What didn't I say about the PROPAGANDA AFFAIR

Yesterday I wrote about the proaganda machine in operation through the British Press, and the fact that British Servicemen, and the British public, have been caught up in a propaganda incident outside of the bare facts of what happened to them.

WHAT I MISSED OUT.

My blog wasn't supposed to be a balanced comment, as it was a reaction beyond the limits of my patience at the blatant propaganda games being played, and a hit directly at the lack of objective reporting.

I completely ignored mention of the Iranian perspective, because I didn't want to peel off and go through the multivarious onion layers of the circumstances of the affair.

But frankly I think I should put that straight now.


An Iranian commentator was on BBC News 24 yesterday with a perfectly valid point, and he seemed to be the only view that they had tried to acquire from within Iran.

He provided a simply analogy, which I am going to summarise without exploring how appropriate or valid it is, but with the comment that at least any half informed thinker should consider it:

If Syria were to send a task force from the Middle East to Ireland, during the worst of the Troubles, invade Ireland to impose their solution, and then patrol threateningly with a battle group around British Coastal Waters, Britain might get a little nervous and defensive.

For another point of view, today I used blog search to see how my blog had rated on the search-o-meter. Not famously, but what did asides come up
was a deal of other opinions on propaganda, media treatment of Iran, and a snapshot of opinion from inside Iran which I think people should read from Officialy me!!!'s Iranian Thoughts (I don't know where the second 'l' went in officialy - you will have to ask Shahab). To you, Shahab, I say thanks.

For an alternative, polarised 'Western dissident' view on things, look to Chimes of Freedom and ask yourselves what is the environment that makes educated people be so radicalised in their pessimism about their homeland?

The BBC AND HAVE YOUR SAY

The BBC run a blog-style comments service on their website called
"Have Your Say", where you post your views on their news items and they get moderated.
Today there is a lot of comment on on 'Can UK and Iran resolve their difference?'
I had a comment which was moderated out. It went something like this:

"Propaganda! Propaganda!

British Diplomats know their job, therefore understand the protocol to apply to this incident between the UK and IRAN.

Comments on 'concern for our captured troops, or a need to see them fit and well for their families, or concern for their families, and admissions under duress, are propaganda from our side, which are published through the press.

We in the UK should be aware we are subject to this propaganda through our news channels as the Iranians are.

Our servicemen are well drilled, and know their jobs.

They carry out their duties professionally.

Whatever their circumstances of capture, you can be pretty sure that they have followed correct procedures during their capture.


Whatever the machinations of our politicians and their use of our press to convey their messages to the rest of the world and to us, we should not doubt our servicemen deserve and need our support. They are from us.


BUT THEIR ACTIONS AND THIS INCIDENT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A WAY OF CONTROLLING OUR OPINION THROUGH THE MEDIA.

• Stop using our servicemen as propaganda, and support them.


• Stop putting them in the line of fire without giving them the best equipment and support to do their job"

BBC, YOU HAVE COMMITTED AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE PEOPLE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO INFORM AND EDUCATE, and frankly you have shown the same disregard for our military as the politicians in this. Shame on you. AND OF COURSE SHAME ON ALL THE OTHER BRITISH NEWS CHANNELS FOR FOLLOWING SUIT.

Of course as the original comment was limited to 500 words it was less verbose and detailed, but I have taken its essence and expanded it.

We Come In Peace, Shoot To Kill

Maybe there is something right and proper going on that we aren't privvy to, or else this is the accepted procedure for arbitration on the international stage, or else they are really leading us down the garden path for reasons we definitely would not like, I DON'T KNOW, but I will say that things have taken a predictable turn today.

A littl while ago, we had no aggressive policy tiwards Iran.

Then, we had an incident where the Iranians have APPARENTLY taken servicemen inside Iraqi waters, who were operating beyond the umbrella of their support, and are holding them for interrogation but in good conditions.

You know, the sort of thing that happens every now and again.

And General Blair has decided to rattle the sabre.

They were operating under a UN mandate, so I presume this statement has come through UN Channels.

Are we following a pattern here:

1. Invade Afghanistan on a liberation tour, and now we have the most heroin production from there hitting our streets since ever.
2. Invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, which have never been found, and now they have the worst and most bloody violence they have ever known, including under him.
   
3. Find a pretext to snarl at Iran, who have been pursuing a nuclear policy, which of course we had no intention of reacting militarily to - what price will we, or the Iranian people, pay for this course of action?

Just a word of incidental remark.

You ma remember that a year ago the Lancet, a respected medical journal, reported that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had died as a result of the invasion of Iraq. At the time, George Bush himself poo-poohed the figures as ridiculous and based on unfounded methods, and the British Govt (though I can't remember specificall which marionette made the mouth gestures), made similar disparaging remarks, saying we were better off trusting the Iraqi Government official figures of 65,000.

