Handy guide to alleged celebrity sex cases

04/06/2013

A lot of alleged celebrity sex offenders has come to light. I’ve put together a list of the ones I’ve noticed. Please add to the list through Comments; but remember, if the accused hasn’t been found guilty he/she is an ALLEGED nonce. I don’t want anyone coming after me for libel. Any accusations made in Comments are not my views, go speak to the Commentator if you think any untruths have been posted. I don’t mind alleged nonces using Comments to defend themselves, but don’t blame me for the accusations.  Don’t shoot the messenger etc, kthnxbye.

List of alleged “celebrity sex offenders”:

savile-boasting

***JIMMY SAVILE – Radio and TV presenter, famously known for “Jim’ll Fix It”. Was allegedly a serious nonce, messing with kids everywhere, including at the BBC, in hospitals… everywhere. Died before any prosecution, so we’ll never know for sure… right?

***GARY GLITTER – Pop star and convicted child sex offender
was arrested as part of the investigations into Savile on 28 October 2012; he was questioned at a London police station for more than nine hours and bailed until December.

***STUART HALL – “It’s A Knockout” presenter. Hall denied all charges until April, calling the 13 accusers allegations as “pernicious, callous, cruel and, above all, spurious”, the 83-year-old was forced to admit that his accusers had been telling the truth. He admitted it on16 April but confession had to be kept secret because of a concurrent case that has now been dropped. Earlier, Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, said Hall’s 13 victims had been aged between nine and 17. They were abused between 1968 and 1986. Hall, who was suspended by the BBC in December last year when the allegations first arose, was sacked by the corporation on Thursday with immediate effect.

It said: “The BBC is appalled by the disgraceful actions of Stuart Hall and we would like to express our sympathy to his victims. We will continue to work with the police to assist them in this and any other enquiries they are making.”

A spokesman said: “In the light of today’s events Stuart Hall will no longer be contracted by the BBC.”

Asked whether any of the offences had taken place on BBC premises, the spokesman said: “The BBC has, and will continue to work with the police on all of this. We are providing the police with any assistance we can.”

***DAVE LEE TRAVIS – ancient radio personality

David Griffin aka Dave Lee Travis aka sex offender

David Griffin aka Dave Lee Travis aka sex offender


DLT was arrested in Bedfordshire on 15 November; he was later released on bail. The police said allegations against him were unrelated to Savile, and Travis said his arrest had been on matters not linked to children, as if sex crimes against adults were okay. That shows us how he thinks. Travis was re-arrested on 13 March 2013 on suspicion of further sexual offences

OH MY GODDESS, I have been so lax about keeping this page up to date! I’m going to tell you about DAVE LEE TRAVIS, whom I last mentioned in 2013(??!!).

Travis, whose real name is David Griffin, was found guilty at London’s Southwark crown court and sentenced by Judge Anthony Leonard in September 2014, and got a three-month suspended sentence for indecent assault. Attorney general Jeremy Wright QC found that the 69-year-old’s sentence for indecently assaulting a TV researcher on the Mrs Merton Show in 1995 was “neither wrong in principle nor unduly lenient”. Wright’s office said: “The attorney general has decided not to refer the suspended prison sentence given to David Griffin to the court of appeal as he does not believe they would find it to be unduly lenient and increase it.

“The judge marked the seriousness of the offence by imposing a three-month sentence of imprisonment, the maximum under the guidelines being six months.

“It was neither wrong in principle nor unduly lenient to suspend that sentence.”

The case was considered for referral to the court of appeal after four members of the public contacted the attorney general’s office to complain about the sentence. And there’s something to be said for that. DLT is a well-known person (but not as well known now as he was in the 1970s, the rich but pointless has-been). And he pleaded Not Guilty, forcing the victim to testify in court. Crims generally get a reduction in sentence if they plead Guilty at the first opportunity. But Travis pled Not Guilty. A jury found him Guilty of a crime for which he could have been sent down for 6 months. Yet he got just three months. Establishment/looking after their own/funny handshakes. Those rolled-up-trouser-leg Illuminati have got it made, where can I join?

