boyd Hunt
- Duncan Disorderly
February 27, 2015 at 1:21 pm -
“There have been many odd alliances in the history of British journalism but the Guardian’s decision to trust implicitly a man they had themselves described, in an editorial written on 9 March 1990, as being guilty of ‘gross and certified deception’, seems on the face of it to be one of the oddest.”
- Bandini
February 27, 2015 at 1:34 pm -
Moor, I first stumbled across the GuardianLies site on your very own site, tucked away in the comments:
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-great-wise-elephant.html?view=timeslideI’m currently 15-minutes into the first episode of ‘Cash For Questions’ (or rather, Chapter 3) and I’m wondering if I have the stamina to see it through to – gulps – Chapter 47. With the best will in the world, I doubt it. Which may be a shame, as I have a lot of respect for those who doggedly pursue an idea or investigation, swimming against the tide… but I’m wary of being pulled into someone else’s obsessive pursuit (again).
I’d certainly be interested in hearing Jonathan Boyd Hunt’s opinion on the current Hencke/Exaro crusade, though, assuming he has been following it. As of yesterday we are hearing about a Down’s Syndrome man being ripped apart (by two reversing cars between which he was tied) by a sadistic paedophile, on a toff’s estate, to be presumably buried in one of the graves a poor lad/victim had just been obliged to dig… Quite extraordinary claims.
- Duncan Disorderly
February 27, 2015 at 2:13 pm -
The very fact there are 47 chapters (at least) actually detracts from the credibility of the claims. It makes it look as though the creator of the videos is not the full shilling. If that is not the case, it’s a real shame no editing was employed to distil over a days worth of video to a cogent 30 or 60 minute documentary.
- Bandini
February 27, 2015 at 2:30 pm -
When I briefly checked this out in January I came across the following:
“Trial by Conspiracy is far too long, lacks an index and abjures all footnotes. Mr Hunt often cannot see the wood for the trees, and piles detail upon detail, allegation upon allegation, until one’s head spins. On the other hand, this love of detail, the mark of most investigative reporters, can produce impressive results.”
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/24th-october-1998/38/media-studies
Sometimes a case of damned if they do (do the research), damned if they don’t.
And the idea of not being ‘the full shilling’ could, I suppose, be laid at Moor’s door too, given his prolific output about a man – Jimmy Savile – for whom he never even cared that much. However, I’m enjoying those posts as they touch on so many other aspects along the way. A relentless journey of many, many hours leading only to the possible conclusion that The Guardian lied with its cash-for-questions story is probably too much for these old aching feet of mine. As you say, a distilled hour-long version (with a right-to-reply from the accused) would be far more likely to grab our attention.- Jonathan Boyd Hunt
February 27, 2015 at 3:56 pm -
Duncan Disorderly; Bandini;
Might I humbly suggest that you misunderstand my purpose for making the documentary?
At 2006 my book ‘Trial by Conspiracy’ had been out for eight years. Thanks to the British media’s news blackout, instead of profiting from my work, my career was in ruins and prospective employers outside journalism with no understanding of how the media works assumed I must be a conspiracy-theorist with delusions of grandeur. Not nice.
Over those eight years I had seen all too well how the Guardian and its disciples (most of whom I am convinced know, or at least suspect, what the true story is) use all the tricks of journalism to parry my charges of perjury and forgery. For these reasons I decided that it would be futile making a traditional documentary that tells the story tightly, in, say, a 90-minute or in a 2 x 1-hour format, without making first a comprehensive version that corrals all the evidence systematically, in such a way that my findings of perjury and forgery cannot be parried.
The true story is expansive and multi-faceted. Its roots hark back to the 1980s, and its culmination – Hencke’s and Preston’s ‘cash for questions’ article of Oct 20th 1994 – was the product of the collision of two chronologies. Namely:
1. The ending in July 1994 of the Guardian’s forlorn campaign to bring down London’s then foremost parliamentary lobbyist Ian Greer by whatever means; and
2. The ending in September 1994 of Mohamed Fayed’s long campaign to have quashed in the European Court of Human Rights the 1990 DTI report exposing his fraudulent 1985 acquisition of House of Fraser (Harrods’ then parent).
Though the story is essentially simple, the Guardian’s ploys are deft and numerous, and they are supported by a raft of lies which, thanks to its influence over the PA and BBC, have become universally accepted as true. Accordingly, exposing the Guardian’s deceptions, misrepresentations, lies and forgeries can only be achieved after first exploring the mass of relevant background and contextual facts.
When Jeremy Isaacs, then of LWT, decided in 1969 to produce a documentary series about WWII, such is the multi-faceted nature of that story he too must have pondered the right way to do so. His solution – breaking the story down into digestible chunks, each of which deals with a single issue – is the template that I used in the making of my own documentary.
I accept, of course, that the five chapters of my documentary to which I have provided links above are all quite lengthy, coming in between 30-40 minutes each. But proving that the ‘disgraced’ ‘corrupt’ ‘liar’ Neil Hamilton is in fact: a) innocent of taking ‘cash for questions; b) isn’t a ‘wrongdoer’ in the accepted sense of the word; c) acted honestly, was quite a challenge, and I simply would not have been able to disprove any of those unjust monikers with a 30-minute “Panorama” style documentary – especially as my reputation is, to put it mildly, hardly known.
There’s not a media organisation in Britain that wants to accept my research. Accordingly I had no option but to use as much relevant evidence as I knew existed to prove each of the individual component parts of the story.
Most of the chapters come in at around ten minutes’ duration. There’s one just six minutes long. The longest is 50 minutes. They are all as long as they have to be to prove their own particular component part of the story.
One last thing: to those enlightened readers of this blog who might imagine that the watching of my films will be a dreadful task, please try not to. I would suggest that you to put aside half an hour or so to watch the first, exposing the vacuousness and deception of Hencke’s original seminal article. If it makes sense, and you enjoyed it, then give the next video proving Hamilton’s innocence a try. And so on.
You might just find that you end up digesting the whole lot, and enjoying them too. It has been known, you know . . .
- Bandini
February 27, 2015 at 5:58 pm -
Many thanks for the detailed reply.
I have now finished Chapter 44 and must say that Neil Hamilton comes out of it very well (and this from someone who had previously dismissed him as ‘guilty’ / a bloody nuisance). I shall battle on… - Duncan Disorderly
February 27, 2015 at 7:29 pm -
I will make a point of viewing at least some of your videos. The main thing for me at this point is that the Guardian were attempting to defend a libel case with Mo ‘al’ Fayed as co-defendant. That’s not a good position to be in.
I can’t help but point out that WW2 was a world historical event in which tens of millions died and genocides were attempted, and may warrant a multipart documentary. Just sayin’.
- Bandini
- Jonathan Boyd Hunt
- Moor Larkin
February 27, 2015 at 5:49 pm -
back in 2013, someone came excitedly into my comments stream and excitedly said something along the lines of, “Can you give us a quick resume of all the facts”. If only it were so easy. There seems to be some kind of relativist human mechanism about what people will believe. Generally, they adhere most firmly to the thing they first believe. First impressions. Present them with an entirely contradictory fact and they will simply rationalise it away. The most obvious is the original story that Jimmy was abusing teenagers in the BBC TV Centre. All the footage leads you in. Circular, winding long corridors; you all saw the imagery.
Then, you establish that all of the events, were they to have happened, would have had to have happened in a musty old Victorian Theatre built vertically rather than horizontally. So, all those stories could not be true. Then you factor in that every single victim made the exact same mistake.
Will people change their minds? No, they won’t, because in order to do so, they now have to admit THEY have been stupid. This is the basic Con. You work on the ego of people refusing to admit that they have been fooled.
I noticed that in The Spectator the reviewer seems to agree and accept that the story about the brown envelopes was false, and where money did change hands it wasn’t between Greer, it was a direct hand-over by the briber. The story is blown open, but that is ignored because there WAS something going on, even if it was not what you were told, so you don’t care about the falsity because now you are making moral judgements rather than evidential ones. In the matter of Savile, this is why this is never-ending. The folk behind all this see each story being found wanting, so they have to keep coming up with another one and then folk say, “Um… well… that wasnlt true but look at this… maybe….”
All you can do is keep showing the evidence is faulty and wait for them to run out of stories or for enough people to snap out of their embarrassment and say, “The bloody liars!”.
- Jonathan Boyd Hunt
February 27, 2015 at 6:46 pm -
Moor,
I take on board absolutely your observations/comments about human nature. And I understand why and how you might be inclined to accept the interpretation of the story given by the Spectator’s then esteemed columnist Stephen Glover.
But you’re quite mistaken to accept Glover’s interpretation/spin. Be in no doubt, the evidence proves the ‘disgraced’ Hamilton is innocent of all charges.
Stephen Glover I know to be a decent man: when Alan Rusbridger enacted the Guardain’s smear campaign against me in 1998, Glover went to extraordinary lengths (including tracking down and speaking to a particular officer of HM Customs & Excise, no less) in order to refute the Guardian’s smears against me. But he presumably had (and possibly still has) a mortgage, and back then in 1997-8, quite probably had children in private education.
So, unlike me, he had, and because of his prior behaviour, still has, a great deal to lose by bucking the trend and incurring the disdain of his sub-editor at the Daily Mail, to say nothing of that paper’s editor Paul Dacre.
So what Stephen Glover did was this: he went as far as he clearly felt safely able to go by airing my work, but did so in a fashion that safeguarded his position within the Daily Mail/Spectator/MSM by ultimately dismissing it. Which was useful to me in a way back then but ultimately damaging in the long term.
Last year I sent Stephen two DVDs to his home address in Oxford. One was a compilation of chapters taken from my documentary “In The Public Interest”; the other chronicled the media’s news blackout thereof. And, though I had refrained from sending him my full 16-hour documentary, the compilation DVD I sent him was sufficiently radical (and, as always, based on evidence) to facilitate his further interest, at the very least.
To his credit, upon receiving my package he left a message on my voicemail assuring me that he would watch the two DVDs and get back to me. But he never did. Such is the realpolitik of appealing to a hack whose livelihood depends on his career working within the MSM . . . .
- Jonathan Boyd Hunt
- Bandini
- Duncan Disorderly
- Carol42
February 27, 2015 at 2:22 pm -
Interesting reading, I have always thought Neil Hamilton was innocent and was stitched up. It is frightening how easily people are manipulated by the unscrupulous media. I no longer believe anything I read, not that I would ever buy the Guardian, I read odd bits on the website occasionally. As for the BBC, I loathe it and resent paying for it, high time it lived or, more likely died, by subscription.
- Moor Larkin
March 1, 2015 at 9:52 am -
“Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper says a revolution is needed in our attitude to child abuse cases ”
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/national/11825926.display/ - Bandini
March 9, 2015 at 11:28 am -
I have been experiencing some very strange behaviour indeed from David Hencke here:
https://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/judge-bans-a-facebook-page-exposing-paedophiles-and-awards-20000-damages-to-convicted-sex-offender/It’s one thing being labelled a ‘paedo’ from the lunatics, but to have it suggested that I am “connected or imitate an early Quaker movement promoted by William Penn ” from the man himself?!?
I’m starting to understand why a man might find himself making a 16-hour documentary about related matters.- Moor Larkin
March 9, 2015 at 12:09 pm -
What seems most staggering is that a “political journalist of the year” is revealed to just be as argumentative and potentially a lot sillier than the rest of us Bloggers out here…
- Bandini
March 9, 2015 at 12:46 pm -
With a book being serialised in the Mail – predictably described as “explosive” – too…
I think the madness of his commentators must be rubbing off on him, or something. It’s amazing what are considered acceptable remarks over there, although judging by the support for those intent on provoking vigilante attacks & hounding a man (& his family ) presumably to his death, maybe not a total surprise.He seems to be having trouble locating some correspondence from any earlier than 2014, which is a shame as it took place in December 2013… But I’ve emailed him to help refresh his memory! Stubbornness is a useful quality when you are in the right, but otherwise…?
Bandini says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 9, 2015 at 10:54 am
Mr Hencke, I see that you have seen fit to edit your reply of 3.53pm from yesterday although you do not highlight this fact. (The opening line, “Well Bandini at least he uses a real name” has vanished.)As you seem to be having problems locating your files – perhaps a problem provoked by unplugging your site from the internet as described below? – I have helpfully emailed you with all that you need so that now you DO, to paraphrase, “have means of knowing what I say is correct”.
And I expect you to say as much, here, on this site.
- Jonathan Boyd Hunt
March 9, 2015 at 1:09 pm -
FACT: David Hencke is a thoroughly dishonest journalist. His seminal Guardian ‘cash for questions’ article, characterising Mohamed ‘Al Fayed as a whistleblower on London’s then leading parliamentary lobbyist Ian Greer, is a cobbled-together hotchpotch of unevidenced claims, supported by outright lies and badly-researched (guessed?) error-strewn facts about undisputed matters.
He only got away with his invented story thanks to: a) the British media’s domination by the Press Association and the BBC; and b) the Guardian’s iconic following by journalists, including especially the PA’s and BBC’s.
Check out this fact-and-evidence based video: “Cash for Questions 3: An unevidenced tale shored up by lies.”
http://youtu.be/pMI9ZwXnr5Q - Bandini
March 11, 2015 at 9:54 pm -
Just popping this in here as after considerable effort Hencke has now posted my comments & responded:
I’ll certainly miss the intelligent debate offered over there…
- Jonathan Boyd Hunt
- Bandini
- Moor Larkin
- Outlaw
March 10, 2015 at 2:18 am -
Does anyone find it odd that many CSA allegations and subsequent inquiries, all appear to hit the media, prior to a General Election? The events in North Wales which led to Waterhouse for example, were doggedly pursued by two Labour councillors in Wrexham acting on questionable ‘evidence’ presented by a sacked social care worker with an obvious axe to grind, who in turn was assisted by a former resident of the Bryn Estyn Home who was reputed to be only too willing and able to exert his ‘influence’ over weaker and easily manipulated fellow ex-residents. The same ‘whistleblower’ who was rewarded for her diligence with a ‘Pride of Britain’ award at the Savoy, by none other than Anthony Lynton Blair, the Labour Prime Minister. Someone far more cynical than I, may suggest that it was for a ‘job well done’ but not for highlighting systematic abuse in care homes, but for ably assisting in the Labour landslide in 1997. Fast forward to 2012 and we had another Labour MP, Tom Watson asking questions in the house in regard to another impending scandal, but this time leading to the very heart of the British Government, which in turn sparked a number of new and still ongoing investigations. And who is at the forefront of reporting these new, and rapidly expanding and all-encompassing allegations? David Hencke and EXARO News, who, as has already been noted here, is not noted for his honesty nor his investigative prowess. There may not be a political hand steering this particular ship, and it may not be an entirely media led modern day Malleus Maleficarum – but it is certainly giving the impression of being just that.
- Moor Larkin
March 10, 2015 at 9:02 am -
The politics this time does seem a little more complex, but that Watson introduced politicking seems certain. Everyone has their useful idiots and Watson seems to have more than his fair share in the legal Establishment. I was reading Hogan Howe banging on about how much resource was being eaten up by the endless hunt for the paedo-monster.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/secret-seven-politics-of-paedophilia.html - Moor Larkin
March 10, 2015 at 9:04 am -
An interesting passage in this profile of Uncle Nigel, re. the meeja:
“Farage’s diagnosis of an increasingly influential but utterly unworldly, public-allergic media feels true. The more that politics has become bereft of any serious ideas or big-thinking policy, and the more that politicians have become bereft of the means or know-how for speaking to the public directly, the more the media have moved in to fill a gap, becoming, increasingly, the facilitator of politics, and even the shaper of the political agenda. The media now act, says Farage, like the guardians of ‘what is considered right-thinking’, and this is why they hate him with such rash feeling — his thoughts, his ideas, his politics are, by their judgment, un-right thinking, and thus must be shouted, or better still shut, down.”
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/im-taking-on-the-establishment-and-they-hate-me-for-it/16758#.VP6zmdKsWSo
- Moor Larkin
- Outlaw
March 11, 2015 at 1:40 am -
Moor Larkin, you and Ms Raccoon may find the following comment that was left in my website interesting. Bizarre, somewhat desperate, but interesting nonetheless.
TOM PRIDE 16th November 2014
“Oh Dear, all of your incompetence is astounding. I’m running rings around you here. Let me help you out a bit – with some basic maths. You are quite right that this Julian Gilbert met Jimmy Savile at the BBC in 1976 when Peter Cushing was a guest on Jim’ll fix it (Check it), but have a look at Julian’s Facebook page (which, by the way none of you found – I gave you the link above remember) and you’ll see that Julian was born in 1963. That means that Julian was 13 years old when he met Savile.
A friend of Jimmy Savile at 13 years old?
Is the Penny dropping yet?Congratulations, you are trolling one of his victims and you haven’t even come close to outing Tom Pride yet – Keep trying.
Your incompetence would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.”What is really strange, is that a WIKIPEDIA page was edited around the same time, a page that showed that Tom Pride, the Satirical and political Blogger – used to play in a three-piece group called Bourbonese Qualk, but now ‘Julian Gilbert’ concentrates on writing a political blog using the name ‘Thomas Pride. ‘
The page was edited to remove the reference to Julian Gilbert being blogger Tom Pride.
But this link shows the information that was removed.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/635683547
And it was removed by Tom Pride of http://www.pridespurge.wordpress.com
I may be writing an article about it at some stage, but I thought you may be interested in yet another bizarre allegation from yet another supposed ‘victim’ of Jimmy Savile – or not as is probably more accurate.
But it does go to show, how low some people are prepared to go in order to try and deflect attention from the fact that they have been rumbled.
Enjoy….
- Bandini
March 11, 2015 at 9:58 pm -
Oooh, ’tis weird seeing you ‘over here’, Jimmy!
Another one to add to the ‘spoilt for choice when it comes to bogus bullshit’ pile, then! It’s like raising a Jenga tower – it’ll have to fall, sooner or later.
- Bandini
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }