Tag Archive: Wikileaks


Check It Out

Please check today’s updates of my ‘Odd Thoughts’ page.  Thanks.

[This is all there was, then . . .]

When I first published this it didn’t appear, a few minutes ago.  I don’t know why.  I have published things with more tags than this.  Maybe WordPress, or someone, has decided it is spam, or something.

[Then this is all there was, then . . .]

I don’t know what you media people want, pumping the stuff you pump into my communities, taking accusations from them, and making me desperate, but it is deeply and seriously illegal, what you are doing to me.  Zeinab Badawi, for example, imposing your accusation just before running. 7.27 pm UK time.

(She’s back on.  She said it was the end of the programme and goodbye.  They are playing vicious and torturing mind games.  I want these people charged and stripped.  I want them away from anything I have to watch.  It is criminal deception, harassment, torture and illusionism.  it is NOT a choice between corrupt media and corrupt leaders, religious or secular.  They all have to stop.  They have to stop.  This is personal, criminal harassment, not just a different world view.  And appearing nice sometimes does not mean that this kind of criminal harassment, often sadisitic and supported by sadistic and occult methods encouraged in the community through all kinds of media communication – drama, entertainment, ‘factual’ – should go unpunished. 

I choose not to identify this as specifically anti-religious or anti-Christian persecution, because not every victim is religious or Christian.  I will not deny my emotions when writing, these people are evil, and taunting, and base.  They have been talking today about savings banks and saying it as ‘spanks’, and they just emphasised it.  I am completely reduced, emotionally.  They do it, and encourage my neighbours to do it to me, or someone encourages them.  They are taking permission from each other, and where once I might have laughed, I laugh no longer.  I’m a foreign woman on my own in a country I don’t understand using a language I don’t have extensive command of, in fact minimal, and this is savage and unforgivable.  I want to be at peace with this country, I want a future here, because I can afford it, anyone could, and it’s a nice country, and beautiful just about everywhere.  What they are doing is sabotage.  I appeal to Bulgaria.  They are encouraging my neighbours to cut my throat and drink the blood pouring out.  Or rather, they are cutting my throat themselves then letting others take over.  My fellow countrymen.  My country’s media, my country’s leaders.  Is there monetary reward involved?  I was watching ‘Something For The Weekend’ yesterday, and the guests were from a drama about vampires.  It isn’t ‘fun’.  There is serious intent.  There is serious, instructional, witchcraft literature out there.  Some practitioners and people who say they understand insist that witchcraft is benign, but my understanding is that sometimes people are cursed, and sometimes criminality and harm, including kiling, is involved.  Even if it is farmed out to people who call themselves satanists rather than witches.  But I don’t know.  I got it from some books (This Present Darkness, Piercing The Darkness).

Zeinab Badawi keeps saying a strong and final goodbye, then coming back.  In my hysteria it keeps me off-balance and wrong-footed, with spiritual blood pouring from my throat, and in the middle of recovery, my violent, illegal, occult neighbours bang or say ‘hallelujah’.  Or at any hint of self-doubt or self-examination, albeit silent, she swoops in, like a vulture, shouting ‘hallelujah’.  Are they also hacking my computer?  Them also, as well as others?  Silent hours here in Bulgaria are between 10 pm and 6 am.  My neighbours don’t observe those times, they target me anytime.  They walk over me or bang, as if I am some sort of conquest or prey.  They wake me up, or audibly launch something felt as a psychic attack, at every point of going deep, every day, at legal and illegal hours, awake or asleep, often asleep.  Anything I do is retaliation, not initiation.  The retaliation of an invalidated and systematically tortured person, not someone whose human rights are being respected and protected.

Obviously it isn’t only me they (media) are trying to confuse.  I don’t think they have a right to treat anyone this way, not even those they tag terrorists and despots.  Why can’t our news agencies be conciliatory, instead of mocking, derisive, deceitful, hypnotic and disrespectful?  We are all people.  They shouldn’t treat any of us like that.  How can there be peace and reconciliation without honesty, vulnerability and respect?

Gadaffi told Jeremy Bowen not to say that he understood the system, because he didn’t understand, Gadaffi said.  I don’t believe Gadaffi was right.  I believe Jeremy Bowen understood the system, but did not respect it or Libya’s right to it.  The west does not have the right to go in and help overthrow a non-democratic rule, just because discontent with that legal rule has been created in people who ask them to come in and help a rebellion or protect rebels.  It isn’t our turf.  It is enforcement of western values on the legitimate and legal leadership of another country, and whatever bodies our leaders and media use for their appeal to us to believe that what they are doing is right, I don’t believe those bodies legally support going into another country and undermining the laws that were understood by every party involved at the time any agreement was entered into.  In the face of such western corruption, I, of all people more qualified than some, can understand how Gadaffi can be made to look like a madman.  (What follows is an attempt to replicate a far bigger chunk of text than is normally lost when my browser crashes).  He is probably crazy with righteous indignation and pain, at least in this situation.  His rule in his own country is legal, according to the country’s laws, which we have always understood, and we should respect that, regardless of any historical acts of international terrorism, which should not be corruptly and deceitfully and manipulatively brought into play to shape how we should understand the present situation.  What is happening now has nothing to do with the assassination of a police officer called Yvonne Fletcher.  On a human level, having experienced some of the things I have, I feel sympathy for the man Gadaffi.  I have to.  If I abandon sympathy I abandon my own humanity.

