Santa Claus is Dead!

Santa Claus is dead, long live Santa Claus!

I can still recall being told that Santa Claus was a fictional being, that is to write that I think that I can. I think that I can also remember my mother being upset that my next-door-neighbour had shattered the myth, and consequently dulled the lustre of all future Christmases. I think that the 'telling' happened in the garage of the house in which I grew up; I would have been somewhere in the region of four or five years old at the time, a year younger than the 'offending' neighbour. I also seem to recall that it hadn't actually come as a huge surprise.

Had it happened in today's Britain the myth would have already been unceremoniously crushed at school, prior to my being tested on prepositions and subordinating conjunctions. I think that my childhood was infinitely more pleasant for the absence of such an early grinding of self-confidence, under the jackboot of regimental testing for toddlers. 


Memory though is a fickle thing, often now I can't even seem to remember why it is that I have just left the room I was last in, or where I have placed that elusive paint brush, or what that last item on the shopping list should have been. So, it's entirely possible that those more-remote 'memories' are now merely figments, pasted together from half-forgotten anecdotes.Whatever happened way back over fifty years ago, I now cannot ever remember having believed in Santa Claus. Which is strange, as Santa seems so much more plausible than the concept of an honest Prime Minister.

Shattered myths come in all guises; that Schools' Minister  Nick Gibb is so much emaciated and automated collateral is of course no myth at all, whereas the upstanding integrity of the UK's 'free press' is very much a myth. And this would rather undermine any misbegotten idea that we actually inhabit some sort of democracy. 

The 'news' that we are every day served-up relies quite significantly upon the premise of honesty, as should all such reporting. We would hope that this at least might squeak through the 'Free Press' integrity test. So, for the sake of argument, let's juxtapose two competing recent news stories, the anti-semitism row and the anti-scouse row, see how things pan out. 



It will have come as no surprise to many that Ken Livingstone has been in the news, he is not everybody's cup of tea, and has never shied away from controversy, and much of what he is reported as having said in the past is not to the liking of our media lapdogs. I listened to the 'news' and I read the 'reporting'- obviously not the likes of The Daily Mail- and then I set about digging for the facts behind the 'news.' It goes without 'saying' that news reporting, which then requires such extra effort, when we are all judged to be so 'time poor,' should not pass as news reporting at all. So, shame on you BBC and The Guardian; much of the rest we have come to expect nothing more of, but The Guardian and the BBC had once courted so much more.

With Blair pulling the strings- clearly visible at one point- John Mann moved in. He had not remembered his lines, and had been reduced to simply repeating the one that had stuck inside his cavernous skull. Jabbing the puppeteer's wooden finger, he boomed, "You're a disgusting Nazi apologist, rewriting history..." I think the strings have been airbrushed out of The Telegraph's footage, the 'newspaper' probably unhappy that this orchestrated moment looked quite so wooden. Anyway, with the entourage of yesmen in tow, the words "Roll cameras." all but obscured, off we went. And there, without much further ado, we had it, glue still wet, the news headline of the day.



The transcript of what was said by Ken, prior to the staged outburst, is freely available to anyone who might care to make the time, I've linked one of the most likely to be honest here. I've read the thing and several others many times- all giving pretty much the same account, although others are rather more selective- and I cannot find the merest shred of anti-semitism uttered. It would be fair to write that Ken is very much an anti-Zionist (as are all universal freedom-aspiring individuals), and that anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are not one and the same thing. There are many Jewish Israelis who would simply love to be given more airtime (BBC?) in order to clarify this point. But, what the BBC and all other news outlets settled for was nothing short of the scandalous blurring of the chasm between unacceptable anti-semitism and wholly-justified anti-Zionism. Had the world's media not been quite so covertly-controlled we might all be rather clearer upon the point and the world would almost certainly be a considerably less war-torn place. 

The anti-scouse issue is now, I would contest, considerably less muddied, although one could be forgiven for believing things to be otherwise. The anti-scouse thing  to which I refer is, of course, to do with Hillsborough. 

It pains me to write that the Hillsborough tragedy has been a bare-faced lie that has endured for almost thirty years. I know that it has also pained many others to have written about the recent publication of findings; we had all known that so much of the incident- the deaths of 96 innocent people- was being misrepresented, but we had not been able to dig quite so deeply into the facts of the event, as were those who carried out the investigation. 



The media have been hailing the report as 'justice,' or as 'the truth,' or as something along these lines. Surely though, I am not alone in noticing that some of this lie appears well set to endure further? Either way, to be judged innocent of blame, some thirty years after having been unlawfully killed is not yet any sort of justice.

