BS: Blair on channel four

Subject: BS: Blair on channel four
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 04:28 PM

Just watched Tony Blairs' ideas on Iraq, being shredded by John Snow on Channel Four .
Blair seems to have lost the plot completely,wriggling and using his religious beliefs to attempt justification.
At times he looked on the verge of running out of the studio,eyes wide with fear,as the magnificent Snow went for the jugular.
Blair gave no answer to Snows ascertion that the coalition had left a horrendous mess in Iraq,a country that should have had little to do with the US's "war on terror",or Israeli intended expansion in the West Bank.
A slip of the tongue ,gave away his belief that an extended conflict against Islam is inevitable.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Ed.
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 04:37 PM

A slip of the tongue, gave away his belief that an extended conflict against Islam is inevitable

I didn't see the interview, but would be grateful for clarification of your evidence for this particular accusation.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 04:39 PM

Tony's a star. Backing awawy now would be truly cowardly.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 04:47 PM

Torn to shreds is right Ake, I seen the Channel 4 Special on Iraq and Blair was like a man facing a firing squad, Jon Snow had him on edge with each question, he completely evaded the question on the mess left behind in Iraq.
The deputy PM of the new US Iraqi set-up spoiled the two B`s surprise announcement by telling in advance of the early "hand-over".

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 04:49 PM

Ed ...Blair pronounced that the way to peace in the Middle East, was "Democratisation" and that this would put a stop to the "Islamists agenda" He changed that to "The people who were perverting Islam", but I knew what he meant ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 05:02 PM

I have no time for Blair, but "Islamist",Akenaton, is not some kind of synonym for "Islamic person". "Islamist" has a fundamentalist, extremist connotartion as the term is used politically. Blair was quite right to use Islamist in that context, and equally right to amplify the remark by explaining the meaning of the word, as "people perverting the meaning of Islam", to his way of thinking.
   I am reminded of an Afghan friend of mine, who is a very devout Muslim, and believes in all the stuff: the 70 virgins in paradise, chop the hands off thieves, kill people who leave Islam for Christianity. But he, most endearingly, refers to the Islamist young Pakistani hotheads in England as "fucking Moslems". This term is used by many mainstream devout Moslems. It doesnt imply hostility to Moslems, naturally, the term is used by devout Moslems themselves. "Fucking Moslems" means "extremist". As does "Islamist" to Tony blair, and anybody else discussing these kind of politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 05:23 PM

Greg...Either I'm losing my marbles or you are,I just cant make sense of that argument.
Surely the followers of Islam are all " Islamists",I realise that all politicians speak in code,but your contention seems ridiculous...no offence intended of course...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 05:39 PM

Greg..even if your contention is correct.If Bush and Blairs' agenda of "westernisation" is attempted, "moderate Moslems" will be hard to find in Iraq,and subsequently Jihad wil be inevitable..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 05:53 PM

There's nothing odd in what I'm saying.. Akenaton. Surely you follow this sort of thing in the press or you wouldnt be writing about it. "Islamist" does not mean anything like "Moslem" or "follower of Islam". "Islamist" is the normally used word for extreme violent fundamentalist terrorist(pick whichever word) Moslem. This is standard political usage. That's why I mentioned my Afghan friends somewhat hilarious use of the term "fucking Moslem" (which sounded odd as he is such a devout Moslem himself, and "fucking Moslem" sounded like the sort of thing a BNP activist would say).
    It's quite simple. The current political leadership in Iraq are Moslems. The guy down the Bengali restaurant is a Moslem. Your Taliban types destroying musical instruments, blowing up statues of Buddha, and whipping women who aren't covering their hair, are Islamists.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 12:53 AM

I agree with greg here. "Republican" in the US and in Ireland mean different things. Both, theoretically, mean "advocates of a Republic." But in political usage, words shift around in meaning.

A scientist is someone who thinks scientifically. To think scientistically has a different connotation, and has no bearing on whether one is a scientist.

To be a scientist and a Christian is not to be a Christian Scientist.

To be human is one thing, to be a humanist another.