A quick reminder, for all those who want to make sure sex cases get what’s coming to them, or who want the innocent to be exonerated widely: if you see some out-of-date in this blog post, please leave comments (or use the Contact Form…) so I can keep this fresh. It’s bad for nonces to get by without proper punishment, and also for the innocent to be branded as sex cases. Help me keep this up to date! Ta!

***JIM DAVIDSON – Comedian
Arrested 2 January 2013 (maybe it was postponed until then so as not to interrupt Pantomime commitments?)

*FREDDIE STARR – Comedian – On 6 May sex offence charges against Starr involving 13 putative women have been dropped due to insufficient evidence. So, the law is the law. Starr didn’t rape or assault the 13 women, according to the original charges. Starr sees this as vindication, and as proof that Operation Yewtree is flawed.Earlier this year he said:

“My whole life has been put on hold. The past year has nearly destroyed me. I can’t work, no one wants to book me.

“I’ve been tarred with the same brush as Savile and Gary Glitter. What’s happened to me is unlawful. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are playing dirty.

“I will expose them and bring Operation Yewtree down on its knees.”

It’s interesting: I understand that Starr feels aggrieved, but the fact is Operation Yewtree has successfully brought a number of sex crimes charges against a number of pervert celebrities. It’s a shame Starr was dragged into this. But does he really want to completely undermine Operation Yewtree, which has revealed the existence of some kind of celebritity sex-case club or network? I thought he’d be happy that child molesters, rapists, etc, have been unmasked.

Incidentally, 3 days after his release from custody, Starr walked out of a TV interview, after ‘Good Morning’ presenter Susanna Reid asked him: “You’ve been in showbiz 50 years – do you think over that time you have done anything that could have been misinterpreted, in terms of your relationships?” Starr said “Are you being serious?” before removing his microphone and leaving the room. Later he returned to the interview and apologized: “It’s hard to have an interview like this with it being so raw – I’ve only been released three days ago, I’m just catching up on my sleep.” I understand why he apologized, but I wish he hadn’t. He’d done nothing wrong. But that ain’t the world works is it? Just remember: FREDDIE STARR IS INNOCENT! He may have eaten your hamster, but it wasn’t him feasting on yer genitals!! 😉
***MAX CLIFFORD – Media/Publicity advisor
Max Clifford, the celebrity publicist who made his name and fortune helping some of Britain’s most famous people shape their reputations, will have to do some sharp reputation-shaping for himself. He has been charged with 11 indecent assaults of girls and young women, including a 14-year-old.
The charges include an indecent assault against a 14-year-old girl in 1966, and indecent assault against an 18-year-old woman in 1974/75. Clifford also faces three charges of indecent assault on a 15-year-old girl in 1977/78 and indecent assault against a 19-year-old woman in 1978.

He is also charged with two indecent assaults against a girl, aged 16 or 17, in 1981/82, indecent assault against a 19-year-old woman in 1980/81, and two indecent assaults against an 18-year-old woman in 1984/85.

Clifford, who has become a household name for selling “kiss and tell” stories relating to the rich and famous, has wielded major influence on Fleet Street for decades. But this power and influence doesn’t seem to be helping much so far. Note I wrote “so far” – who knows what nefarious machinations are going on in high places.

n the course of acting for another client in the 1980s, Clifford is credited with inventing the story that led to the cult Sun headline “Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster” Considering the names on the Operation Yewtree arrest list, maybe the headline should have said “Freddie Starr stuck my hamster up Max Clifford’s arse! UPDATE: Clifford was jailed for 8 years, 2 May 2014

 

***William Roache, “Ken Barlow” in Coronation Street. Once voted as “most boring man” or something – needs to be checked! – if he is guilty of 2 rape charges, obviously not as boring as thought! EDIT: ROACHE HAS BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES. HE IS THEREFORE NOT A NONCE
Roache is now campaigning for anonymity of both alleged victims AND accused sex criminals. He thinks there is a celebrity paedophile witch-hunt underway, which can be stopped by giving suspects anonymity. He’s dressing this up as protective for all sex crime suspects. But it’s clear he really wants anonymity for celebrity suspects, like himself:

‘All I am saying is that if you’re accused you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but if you’re a celebrity you’re pilloried.