WELL, YESTERDAY GOVERNMENT STATISTICIANS CONFIRMED THE LANCETS FINDING WERE BASED ON METHODS OF VERY CLOSE TO BEST PRACTISE, AND IF ANYTHING THEIR METHODOLOGY MIGHT UNDERESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF IRAQI CIVILIAN DEAD.

So just in case you missed it here it is again: British Government statisticians have confirmed that the Lancets findings a year ago (and don't forget now they are 1 YEAR OUT OF DATE), THAT 650,000 IRAQI CIVILIANS HAVE DIED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE U.S.A./BRITISH LED INVASION OF IRAQ, WERE PROBABLY ABOUT AS GOOD AN ESTIMATE AS YOU ARE LIKELY TO GET. NO QUESTION.

That is 500 people per day on average.

Or 2.5% of the population of Iraq.

Just thought you might like to know..

Anyway, as regards the latest "diplomacy" with Iran, how about a show of hands:

Do you think:

1. There is something right and proper going on that we aren't privvy to, OR
   
2. This is the accepted procedure for arbitration on the international stage, OR
3. They are really leading us down the garden path for reasons we definitely would not like, OR
4. They are crazy politicians playing God and JR Ewing's Dallas, OR
5. There is something very noble going on, and God moves in mysterious ways, OR
6. Something else?

DO Let me know...

WHAT BUDGET?

WELL?

Why MPs are Wankers

This time I couldn't help myself.

I know its rude to call someone a wanker, but really the absurdity of it all beggars belief.

But I should at least explain myself.

This week, the almighty mother of all parliaments, Old Princess Windy Drawers Herself, The Bods at the Palace of Westminster, decided unilaterally to instruct the subjects of this fiefdom to

reduce carbon emisions by 60%, though MPs wonder if tht's enough (click link)

Still, I am sure they mean well, scrabbling to get to the front of the green party photoshoot (note I didn't write Green Party).

But this is not just a meandering babble.

I just wanted to pose the question: How green is the building we all pay for that they blow off their hot air in?

Lets put it this way:

• The 'appalling' energy wastrels of Westminster
  was the Telegraphs report title in 2005. They give a series of comparisons, I have picked:

The Commons alone used enough electricity to supply a town of 5,000 households for a year and it costs £181.53 for each MP and peer just to heat the Palace of Westminster.

The Mandarins are howver not standing on their laurels, and have proposed a series of measures, you can look at them by clicking here, but I have pulled out a few points. Being done:

1. Replacement of hot water calorifiers with heat exchangers;
2. Improvement of the Press Area ventilation;
3. Installation of secondary glazing;
4. Working with the Carbon Trust {they can tell that to the newly ventilated journalists}

Being considered:

1. installation of roof insulation;
2. Draught proofing of windows;

Amongst other things.
Well really.

How about moving out of a drafty old building that can never be energy efficient except when it is set on fire for a big marshmallow toasting fest one bonfire's night, sacking all the old fat Shelobs mooching around its dusty damp corridors, and everyone going somewhere else built for purpose to a budget agreed in advance and kept to by contracted agreement and in law (they can pass them after all).

You see, they don't mind telling us how bad we are at taking care of the environment, but, well, they are wankers, aren't they?

In the meantime, here's another raft of headlines telling us how bad we are, with links:

• we throw food in the bin
• rubbish is OK left in the street for 2 weeks in summer, says perilament, councils can save by not collecting it, but charging the same amount in council tax
  

I Wish I hadn't Said That

There's a new game on the Block at Downing St.

Bus driver Tony has decided to show a little regret...
... at the fact that he said hew was going to retire...

... BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE TROUBLE IT HAS CAUSED THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT IN THE TIME BETWEEEN STATEMENT AND TRANSITION.

Not for any other reason.

Not because he doesn't want to go.

Lets see what the next round brings in the game of 'I wish I hadn't said that'.

• Wish I hadn't said 'Invade Iraq'?


• Wish I hadn't said 'If you want a house from that awfully nice conman Cherie, that's fine by me, I am sure there will be nothing underhand involved'.


• Wish I hadn't said 'Look here Blunkett'...


• Wish I hadn't said 'Pensions need ringfencing and protecting? Don't be daft!'


• Wish I hadn't sung, mockingly,

  {pause}

  in my wild youth,

  {pause, smiles disarmingly, twinkle of humour}

  'Old Prime Ministers never die, they just turn to God and pray (for forgiveness)'

Not likely.

But hey, what might the prime minister Wish He Hadn't said?
Answers on a comment to this blog!!!
Worthy responses gratefully published