To be Islamic is one thing, to be Islamist another.

Let's put it this way: plenty of people on this list make this distinction: "I'm not an anti-Semite. I'm just against Zionism."

"Islamism" is like the Islamic version of Zionism, but on steroids.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Stu
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 05:02 AM

I only saw the end of the interview and Blair looked quite uncomfortable, in contrast to the smug smiles himself and Bush had at the Istanbul meeting when the handover was announced.

The most disturbing thing about this is the fact the reasons we were taken to war for, for which many innocent people have died and suffered, we based on falsehoods and lies. Most Americans believe in a link between Saddam and 9/11, even when a Bush-appointed committee has been implicit in saying no link existed.

Mind you, if the majority of the population are so stupid as to allow this to occur without question, we get what we deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 05:03 AM

"Islamism" is like the Islamic version of Zionism, but on steroids.

Or vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 08:29 AM

Akenaton,

Where and when did either Bush or Blair ever declare that the intention was to "westernise" Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 01:06 PM

Well Teribus,they wouldn't say that,would they?
But there is no doubt in my mind that the West sees "Democracy"as the tool to defeat Islamic fundamentalism.
The same tool that has kept we poor slaves in the West in our place....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 05:41 AM

So, akenaton, with regard to your post of 28 Jun 04 - 05:39 PM, there being no Bush, or Blair, agenda of "westernisation", that being a figment of your imagination, there will be lots of "moderate moslems" to be found, and subsequently the Jihad you appear to be looking forward to will be limited to the same small minority as has supported it for years. As the undoubted rewards and benefits of democracy bear fruit, within those countries, those extremists will find themselves marginalised more and more, until such time as they disappear altogether.

That "democracy" is, "The same tool that has kept we poor slaves in the West in our place." - seems to run counter to every socio-economic yardstick in existence - you wish to contest that?

Let's see how we poor slaves in the West have progressed since the last great experiment to liberate us, i.e. Communism, was tried:

- Do we live longer: Definite yes to that one.
- Do we work longer, or shorter hours: Definitely shorter hours
- Do we have such things as paid holidays: Definite yes again
- Health Systems: Yes
- Welfare Systems: Yes
- Better pay and working conditions: Yes
- etc, etc, etc.

In exactly what "place" are you being kept in - ma wee Scots Slave pal?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 06:05 AM

Teribus, what's your datum point? When was that great experiment to liberate us via Communism?

Health and education systems in the west seldom approach the level of those in Cuba, where (for instance) infant mortality rates are dramatically lower than in Washington DC - this in the face of punitive sanctions by a big-bully neighbour. Where do you get your facts, ma big "free" pillock?

Yes, we live longer, for which there are various reasons, like the fact that we take grain from destitute countries and feed it to our cattle. Like screwing Africa in every way possible through obscene trade barriers while playing the Christian by giving them paltry handouts, often on condition that they buy our armaments, our ruinous engineering projects,etc. Any aid dependent country in Africa would happily forego such patronage in exchange for fair trade - and would be quids in.

The USSR - never the most efficient adminstration on earth - had a better welfare system than the US has now. The country did not see destitution on the scale it is experiencing now that it is trying to ape western capitalism and neither was it ravaged by the grotesque disparities between rich and poor that do so much to destabilise western society. (The nation that has the biggest disparity, good old America, also has the biggest proportion - by a wide margin - of its population in prison.)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 06:09 AM

Fionn: try a little background history reading. I think you will find in the USSR in the thirties some rather serious famine situations. While capitalist countries like the USA had their dustbowls and depressions, they were hardly on the Russian scale of man-made disasters. As my old teacher used to say "Start with the facts, then the opinions".

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 07:08 AM

Peter K (Fionn), you really should take the advice given by Greg above. With regard to your post of 30 Jun 04 - 06:05 AM:

I'll ask you where you get your facts from - The Gilligan School of Journalism?

Case in point:
"Yes, we live longer, for which there are various reasons, LIKE THE FACT THAT we take grain from destitute countries and feed it to our cattle."