‘There should be anonymity for both the accuser and the accusee until such time as there is evidence and then it should come out.’

He completely ignores the fact that sex-crime victims frequently say nothing because of fear they will be ignored or even persecuted, and often because the perpetrators have threatened them. It’s a well-established fact that victims often report the crimes belatedly because of this fear, which diminishes once they see that other victims are telling their stories. Of course some reports are false, as people try to “cash in” on the case. But false reports besides, it’s a simple fact that anonymity for the accused would mean other victims will not come forward. It’s a difficult balance: but I certainly believe that affording celebrity defendants anonymity will not serve justice.

***Rolf Harris- children’s TV presenter. I look back at the campaign he was involved with, encouraging children to learn to swim. Him in his trunks, children in swimming costumes – the thought makes my stomach turn now. It appears this investigation hasn’t been reported much by mainstream media, as Kangeroocourtofaustralia point out in the quote below (I’ve edited it for length).

From Kangeroocourtofaustralia.com:

Rolf Harris arrested in UK sex scandal police investigation

Rolf Harris has been arrested and interviewed by British police investigating the Jimmy Savile child sex scandal. The so-called main stream media at this point are refusing to name him even though there is no legal requirement for them not to and it is all over social media such as twitter.

Would you trust this perv to teach your kids to swim?

Would you trust this perv to teach your kids to swim?

Rolf Harris was first interviewed on the 29th of November 2012 some five days after his house was searched by the British police. The main stream media failed to report it then, although a blogger did and wrote this:

“I’ve seen a few questions raised online about why I named Rolf Harris as the man that was questioned under caution by police yesterday. Some suggesting that I’ve maligned a much loved Australian/British Icon. Let me first say that it was with an extremely heavy heart that I named Rolf Harris and I would not have done so without an impecable source like Mark Williams-Thomas. Like for so many others, he was a fond memory from my childhood, unlike Savile who was always a bit creepy. I feel a bit like the boy in the picture above by Banksy, I’m watching my childhood drop into the sewer.”

Yesterday (Friday 29/3/13) it was reported online that an Australian entertainer had been arrested by British police on “suspicion of sexual offences, by officers investigating former BBC star Jimmy Savile.” and “The arrested man was bailed to a date in May.” This was repeated in today’s papers and online. (Click here to read more) But still Rolf Harris was not named.

It is all over twitter and blogs are picking it up yet the main stream media won’t name Rolf Harris. It will not go away and at some stage Rolf Harris is at least going to have to front the media. The police have searched his house and he has been interviewed by the police twice and has been bailed until May to front the police again.

Rolf Harris and pipe

Google Julian Assange and see what you get. Assange has not been charged with anything and is only wanted for questioning. Not one main stream media organisation has failed to report that. Other people who have been interviewed by the British police for Operation Yewtree have been named by the media. So why not Rolf Harris?

One thing that comes to mind is how embarrassing it will be for many people including the Royal family when Rolf Harris is named on a broader scale. A quick look at Rolf Harris’s Wikipedia profile shows his close connections to the Royal family.

It is also worth noting that “The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (the Commission) will hold its first sitting at 10.00 am on Wednesday 3 April 2013″ at the County Court of Victoria, 250 William Street, Melbourne” (Click here to read more) The Royal Commission might get a lot bigger than anyone thinks and is there a connection to the Australian MSM failing to name Rolf Harris? Probably not, but it does make me wonder.

Once Harris is named by the main stream media the story will become massive in Britain, Australia and elsewhere and there is nothing that can stop it now. What needs to happen is an investigation why the MSM (at least in Australia) have not named him as of yet given plenty of the MSM have known since last November.

Once Harris is named by the main stream media the story will become massive in Britain, Australia and elsewhere and there is nothing that can stop it now. What needs to happen is an investigation why the MSM (at least in Australia) have not named him as of yet given plenty of the MSM have known since last November.

UPDATE (AS OF 21 May 2014): The Rolf Harris trial has started. It has been alleged that Rolf Harris told a girl “he wanted to be the first person to give her ‘a tongue kiss’ when she was 11 or 12 years old.” From theduckshoot.com:

UPDATE: May 10, 2014.
Harris assaulted his daughter’s 13-year-old friend

ROLF Harris indecently ­assaulted a 13-year-old friend of his daughter Bindi during a three-continent holiday that included a trip to Australia, and continued the assaults for 16 years, a ­London court was told last night.

