A Hyding for The Guardian.

There are conspiracy theorists amongst us!

Take moment to think about this, and what might you surmise?

Well, you might have felt that 'a moment' was far in excess of the time needed. "Of course there are conspiracy theorists, 'they' or 'their imaginings' have formed the basis of popular TV and cinematic culture for decades," you might have considered. "'They' or 'their ramblings' are the items of ridicule that assist in filling up our tabloid press and other media outlets," you may well have concluded. "Bloody nutters!" could well have been your response.

And, of course, there are conspiracy theorists, their ilk selected from a full and resplendent spectrum of persuasions. If you are given to bouts of independent thought you yourself will probably number amongst them, selectively so of course. If you are easily led, and are generally devoid of independent thought, maybe even to a degree incapable of 'free thought,' you will also number amongst them, far less selectively so.

'The Kennedy assassinations,' 'the Moon landings,' 'the Roswell Incident,' 'Jimmy Saville's evasion of justice,'  'Iain Duncan Smith presiding over sick and disabled people,' these incidents and many, many others all deserve and require fuller explanation. How could they not? If you dared to consider yourself above such labels as 'a Conspiracy Theorist' I'd urge you to think again!

But, when there are quite so many of them (the events), and if they really are deserving of the term, 'conspiracy,' then where should we hide them? Otherwise they would just become known facts, and no longer the conspiracies to which we might attach our theories.

The answer is, of course, simple, hide them in plain sight! Maybe not the desperately sought facts, but why not the theories, the full-ranging arguments, the speculations, the ramblings; throw them out there, out into the public domain. And here, the shouting, the cut and thrust, the counter-theorists, the tabloids, the BBC, the puppet politicians and the idiots will smother them in so much subterfuge that they might eventually become almost a parody of themselves. Much as Jeremy Hunt has become, charged with his role as chaperone of the most precious jewel that the nation does possess.

So, here's another consideration. The reporting of, 'the recent ruling by the UN, that Julian Assange has been "arbitrarily detained" and should be "allowed to walk free," and be "compensated for the deprivation of liberty."'

Our democratically elected representatives responded to this ruling, via clone Philip Hammond, stating that Assange was, "a fugitive from justice," "he can come out any time he chooses," but that the Metropolitan Police will make "every effort" to arrest Assange should he so choose. My concern is not so much with the ruling, even the government’s contention of the ruling, more the manner in which it is here, and widely, being treated.

Now, we could choose not to support or accept (in our minds) this UN finding- remember, he was wanted for questioning on counts of alleged sexual molestation, unlawful coercion, or/and rape- but we should consider:

* Of the two women (SW and AA)  allegedly raped neither claimed to have been raped. SW is quoted as having said that, "she did not want to accuse JA of anything," and that, "it was the police who made up the charges." 


* After Julian Assange had had sex with the two women (AA and SW), on two independent occasions, the two women spoke together and each discovered that Assange had had unprotected sex with the other. It was consequently decided that SW would like JA to be tested for any possibility of STDs. It was when SW and AA visited the police to seek advice that the event was escalated by the police, and elaborately construed so as to file an (unsupported by SW) report of rape upon SW, and of the molestation of AA (20th August 2010).


* Swedish police immediately opened a rape investigation and informed the Stockholm tabloids of their intentions. This news spread rapidly around the globe. 


* One of the women sent texts, making it perfectly clear that she did not want Assange to be charged with rape, "but police were keen on getting a hold on him." She, "did not want to accuse JA of anything," and went on to state that she had been "railroaded by police and others around her." 


* Both women denied having been raped and one tweeted, "I have not been raped." 


* Within 24 hours Stockholm Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne had taken over the investigation and cancelled the arrest warrant. "I don't believe that there is any reason to suspect that he (Assange) has committed rape." Within four days she had dismissed the investigation altogether, stating, "There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever." 


* Very soon after this a lawyer (Claes Bergstrom) released a statement to the media, stating that he was representing the two women and that he had sought a different prosecutor (Marianne Ny). 


* On the 30th August 2010 Assange attended a police station in Stockholm and voluntarily answered all questions put to him. Two days later Ny announced that she was reopening the case. When asked why the case was being reopened, when he case had already been dismissed and one woman had publicly stated that she had not been raped, Borstrom said, "Ah, but she is not a lawyer."


* Assange waited 5 weeks in Sweden for the new investigation to commence. When Assange's lawyer asked Ny if she had any objection to him leaving Stockholm she said he was free to leave.


* When Assange left Sweden, at the height of WikiLeaks disclosures regarding US capital crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and Interpol 'Red Alert.' 'Red Alerts' are usually reserved for terrorists and/or otherwise highly dangerous criminals. There was consequently an international media frenzy.


* Upon landing in London JA attended a police station and was promptly arrested, whereupon he spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison. He was then released on £340,000 bail and electronically tagged. He had not been charged with any offence. 


* JA's lawyers stated that he was willing to be questioned by Ny in London, given that Ny had given him permission to leave Stockholm. However she refused this offer. 


* Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff (Women Against Rape) stated, "The allegations against Assange are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks, for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction..." They went on to claim that, "The authorities care so litle about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will." They stated that they believed Assange to be, "available for questioning by the Swedish authorities , in Britain or via Skype," concluding with, "What are they afraid of?"

The UN Panel's decision, regarding Assange's three-and-a-half year (contested) detention in the Ecuadorian Embassy is now fully in the public domain. My thoughts on this point would be that, with the US’s respect for human rights now seriously in question, and their respect for international law openly on record, that Assange was right to fear for his safety and that his escape to the Ecuadorian Embassy may well have saved him from ‘illegal’ extradition and consequent ‘torture.’

We know that this UN ruling will not necessarily be to everybody's liking. There will be tabloids perhaps spitting feathers over this ruling. We would not expect the UK government to be overly joyous! Indeed, we find that they intend not to respect international law, which does by default support Assange’s concerns. The UK Government’s absence of respect for international law is hardly surprising from a body who are far more inclined to manipulate and butcher the legal system to suit their own unstated aims, than they are to respecting any form of the same.

To those who have followed this government's 'achievements' to date, their lack of integrity, their lack of respect for international law, their contempt for large swathes of their own people, all this is pretty much expected. They may excrete upon the electorate and leave it to their media buddies to clean it up. This much is so poorly concealed that it does not even deserve the label of 'conspiracy.'

But when 'The Guardian' newspaper appears to be joining in, then might we label this a conspiracy? We already have it from a government spokesperson that, "Julian Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK. The opinion of the UN Working Group ignores the facts and the well-recognised protections of the British legal system. He is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy."

Unable to yet fully embrace the more apt label of 'dictatorship,' this spokesperson added, "We are deeply frustrated that this unacceptable situation is still being allowed to continue. Ecuador must engage with Sweden in good faith to bring it to an end. Americas Minister Hugo Swire made this clear to the Ecuadorean Ambassador in November, and we continue to raise the matter in Quito." The unfortunate reference to, "good faith," we must assume to be part of some unstated insider government joke.

But 'The Guardian,' traditionally a paper of a more liberal persuasion, should be questioning this stance, shouldn't it? And, it sort of is. But, only sort of, and in very small measure! I refer you to this article- 'So that settles it then- everyone's to blame except Julian Assange'- curiously enough compiled by an ex-Sun journalist, now 'working' for the paper. What is going on? 


This queen of sarcastic wit- perhaps of a hue best suited to 'celebrity’ gossip, definitely more at home in 'The Sun'- huffs and puffs, and generally casts all of her toys far and wide, seeking also to denigrate the members of the UN panel. 

The panel, "is made up entirely of academics, seemingly devoid of judicial experience, nor any in either public international law or asylum/refugee law, its institutional competence verges on the intriguing," she spits. Their actual credentials can be accessed here. Perhaps if she screams loud enough we will not bother to quickly check that Ms Hyde's credentials are actually fewer than few, in that they currently total nil!


We might even, if we are extremely naive- as in the 'devoid of independent thought' category- accept the article as a purely 'opinion' based piece. Although, this is quite uncomfortable, as the hack pretends such superiority over the UN panel that has just ruled in favour of Assange. Almost, we might consider, as if someone else entirely is pulling the strings. We might even expect, at any moment, the 'enlightening' rays of 'The Sun' to break on through from wherever upon her person.

Obviously, as an embracing conspiracy theorist, and yet also a given Guardian reader, I am not happy with the article. I politely posted as much. But that alone is not my beef.

No, it was as I watched the comments dissolve before my eyes that I sensed something much more sinister afoot. At the last count there were forty-five pages of comments, over three-and-a-half-thousand of them, of which about one-in-seven was being royally 'modified.' I am pleased to number myself amongst the 'modified.

One in seven, that's quite a lot from an 'opinion piece,' supposedly inviting counter-opinion. In the ten pages of comments that I sifted through there were nearly eighty different posters who were being modified, often several times each. Now, I can't claim to have properly seen most of them, only the ones to which I was responding or was reading at the time. And, I know that none of these was abusive; I tend not to respond overly much to abusive posts, even if I agree with them. At worse, a very few of the comments were of an ad hominem nature. But, as almost the entire article was verging upon ad hominem based itself, this seemed entirely justified.

A hack article, in what we might term a 'quality' paper, being aggressively-policed, by faceless adjudicators, and at such a rate? A conspiracy- a 'part' thereof- or just the sad demise of another pillar of our once democracy? Whoever it was that kept the article 'live' for quite so many days might have had just cause to allow the comments to keep on coming.

There is something robust about that word, Guardian, it holds with it a sense of responsibility, responsibility coupled with the strength to deliver, not necessarily to the conspiracy theorists such as myself, but to a wider public. Guardian doesn't flirt with delusions of grandeur- The Sun (the giver of life), The Express (the first to the source), The Times (what we already have)- Guardian boldly states that it is guarding something. But if not 'the truth,' then what?