We know that the presented findings are true; that several police individuals lied, that many of those who didn't had their statements doctored, that the 'news reporting' of the media- especially the lowly 'Sun"- was pursued as an anti-Liverpudlian agenda, that the lies told about alcohol-overindulgence were known by certain reporters to be untrue. We have seen the invertebrate Kelvin McKenzie scuttling from the light of blame. We have heard the buffoon Bernard Ingham refusing to apologise for the disparaging remarks that he, as Thatcher's press secretary, made at the time. We know also that the graphic imagery of the victims being squeezed of life was just too horrific to show to the general public.

And we know that the 'findings' are currently being presented to the public as 'justice.'

I'm going to go rogue and to suggest that the Prime Minister of the day certainly had access to much, if not all, of this information as early as the days immediately after the event. Surely it cannot be treasonable to think (know) as much? That Thatcher was nothing short of a witch in human form is well documented, and that she prided herself in keeping fully abreast of current affairs is still much gloated about in Tory circles, when these types are not busily calculating the immense sums of money that austerity has accrued for them. It would have been very remiss of the woman not to have studied in-depth such a huge event, having taken place in one of her targeted 'enemy' camps. 




When the lies are quite this huge they leave a sort of stench in the aether, an impossible-to-define odour, omnipresent and yet also omniabsent. Once one has detected the slightest whiff the stench is always there, never again will the air be quite clear of it. Once noticed it's like rancid milk spilt in the rear of your car on the year's hottest day. Yet, even this is not its most cloying 'attribute;' no, that is its ability to appear to remain undetected by others who one knows are, for some inexplicable reason, pretending that there is no such stench. It is sometimes as if one is surrounded by the most ardent fans of the Emperor's new clothes, whilst the Emperor's 'parts' are being waved in one's face. 

If our flared nostrils have now finally picked up the whiff, and we shake our heads and attempt to clear our throats and stomachs of the need to retch, we suddenly find that the stench is all-pervading, that it is everywhere!

My God, the nation's top selling paper- pretending news- is a festering lie! Murdoch and the likes of Kelvin McKenzie really are contemptible. So why are they permitted to own our Prime Minister, and to keep him or her as a virtual pet in a gilded cage?

And what of Orgreave? And why did all those officers come dressed 'for action,' without wearing numbers, that may later have been used to identify the real thugs? 

And did so few people really know about the activities of Jimmy Savile? And who the Hell were the 'top' names who covered his slimy trail? And what was their purpose in doing this?

And why is a proven insider-trader being set loose upon the nation's health service? And why is it that this excuse for a man was behaving as a simple nodding dog to the same man who owns most of our media? And can this really be healthy for an aspiring democracy?

And who are the likes of John Mann and Hilary Benn really serving? Why is it that all of those TV journalists and others don't even ask the question, "So, is there a difference between an antisemitist and anti-Zionist?"

And, if austerity is just an excuse to strip the public sector to the bone and beyond, why are more people in the public eye not questioning this action?

And if Iain Duncan Smith really is so concerned about the harm that austerity is causing to those dependent upon DWP rulings, why isn't he more forthcoming about the number of deaths caused by his department?

And if 'our' government are looking to really improve our lot, with a new 'Bill of Rights,' replacing the 'Human Rights Act,' why is Mr Assange still fearful for his well-being, even after the recent United Nations tribunal ruling?

And quite why is it that we sing so worshipfully about all of our media- 'the free press'- being owned by wealthy individuals with a clear anti-democratic agenda?

And just how many constituencies currently are, or should be, under investigation for Conservative electoral expenses discrepancies?

And if Nigeria and Afghanistan are quite so "corrupt" why is it that they feel so compelled to launder their money in our capital city?

Wow, look at all of those colourful balls in the air! Why are we applauding? 

Is it not the duty of a news media to better inform the public, that they might in turn better enhance 'our democracy?' And if we must daily endure political speak about how important the preservation of democracy is, why are we so routinely being lied to; untruths being presented as facts and facts being systematically buried beneath lies? Why does 'our' media routinely create false stories when there are so, so many real stories pleading to be unearthed?

Crying at Weddings

I have heard it said that the world is like 'great big onion.' And, putting aside the soft and slightly-poetic nature of this allegory, there is an easy and evident truth in the comparison. The world, the nation, society, is layered in such a manner that one might peel away one layer to reveal another fresher and more shiny, perhaps 'better seeming,' layer, again and again, peel one away and another is exposed, fully functional and self-sustaining. I prefer to think in terms of a tiered wedding cake, where the interconnected nature of the creation is less guarded, more decorated and 'celebrated,' and openly hierarchical.

