Faceless, would you consider uploading to YT the newsnight debate, as the one put up by tele673 is definitely suspect with all that selective editing !
I put it up there last night - a couple of other people asked for it too
edit: I read you wrong there - I didn't get the newsnight one uploaded. I downloaded the wmv from the newsnight site, but it wouldn't cut properly. I'll try again.
i thought some might be interested in this letter sent to channel4 over their fox like coverage
Quote:
Dear Krishnan Guru-Murthy
George Galloway is quite correct in his comments regarding democratic rights in the UK during the Second World War which I provide some information on below.
Given an attempted invasion (please also read the declassified The Operation Northwood documents), 600+ assassination attempts on Castro’s life, and a 48 year economic blockade, I could well imagine Cubans feeling in a state of war with the USA.
The biggest contribution that could be made to encouraging greater democracy in Cuba would be for the US to cease harbouring and assisting terrorists seeking to overthrow the Cuban government – e.g. Luis Posada Carriles who was responsible for the 1976 downing of a Cuban passenger plane with 73 people on board - and withdrawing the blockade, which punishes the entire Cuban population for not submitting to US will.
On Democratic Rights in the UK during the Second World War
Regulations issued under The Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, did not require parliamentary approval. This Act also allowed that 'Any Act of Parliament may beamended, suspended or applied with or without modification.' The Act was only repealed in 1959.
During the Second World War, just under two thousand British citizens (and many more “foreign aliens”) were detained without charge, trial, or term set, under Regulation 18B of the wartime Defence Regulations.
Much of what was done was kept secret at the time, and even today the authorities continue to refuse access to many of the papers which have escaped deliberate destruction.
Under the legislation the Home Secretary of the day - initially Sir John Anderson, subsequently Herbert Morrison - was free to detain and imprison as he saw fit anyone against whom evidence of potential disloyalty, untested by legal process, was presented by the security services. The normal safeguards against abuse of executive power traditionally available to British citizens, such as the provisions of Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus and trial by jury, were effectively suspended.
The regulation remained in use long after it became clear that no organised Fifth Column existed in Britain.
Although a Home Office Advisory Committee was set up to oversee internment, individuals once arrested had little chance of redress, and could be kept in prison indefinitely with no attempt to charge or try them with any offence. The evidence on which they were arrested was secret and sometimes of dubious accuracy.
Some individual detainees undertook legal action in the courts against the Home Secretary under Habeas Corpus or for wrongful imprisonment, but such actions almost invariably failed. (See Professor Simpson´s book `In the highest degree odious”. The title uses the words of Winston Churchill who, originally a strong supporter of the regulation, came later to recognise its danger to democratic freedom.)
Strong pressure was applied subsequently by political opponents to maintain internment even after the danger of invasion had long receded, whilst some in government sought to prolong its use even after the end of the war, though in the event it was abolished the day after VE day.
As to freedom of speech, this may best be summed up by the words of the Chief Constable of the Middlesborough Police regarding protests at the treatment of four members of the Young Communist League 'that free speech was still allowed in this Country, provided a person chose rather carefully what he said.' (Letter, 21 August 1940).
I am glad you found the comparison to Fox News “abuse”, but rather than get cross yourself, you might like to reflect on the similarities in your approach to theirs in Channel 4 coverage.
Also, as always in a debate with Galloway, better make sure you know your facts. He does.
shame he didnt mention anything about the elections and homophobic slurs ...
on gays wrote:
it was Castro himself recognising the discrimination and unjust nature of stigmitisation and repression of gays who instigated a change in the law. Nonetheless other official attitudes continued to relax. In 1981 the view was stated in a publication entitled “In Defence of Love”,produced by the Ministry of Culture, that homosexuality was a variant of human sexuality. It was argued that homophobic bigotry was an unacceptable attitude inherited by the Revolution and that all sanctions against gays should be opposed. In an interview with a former Nicaraguan government official, Tomás Borge, Fidel Castro declared that he opposed policies against gays and lesbians as he considered homosexuality to be a natural tendency that should be respected. The same year a series of sex education workshops was run throughout the country carrying the message that homophobia was a prejudice. In 1995 Cuban drag queens led the annual May Day procession, joined
by two gay delegations from the USA and every year since then gays and lesbians have participated in the parade carrying the rainbow flag. Old prejudices die hard and it has taken a time for Cuba to adopt changes in national culture.