Prosecutor Sasha Wass QC, in her opening statement on day two of Harris’s trial for child sex charges, said the entertainer would become so well known for his wandering hands a television worker referred to him as “the Octopus’’ – The Australian

The website theduckshoot.com also mentions that Harris is racist and there have been controversy about his racist comments regarding Australian aborigines. What a nice guy.

Harris, who in the past has come under fire for racist comments about aborigines, is known in underworld circles to own images of underage, sexually abused children.

EDIT:
Rolf Harris has been found GUILTY. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. I think he was done for 4 “specimen charges”; now lots of other potential victims are coming forward to tell of his evil. Plus victims’ legal reps are looking into whether they can get compensation from the companies Harris owns (probably so-called “shell companies” that enable the hairy nonce to get out of paying tax. Fuckn scumbucket…

***ANDREW LANCEL (real name ANDREW WATKINSON), former Corrie star (character “Frank Foster”) has pleaded not guilty to 6 counts of indecent assault of a child under the age of 16, at Liverpool Crown Court 3 June 2013 (link – http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/coronation-street-star-andrew-lancel-sexually-abused-starstruck-teenage-boy-14-8642694.html). Apparently abused a star-struck teenager between 1993 and 1994 when boy was 14-15.

EDIT: I didn’t add Michael Le Vell (Coronation Street’s Kevin Webster) to this list. But it’s just as well I didn’t, as Michael “Kevin Webster” Le Vell has been acquitted of the charges of raping and sexually assaulting a girl who was 10 years old at the time she claimed it had happen. Innocent. Get used to it. Rape’s shit, but so is accusing men of doing it when they didn’t.

***CYRIL SMITH*** This former MP, who worked for Labour and the Liberal Party during his career, has been accused of a sex crime career similar to Jimmy Savile’s.  And, like Savile, he was protected by the establishment and was revealed as a nonce only after his death.  It was an open secret that he had been investigated (half-heartedly) for sexual assault on children.  David Steele, Liberal leader at the time, was told about these accusations but just acted to trivialise and cover it up. This case is particularly worrying: how many more of these beasts are roaming Westminster, protected by their parties?  Is there a paedophile ring in Parliament?  It wouldn’t surprise me.

If any celebrities are acquitted (or found guilty) and I haven’t reported it, it’s because I haven’t seen the news (aquittals always get a lot less publicity as convictions). Tell me about it in Comments, and I will update my list accordingly.

 

Make_a_donation

Locations of visitors to this page


free web stat


Ecuador grants Assange political asylum – but how will he get from London to Quito?

17/08/2012

News about Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and his bid to avoid extradition to Sweden and the possibility of being sent to the USA to face spurious but all too serious espionage charges. In June he sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embasshy in London, requesting political asylum. Well, the Ecuador government has made its decision: as things stand, Assange is a potential political prisoner, and if he’s extradited to Sweden there is a very definite possibility that he will be forwarded to America, where faces charges relating to “top secret” communiques that were leaked by Wikileaks and published by the New York Times and the Guardian. Hmm, that’s a thought: how come the New York Times editor hasn’t been charged with espionage? Why isn’t the USA calling for the extradition of Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian? Rhetorical questions of course. Newspapers have been around a long time, as has been the notion of a free press. But many governments say that online reporting isn’t really journalism at all – and of course Wikileaks is a pain in the ass that the US/UK would like to stomp to death pour encourager les autres.

Countries usually respect the embassies of other nations, regarding diplomatic posts as the legal territory of that foreign nation. But William Hague, British foreign secretary and effectively the prime minister as the real prime minister (David Cameron) and the deputy PM (Nick Clegg) has made some ominous threats. He’s already said in public that Assange would be arrested if he leaves the embassy in London where he has lived for nearly two months, and Ecuador claim that British authorities are threatening to storm the embassy to arrest him.

Hague responded to the asylum decision saying it was “a matter of regret” that Assange had been granted asylum, and that Assange would be arrested when he left the embassy regardless.

