Stop the Dirty Digger

Rupert's played a blinder.

All the morons in the papers and TV are getting their knickers in a twist because Murdoch has bought a minority share in ITV. They think this is a prelude to him taking over ITV. What they fail to realise is that even the lax British media ownership laws prevent Murdoch from owning ITV outright.

This brilliant move is not about Murdoch taking over ITV. This simple, but masterful, move is merely about preventing any his rivals from taking over ITV and challenging his dominance of the British media. As a minority shareholder Murdoch will be able to veto anyone buying ITV outright.

Murdoch has not become by one of the world's leading, if not the leading, media moguls by providing superior products or services. He has done this by eliminating any competition, by fair or foul means.

In 1990 he forced British Satellite Broadcasting to "merge" with his Sky TV creating what we now know as BSkyB. This gave him a monopoly on satellite TV and a virtual monopoly on pay TV in Britain.

In 2002 he forced ITV Digital into bankruptcy using both legal and illegal methods. He prevented the ITV Sports channel, on whose success the future of ITV Digital rested, from broadcasting on his Sky Digital platform. This denied ITV Sports the millions of subscribers it needed in order to pay for the Football League TV rights. He also used his contacts in the criminal world to crack ITV Digital's encryption technology. By eliminating ITV Digital Murdoch had rid himself of a serious competitor in the pay TV market.

Then, by conspiring with the BBC to create Freeview, the successor to ITV Digital, he ensured that there would never again be any serious pay TV on terrestrial TV.

And now, by buying this minority stake in ITV, he has ensured that NTL-Telewest-Virgin-ITV isn't a threat to BSkyB.

Richard Branson has rightly complained to Ofcom but don't expect those gutless wonders to do anything. They will probably pass the buck to the government. It's time to call in the favours Rupert...

The Revolution That Wasn't

There have been many colourful words used to describe what has happened across the big pond: seismic, extraordinary, political coup. But all of this is giving the American electorate too much credit.

They didn't vote for the Democrats because the neo-cons used a pack of lies to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. They didn't vote for the Democrats because over one hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed. They didn't vote for the Democrats because over one million Iraqis have been maimed, raped and tortured by the American occupiers and their puppets. They didn't vote for the Democrats because the lives of all Iraqis, except those of the collaborators hiding in the Green Zone, have got worse since Saddam was toppled. They didn't vote for the Democrats because billions of dollars of Iraqi oil money / international aid / American tax payers money have been stolen by the quisling Iraqi government and the various American contractors.

They voted for the Democrats because a few thousand American soldiers have died.

It is also giving the Democratic politicians too much credit. Virtually every Democrat voted for the invasion of Iraq. Most of the new Democrats elected on Tuesday are conservatives who simply don't like seeing American boys coming home in coffins. The Democrats are just Republicans with a different coat on.

Rumsfeld has quit / been sacked. Hooray? No. It's six years too late. He has done his damage. His departure won't bring back the thousands who have died as a result of his lies. It won't heal the scars of American terror that he unleashed on the innocent people of Iraq.

Irrespective of who runs Congress it is Bush who still holds most of the powers in Washington, including foreign policy. This was not a revolution. Expect more of the same.

Truth, Justice - the American Way

Saddam has been found guilty of killing 148 Shia in Dujail. No surprise.

He has been sentenced to death. No surprise.

The verdict came two days before a crucial mid-term election in the USA. No surprise.

The neo-cons and their puppet Iraqi government may hail this verdict as huge blow for the new Iraq but everyone else knows that this was a sham trial which, like the whole Iraq adventure, ended in a farce.

Saddam was responsible for murdering over one million Iranians, Kurds and Shia. So why was he tried just for the 148 killings in Dujail? If Saddam had been tried for all his crimes against humanity the truth about who armed him would have been revealed. In the 1980's the Americans supplied Saddam with most of the weapons which he carried out these crimes because back then he was waging a brutal war against another one their enemies: Iran. Many senior figures in the current neo-con regime are equally culpable for the crimes committed by Saddam. If there was real justice for Saddam's many victims the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush Sr would all be swinging from the gallows alongside Saddam.


Previous war crimes/crimes against humanity trials have been held before a special international court. The Nazis were tried by an international court at Nuremburg and the Serb/Croat war criminals are being tried at the Hague. So why wasn't Saddam tried before an international court? An international court would have revealed America's culpability. And it would not have been able the pass the death penalty. By having the trial in Iraq the neo-cons could control the outcome. The various judges, prosecution and defence lawyers were all appointed by the quisling Iraqi government whose strings are pulled from Washington. If any of the judges tried to hold a fair trial they could be removed. If the defence lawyers showed any independence they could be murdered by the collaborators in the new Iraq army. The CIA could control the television coverage of the trial so that the world, and more importantly the Iraqis, only saw and heard what the neo-cons wanted them to.

The neo-cons are dancing in the streets of Washington now that Saddam has been sentenced to death. The EU has called for the execution to be not carried out but Tony Bliar, who apparently is against capital punishment, can't bring himself to say that Saddam shouldn't be executed.

The neo-cons may think that they can wash away their sins with Saddam's blood but the only thing the execution will bring is more bloodshed and heartache for the long suffering people of Iraq. The neo-cons won't be satisfied until the Euphrates and Tigris are running red with the blood of Iraqis.

Saddam Hussein is a genocidal psychopath who destroyed the lives the millions. He should be bought to justice for all his crimes. This sham trial has deprived most of his victims that justice. And the justice for his Dujail victims has been tainted by the political interfering and the farcical way the trial was held. Saddam's execution will mean that he will never be bought to justice.

Killer Strikes Again

One of Jean Charles de Menezes' murderers has struck again - he shot dead a man in Kent on Tuesday.

This police officer is a dangerous killer but the public are unaware of his identity. The British media/government/legal system has afforded this murderer (and the others responsible for de Menezes' murder) anonymity.

He could be anywhere (the Met Police officer managed to commit this murder on a sleepy town on the south Kent coast). If you see him do not approach him and do not dial 999.

Will he get away with this murder? Will he be allowed to commit more murders? Is Glen Smythe a freemason?

The Prince & the Dictator

Charles von Oldenburg flew to Pakistan earlier this week to soothe Dictator Musharraf.

The dictator has been extremely upset with Britain ever since a senior British intelligence officer had stated some painful facts: the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies were responsible for creating the Taleban, they were still arming and funding the Taleban, and Osama Bin Laden was hiding out in a presidential palace in Islamabad.

The British government was very eager to make up for this slap in the face for a key ally in the "war on terror". So they came with the idea of sending Charles over to Pakistan, he had nothing better to do afterall.

Musharraf and Charles are very similar men. One became head of state at gun point and the other will, one day, become head of state by accident of birth. Yet both are appeased by the hypocrites who dare to call themselves "democrats".