UK Wheat Imports 2000/2001:
From the EU we imported 546,000 tonnes
From Canada we imported 466,000 tonnes
From the USA we imported 173,000 tonnes
From others we imported 9,000 tonnes

UK Maize Imports 2000/2001:
From the EU we imported 1,110,000 tonnes
From Argentina we imported 231,000 tonnes
From the USA we imported 6,000 tonnes
From others we imported 1,000 tonnes

UK Barley Imports 2000/2001:
From the EU we imported 55,000 tonnes
From the USA we imported 19,000 tonnes
From others we imported 2,000 tonnes

Bloody convincing arguement you've got there Fionn - THE FACTS state otherwise.

My datum point Peter? Was the one given to me by Akenaton - We poor slaves IN THE WEST currently struggling under the onerous burden of westernised democracy.

"When was that great experiment to liberate us via Communism?" Started in 1917, I believe, the experiment lasted a bare sixty years, during which time the USSR never once managed to feed it's own population - you can look up the level of Russian grain imports before and after the 1917 revolution - it might just tell you something. After the Kulak purges in Soviet Russia they faced years of famine purely in the interests of pursuing political dogma.

And please if you are going to paint Cuba's glorious record, at least get it right and paint the full picture - Cuba was also subsidised to the hilt by Soviet Russia, again for political reasons. While you are at it maybe you could explain to us all why all those Cubans throughout the reign of Fidel the Great father have been fleeing in droves.

The examples you have given round the world have one thing in common - none have known or practiced a truly democractic system of government. In Africa the system and apparatus of democratic government was left in place but pretty soon discarded to ape the "Soviet Model" - their mistake and they were completely at liberty to make that choice - they backed the wrong horse, it doesn't work, even with massive state repression.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 07:12 AM

I believe akenaton put "democracy" in inverted commas for good reason. The UK has an electoral system for general elections which is pretty much guaranteed not to deliver a government consistent with what the electorate votes for. As for "democracy" in the US, look no further than how the votes were counted (or not, as the case may be) in the last presidential election.

wr

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 08:01 AM

Teribus...You are a pedant..
I havnt time to answer you right now, as the treadmill requires turning. Ill post later.
Fionn you are a real "free man"
Weerover..Youve nearly got my meaning. Ill try and explain later
       Hi Ho ..Hi Ho...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 11:11 AM

Och well Akenaton, better a pedant than a hypocrit like your "Free man" Fionn.

Bush and Blair he roundly comdemns for lying to the public using distorted facts to justify a course of action - Yet he is not above doing exactly the same himself.

His stated fact, now what was it again, oh yes, "..we live longer, for which there are various reasons, LIKE THE FACT THAT we take grain from destitute countries and feed it to our cattle."

According to the data provided on UK Grain Imports, Fionn's statement is - At best a gross distortion, at worst a downright lie. Unless, of course, Fionn wants us to believe that the destitute countries, from whom we get our grain, count in their number the United States of America and Canada - if they're destitute then there has obviously been one hell of a shift in the definition of the word destitiute.

But, no matter of any consequence, both yourself, and your "free man", have demonstrated that in the formulation of your ideas and in the framing of points you wish to make, truth and accuracy, play no part. I shall bear that in mind when reading anything you, or your "free man" posts in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 03:40 PM

While Teribus broods over his facts,his grain quotas, ponders the longevity of demented pensioners,and plays "hide the lady" to bluff the Mudcats, I ask myself the hard questions.
Are we happy?
Are we fulfilled?
Is there any love left ?
Do we respect others and the place on which we live?
Our sons, skeletal flowerpot men who walk our streets,arms disjointed,eyes empty,veins full,of the poison that relieves that gnawing uselessness,or hard self made men,who care for nothing but service to the "beast"
Our daughters, Obese,anorexic,surgically enhanced,stripped naked ,robbed of their femininity,and more...Robbed of the gift that raises the human female above any other creature. The chance to nurture her young,and instill love and understanding in their hearts.
The "beast" cares nothing for broken homes ,broken minds and broken hearts.
Father and Mother,bewildered now and tired,parted from their pride and joy.Obliged to live for ever in stalags constructed by the "beast"
their wisdom trashed, like the rubbish we spend our waking hours producing. The last generation of real humans on earth silenced and segregated.
Ourselves ,stupid,greedy,uncaring.We never even see the accusing eyes of our loved ones, as we climb the property ladder or screw that extra £.
Yet Dr Teribus still sits before that winking page,and scours his leather cup for that killer fact that will win the game ,but as the cards turn over,always the legend burns his eyes "THE STATUS QUO"

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: GUEST,observer
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 04:14 PM

Greg and Teribus - you both remind me of an old story.

A preacher had died, and his heirs were going through his belongings. They found his old sermon notes, and dropped everything else because he had been known as a porweful preacher. In the margin of one of the first sermons they looked at, they found this note:

"Argument weak here - yell like hell!"

Bush uses it very effectively. So does Fox news in USA. So does Blair.

And so do Greg and Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 05:15 PM

"Arguement weak" - Guest Observer? Not in the least, and I wasn't aware of the fact that either Greg, or myself were shouting - trying to reason maybe, trying to couch the discussion based on fact definitely.

You see, for some peculiar reason, I absolutely detest it when someone tries to piss on my back and tell me that it's raining.

Ake - start taking more water with it chum.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Gareth
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 07:19 PM

Nice to see others noting the standards of fact used by that self serving moron Fionn.

No doubt there will be another round of insults from that "Wanabee" journalist, when he crawls out of the hole he is hiding in.

BTW - he will insist on PM me with "private threats and insults".

I have warned him that I do not, in his case, feel bound to keep them confidentil. He insists I should - What a W****r !! - so here is a taste of his "arguments"

As I said in the Transatlantic thread, I've got a receipt for the packet I sent, so let me know if it doesn't turn up. For the next few days I'll be moving around a bit, so email might be a better way to get me than PM, but I'll try to watch out for both.

I'm going to pursue the PPC thing with people in the Labour Party - people you've listed as friends - councillors etc - and one or two others. I assume you've got no objection to my copying the Transatlantic thread for this purpose? (I quite liked Ebbie's comment, for instance.) I'm also going to assemble comments from PMs I've received about your behaviour, including from Mudcat HQ, where "stalking" is frowned on, even from Mudcat fundraisers.

Whenever I refer to you in future, I think it would be helpful to point out that you are Caerphilly CLP's computer officer as well as a constitutional liar. In defence of your CLP, I can make the point that this is a very minor, non-executive office. And I can point out that they will be desperately short of competent people, like the rest of the Labour Party. (I am assuming you were returned unopposed, rather than elected??!!)

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 07:46 PM

Just a quick point, Greg, since I'm supposed to be doing other things for the rest of this week: surely the problem with the USSR in the 1930s is that it was a dictatorship, in which the dictator was paranoid and probably a psychopath.

Well OK, I suppose I should hang in long enough to deal with the other stuff too. I suspect I've got it wrong on the grain front, Teribus, for which apologies. Your stats look pretty convincing.

But that doesn't make much of a dent in the argument that the western democracies have been exploiting other parts of the world for generations. I think it was the historian Corelli Barnett (hardly a pinko) who pointed out that the UK traded at a profit in fewer than 20 years between 1850 and 1960. (The implication being that it was subsidised by the colonies and dominions of the empire.)

To compare a country with that kind of advantage with the USSR, which was newly emerged from the iniquities of Tzarist Russia, and which struggled to survive in a world that was overwhelmingly hostile, is at best unhelpful. And to wine about Soviet subsidies to Cuba when those subsidies dried up years ago looks like clutching at straws. So we still need to know how Cuba manages, in the face of economic sanctions by the US, to have a lower rate of infant mortality than Washington DC.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 11:20 PM

tony blare is a big load of shit.john

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 04:55 AM

Peter K (Fionn),

I think that to comment on what Corelli Barnett meant, or was implying, I would have to read whatever article, or book, that contains that passage. Not having done that though, the following questions immediately come to mind:

"...the UK traded at a profit in fewer than 20 years between 1850 and 1960. (The implication being that it was subsidised by the colonies and dominions of the empire.)"