The British government sent a letter to Ecuadorean officials in Quito outlining the powers of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, which allows revocation of a building’s diplomatic status if the foreign power occupying it “ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post”. Hague said this was not a threat, simply an explanation of British law, allegedly in line with international law.

If government agents (ie. the police) invade the embassy to arrest Assange, it will be setting a precedent with possibly explosive outcomes. In recent history foreign embassies have been sacrosanct. Earlier this year, the lawyer and dissident Chen Guangcheng took refuge in the US embassy in China; and the People’s Revolutionary Army didn’t storm the building – when Chen left the embassy it was completely freely. And many other people have gained sanctuary in another countries’ embassies – check out the list here. If the British government think the Ecuadorean embassy is fair game, what will happen to the British Embassy in Ecuador… or anywhere else?

Think, Hague, think. If Dave comes back from holiday to a diplomatic crisis, heads will roll. Even yours. :p

Locations of visitors to this page


free web stat


Why won’t Theresa May just say clearly if she intends to allow Sweden to extradite Assange to USA?

27/07/2012

Interesting article in the Guardian: Julian Assange, and the Ecuadorian government (in whose London embassy Assange has taken refuge for the past five weeks),have no problem per se with extradition to Sweden to face rape allegations. Ecuador, which wants to be an “honest broker” in this matter, is concerned that Sweden will go on to send Assange to the US where he faces possible charges of espionage and a natural life prison sentence for his role in Wikileaks’ publication of “top secret” diplomatic dispatches. Assange’s US lawyer, Michael Ratner, has said he was certain Assange had already either been secretly indicted by a grand jury in Washington or would face extradition with a view to prosecution. He believed the death penalty remained a possibility – which is a major reason why Ecuador opposes the extradition.

According to the Guardian article, there is a concept in extradition law called “specialty”: this means that if the UK extradite Assange to Sweden, the Swedes will not be allowed to extradite him to a third country (such as the USA) once they’ve finished with him – they will have to give him a 45 day grace period during which time he will be allowed to travel somewhere else (perhaps Ecuador). However, specialty can be waived by the country granting the initial extradition request – in this case the UK – thereby allowing an individual to be extradited to a third country. If home secretary Theresa May waives specialty under section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, Sweden will be able to extradite Assange to the USA.

Assange is willing to be extradited to Sweden if specialty is not waivered. But the British government refuses to make this commitment. Instead they keep coming out with non-committal statements like:

Since Mr Assange first entered the Ecuadorean embassy five weeks ago, we have repeatedly made clear to the Ecuadorean government that the UK has a binding legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences. We have been seeking a diplomatic solution and expect Ecuador to resolve this issue in accordance with its international obligations.

The UK courts, including the supreme court, have confirmed that Mr Assange’s extradition to Sweden complies with all the requirements of the UK’s Extradition Act, including as regards the protection of his human rights. We have gone to great lengths to explain to Ecuador the human rights protections inherent in our law.

Britain usually refuses to extradite people to countries where there exists a possibility of cruel and unusual punishment – which includes the death sentence. Of course, if Assange is extradited to Sweden, this principle will have been upheld – Sweden has no plans to execute Assange. But if May waives specialty, she will effectively be sending him to the USA, where cruel and unusual punishment is a distinct possibility (remember, the USA would like to make an example of Assange, a foreigner whose own government doesn’t give a toss for – the US authorities can’t take action against the New York Times or the Guardian, the papers that actually published the leaked documents, because of how that would look in a country that supposedly prides itself on the “freedom of the press” – but destroying Assange would barely raise an eyebrow amongst Americans).

So come on May – tell Ecuador what your plans are regarding specialty in the Assange extradition case. Are you planning to have him sent on to the USA and possible execution? Or are you really just trying to abide by your legal obligations to Sweden?