I understand now, I think, what these people are doing to me.  They use language and close lookalikes and act alikes and name alikes of family and friends and teachers, to keep me sentimentally controlled, then unleash a complete onslaught on me when I break out and write something like this.  Even steal a massive chunk of text, larger than I would normally lose, even though what I have now written is augmented.  Katty Kay just started with an intimate, affectionate-sounding tone, then lived up to her name and went into something ugly and catty sounding.  Emotional betrayal.  Planned betrayal.  I know people will understand what I am saying here, and I hope it will also be obvious why I choose not to come into close physical contact with people who behave towards me this way, using their own and other people’s torture and criminality, inflicting emotional and spiritual pain and happy to have others inflict it on me, scrambling my thoughts and scrambling my speech.  I choose not to come into close voluntary contact with this, unless they legally commit themselves to whatever their intentions are, whether that be arrest and imprisonment, or whatever.  I want to know what I can expect to have to face.  I have that right.  Yes I do.  I am as happy to appear in court and go to prison as I am to be compensated, but I have a right, and a need, as someone already traumatised by incarceration in the mental health system and corruption and neglect and inadequacy and incompetence and violence from authroities, to know and have explicitly and formally expressed in a way which is legally binding, what people’s intentions towards me are. 

I am not a bitch.  I respect the rights of another country’s leadership not to have their legal leadership, according to their own laws, interfered with.  I choose to respect that and make that my position, regardless of my personal feelings, whatever they may be.  This kind of disrespect from the leaders of our country to the leaders of theirs does not promote peace or understanding, in Libya or between Libya and the UK, now or in the future.  I believe that is the truth.  What it does promote is the westernisation of a Middle Eastern country on which we are dependent for oil, and going by Iraq (yes) that westernisation might be unsuccessful or carry a backlash and resentment or rejection in the future, leading to unrest.  I completely understand that, to some extent, I am just being fashionably liberal and posturing as left wing.  But this is still my honest reasoning, and I don’t want any other.  Please, I really don’t.  I really don’t want to view it differently in any way, and I want my view to be practicable.  Because although it is, in this instance, presented as being about the character of Gadaffi and what, to many English people, are the undesirable politics of Libya, the principle must be that the legal boundaries of another country and it’s leadership should not be transgressed by a country outside, whatever the appeal, unless, maybe, a criminal act as defined by the country’s own laws has been committed by the administration.  And I am ignorant, factually.  I might be wrong and that might be the case.  In which case I am embarrassed again.  Katty Kay is tongue lashing.

This post started out as a one liner.

I watched some videos online the other day, by a legal expert in the US, saying it would be OK, in law, to lie to Mr Assange to lure him to a place where they could kidnap him.  I understand the feeling of what he is living with, in terms of the threat and uncertainty (even though I do not know that my life is in danger) living with threat from authorities (and non-authorities) in different ways. 

I don’t think there is anything I can do, but I wish it wasn’t happening to him.  I feel like pleading with him, ‘please don’t die’.

It shouldn’t be legally OK to lie to anyone.  Certainly not for government bodies.  But they do it all the time.  For our protection, they say. 

I don’t want a society riddled with and ‘protected’ by lies.  Some Christians quote Rahab who hid the spies and lied about where they had gone, as being an example of when lying is right.  But the Bible says ‘God is not a man, that He should lie’.  It also says ‘Walk before me and be thou perfect’.  In the New Testament it also says ‘put off lying one to another’ and ‘let no corrupt communication come out of your mouth’.

For me these are heart and covenant verses, and the only ones I can remember out of my own head.  But no one has the right to argue, based on what they see from my limited memory, that the whole issue is a covenant thing and that there are some circumstances, therefore, when lying is right to, or about, certain people.

The reason I say this is that the New Testament isn’t big on self-protection, not for Christians.  We are told to honour all men, and to do good to all (even though it does say especially to those wo are of the household of faith, that doesn’t mean it is OK to do evil to someone else, even if the law demands that they be punished for a crime). 

If the law allows lying, the law is a mess.  Why should the only sanctified place of honour be in court, where it becomes illegal to lie?  Think how much time and money and distress would be saved to so many, if only lying itself, in whatever circumstances, was a crime.  Why isn’t lying, such an abusive and dishonorable thing, a crime?  So that lawyers can continue getting fat?

The New Testament isn’t big on self-protection or for terrestrial country being on a par with God.  Christians were encouraged to accept death for refusing to say, ‘Caesar is Lord’.  I think that encouragement was right.  People are not perfect.  Even if the only acceptable point being made here for some people is that the individual’s conscience comes before any allegiance to king and country (or continent, or one world government, since that is obviously what people are trying to practice, it doesn’t have to be treated with sensationalism for it obviously to be true), I believe that is the point that has to win the day, over and above loyalty to earthly government and authorities.

The spies might have been covenant people, but they were also ordinary men. Who wouldn’t be grateful for having their lives saved?  If in rewarding the woman for that they affirmed lying, they were wrong.  The Bible says she was also a harlot, whatever that means, maybe it isn’t it’s modern meaning.  They weren’t, surely, rewarding and affirming that, if it was what is understood by the word today.  They were showing human gratitude and mercy.  Who knows, maybe they should never have involved the name of God in the transaction at all.  It was a normal, human response to someone who has saved your life.

The fact that someone uses an exalted tone doesn’t make them right.  Maybe they didn’t use an exalted tone, maybe it is just the way I have heard it read and carressed in Church.  I think a verbal carress expresses joy and gratitude and strong feeling.  it is not necessarily an indicator of truth, even though you might feel that people capable of expressing such strong and positive feelings can’t possibly be wrong.  People and their feelings should never be idolised.  Feelings rely on information.  Information might be wrong, or wrongly understood.  No one should ever say to another, ‘I am so and so, do as I say’, unless it is in a clear matter of law.  That is why, I believe, we need to be dispassionate and not inflammatory, if a safe world is what we want.

Government Hanky-Panky

Maybe it’s time for me to stop being drawn on this, but this morning I heard (sorry, I get confused) William Hague or Iain Duncan-Smith (I think it was William Hague) say something about harassment of journalists in Libya.  He paused before saying ‘in Libya’, as if trying to emphasise the point that he was saying Libya, and nowhere else, maybe not the UK.

Being the self-centred person that I am, I thought he was saying that I am harassing journalists and I got a bit upset.  Then I thought, ‘wait a minute, he’s probably trying to draw a distinction between the journalists in Libya (about whom he doesn’t have a bad word to say), and some of the journalists here, in our minds’.  I thought of Julian Assange.

I know many people will have seen the video of him outside the court about a week or so ago (I haven’t seen anything more recent) with him so close to tears saying he hasn’t had the chance to put his side of the story and that there have been incitements to violence towards him and his staff.

I don’t know him, but tears are very powerful with me.  Some people say they are a form of manipulation.  Maybe those people have never known real desperation.  I was frightened of my tears for years, after reading in a counselling type book that they are a form of manipulation.  I realise that tears only express our feelings and not necessarily the truth about the beliefs we hold that make us cry, but they must be one of the most valid expressions of personal, heartfelt reality, and for that reason I for one cannot despise them or be dispassionate about them.  If we took more notice of tears we might be a less violent, bigoted, punitive, testosterone-and-spleen-driven and reactionary world.  I believe real tears always should be reconcilers or at least a gateway to reconciliation.  His tears touched me.  I don’t know if they were real or not.  But how desperate does a person have to show themselves to be in order to have the violation of their legal human rights redressed by those who should and who think they have the right to judge instead?

My own emotions are mangled.  I’m being shouted at and banged at every day, especially when I’m just lying on my bed trying to connect my life to its source and neither moving nor speaking, just enjoying the feeling of beginning to recover the connection between my mind and emotions, then it all starts.  And I do the same thing back sometimes, even if only eventually and not on the spot.  Early in the morning I am too shocked and don’t know how to handle myself.  I can not get dressed for days because the violence makes me feel I can’t cope with life.  And then I feel ashamed of my own reactions when I give it back.

All that to say, condoning computer-hacking from anyone, including the government, excluded, I wish I could help Julian Assange and I would if I could, and would do so in every way that I could if he or his representatives asked me to.  There is no way I would not be prepared to help, believing as I have that he tried to help me.  Isn’t it funny how the government always steps forward to try to get you to disconnect from ‘bad influences’ only after they themselves have been exposed?  If they had not been exposed, if the timing of the leaks had not made me feel supported, I wonder what they would now be saying and doing?

‘The Big Society’ manifesto and plan almost completely replicates some of the concerns I raised in a document on my computer, following years of official abuse and neglect, including from the police, which was addressed to the chief of police in Sussex but not sent.  Given everything else it is hard for me to believe that someone hasn’t lifted it straight from my computer.  I know some people will believe or try to make out this is lunatic, but others will not, they even comment and sometimes get uncomfortable if I log on to a parliamentary broadcast, which I watch from the beginning and delayed, at the time that I actually log on and start watching.  This happened one Friday at the reading of a Private Member’s Bill, and the discomfort was particularly pronounced.  I keep intending to find it and watch it again, because at the time I thought I understood the discomfort.

My browser has crashed a couple of times while typing this, always when I am getting into a release of full flow.  It must show in my typing.  I think that, among other things, my key strokes are being monitored by someone.  I obviously don’t know who or why. There are people I think of and think of course I’ll stop if it’s them and they want me to, but I go on in stubbornness and/or uncertainty.

I started the post to say that it seemed fairly clear to me that, whatever William Hague was trying to communicate with his statement this morning, what appeared to be the surface message didn’t appear to me to be his main concern, and I wish they wouldn’t go around making object lessons and drawing comparisons and contrasts from another country’s distress while trying to appear to have a single message and motive.

Julian Assange, I love you.  I am absolutely backing you up with my best intentions and my strongest hopes for your safety, if that is all I can do.  I can’t quite connect with your reality, as I said when I try to connect with my own people cry out and start banging, I don’t understand the dynamic, I usually go for the explanation that makes me feel guilty, and it’s happening now and it is so distressing, so excuse me if you find this inappropriate, but I feel as if my own entrails are being fed upon.  I believe I have heard you trying to communicate with me, and from you in your position I appreciate that so much.  But I don’t know, maybe you’re communicating with me and every rights aware individual, and I’m just bending it to myself.  I hope you will get someone to contact me if I can help or be of any use to you.  That’s how I feel, whether it is appropriate or not.  I feel as if my whole community is the idiot brigade, and they’ve all come out now.  I’ve got another person now who somehow thinks it helps and is cool to shout hallelujah at me.  Maybe I should respond with better grace and gratitude.  I don’t know why they are doing it or who has given them the idea.  They only did it after searching me out with 5 minutes of yelling and me yelling back in the end.  I feel really bad about this.  It’s obviously an affirmation and I’m being ungrateful.  I should be grateful.  It’s so good to hear.

They are so violent, they make me feel violent.  I know I speak for many.  Some people, as we know, act it out.  The full extent of my acting out is yelling, which is always misguided, because people continue without regard, and really I’m the only person that gets hurt.  I’m on my own and, because people involved professionally refuse to communicate with me constantly feeling not quite secure.  At least these people have their families, the partner or the gang they go around in.

But I’m glad I said what I said yesterday.  Now, if it wasn’t the case before, what they do will be more obvious to some people than it was.

I was just thinking, they use strings of names and references from my life and adopt a tone of entitlement to do it, as if they are doing it in co-operation with the people concerned, and that is where many of my guilt feelings come from when I don’t respond.

Today there was a little string – Mardi Fish – a tennis player, but also we say mardy in Nottingham to talk about people grizzling and crying and being miserable, and that was immediately followed up by the names Adams and Baddeley, two male teachers from my secondary school in Nottingham.

With some of the details they sometimes use, it appears that they are working in co-operation with people from my school life, whoever they are.  This little string was in the sports report.

When all this started for me the church, or at least Kensington Temple, was talking a lot about witchcraft, and I thought they meant me.  Maybe they didn’t, but I thought they did.  That’s why I was so upset, partly.  At the same time there was a tennis player called Goran Ivanisovich.  Sounds like ‘even he’s a witch’.  I heard a radio presenter say that much later, and I had thought it myself when I first heard it, in hospital, and it freaked me.

By the way, I’m still talking about BBC World News.  The time now is 11.08, UK time, which is the time people will need if they want to check this out, if they can get access to the tapes.

I don’t want to play this game with them and I don’t want to validate it.  I have been desperate enough myself.  There are others who are made even more desperate by it, if that is possible.

I saw a rcorded TV programme recently, it might have been in the “How Television Has Ruined Your life’ series on the BBC.  Whatever it was, the presenter was saying that the media uses shock tactics to keep people watching, because people are psychologically wired to give their attention to what appears to be a threat to their safety.

Charlie Wolf, when he was on Talksport, used to say he was pleased if people hated him because that meant they would keep listening. That is still how they do it, on a really wide scale.  But mixed with stalking, and obviously it becomes sinister and lethal, sometimes literally lethal.  They set out to sound violent or otherwise objectionable.  For me I find there is an element of not quite being able to believe what I am hearing or seeing, and a landing place of satisfaction is carefully avoided, so you can’t quite disengage.  Sometimes they make you feel as if you should and that they think you should, but I think it is a double bluff trick.

Just now as I was thinking clearly to write this, the presenter said he just wanted to take us back, almost in a hypnotherapy tone.  I can remember when this approach was first adopted and perpetrated.  There was a deliberate decision made, a few years ago, to adopt the language and intonation of therapy.

He just used ‘tweet’ as in Twitter, which I find always coincides with any fluency of thinking close to speech that I feel.  He just talked down from it to a stop.  Another dissonance, another contradiction.  I find it offensive. maybe it’s just me.  And I am sure there must be some sort of spiritualism involved for this to be happening.

Maybe it is just the violence of the shouting.  Now the presenter of the World Business Report is doing it.  It sounds obviously put on.

The news presenter before him – I think his name is Adam – was saying something about ‘you don’t have to be called Aron to work here, but it helps’, and he said it in such a way I thought and am sure he was referring to the time that I told Tommy Boyd, in his car, that I thought what he had said was arrogant.  He said he had a lot to be arrogant about.  Maybe we have a different understanding of the word, because i think it is a negative trait and he appeared not to.

Aron is back with the sports report, 11.45 am UK time.  He has just mentioned James Pearce.  My form teacher at the school I just mentioned in connection with the other names was called Clive Pearce.  I remember him to have been a very nice and kind person.  Straight after James pearce was mentioned Aron started talking in accented sympathetic and sad tones about people now being in danger of not qualifying.  The weather girl just appeared to stutter with the word ‘mock’.

But they keep going.  They make you feel stupid for saying it, or they look so hurt they make you feel guilty.

David Edes is on.  he was stressing for the first time that i have heard, that his programme is about opinion as well as news.  I thought he was getting at me.  At the same time they showed a report with footage about Guantanamo Bay, and the blocks didn’t look too bad and a staff member was saying conditions are much better, but there were blocks we couldn’t see for security reasons.

There must be something wrong in my head, or in the presentation, or something, because I was thinking it didn’t look too bad and Julian Assange might be OK there.  If I’m that broken down that I’m thinking that I think there must be a lot wrong on a lot of levels.  David Edes is sounding strict and disciplinarian.  I’m not sure who his tone is aimed at or what it is meant to achieve.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353989/WikiLeaks-Police-sex-files-Julian-Assange-leaked-online.html?ITO=1490

I don’t feel able to comment on my feelings about these revelations, if they are true.

However, this is obviously a tit for tat move by whoever it was that made it.  I am supposing that the leaks, authorised or not,  must have come from someone inside the police force.

The obvious problem with this, it seems to me, is that this is an official body leaking details of allegations against an individual, before they have even been proved or the man found guilty.

I watched a video clip on Saturday of Mr Assange speaking via video link to a conference in Australia, and he said that ‘we believe in transparent power, not transparent individuals’.

I don’t like that either/or approach these days.  It’s what is known as a false dichotomy, I think, or is at least along the same lines.  It’s the ‘you have a choice between 2 options’ line, and it is always used to force a decision, I think, and closes down a person’s thinking. A little bit of wry, naughty humour coming in while I am writing, I think the best way to deal with this if you are faced with it might sometimes be to choose the option you know the person presenting the choice doesn’t want you to choose, if they are not open to reason.  Then they have to deal with it, not you.   If they are not open to reason, why would you want to go with them anyway?  It’s manipulative and coercive, although the person presenting the option doesn’t always realise that, they think it is the way to do it, sometimes.  It’s main concern, I think, is the maintenance of a method or way of doing things, or power of some description.

But there are three alleged offenses here, two of them obvious and one of them not.  The two obvious ones are the leaks from both Wikileaks and the police.  the one which isn’t obvious because not provable is the sexual offenses allegations.

Out of these three, if all of them are true, how many of them actually stand as crimes right now without further investigation?

If interception of communications and computer hacking are held to be crimes, Wikileaks has obviously committed a crime right there.  But possibly the government can’t afford to be too strong on that one, because the government has a policy to use that.  I think they have used it with me, a private individual,  without my knowledge.  Because they suspected me of something or thought I might be some sort of a threat?  I don’t know.  They have never told me and have refused to talk about it, referring me to mental health agencies whenever I have asked how I can find out if it is happening (Joan Ruddock’s senior case worker).  I repeat, for saying I thought it might be happening and asking how I could find out, I was referred to mental health agencies and told they did not know how I could find out.  If the government wants to continue to hide this kind of thing, it isn’t going to major on the hacking itself as being a crime.  It will major on the security risks of the actual information leaked (which apparently, according to a news programme I watched yesterday, Mr Assange first presented to the government, who refused to talk to him, before he actually leaked the information.  I suppose they knew he was a computer hacker at that point, and they made no effort to have him arrested for that, so I suppose they do not see that as a crime or, if they do, it is one they are also committing and it would therefore be too embarrassing for them to have him accused of the same thing.  The leaks talk about Hillary Clinton, for example, getting passwords to the accounts of people in the UN).

I think computer hacking is a crime, whoever does it, and that both of these bodies, Wikileaks and the government, are guilty of the same crime, by their own admission and policy.  But they have ruled that out of the equation.  Instead, one could theorise, the pursuit of Mr Assange has been diverted to a pursuit over sexual allegations, in order to get him for everything else?  If there is a real security breach, why have they not acted sooner on that nderstanding, and if he has committed a crime over that, in any way, why have they not arrested him for that, and not just for the sex allegations?  Is it because English law does not consider he has committed a crime, and that is why extradition to Sweden, for questioning, in spite of his constant (so we are told) co-operation with the police over the sexual allegations, is being considered as a first step in enabling an illegal rendition to the USA where he might find himself either in Guantanamo or condemned to death?  This is what is being presented.  This whole process is being presented as illegal, by his lawyers.  If it is illegal the UK should not be supporting it, because in doing so we become an accessory to a crime.

The sex allegations, even if they are true, are complicated by some factors, and might not be able to be proved as rape.  If the accounts are true, it would appear there was obviously a relationship in the context of which it happened.  I think it is not possible to make an assessment and come to a conclusion about his motivation, if it happened.  It says she normally wanted him to wear a condom, and he didn’t, but when awake she allowed him to continue.  Not knowing myself how long it was after this that the allegation of rape was made, I can’t guess at why she made it.  But she allowed him to continue.  Maybe on hindsight she realised it had been rape and felt differently.  To my mind, if she was asleep when it happened, and it was in a way which she had made clear she didn’t want (unprotected) it seems obvious rape might be a reasonable thing to call it.  But at the moment, according to what I have read, that is under debate as the question of whether what happened while she was asleep counts as rape ‘has not been tested by the justice system’.  If it happened.  If it did I think possibly it should be judged as rape.  Swedish law says that sometimes it would be, but in this case it has been thrown out by judges and I don’t know why.  But personally (not with legal knowledge) I also think his intention and understanding of the relationship at the time should be taken into account.  But (if it happened) he knew she didn’t want unprotected sex (if I have read it right).  So he would have to be judged mentally incapable, it seems to me, if the allegations were upheld and they were not treated as rape.  I keep saying ‘if it happened’.  That is my personal point of ignorance. I don’t know if he has acknowledged anything.  Everything I am writing is based on an assumption that he has not agreed that any of this happened.  That might be where my argument falls completely to pieces, but it might not.

Out of the three things involved, the sexual allegations, the leaks made by Wikileaks and the leaks made by the police, if we dismiss the issue of computer hacking about which there appears to be no legal clarity acknowledged, it seems to me there is only one indisputable crime, the leaks made by the police about the allegations made against Mr Assange.  I find it so enormously monstrous I can hardly address it.  This has to be the dirty tricks department at its worst.

It seems to me it compromises the trial.  It seems to me it is a gross breach of Mr Assange’s human rights (and also those of the women who have brought the allegations), and it is gross professional misconduct.  I don’t have to like any of what I am saying or think that I personally have a right to say it for it to be true.  If it is true, whether or not I have a right to say it doesn’t alter that fact.  It is an attempt to short-circuit the process of law, and probably in this case something even worse.  Perhaps I can’t make a categorical statement because perhaps the law is not this clear.  Not being a lawyer I don’t know.  But I think this is a clear case of perverting the course of justice, from whoever was responsible within the Swedish police force for the decision to release this information.

As a victim of computer hacking, I can’t condone the methods used by Wikileaks.  This may appear simplistic, who decides what the ‘right hands’ are and on what basis, and what can you do when those hands become the wrong hands?  But that does not mean that the course of justice should be perverted in the way the organisation or its founder is dealt with.  People speak against Anarchy.  But this is Anarchy from the top down, against the people they govern.  It is something I have experienced personally for over a decade, to my own knowledge.  I’m a Christian.  We need help.  We are in trouble, and maybe we always have been.  Maybe it only seems so bad to me, now, because this is when I am alive and experiencing it.

In the Book of Ezra, when the people are brought back to God, a call goes out, ‘to the word, and to the testimony’.  I’m not sure – I’ve just become sure.  I think this is applicable here because, however much the law is subject to change, what we do now needs to be based on the law as it is now, not as we would like it to be, and what happened in the past should be judged on the laws that were applicable then, not now, with regards to monitoring people’s communications.  That is the position of the European Court of Human Rights Act.  To me that seems just and the only way to maintain order and accountability in the way things are dealt with.  I love my leaders (at least, they make me feel that way.  They make me feel they love me too).  It is hard for me to say I think they have run riot, but I do.  The recovery we need is not only financial.  I believe that, as a society, we are in serious trouble.

Final note:  I realised while tagging this that I have forgotten to take the Freedom of Information Act into account.  Everyone is emoting over this, including Hillary Clinton (you can be an emotional woman for the war but not against it?), but it seems possible to me, not having kept up with any of this, that the information contained in the leaks should have been available anyway under the Freedom of Information Act introduced by Tony Blair, but it wasn’t.  I’m not sure how the Freedom of Information Act works in relation to the Official Secrets Act and whether some of the ‘spade a spade’ brigade would be right in calling the Freedom of Information Act a Mickey Mouse thing anyway.  But if the information contained in the leaks should have been available and wasn’t, and if the government turned Mr Assange away anyway when he went to them with it, it is dishonest that these people, who definitely would have known he knew this before the leaks were made, should now be presenting theselvesas so much ‘up in arms’ about it.  That is downright hypocrisy (sorry, I’m getting angry).

Tony Blair was quoted as saying he wishes he had never introduced the Freedom of Information Act and that it was one of the worst things he ever did.  He is entitled to feel that and entitled to his opinion.  But his feelings and opinion do not make the Wikileaks revelations wrong if, under that act, the information should have been available. We can’t say, “Tony wishes he had never done it, so we can call the Wikileaks leaks a risk to security and get cross about it”, if the informations should have been available anyway.  Maybe it shouldn’t have been, ma ybe there are exceptions under the Official Secrets Act to the Freedom of Information Act’s applicability to this kind of information, but I don’t know and I haven’t heard it discussed.  But if there is no exception there is no case against Wikileaks or Mr Assange for this unless it is computer hacking and invasion of privacy, and those are much lesser charges.  And to be extradited for questioning, at least in this case of sex allegations, is being presented as illegal, and he is supposed to have co-operated freely all along anyway, so excuse me, can someone please tell me what this is all about????  He’s not Jesus and he might be completely unsavoury in so many ways, but why is this being done to this man???? (I’ll keep my swearing to myself on this occasion).  And who else would they do it to if they got away with doing it to him?  It’s called setting a precedent.  We can’t let it happen.  Wake up, everyone.  Reality calls.  Possibly a man’s life is at stake, illegally.  Does anyone care?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                  

This matters to me so much partly because the last set of leaks from Wikileaks came at a time which felt personally significant for me, and so I feel implicated in whatever happens to Mr Assange.  In his communications he has used some references which are very easy for me to apply personally, including one about saving the whales not being the issue, but the freedom of information involved in making the decision.  For me that is very close to home, because one of Michael Mish’s musicals is called “The Boy Who Talked to Whales”, and for me the whale was, more than anything else, about the freedom of the human spirit.  That was how I understood it.  I am not saying that was Michael Mish’s intention.  Michael is, among other things, an environmentalist.  He could actually be offended (though I don’t think so) that what for him is a serious environmental issue is being reduced (or expanded) in that way, without regard for the issue itself.

There were other touch points in his address to the conference in Australia as well.  So whether or not I have been manipulated into this by a form of stalking, I do feel responsible for what happens to him, because I have believed that, if he released the leaks at the time he did in order to help me, he did so understanding the risks he might be taking.  Believing that to be a possibility I cannot be silent.  I know that someone handling his communication reads my blog and I hope they will contact me.

I posted something with a similar title a few weeks ago, which I edited and expanded today and published under today’s date, and although it has appeared under some of its original tags it has not appeared under others, some of them major categories, so I’m posting this very changed and updated version for the categories in which it does not appear today, along with some extra ones which have occured to me while checking the others.

It looks as if these categories do not allow repeat posts, even if vastly updated and published on a different date.  I hope if this is the case it will be changed.

The updated post is as follows, and I have updated it in this way because I think rigorous thinking about this is essential.  Some people might not find it rigorous enough or might wish my rigour came down on the side of international security, and I respect that.

The Post

(Mr Assange) and his lawyers fear extradition which may result in him being transferred to the US and possibly subjected to the death penalty or sent to Guantanamo.

I want him to be OK.  I don’t want any harm to come to him.  I don’t want him extradited.  Even if he has done something wrong, in Britain we don’t have the death penalty anymore, and our news agencies have publicly opposed and criticised Guantanamo for ages, though I haven’t taken much notice of the government’s position so I don’t know what it is. 

Maybe I am just a gullible, emotional woman who doesn’t understand what is involved in regaining/maintaining national and international security, but I think a lot of people would agree with me that, even if he has done something wrong, we would prefer for it to be dealt with differently.  I hope no one is thinking that if he is taken out of the picture that Wikileaks will fall apart, because I think that would be lazy and unjust.

If we have been told the truth, it wouldn’t be fair to extradite him on the basis of the charges which have been brought against him.  We have been told that he has co-operated in every way with the authorities over the sex accusations made against him, right from the beginning.  If that is true I can’t see how exradition over those charges could be justfified, and if extradition is a real threat and not just an exaggerated fear, I think the people thinking of resorting to this should stop the pretence that it is because of the sex allegations over which he has co-operated for months, from the beginning, and make their intentions and the reasons for them clear and open.  Then they would be challengeable, by everyone, including public opinion.  If they are not spoken no one can challenge them and that, in the darkest sense of the word, would be ghastly and say something really awful about us, I believe.

So without knowing anything that could justify it and not feeling able or being willing to turn and go with an inkling that I could be wrong at such short notice, I would like to say that if this is happening, it is not in my name.  And for that I feel I might burn in hell.

Final Edit Note:

My comments are open, as I am sure other people’s are as well.  I didn’t address this sooner because I thought I had nothing significant to add to what I had already said, and although I sat down today and discovered in review that that was not true I obviously can’t know if that would have been the case earlier.  This feeling must be a tearing responsibility for any commentator and journalist in such serious issues as this.

I feel almost if this hasn’t already been raised effectively, and (big) if this IS raised effectively in this post, it might be too late to make a difference.

I’m sure that commenting on a blog is fine, to sway public opinion.  But to make change where it needs to be made official approaches and challenges need to be made, and the powers that be, at any time to date, to my awareness, would not recognise a blog and its comments as an official approach and would not accept blame for ignoring it, even if they are aware of it and agree with it personally.  And especially not if they do not agree.

It’s good to talk.  It’s good to blog.  It’s good to read and comment.  But for the content of social media to be officially recognised then proper legally recognised responses need to be made and actions taken.  Otherwise the sad, the very sad, truth is that we might as well not bother. With these kinds of issue you have to make the challenges proper legal ones, or in most cases they stay hidden and unacknowledged.

If you want to, feel free to use this post in any legal challenge you wish to make or question you need to put to lawyers, MPs (maybe especially, for future accountability) and anyone else over this issue.  I hope you do and that it is useful enough.  What am I doing here in Bulgaria? I’m writing myself into wanting to come myself!  I declare availability, if that isn’t being too impressed with myself.  If it is I won’t be taken up on it, and a good job too.

(Editorial Note:  Please read the updated and expanded version of this which is now on my front page.  I think it is more important than this one.  I wrote it because this one was not appearing in all the categories I assigned it to.)

And he and his lawyers fear extradition which may result in him being transferred to the US and possibly subjected to the death penalty or sent to Guantanamo.

I want him to be OK.  I don’t want any harm to come to him.  I don’t want him extradited.  Even if he has done something wrong, in Britain we don’t have the death penalty anymore, and our news agencies have publicly opposed and criticised Guantanamo for ages, though I haven’t taken much notice of the government’s position so I don’t know what it is. 

Maybe I am just a gullible, emotional woman who doesn’t understand what is involved in regaining/maintaining national and international security, but I think a lot of people would agree with me that, even if he has done something wrong, we would prefer for it to be dealt with differently.  I hope no one is thinking that if he is taken out of the picture that Wikileaks will fall apart, because I think that would be lazy and unjust.

If we have been told the truth, it wouldn’t be fair to extradite him on the basis of the charges which have been brought against him.  We have been told that he has co-operated in every way with the authorities over the sex accusations made against him, right from the beginning.  If that is true I can’t see how exradition over those charges could be justfified, and if extradition is a real threat and not just an exaggerated fear, I think the people thinking of resorting to this should stop the pretence that it is because of the sex allegations over which he has co-operated for months, from the beginning, and make their intentions and the reasons for them clear and open.  Then they would be challengeable, by everyone, including public opinion.  If they are not spoken no one can challenge them and that, in the darkest sense of the word, would be ghastly and say something really awful about us, I believe.

So without knowing anything that could justify it and not feeling able or being willing to turn and go with an inkling that I could be wrong at such short notice, I would like to say that if this is happening, it is not in my name.  And for that I feel I might burn in hell.

I have few clear ideas about anything at the moment.  I was going to say ‘anymore’, but decided against it.

I don’t know how I feel about the death penalty on principle.  I know how I have felt about individual cases.  I was so upset about one a few years ago that I kicked in the glass in my kitchen door.  I was upset because the news agencies were there just reporting it and not doing anything they were talking about.  It was a Christian woman in the US.  I can’t remember more than that now.

I just read that Julian Assange could face the death penalty or Guantanamo if extradited to Sweden.  The term that was used was ‘ilegal rendition’.  I assume that is something they can do to a non-US citizen.  One writer said how can this happen if he is not a US citizen.  Can it, I don’t know.  I don’t know what ‘illegal rendition’ means.

At a significant point for me Wikileaks released something which led me to do a search as to who had died in Afghanistan/Iraq, and I discovered many namesakes from my own sphere of awareness.  Some of them I felt to be close namesakes, but now I can’t remember and that might just have been my imagination, living too much in the world of the media.  I don’t think so though.

I absolutely loathed Hillary Clinton at one point. I don’t feel so strongly now, possibly because things might be smoothing out as I never said anything about it.

It seemed obvious to me a while ago that she has had something to do with my old Bible College lecturer and longtime heroine, Jean Darnall, unless there are a lot of American ladies who act like that.  But the likeness came to light for me at what seemed like a really significant point in what I was communicating. 

I feel ludicrous.  I feel as if I am meddling in things which are really way beyond me and none of my business.  I certainly feel that, every time i post something like this, I start to dig myself up all over again when perhaps I should rest and let myself heal.

I heard Hillary Clinton roundly condemn Julian Assange and Wikileaks.  I also believe I know she has been involved and informed about me, from things she has said and at times that she has said them.

As a Christian I have to say, God knows there is something really wrong here.  I’m frightened.

I’ve heard both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama using psychic find and extinguish buzz words on me.  I am absolutely sure I can say that with confidence.  But I’m a nobody.  I don’t know what they are doing or why, I know they are doing it, I want to believe well of them, they are world leaders, after all.  I want to believe they are well-intentioned towards me, but they haven’t made proper contact with me.

What do I sound like, I sound really crazy.  I’m a bit ungrounded at the moment, I’m not getting any TV and my internet connection won’t support video.  I just felt I had to say something, for what it might be worth.  No one seems to think it is worth anything (pity, pity, moan, moan) and I really dread that one day I’m going to write something like this and find myself back in hospital.  I dread it now.  No one is coming forward to stop it, and I feel the wheels are in motion to dispossess me of my home and maybe put me back in hospital.  That is another reason I feel ungrounded.

I can’t see how anything I say can help Julian Assange.  I felt as if I had to say something, but I don’t know why or who I’m doing it for or what I’m trying to achieve.

When the 9/11 bombings took place I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I wasn’t in New York, I was in an internet cafe, gambling on horse races online.  I was so watchful over myself at the time that I didn’t process or respond very well to what was unfolding.  I commented to someone in a chatroom or on a game site that I thought it could be a wake up call to the West and to America over our godlessness and materialism and building temples to mammon.  That was what I felt at the time.  I felt there was something of the fightback of emasculated power in the decision to rebuild the World Trade Center as big as, if not bigger than, before.  I did feel there was a lesson that needed to be learned and accepted by the west about cathedrals to money.  But what do I know, I’m quite ignorant about many things, including Islam’s own temples to money, if they have them.  I assumed the motive behind the attacks was to strike at materialism and, if it was, I thought i could see how, given their philosophy, that kind of attack would be justified in their eyes.  Without justifying the attack, I thought it would be better to learn a lesson from the reason for it than to go in seeking revenge.  Does that make me sick?  I thought relations might improve if the lesson were accepted, but maybe that is crazy thinking, I think now it might have been.  I think now that Islam hates us, regardless of what we do.  I thought it might be open to reason and to resolving international relationships and some sort of coming together.  Maybe I have become as reactionary as the warmongers if I decide I was wrong about that and that they hate us because they want to hate us, full stop.  And that there is no question of something needing to be learned and any ground given in how we live.  Terrorists, after all, are not to be negotiated with or recognised in any way, and certainly not in any changes to our own lifestyles.  That is what we are taught.  My heart says that can’t be right.  People are people and if we respond to a good point in the right way, even if the way it is made is wrong, that should create hope, shouldn’t it?  But I don’t know the Koran.  Kensington Temple presents it one way, liberal Muslim’s present it another, apparently these books are always open to interpretation, they tell us.  Who do we decide we are going to believe and why?  Is true Islam committed to hating us and destroying us?  If so, why don’t the liberal Muslims say so?  Maybe it’s an argument about what is true Islam.  I feel I should know, it must surely be accessible.

My fear is that while we try to go with liberal Islam and give people claiming to be liberal Muslims power in government and in churches, even, as it now is, I fear we might not detect people coming under a cloak of friendship but who might actually be using their positions for subversive and dangerous purposes.  If the worst of Islam is to be safeguarded against, how wise is it to open key positions to possible covert infiltration of extremism where privileged information with regard to the bodies traditionally hated by Islam might be passed to people who can do real harm?  Personally I am absolutely convinced it is a risk we shouldn’t be taking.  I’m sorry.  I know that won’t go down well with some people.  But when I hear that churches are taking Muslims onto their staff, my alarm bells start ringing.  Islam is anti any other God or prophet.  So is Christianity.  By definition, true Islam and true Christianity can’t work together.  And neither of them can honestly work with humanism, as humanism can’t honestly work with religion.  So what are we playing at?  Is anyone actually thinking about it? We claim to be trying to do the impossible.  When it comes right down to the practicalities, will it turn out to be just lip service?  And if it does, then what?  When we all realise that and see it, if we haven’t already, how will our attempts at multiculturalism fare?  I don’t know the answer to that.  I feel I’m wrong even to question it, that I’m just stupid and ignorant and people are basically too good not to make it work, even in the face of disillusionment.  But if things are not only different but also opposing and evangelically militant in opposition . . . Do we have to spend our whole lives living in a dialectic?  Is that really what life is supposed to be about?  I’ve wasted my life, I’m too old for dialectic, but I wish I wasn’t, because I think it sounds exciting.

Wikileaks Stopped Me Screaming

Thank you, Wikileaks.

I suppose because I heard what the leaks were, when they were about the US spying on the United Nations, and let’s just say I wasn’t impressed.  I suppose because I assumed that UK leaders knew about that and that if we were supposed to value our membership of the United Nations, and we were party to spying on them, I thought that was really grubby and hypocritical.  I was really pleased that it came out.  I have every reason to be sympathetic towards the United Nations over this issue, and for me the war with Iraq and with Afghanistan was illegal because it went against United Nations ruling. I don’t understand any more than that.  I bought the angle that Iraq is a sovereign nation and that we have no right to interfere in how they run their affairs.  And also I don’t believe that the war on terrorism can be a literal war.  And what is shock and awe, if it isn’t an act of terrorism?  Inwardly I was screaming no since before it started and as soon as they started talking about considering it.  I saw angry, hate driven men sitting around the tables on the television talking about what to do.  I saw men driven by a really dark and life-denying spirit.  All retaliation does is perpetuate a thing.  It might quell it momentarily and take away its figureheads, but it comes back, goes underground – what’s this stuff about Jerry Adams?  We know this kind of thing happens, even if it hasn’t happened in this case, which I don’t know because I haven’t kept up with the news.

People have been anti war for centuries, even millenia.  But they put all these august men in suits on the TV saying how the war is right and that we should be behind our boys.  I wonder if these people have any space in their lives for someone like Leo Tolstoy, or if they would make out they have if asked, even if they haven’t?  Leo Tolstoy was a pacifist.  I think he was also a Christian Anarchist, but I can’t remember.  I began to read one of his books last year.  Unfortunately I left my books in London.  I bought a one way ticket.  I thought I would be back within a month, my purchase under my belt.

I was really upset when I heard they wanted to arrest Julian Assange.  It certainly looks as if it is politically motivated.  I felt I owed him, and I can’t remember why.  John Major on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday put it down to youthful folly.  They weren’t his exact words but they meant the same.  That is really demeaning.  You can’t say you are pro democracy and take up a position like that as a leader.  Why put it down to youthfulness?  I assume Wikileaks people will continue to act on the same convictions when they are the same age as John Major and beyond that.  He puts it down to youthfulness because the voice of the war machine is the dominant voice in society.  If it wasn’t someone would be putting down going to war as youthful foolishness, which I believe it is.

Julian Assange, I salute you.

WAGblog: Dum Spiro Spero

"While I breathe, I hope"

Emerging From The Dark Night

Working through the Dark Night of the Soul to emerge as me.

The Elephant in the Room

Writing about my experiences with: depression, anxiety, OCD and Aspergers

The Sir Letters

A Tale of Love

The Seeker's Dungeon

Troubling the Surf with the Ocean

Seroquel Nation

Onward and upward...

We are all in this together

it's gonna be okay.

my last nerve

psychology | psychiatry | neuroscience | n stuff

A Philosopher's Blog

A Philosopher's View of the World...assuming it exists.