What does he mean by "the UK traded at a profit". The UK doesn't trade, private companies within the UK trade. Is he talking about trade balances? Is he talking about the governments coffers showing a postive balance?

The period he refers to - 1850 to 1960 - certainly for the bulk of that, there were no government subsidies to private enterprise. The first fifty years included Queen Victoria's Golden and Diamond Jubilees, it was a time when British industry was booming, the expansion was incredible, so I would tend to think that Mr. Barnett is talking about Government revenue here, not that of collective private enterprise. If that is indeed the case, and at present I have no way of knowing, the fact that the UK government only made a "profit", as it were, in 20 years out of 110, that would indicate the exact opposite of what you contend in parenthesis - i.e. the UK government did not make money because of the drain on the Exchequer of supporting her Empire, not being subsidised by it.

In 1917, the USSR did indeed emerge from the iniquities of Tzarist Russia, etc, etc. None of which detracts from the reality that despite those iniquities Tzarist Russia did manage to feed itself, the USSR never did. The reason for that was mainly down to a class that in many ways equated with the yeoman farmer in England in Norman times, i.e. a freeman who owned and worked his own land. In Russia these were the Kulaks. They farmed their land reasonably successfully and employed others. With the advent of Soviet Communism their presence was an anathema, and ran against every precept of Communist doctrine, so they were stripped of their land, driven off it and collective farms were set up. From that point on Russia, left to her own devices agriculturally starved.

No whining on my part, with regard to Soviet subsidies for Cuba. I was merely pointing out that you did not mention them. Castro came to power in what 1958, the Soviet subsidies ended somewhere around 1991. So, the subsidies were firmly in place for 33 years out of 46 - 72% of the time - that is hardly an insignificant contribution, by any standard. Sorry Peter, to mention them is not "clutching at straws".

In response to your question relating to infant mortality rates. You are comparing apples to oranges and I believe you know it. But for what its worth here are the infant mortality rates for the UK; USA & Cuba:

- UK   : 5.45 deaths in a given year per 1000 live births
- USA : 6.69
- Cuba : 7.27

I dare say Peter if I looked around for long enough I could find a local "hot spot" in Cuba that would compare to the statistics for the single US city you selected - as I said apples to oranges

Having answered your question relating to infant mortality rates, care to answer mine about the exodus of refugees from Cuba - if it was that great wouldn't they be going in the opposite direction?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 09:00 AM

Gareth - With PMs like that, it's hardly surprising that some contributors to this forum prefer to remain as guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Metchosin
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 11:22 AM

Just to be a bit of a nit picker, I'm not certain where Teribus got his figures, but according to the CIA World Factbook updated to 2004

-UK   :5.22 deaths in a given year per 1000 live births
-Cuba :6.45
-USA :6.63

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Metchosin
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 11:24 AM

of course the CIA could be a bit off in their intelligence gathering.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 12:04 PM

Metchosin,

Same source via nationworld website - theirs was only updated to 2002.

Also interesting to note that with Cuba, if you go into the economics section, the reason that they are allowing a certain degree of relaxation regarding private enterprise and economic reform is to counter the loss of the subsidies they used to get from Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Metchosin
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 12:34 PM

of course, we could always bring western style "democracy" and unfettered capitalism to Cuba, to solve some of Cuba's "problems", as the US has in central American countries such as Guatemala and El Salvador.

I'm sure the mothers in Cuba would be just delighted at the great strides in "birth control" that can be wrought by that process.

-Guatemala   :36.91 deaths in a given year per live births.
-El Salvador :25.93

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 12:59 PM

Metchosin,

Don't get your point, neither "democracy", western style, or otherwise, nor capitalism, unfettered, or otherwise, have got anything to do with infant mortality rates.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 03:29 PM

Teribus...I get Metchosins'point very well.
As you are fond of saying "You got to compare apples with apples"

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 04:03 PM

Teribus, I notice you don't provide a date for those stats. Here's a quote from the BBC (Jan 2002):

Cuba has recorded its lowest infant mortality rate for four decades, with 6.2 children in every 1,000 dying before the age of one.