on elections wrote:
Unfortunately GG did not counter that buffoon Krishnan guru with the fact that there ARE elections in Cuba! Even the Cuban constitution was elected upon. Just recently 11 million Cubans voted for their delegates to the Cuban assembly. It is a preposterous lie that there are no elections in Cuba. Anyone can be nominated as a delegate over the age of 16. Each nomenclature or district can nominate up to 8 candidates, all have to attend a meeting of the electorate and put their case for election. All candidates have their names and photos published and their CV. The succesful candidates are elected to the local municipal council. The councils then after a process select their candidate for the NA, that candidate has to be elected by over 51% of the electorate.The NA selects a slate of candidates for the council of state.(Cabinet) Those too have to be ratified by the electorate. The sworn in cabinet then elect the President. Since 1975 Fidel has been elected President but he has had to be elected three times to get to that position. All elected candidates are subject to recall at anytime, only the members of the cabinet are in full time paid posts. (Equal to a skilled workers salary) Even major policy decisions by the government can be influenced by voting (such as the trade Unions who have a lot of power in Cuba, trade unions by the way are free and independent from Government and communist party). I forgot to add The Communist party by law is not allowed to stand delegates or campaign for delegates.
Am I the only person here who likes Krishnan Guru Murthy?
He's normally on the ball, and I think he was just asking those questions to provoke a sensational interview. And it worked - look at all the discussion across the net about it!
Am I the only person here who likes Krishnan Guru Murthy?
He's normally on the ball, and I think he was just asking those questions to provoke a sensational interview. And it worked - look at all the discussion across the net about it!
i don't dislike him - i don't think hes as on the ball as you, but i've not really watched much mainstream news now for months
i also don't think he did anything to try and provoke any type of response ( although i'm sure the idea of that was on c4 and newsnights minds when they picked him ) - i think he believed what he was saying, for example he probably didn't know anything about the recent elections in cuba ( i didn't see anything in the mainstream ) - he's probably not an expert on cuba, he'll have been educated at the 'right' places so he'll have the 'right' version of history, he'll read the same biased reporting on cuba that most other people do
as chomsky said to andrew marr once "i'm sure you believe everything you're saying, but what I'm saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting"
there is outright lies though, i don't think krishnan was lying, but its like when john snow comes out with stuff he knows is false or misleading, hes old, near retirement - he knows if he rocks the boat he'll just be replaced - like that tv guy in america who was asking the questions that no one else was in the run up to iraq war and was got rid off - the memo came out saying he's was asking to many difficult questions and not waving the flag enough. snow knows the score - he once said in an email it was a 'shame' that it was 'the bad ones who have all the power'
Thanks Luke for the great quote from Chomsky, as I've not seen that one before.
check it out, its a great interview - its crazy seeing how oblivious marr is to how things work and then looking how far he's progressed within the bbc - he's one of their top boys now and its obvious why, medialens have looked at his stuff quite a bit over the years
Thanks Luke, I've just had time to look at the chomsky-marr stuff, and you're right. it's a remarkable interview. I also liked the review of it in the other link, "Where Egos Dare" LOL!!
I took this quote from the interview as it more articulate than my "Sex, Sport & Soaps Sap Your Mind & Rob you Blind !";
"when the press focuses on the sex lives of politicians, reach for your pocket, and see who's pulling out your wallet, because those are not the issues that matter to people. I mean, they're very marginal interest. The issues that matter to people are somewhere else, so as soon as you hear, you know, the press and presidential candidates and so on, talking about "values", as I say, put your hand on your wallet - you know that something else is happening."
I noticed this in the comments on the Galloway/C4 vid Faceless put up on YT;
"Upton Sinclair once said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Krishnan Guru-Murthy is not about to admit to himself, let alone anyone else, that he is little more than a mouthpiece for the political establishment, pushing a very transparent agenda for a (very nice) living. But you never know, Rageh Omaar saw the light in the end, so miracles do happen."
The Sinclair quote is very much like the Chomsky one that Luke provided, great minds think alike, but I was wondering if anybody knows anything about the Rageh Omaar comment ?
I downloaded this load of mp3s a while back called 'The World's Greatest Speeches'. The title is a bit like the idea of baseball calling their championship the World Series in as much as almost everything is regarding America, but there are some good bits in it.
Most notably, in this thread, is this speech by JFK regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. In one part he says something like 'America is better than the USSR because we don't go round invading countries and trying to impose our way of life on others'. Good to know he was on the ball!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