I never have incidentally, cried at weddings that is. I've fought back tears at funerals, but never yet at weddings. I suppose that if I were ever expected to fund a wedding, then I might cry, but otherwise I'd probably settle for getting slightly drunk and spending time with people that I might never get to see again... until the next time, the next wedding or the next funeral.



Even the 'wobblier moments' at funerals have been far more to do with reacting to other people's tears than they have to any personal loss on my part. Absolutely no disrespect is intended here; it's just that I've been 'fortunate' thus far, in that all of those who I have watched being either lowered into the ground, or else being wheeled into the furnace, have not succumbed suddenly. Even those who have died well before their time have been served due notice. They were old or they were sick or they were both, but they did not die without others knowing that their time was drawing to a close. It has always been the upset of the living that has moved me more to 'tears.' I do not react well to the distress of others.

Even when I have been requested to deliver a eulogy- twice this has happened- I have managed to sidestep the tears. Maybe pausing to draw breath, during those reflective moments when the sobbing of others may be heard, that is when I have come closest. But the pause was always thus far merely extended and the composure left intact, the moment passed, tears did not come. No, instead I am more likely to cry because I have seen that others are doing so. I think that I will not 'bend,' that my lip is set, that the facade will not melt. Perhaps I overthink these things.



But then there's nothing wrong with overthinking things, especially if the alternative is the absence of any sort of excuse for thought at all.

I have mused for decades that society is something akin to a wedding cake. It's hardly an original thought, any more than is the idea of the layered onion; others have said much the same sorts of things.

As already argued, my contention is that the wedding cake is not just suggestive of tiers, it is a celebration of exactly that, the smallest and yet the 'grandest' held aloft upon the sculpted pillars of hierarchical exclusivity. The guests may partake of the lowest tears, whereas the topmost layer is to be secreted away for a more family-based and selective clientele. Unlike the skins of the aforementioned onion these layers are a celebration of betterment, a 'facsimile' of the happy couple even perhaps standing proudly upon the upmost level. Yet here upon the cake, each and every tier may not stand, not as elevated, not without the existence of the one below. By design all layers are in this together.



The most recent leaking of details of tax evasion via financial arrangements in Panama did not come as any sort of shock. We had known that the evasion was prevalent amongst the higher tiers, it was merely the fine detail of which we were unaware. The manner in which most reporting of this is done is disingenuous in the extreme; to insult the public so hints at far deeper issues. The problem is not revealed in the words of the report, so much as in the empty spaces between the words.

One of Premier Blair's advisers- name irrelevant- during Blair's ignoble reign, sort of hinted at the truer depth of the problem when he explained on the BBC why he 'thought' that the publicising of fuller tax returns was a terrible idea. He turned the tables on the reporters, by 'wondering' whether it was right for reporters to question the validity of Cameron's tax affairs when their own finances were not in the public domain.



For those with the ears and the reasoning to grasp the fuller picture the implications and the image of any society that this 'question' paints is truly dire! Because, in our hearts we already know that any real notion of 'such a society' is a damned and a cursed one! Understand the nation/world from the bottom and your thoughts are of no interest, climb to a more elevated level and moderate your thoughts and you may be permitted to share and publicise them, regardless of their utter vacuity. Hell, moderate your thoughts enough and they may even get you elected via a media where most thoughts are either ignored or else heavily moderated. Have we never wondered why it is that any pop-star or other 'celebrity' may now share their thoughts with the nation, regardless of their credentials? Serve your community as a librarian or medic and you may be expected to do so for free, serve yourself upon a higher tier and wealth and riches may rain down in abundance, serve yourself at the top and you may not even have to utter the words, simply raise an eyebrow and someone more lowly may undertake your bidding on your behalf. Seriously question the hierarchy of the cake, whereby everything is dictated from on high, and your life as you now know it may well be forfeit.

We do not wonder why it is that our own offspring may be permitted to tighten their belts, that the nation may 'survive intact,' when others may step upon the heads and fingers of others to serve up so much bilge from a higher and more sanctified tier, perhaps to share their concerns at inequality and crippling poverty whilst perpetuating the same by evading the taxes that others must pay. Looking down, they have already recognised that 'this layer' is better than 'that layer.' Thus the layer yet higher is even more safe, but we already know all this, we have recognised the layer below our own, to which we do not wish to return, it's very much the wedding cake of an arranged marriage.

The more we vote the less democracy we seem to get.