According to figures from the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, Cuba - along with Canada - now has the lowest infant mortality rate in the Americas.

Last year (2003) the rate in Cuba was 6.3 - still ahead of the US as a whole, we may be fairly sure. Moreover it is widely accepted - by UNICEF for instance - that the US average masks a significant discrepancy between the rate for whites and the rates for blacks/Hispanics. The rate in Cuba is fairly uniform across the country (admittedly it's a samll country).

Re Corelli Barnett, he was counting years with surpluses and years with deficits in terms of the balance of payments.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 09:45 PM

Peter,

Your post is timed at 01 Jul 04 - 04:03 PM, the one in which I stated the date applicable to the statistics I supplied was one minute short of four hours earlier - Do you read, or just react.

BBC 2002 - Cuba has recorded ITS lowest infant mortality rate for four decades, with 6.2 children in every 1,000 dying before the age of one.

Metchosin's quoted figures 2004 - 6.45

Does that mean that things getting worse in good ol' Cuba - you're grasping at straws Fionn. In terms of infant mortality rates I do not believe there is any deliberate attempt to mask anything, the statistics are based on child deaths under the age of 1 years old per 1000 live births. A question for you - do the Cuban statistics differentiate between those who are party members and those who are not? As I said - grasping at straws.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 10:00 PM

"Guest, Guest" and one or two others may be interested to read this post, but most will want to skip it as it is completely off-topic. For the record though, I think it's only fair that I explain the background to the PN I sent Gareth.

The packet Gareth said I had claimed to post, but which he complained he had not received, did eventually reach him. He has acknowledged receipt by PM, but I would not expect him to do so publicly as that would spoil his inuendo that I promised to post something but did not do so.

On the whole, I took the tone of his PM to be conciliatary, and I even dared hope that this spat, which has besmirched Mudcat, was finally over. His post above would suggest otherwise.

A trawl through his messages, and mine, would reveal that for some months Gareth has been following me from thread to thread with feeble insults, usually unrelated to the thread topic (witness this thread). Or sometimes he settles for snide remarks about me in threads I've not entered. By and large I ignore that sort of crap. But Gareth has taken things a good bit farther than feeble insults.

Some months before I knew anything about him, beyond the name he posts under, he abused a PM I sent him, using it to reveal my full name on Mudcat (as I had revealed it to him), and also where I live (he must have foraged this from some non-Mudcat source, perhapos through those Labour Party connections he boasts about.

I didn't particularly mind, but most mudcatters would leave it to indiviual members to decide how much personal info they wish to publish about themselves.

Having publicly identified me, Gareth proceeded to publish a series of incredible lies about me, some allegedly concerning my membership of the Labour Party. Even in the face of my flat rebuttals, Gareth continued to repeat his rubbish, ad nauseum, despite having not a shred of evidence (because none existed). Keep in mind, Guest,Guest, that through all this, I didn't know Gareth from Adam.

I don't know whether he invents his fantasies, which would seem wildly improbable, or picks them up from Chinese whispers in the Labour Party. His puerile abuse (witness this thread) I don't mind. But I am entitled to find out where the barefaced lies are coming from, so that I can try to stop them at source.

The packet I sent Gareth was evidence in rebuttal of other lies and insinuations, this time about my work in journalism. I sent it in direct response to his repeatedly challenging me to do so, and his public claim that two magazines I claimed to have worked for did not recognise me as a contributor. (He publicly named the mags.) I was on the board of one of the mags at the time, and no-one there can remember Gareth's call. Quite apart from the fact that he came up with the wrong answers (and based his insinuations on them), his snooping around in this way was, to my mind, intrusive and offensive.

Gareth's grand assessment of the stuff I sent him - magazines, photocopies and other evidence of my work for national newspapers and magazines - was that he was "not overly impressed." No hint of an apology of course.

