I haven’t been posting because I’ve been far too busy with work – which now includes lambing in the coldest March for 30 years. But I can’t let this pass without a brief comment.

Congratulations to The Speccie for a masterpiece of car crash journalism, in Darius Guppy’s defence of Boris Johnson. BoJo absolutely needed the “he’s a liar but hey, aren’t they all?” defence right now. I can’t remember anything causing more hilarity in social media.

But let me draw your attention to one short part of Delerious’s rant, one that refers to me:

A police informer planting listening devices in someone’s home – an offence for which he was arrested. He admitted guilt, only to sell the recordings to the press at a later stage.

This, from a man who is involved in a grotesque example of lawfare against me at the moment, libel trolling with a completely baseless, vexatious action in South Africa where the most important point in the dispute – the allegation he showed me shipping documents that he said were for the illegal export of armoured vehicles to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war – boils down to my word against his.

If you were involved in such a dispute and if you were already facing a counter-suit for libel, would you go out of your way to publish a paragraph of new libel against your opponent?

Would you publish a lie that not only isn’t true, but also can’t possibly be true?

You see, in 1990 and 1991, when I tapped Guppy’s phone, telephone tapping wasn’t illegal.

It wasn’t made illegal for the best part of a decade afterwards.

So of course I wasn’t arrested for it or for anything related to it. Of course I didn’t ‘admit guilt’; there was no crime to be guilty of.

And as for the ‘police informer’ bit, if I had given evidence against Guppy as an informant he’d be back in jail by now. Informants have very strong protection from harassment by the people they give evidence against. Instead, because I was just one of 60 odd witnesses, I have to spend money paying a criminal investigation consultancy to put together a detailed complaint of what is colloquially known as ‘stalking’ before Guppy can be arrested and jailed for his six year (and counting) campaign of on- and offline stalking against me.

The real reason for this dispute remains the same. Guppy framed me for robbing him in New York and I had no choice but to give evidence against him – as a witness not an informant. Here’s a video of me discussing the framing with Ray Berke, the detective who investigated the ‘robbery’ in New York. If you’re interested, there are a further two videos of discussion about the incident. You’ll be amazed, but it turns out Guppy wasn’t the Master Criminal he’s made out, and the police saw through him.

 

More to follow when I have a bit more time.

 

UPDATE: Well I’ll be jiggered! It was illegal. Guppy’s still lying, of course – he knows quite well I wasn’t arrested – but I’m posting this to correct the claim the tap wasn’t illegal.

Post to Twitter

Despite David Thompson’s very generous welcome back, I haven’t been posting as much as I would like. Much work, little time.

I’ll be posting, briefly, about this again soon, but I stopped blogging because I have a stalker, Darius Guppy. Nobody seems to know who he is any more, but at one time he was notorious, if only as a villainous friend of a famous person. It’s not very nice to be stalked, especially for people close to the subject who did nothing to deserve it – I did have a sordid involvement with this grubby little man more than twenty years ago so, to that extent, made my own bed. I made a promise in my private life not to mention Guppy in my posts and found, subsequently, that I couldn’t write at all. If something was off-limits, if I couldn’t be honest in one area, I didn’t want to do it at all.

Now Delerious (as he was nicknamed by the police who arrested him twenty-odd years ago) has issued a libel writ against me in South Africa. It’s an extraordinary thing. Of the three grounds, one involves comments made by someone else on someone else’s blog. Another is a matter of fair comment, the third concerns a conversation I had with Guppy in the Hilton Hotel on Bayswater Road, when he showed me some shipping documents. I suspect this latter is the main issue and find it hard to understand why he would make sure this episode reaches the largest possible audience.

But there we are: he is an idiot, after all, so I shouldn’t be surprised. The great thing is, I can blog again. After all, if silence doesn’t make him lose interest and wander off, there’s no point being silent. Instead, I’m reporting him to the police.

And work is getting under control, with some exciting product launches coming up later this month so I’ll have more time for posting.

Post to Twitter

Started by Yoko Ono and Sean Lennon, Artists Against Fracking is a group of artists, musicians, and filmmakers dedicated to bringing attention to the damages and environmental consequences of hydraulic fracturing.

“Right now, some people are trying to make easy money, and meanwhile ruin this country’s future, by a thing called ‘fracking.” – Yoko Ono

Yoko Ono and her son Sean Lennon were compelled into action by Governor Andrew Cuomo’s announcement that fracking might soon begin in New York – directly impacting their home in upstate New York. In less than 10 days, they gathered nearly 150 fellow artists to join them in the founding of Artists Against Fracking in August 2012.

Today, at nearly 200 members Artists Against Fracking works to expose and stop the harmful and contaminating practice of fracking for natural gas and oil through mass awareness and peaceful democratic action. At its core, we believe that fracking for shale gas is a danger to New Yorkers. Inevitably, the process leads to the release of toxic chemicals — many of which are unknown and unreported — into our air and water.

I particularly commend the final sentence to you. Fracking releases ‘unknown’ chemicals.

Post to Twitter

Germaine Greer has suggested the British should give up their love affair with dogs because phosphorous in their faeces damages the ecosystem of her bluebell wood. It’s hard to know how seriously she means this; a lot of her pronouncements in the last decade or so have just been like someone farting loudly in a public place, and then looking defiantly from face to face to see whether anyone will say anything. Or even notice her.

But phosphorous can be a serious problem for ecosystems, especially water systems where it can cause algal blooms. And it is very important to control the main channels through which it enters the environment. That’s why it’s so important to pick up leaves in urban areas.

Yup. One of the main sources of phosphorous pollution is fallen leaves (pdf), especially from the sort of deciduous trees you find bluebells growing beneath.

Pick up after your trees, Germaine.

Post to Twitter

From the Guardian’s live blog of the Libyan uprising, which also includes snippets from other plaves of revolt:

3.03pm: Jack Shenker sends this from Cairo, where, America-style, capitalism has grabbed hold of the revolution with both hands.

A few weeks ago, the road from Talaat Harb to Tahrir Square formed the bloody no man’s land between pro-change demonstrators and state-backed thugs, both hurling rocks at each other’s front lines. Today anyone walking this stretch of downtown Cairo has to run through a very different gauntlet: the endless lines of hawkers peddling their own unique brand of protest kitsch. From T-shirts to facepaints, car license plates to martyrs’ pendants, Egypt’s revolution has well and truly been merchandised.

Arab hawkers are America-style?

I think the journalist must know, deep down, that north Africa is home to some of the most commerce-minded people on earth. He can’t have missed the souks. But he just can’t stop himself from regurgitating the meme: ‘Commerce is icky and the Yanks are to blame’.

Post to Twitter

Craig Murray demonstrates, in a  brief post, that the essence of conspiracy theory is not simply that occult explanations exist, but that no other explanations are possible:

It is hard not to feel happy at the discomfiture of US hubris.

Not only is the most important US/Israeli client dictator in danger of overthrow in Egypt, the last remaining rationale of their Afghan policy is collapsing, with Russia moving in on the trans Afghan gas pipeline.
http://centralasianewswire.com/Russian-TAPI-involvement-damages-Turkmenistan-US/viewstory.aspx?id=3075

Interesting times.

This holds that American support for tyrannical Arab dictators was not Kissingeresque Realpolitik, but rather that the genuine end of policy over many decades and through many different Presidents was to maintain tyrants in place.

It holds that Taliban nurturing of Al Qaeda up to 9/11 had nothing to do with the military intervention there, which was entirely to do with energy interests – and therefore a form of Realpolitik, this being a convenient explanation for one but not the other of Murray’s targets.

It’s a shame, really. One of the wonderful things the web has brought us is the chance to read the unfiltered voices of former diplomats like Charles Crawford and Craig Murray. Murray can be passionate, informed, moral and, importantly, interesting when he writes about foul dictatorships to which he was posted.

And then, occasionally, the maniac sticks his head out of the cave and bellows.

Incidentally, can hubris be discomfited?

Post to Twitter

The political fray is a stormy place, like the edge of a wild ocean where waves crash over every participant, buffeting them with challenges and hatreds and dispute. But there’s still, normally, a sense that the water is clean, that hope provides as much energy as does hate, that even those we disagree with are striving to make things better, as they see it.

This week, though, the water seemed to turn to sewage. A vicious, insane attack by a lone gunman in Tucson, Arizona, was seized on as an excuse to attack opponents in terms devoid of moral and intellectual integrity, leading to days where the political debate seemed a matter simply of wading through ordure, hurling handfuls at long-standing opponents.

Then, yesterday, President Obama went to Tucson. Hindsight will place his speech more accurately in the pantheon of great political oratory than we can in its immediate aftermath, but it was a great speech. He praised Republicans and Democrats, septuagenarian lovers dying in one another’s arms, young and old heroes who tackled the gunman, and a nine year old girl who went, full of optimism, to see her political representative, only to be shot in the back by someone for whom the word ‘ordure’ is scarcely a metaphor.

I defy you to be unmoved by this passage:

Christina was given to us on September 11th, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called “Faces of Hope.”  On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child’s life.  “I hope you help those in need,” read one.  “I hope you know all of the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart.  I hope you jump in rain puddles.”

If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today

The speech can be seen (and read) here.

Post to Twitter

Fabian Tassano wrote about this piece by philosophy lecturer Nina Power (and David Thompson linked to Fabian). Superficially, it’s quite funny:

… we live in an age where we see a resurgence of the idea that some people are fundamentally less intelligent than others

Resurgence? Beyond Ms Power’s collegiate circle-jerk, it’s never gone away. But what’s the justification for the idea that we are all equally intelligent?

That’s the sinister bit: there isn’t one. In fact, the lack of rationality in the argument is seen as a positive virtue:

The work of Jacques Rancière, who never tires of repeating his assertion that equality is not just something to be fought for, but something to be presupposed, is, for me, one of the most important ideas of the past decade… the axiomatic assertion of the equality of intelligence… On the basis of this assumption

(emphasis added)

Presupposition, rather than argument, is “one of the most important ideas of the past decade”. The reason why this might be attractive to some could be their inability to argue at all. Take this, for example:

The reason why we can relatively quickly understand complex arguments and formulae that have taken very clever people a long time to work out lends credence to Rancière’s insight that, at base, nothing is in principle impossible to understand and that everyone has the potential to understand anything.

No, it doesn’t. It demonstrates that it’s much harder to have an original insight than to communicate it. This is the difference between exploring uncharted territory and travelling with a map. In fact, there’s almost complete general ignorance about “complex arguments and formulae that have taken very clever people a long time to work out”. Rigorous study of “crunchy” subjects is the province of a vanishingly small minority.

But if we are to ignore the need for rational thought and merely “assert” the things we’d like to believe, whose assertions win? Those of the best connected, the most conformist, the most aggressive and violent?

What if we find public policy is based on incorrect assertions?

Oh. I’ve just described the opening decade of the twenty first century.

Post to Twitter