Locations of visitors to this page


free web stat


Wikileaks founder Julian Assange seeks asylum in Ecuadorian embassy in London

19/06/2012

Another dramatic twist in the Julian Assange case: Assange has gone to the Ecuadorian embassy in London, seeking asylum.  For those unaware of this story: Julian Assange is a founder of the Wikileaks website, which allows whistle-blowers to upload files to the internet anonymously; files concerning US military activity were sent to Wikileaks, who decided to share them with the New York Times and the Guardian; the USA didn’t like that, and some influential US political figures think Assange should be put on trial for treason (even though Assange is Australian and therefore cannot commit treason against the USA); Assange is in the UK, and there is no way the UK will extradite him to the USA; so now an old Swedish rape allegation against Assange has popped back up, and Sweden wants Assange extradited for it (even though the Swedish prosecutors dismissed the allegations as false a long time ago); a lot of people think that once Sweden has Assange, they will send him on to the USA, where he will probably be electrocuted or stoned to death or something…

Assange is running out of appeal options in the UK (the Supreme Court has twice rejected his call for appeal), so obviously he wants to get the hell away from the country.  I’m not sure why he chose Ecuador (I would have thought Venezuela or Cuba would be better options), but that’s where he is seeking asylum.  It’s pretty obvious the US/Sweden action makes him a political prisoner, therefore he is entitled to political asylum.  But what will Ecuador decide?  Dare they defy the USA?  We’ll see…

 

 
Locations of visitors to this page


free web stat


Assange extradition hearing day 1: can he get a fair trial in Sweden

07/02/2011

Today, 7 Feb 2011, Wikileaks founder and spokesman Julian Assange attended Belmarsh magistrates court, London, for the first day of his extradition hearing. Prosecutors in Sweden want to put him on trial for “molestation” – an odd law, perhaps found only in Sweden, which can classify consensual sex as some sort of crime.

Assange’s lawyer believes that all the negative publicity attracted to case makes a fair trial in Sweden impossible. But of course, what Assange really believes that Sweden will in turn extradite him to the USA, where various commentators and politicians have declared him guilty of treason(?) and espionage and are calling for the death penalty. A bizarre situation, as it wasn’t Assange that illegally obtained the American cables at the centre of this palaver – he merely published them, as did the New York Times, the Guardian and the Spiegel.

I’m very concerned that this mad chain of events will result with Assange in a US jail cell. Maybe on Death Row, if some idiots get their way. And for what: publishing a bunch of diplomatic cables, some of which are embarrassing to various people and organizations, but none of the revelations has put anyone in danger. It’s all a re-run of the Gary McKinnon affair, where another American administration was embarrassed and tried to strike back. Let’s hope that the USA will see sense and withdraw their ridiculous allegations. And that Britain will grow enough balls to tell the USA to STFU.

_gos=’c4.gostats.com’;_goa=354450;
_got=2;_goi=2;_goz=0;_gol=’Free hit counter’;_GoStatsRun();
Free hit counter
Free hit counter


2600’s Emmanuel Goldstein says that “Anonymous” DDOS attacks/protests are bad… FFS…

23/12/2010

Emmanuel Goldstein, aka Eric Corley, editor of the hacker magazine 2600 and presenter of the weekly podcast and New York WBAI radio show “Off The Hook”, said on this week’s show that he thought the DDOS attacks being aimed at anti-Wikileaks organizations like Amazon by so-called members of the pseudo-group “Anonymous” are bad, counterproductive and basically a hypocritical way to protest against censorship. What I understand from his argument is that he thinks censoring the censors is just as bad as Wikileak’s opponents attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Thing is, Emmanuel is wrong wrong wrong. I see the widespread use of tools like LOIC (the “Low Orbit Ion Cannon” program) to mess with companies like Amazon, Mastercard, PayPal and others who’ve decided to stop doing business with Wikileaks, as similar to the flash protests which saw massive chain stores like Top Shop in the UK being forced to close because the stores were suddenly filled with hundreds of students and other victims of government cuts who think the owners of these stores, like Sir Philip Green the billionaire owner of Top Shop cynically avoids paying tax by being officially “domiciled” in some tax haven country, while he advises the government to make massive cuts in public spending. The flash protests at billionaire tax dodgers’ businesses, and the denial of service attacks on companies who’ve been unmasked as agents of US foreign policy, are the new way of getting our voices heard. In 1968, workers and students in Paris protested together against their government’s obscene policies, and direct action in other countries forced change; now, in the age of the internet, these new forms of protest are being tried, to see if they can bring about the social change that the whole world urgently needs.