Lastly, here's one other little detail for anyone who might think I've exaggerated Gareth's inability to distinguish truth from fantasy. He says in his post above that I "insisted" my PMs to him should be kept confidential. I wonder if he can give any evidence of me saying anything even remotely close to that? If it were true, he would have no difficulty. Unless he's lost my PMs - in which case I could send him copies.

Well, Ake, very sorry to clutter your thread with all this, but as I've said before, as long as Gareth continues to repeat his shite, I'll go on rebutting it in whatever forums he publishes it in - and rebutting it in any other ways that seem relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Jul 04 - 10:50 PM

Teribus, I'm sorry (again) - I did overlook your later post. In fact I seem to have missed a whole bundle of posts there. All the same, it would have been helpful to have a date reference with your original stats.

In mid-February 2003, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta revealed that the U.S. infant mortality rate was 7.00 as of 2002, backsliding from 6.8 in 2001. Just so we're clear about this, we have here a US source indicating an adverse trend in the US, right when everything should be getting rosy under Bush's compassionate leadership.

The source you were quoting against my earlier stats was the CIA. Even if their stats were identical with UNICEF's (which I somehow doubt), the adverse trend in Cuba is no more noteworthy than that in the States.

I did not mean anthing pejorative when I said the US average masks internal disparities. It just happens to be a fact. UNICEF in its 2003 report observed that the rate in Cuba was notably consistent across regions and across the population, rural Guantanamo faring the worst with 8.00 infant deaths per thousand. Disparities in the US are of a much greater order, but I don't have figures. (I don't have a copy of the complete UNICEF report, which no doubt would cover the point.)

Re your continued citing of Soviet aid, I really think some proportionality would be in order, especially if you're going to accuse me of clutching at straws. The US is the richest nation in the world. I don't know where Cuba sits in the league table, and there are, in any case, several ways of measuring a nation's wealth. Nevertheless Cuba falls a long way behind the US, by any reckoning.

When I referred to the negative impact of US sanctions, I suppose I should also have mentioned Soviet aid as a quid quo pro (how far they cancel each other out, I wouldn't know). Equally you also might aim to mention both if you mention one.

So I don't think I was clutching at straws. I do believe Cuba's achievements in the fields of health, healthcare and education to be hugely impressive - the more so because it is so impoverished in relation to its rich neighbour. On the other hand, I'm not impressed by Cuba's human rights record, but I could probably say that about most countries on the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 05:56 AM

Gareth and Fionn - you both want your heads banging together. Life's too short and there are far too many problems in the real world to get silly over a bloody website. Unless you enjoy the silliness of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 11:02 AM

Warning: more thread drift...

I usually ignore Gareth's personal abuse. But I decided months ago that if he continued with his lies and insinuations, I would refute them by any means I could. I intend to continue on that course. If you think that's silly, just ignore my posts.

Incidentally, by identifying me specifically and publishing malicious rubbish about my Labour Party activities in his capacity as a Labour Party officer (he referred me to a Labour Party website for his contact details), Gareth moved this spat a little beyond "a bloody website."

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 01:43 PM

"Gareth moved this spat a little beyond "a bloody website.""

Two bloody websites then. There are millions more out there, so you can chase each other all around cyberspace. Have fun :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 05:50 PM

Thread drift

Guest, guest, that's precisely why I'm starting to tackle the lies in real life rather than on Mudcat. (It was Gareth who chose to broadcast my PM, not me.) The allegation that I am angling for a parliamentary seat was threatening to stick, again not at Mudcat but in real life. Hence my decision to ridicule that one, and all the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair on channel four
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 06:43 PM

PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS ARTILLERY SHELLS FOUND BY POLISH TROOPS IN IRAQ
A hand-out photograph made available by the Polish Army on July 2, 2004 shows artillery shells found by Polish troops in Iraq on June 16, 2004. Artillery shells found by Polish troops in Iraq definitely contained the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin, the Polish army said on Friday. REUTERS/Polish Army/HO