Ol Doinyo Lengai

Ol Doinyo Lengai is unique in being the world's only active carbonatite volcano. It's tucked away in an out-of-the-way corner of Tanzania. It's not particularly big and, although it seems to be at least mildly active most of the time, it doesn't even glow in the daytime, just emits a dull isolated redness at night, something like an angry boil. It sits quietly and patiently upon the shores of Lake Natron, which is an altogether different image.

There is, or there was, an element of inconvenience in getting to the place, but this should be considered almost insignificant when set against the magnitude and majesty that awaits one upon arrival. In the context of the wider landscape Ol Doinyo Lengai is but a furuncle upon an almost unblemished skin, and an exquisitely beautiful one at that.

Of course, it is really so much more than this, much as the spectacular geysers at Yellowstone might one day blow the lid off the globe! 



Flooding at Lake Natron is unlikely to present a serious issue for generations to come. Drought might yet have its day, but 'flooding?' A sustained period of seriously heavy rains might even unzip the austere beauty of the place and transform it fully and truly into nothing short of a Paradise upon this Earth! Whereupon humanity would swiftly set about corporatising its assets and exploiting its material wealth. Then, not only would we have a Paradise, but we would also possess within it a yet more 'magnificent' and marketable paradise, bite-sized pieces even.

I'm certain that neither those residing upon the Somerset Levels, nor significant chunks of Yorkshire or Lancashire, would begrudge Lake Natron a significant share of their  overgenerous precipitation. Water, 'the bringer of life,' and yet it is also capable of so much more. The beauty that one natural phenomenon may provide, whilst also sweeping away so many of our precious acquisitions, is both curious and terrifying to behold. If only corporations could control nature I 'honestly' believe we'd have it cracked.



It's what we humans do so very well, working together for the betterment of all, that everything thereof and every part therein shall thrive. We could argue all day, as to which method might best achieve this, we One Nation Conservatives, but in this post that would be to digress. Working small scale, we would first need to help those most affected by unkind circumstance, and amongst these the victims of flooding.

"Thank the Lord Above for insurance," I say. It is thus, with responsible investment in the insurance corporations, that we can rebuild each and every tiny little boxed paradise within the overriding and greater 'paradise.' In rebuilding this 'aspiration,' the government shall unbutton its bulging pockets, and funds shall rain down as might alone dam up the cracks. In rebuilding tomorrow's 'paradise,' society's 'figureheads' and society's high-fliers might bleed benevolence, that we shall once again be healed.

But, just a minor point, even 'paradise' might require an element of policing; forget not that Eve was cast out, caught red-handed, with her hand in the cookie jar. This, a reference to those who might choose to exploit our benevolence. Insurance corporations at the ready, scammers and cheats cast out, the sky is already lighter, the air is sweeter.



Just t'other day I myself had cause to partake of our benevolent society. Nothing as serious as needing to refurnish a home recently scoured of content. Instead, unfortunate circumstance had brought about a trauma to our new-to-us car. The dent was small, the motorcyclist shaken but not broken- 'twas ensured that he arrived safely home- and the insurance claim was swiftly dealt with. Liability had anyway already been accepted.

The car was booked in within days. Had it been the 'old' car, the one that our two-year-old granddaughter had taken to calling the, "Crazy car!" I wouldn't have bothered at all. During journeys to and from Norwich she would sometimes list the faults, waving her arms and gesticulating like the great orator that she is.



"When can I pick it up?" I enquired. I was informed that the car would require, "a lot of work," and that the corporation would be hanging on to the vehicle for five working days. "Have you availed yourself of a courtesy car?" the lady behind the desk smiled, "the insurers will sometimes pay the cost of car hire," she elaborated.

The insurance spokesperson will flash those teeth at the camera and 'inform' the nation of the deep, deep sympathy that burns at the heart of each and every insurer, and that they will be losing serious sleep in order to ensure that flood-victims may soon be permitted to commence the rebuilding of their own private boxed paradises. There is, of course, no need for an equivalent bod to flash the furniture, in defence of the car-repair corporations that continue bleed the system. Those who may well be experiencing their second or even their third prolonged bout of happy bed and breakfasting would be best placed to appreciate this curious juxtapositioning.



They may well come to the conclusion that this is because the insurers of paradise are far too concerned with treading down those in pursuit of any-kind-of-paradise, at the behest of those in control of every-sort-of-Hell! A model for we 'One Nation' thinkers.

"So, this 'paradise," we should have enquired, "is it an 'inclusive' or an 'exclusive' model? Can I just run an eye over the blueprints?" Check the small print! "Is there a policy on 'homelessness?"

That is not my signature!

Set a Crisis to Patch a Crisis

Set a Thief to catch a Thief

This old idiom is, I think, fairly self explanatory, a sort of 'hats off' to counterintuitive thinking. Undoubtedly, there is a logic here, that we might search in the darker corners for the solutions to darker issues. But would we? Would we really work closely with or employ the more disingenuous reasonings of those who are well practised at bringing about an opposite conclusion to that which we had hoped to achieve?

Or maybe instead, 'set a crisis to patch a crisis,' might this instead suffice? 



The potential potholes with the former idiom, might be that the employment of those seeking to undermine a stated aim might also serve to further hone the skills of the wrong-doers. I guess that ultimately, within a system where money is the new religion, money will, more than likely, win the day. Ergo, can we more-lucratively bribe the 'thieves' within the system, than they will be able to asset-strip the same system from within?

Such a society- we might well chuckle at the very idea- would have us promoting the criminal classes to places where they might do battle with other criminals, yet all-the-while on our behalves. What an outrageous state of affairs this would be... and we would have good cause to know.



On the other hand, 'setting a crisis to patch a crisis,' well, isn't this exactly where we currently reside? To clarify, I think that it would be more than fair to consider the UK as having more than it's fair share of constitutional crises. For the sake of argument let's draw up a short list, shall we? 

So crises of a constitutional flavour then, as opposed to those of a more arguably fundamental nature: certainly 'the survival of the NHS,' undeniably 'state education,' definitely 'housing,' and then there's 'the creation of an accessible public transport infrastructure,' oh, and 'the regulation of the banking sector, and dare we include 'the monopoly of energy provision?' 

This is by no means an inclusive list; such a list might almost run away with itself. And with each further addition, we might argue that subjectivity has begun to slowly to usurp objectivity. 



For example, might we include 'flood defences,' should 'the provision of information' feature? Is 'gambling' yet enough of a national issue? Does the inclusion of 'the rise of the food banks' overstep the objective ideal? Would 'obesity' be far too judgemental? What about 'litter pollution,' what about 'democracy,' what about 'deregulation,' what about 'financial inequality,' what about 'taxation,' what about 'the legal system?' 

It could be argued, and I am doing just this, that it has become something of a fashion to 'declassify,' or else to diminish any looming crisis. Declassify a crisis and it not only enables some people to pretend that it is no longer a crisis but, worse than this, it enables the reclassification of any 'solution.' 



We might accept any crisis at face value, this as a first step to finding a solution. Or we might instead seek 'patch' things up. And, if we opt instead for this, what are these patches going to look like? Are they going to work? And what do we mean by 'work?' Might we not just end up 'hatching new crises to patch old crises?' And, if we do this, aren't we just reshaping the crisis? Cite 'tackling national debt' by using 'austerity.' Or we might conveniently actually create new crises,  from 'situations' disingenuously ignored, to patch newly inflated issues that were never there in the first place. Cite the 'deregulation' of TV gambling sites.' Now we are 'betting better,' apparently.

A minor interjection; it should be accepted that any given constitutional crisis remains just this, even if it has been so 'kind' as to exempt your good self. Should the most recent spate of floods not have taken with them the entirety of your worldly goods, this should in no way disqualify the prefix 'national' or 'constitutional' from the crisis. One person's good fortune with Saturday's football scores is not reasonable cause for the nation to celebrate. Nor is the acquisition of a further terrace of 'bargain' homes- until recently somebody else's- reason to celebrate 'investment property buying' on the BBC.  



Where money rules the roost, one person's crisis is another person's opportunity. There's nothing quite like a recession for a chance to accumulate an abundance of cheap assets. So, rather dependant upon from where you're viewing any crisis, even those high mortality crises might offer more than their fair share of good investment opportunities. 

We might patch things up, but what are those patches going to look like? Are they going to work? And, what do we really mean by 'work?' Perhaps we really hope to falter, so that we might redefine our goals, our aspirations, even the very crisis itself! We either aim to solve, or else we aim to deceive. We might not always hit the intended target, but if the aim was never to hit the target in the first instance...

I would contest that we are currently setting crises to patch crises, rather even 'hatching crises to patch crises.' So familiar have some become that we might even give these hatchlings names: Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith, Jeremy Hunt, watch them morph, watch them excrete, watch them pretend that they 'are' the solution, and watch the cancer grow! 



Hatch me another crisis to patch this crisis.

  

In or Out? Up or Down?

Contrasting Perspectives?

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?