To be honest, I’m a little worried that something has been done to Emmanuel by Wikileaks’ Swedish governmental enemies. During the show he told us a story about a shopkeeper whose CCTV system caught images of the Stockholm suicide bomber – and he actually said that CCTV is good because it can film these kinds of events. The bombing was a tragedy, obviously; but Emmanuel would usually recognize that any good resulting from CCTV is just a by-product of our Orwellian 1984-like surveillance culture. It’s pretty ironic that Emmanuel took his name from the character Emmanuel Goldstein in the novel 1984 – a mysterious, manufactured bogeyman created to justify Big Brother’s totalitarian control of society.

“Off the Hook” is usually a great show, and I’d normally recommend it to anyone with at least a couple of brain cells to rub together. But if Big Brother really has done a number on Emmanuel Goldstein… yikes, where did I put my tin-foil hat?!!!

_gos=’c4.gostats.com’;_goa=354450;
_got=2;_goi=2;_goz=0;_gol=’Free hit counter’;_GoStatsRun();
Free hit counter
Free hit counter


Wikileaks.org is back up! Not a *huge* victory for freedom and common sense – but a victory nevertheless

15/12/2010

On 3 December, we reported that you could no longer reach the Wikileaks site by using the wikileaks.org URL. Well, that is no longer the case: aim your browser at “http://wikileaks.org” and you get rerouted to http://mirror.wikileaks.info/ – one of the many, many mirrors that sprouted after the USA’s clumsy efforts to limit free speech. Not a major victory by any means. But a victory nevertheless.

In other (Wikileaks/Assange-related) news: Julian Assange is still in prison even though he was granted bail yesterday. The Swedish prosecutors have appealed against the bail ruling, claiming that he would pose a major flight risk. I’m not sure how the Swedes think he’ll flee: Assange’s face must be one of the best known in border security circles, plus they have his passport… but as things stand, he must remain in HMP Wandsworth for at leat another couple of days while this judicial circus runs its course.

This case is highlighting the problems with the new European arrest warrant system. Usually, it is only possible to extradite someone if the crime he’s accused of is also a crime in the country he’s “hiding” in. As far as I can tell, Assange’s alleged crimes are not illegal in Britain (what the Swedes call “rape” and “sexual molestation” are very different to the UK’s definitions – I believe one of the charges relates to Assange refusing to use a condom; the complainant admits that the sex was consensual, so how in hell can this be called a crime? He didn’t force her to have unprotected sex).

Anyway, a blog like this one is not really a good place to discuss the intricacies of Swedish law. But what I will say is this: Sweden has got very accommodating rendition agreements with the USA. If Assange is extradited to Sweden, it won’t be long before he ends up in America. And if you look at what politicians are saying about Assange it’s pretty clear he won’t receive a free trial and he’ll end up on a slab.

But do these people really believe that Assange is Wikileaks? The leaks will continue, regardless of his fate. All that will happen is that Assange’s colleagues will improve their security and anonymity. Killing (or imprisoning) Assange will not kill Wikileaks. And all politicians need to beware: if they treat Assange like a piece of shit, the leaks will become more and more damaging to the so-called “liberal” European “democracies” who are currently baying for his blood. So watch out, fools: the day of reckoning is nearly upon us… and you.

UPDATE: I just noticed this, a page that lists the very many sites that are mirroring Wikileaks in an attempt to stop the authorities ever again closing them down. Well, when I say “stop”, I actually mean “make it very difficult”. The USA has already demonstrated the length of its reach. But when Wikileaks is mirrored in a huge number of countries, some of whom dislike America intensely, the job of censorship becomes much more difficult.

There’s also info on the page about how you too can mirror Wikileaks on your web server. I say go for it! I think it’s about time that the USA learned what “democracy” actually means: rule by the people for the people; not rule by a bunch of rich geezers on behalf of their billionaire buddies. Or is my dictionary out of date?

_gos=’c4.gostats.com’;_goa=354450;
_got=2;_goi=2;_goz=0;_gol=’Free hit counter’;_GoStatsRun();
Free hit counter
Free hit counter


%d bloggers like this: