The Murdochios’ mafia enterprise

Although Coulson’s gone down and Brooks got off, it’s not over – other trials against Murdoch’s grave robbers are pending and Murdoch himself may yet be in trouble. But it depends on what he knew about the bin-raking, or what can be proved that he knew.

Now we see the Fake Sheikh, whose exposes and bring-downs of the apparently not-as-great-and-good-as-we-had-believed, were vaunted in defence of the kind of journalism that News International has plumbed to new depths. The Fake Sheikh’s plausibility as the linchpin to stings rests on the vaguely racist notion that Arabs with money are forever engaging in outrageously crooked affairs, while carrying out stings that do involve the soliciting or encitement of criminals acts. But that’s not the point – in the wake of finding out quite how many graves of dead children and soldiers had been robbed by NoTW, we were told that we needed the men in dirty macs to expose the real liars and frauds. Dowler was an error, that was the result of a rogue operative, but the Fake Sheikh had brought best part of a 100 crimbos to justice!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazher_Mahmood

But old Fakey also lied and framed people …
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28412254

Shame on Murdoch’s mob for evoking the greater moral good of undercover journalism to defend their base practices, and shame on anyone for believing the agents of the NoTW or the Sun did their work with such high ideals in mind!

And … how many others were also victims of Fake set-ups, not that they were knowingly lured into doing something underhand, but were framed, and not for the sake of pursuing justice, but to make money for Murdoch?

News International is a Mafia enterprise, run by the Murdoch family, that threatens and bribes those it wants favours from and cows and smears anybody it seeks, to make a dollar. The patterns of their racketeering are well known and established, and that’s what counts, we don’t need trails of emails or witnesses to sofa governance to bring him down, just treat him and his children like any other family of gangsters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

Advertisements

A perilous pincer movement of paedos and Jihadists! SURRENDER YOUR DATA

Still searingly relevant!

robintudge

They’re at it again – spies spook the big three parties into backing same old snooping powers, ignoring the EU, their own voters and every normal vestige of proper democratic process and debate

Without warning, the UK government is blasting a new law onto the books, terrorising its citizens with the threat of a pincer attack between Syrian jihadists and British paedophiles into accepting the bombshell Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill. All three main political parties, Labour, Tories and Lid-Dems, have secretly plotted to demand all private citizens’ email and phone records be stored by firms so state spies can sift through them. It’s a new law designed to reprise old practices from the 2006 European Data Retention Directive, which the European Court of Justice struck down just last April as in breach of the Human Rights Act. That’s that, it’s illegal. But the UK government thinks it can…

View original post 845 more words

A perilous pincer movement of paedos and Jihadists! SURRENDER YOUR DATA

They’re at it again – spies spook the big three parties into backing same old snooping powers, ignoring the EU, their own voters and every normal vestige of proper democratic process and debate

Without warning, the UK government is blasting a new law onto the books, terrorising its citizens with the threat of a pincer attack between Syrian jihadists and British paedophiles into accepting the bombshell Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill. All three main political parties, Labour, Tories and Lid-Dems, have secretly plotted to demand all private citizens’ email and phone records be stored by firms so state spies can sift through them. It’s a new law designed to reprise old practices from the 2006 European Data Retention Directive, which the European Court of Justice struck down just last April as in breach of the Human Rights Act. That’s that, it’s illegal. But the UK government thinks it can circumvent that judgement by rebranding such practices under a new law so urgently needed that, in the three months since April, none of the three parties have discussed the ECJ ruling with the public – but have agreed among themselves, without any debate, to make law in a little over a week.

Of the many objections noted in a coldly scathing summary by the Open Rights Group, DRIP contains Statutory Instruments that allows the Home Secretary and others (but doesn’t oblige Parliament’s involvement) to broaden the scope of the surveillance at a stroke. DRIP also reprises much of the dreaded Communications Bill, the ‘Snoopers’ Charter’ that the Liberal Democrats stymied in 2013 but are now curiously OK with. Restrictions or safeguards are promised in secondary legislation, but which has yet to be produced, protections that this writer suspects would anyway be as open and vague as the state of emergency requiring the law.

We’re protected by a ‘sunset’ clause – a phrase that helps us believe the suspension of our fundamental rights in law is temporary and ends beautifully – killing the Act in 2016, but by which time there’ll be no substantive change in party personnel or politics and it’ll be renewed with new measures tacked on. Maybe the ECJ will damn the practices again, but reprising them as a national and not an EU law makes a mess for legal challenges.

It seems that in an age of global disclosures of state abuses, curtesy of Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning or Julian Assange, or revelations made under Freedom of Information requests, our elected officials and the state they represent (not us citizens) are making seedy furtiveness the all-pervasive code of conduct, and rule of law. Last year in the UK came into effect the Justice and Security Act, which allows the government to submit into civil trials intelligence against claimants that the judge and security-cleared special advocates can see, but the claimant can’t. Hence they cannot effectively disprove allegations against them. Further, in June 2014 the Appeal Court ruled it permissible to allow only certain accredited journalists to attend terror trials, and then to attend some but not all proceedings, and then their notes be stored in court[1]. This demolishes the concept of ‘open justice’ and allows the state to pick and choose who covers such trials, if they’re on at all. Inquests and inquiries into state or police malpractices are being ever more jeopardised by cuts to legal aid.

Last year Snowden’s revelations proved the US National Security Agency’s surveillance apparatus was global in scale and applied to everybody, even the elected officials of ‘friendly’ states whose intelligence and security agencies were erstwhile involved in the NSA’s enterprise. To whit the UK’s MPs on the Commons’ Intelligence and Security Committee most congenially interrogated the chiefs of GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 (Sir Iain Lobban, Mr Andrew Parker a and Sir John Sawers respectively), and agreed to allow those chiefs to prove their claims in private, with evidence given later in camera[2].

The Snowden revelations exposed the need for state spies to be subject to scrutiny ensuring they work to protect our democracy, in a manner commensurate with defending those freedoms, and not become de facto the kind of totalitarian states they purport to defend us from. Yet all we see now in the open is our judiciaries and Parliaments fronting those same agencies’ agendas of secrecy, and in the same furtive manner. And this is a global phenomenon. As New Internationalist reported in August 2012, the governments of the US, UK, Canada and Australia – long-standing partners in harvesting and sharing global intelligence – were all coincidentally selling laws demanding our data be stored and open for sifting, and like now all in order to fight terrorism and better battle paedophiles[3].

In the UK these claims come from the same political parties who housed and feted the likes of Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith, from a prime minister whose own press officer hacked the phone of a murdered child, passing laws to empower state institutes like the Home Office that yet loses over 100 files relating to a paedophile ring looping through Westminster. This isn’t just a poisonous irony. Be it from protecting worthy perpetrators guilty of the most heinous and perverted crimes, to smearing the dead of Hillsborough, we’ve seen how the top echelons of power in our Parliament, in the civil service, in the media, both in the BBC and News Corp, and the police, can and will collude to keep themselves safe. This is an incestuous culture among the ruling elite and its bodies politic and power that we cannot assume has changed, and this vile conniving behind this new illegal law is born of that self-regarding culture of secrecy that yet demands us citizens splay ourselves naked before it. Who actually do we need protecting from?

 

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/13/selection-journalists-terror-trial-press-freedom

[2] Transcript of the November 7, 2013 Intelligence and Security Committee meeting with the chiefs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. https://b1cba9b3-a-5e6631fd-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/independent.gov.uk/isc/files/20131107_ISC_uncorrected_transcript.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cpKqXuV98dQHH6kGyMEgrjo0uHww8rcUsYnsRTGo6Cg26MXzzaZMh8HKDOcwSJ6NIt-8ur5CNqiOBK7lOXMH0JSnwRfI43TXJ3GjTz6m2i9N3xv86qFduxbautp0RCwF66aE-dXo7eNE2vlE2YXkDDKyR44FdpRkKbfCP0GWtnrYZ6Pd1mbeV2KN1dZ5DhXGBsq_6XwpC7K3cFb4lFt47q1uUXIIOsMIKPJgnf-8IbW1oyJsvu7891eJv3Pv6cShvW7_mmx&attredirects=0

 

[3] http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2012/08/16/internet-surveillance/

 

If ever we needed whistleblowers …

Is there some kind of equation for the ratio of perpetrators and those who know about a crime, but stay quiet? Like that law for computing power doubling every 5 years or whatever it is, ach it’s elusive, but is there a similar thing as in a ratio for those, for example, who knew about the sexual and child abuse carried out by big guns at the BBC and elsewhere, and the dozens or scores of people who heard all about it but didn’t act? Would the ratio be, 80, 90 folk well in the know for every one pervert at it? Two hundred? A thousand?
Why didn’t they act – because they didn’t know enough to risk being the one to blow the whistle?
Because their careers depended on not rocking the boat?
Because the ‘system’ needed to be protected?
Because they were threatened?
Because they were sacked, discredited or killed?
Because they didn’t care? Because they put themselves first?

With conspiracy theories what’s often posited as a counter to any theory involving a cover-up or plot, is the idea that too many people would be involved and one of them would have to talk.

Actually what we’ve seen with the BBC, the City, the CPS, News International, the police, and what we’re seeing unfold with the Tories in the 1980s and all their friends at Elm Guest House, is you can have innumerable numbers of people who know or hear it by rumour too often to deny there’s a fire somewhere, and must presumably outnumber the perps by several fold. But no-one talks. Or rather, that’s all they do, they talk and talk, but no-one acts. Talking, gossiping is alllll they do.

How many people in the police and CPS sat and watched as any number of Irish were banged up on lies in the 1970s and 1980s?
How many senior political figures and civil servants knew there was something seriously awry to do with a paedo ring?
How many traders, advisers, lawyers, regulators knew about the abject corruption of the banking industry from the 1990s through the noughties?
How many at the BBC knew about Savile, DLT, Hall, Harris, Clifford et al, but did nothing?
How many at News International really knew about the hacking?

How deep do these holes go? How many people are living with what kind of terrible information?