Osama Bin Laden was still working for the American Government on 9/11 !
The latest excuse for BBC censorship!
"Of course, as an internet publisher the BBC tries to avoid as far as possible publishing any defamatory comment, and the various types of moderation we use are intended to limit the risks of publishing contributions from the public"
- Paul Wakely producer of the BBC Central Communities Team,
Don't even give them a chance to launch their Bullscutter !
Oh, no. Brutish Bullscutter Coperation. Don't come fucking near me today. Dear Jaysus, you Kerry fucking recruits and gobshites all over the Irish media are their by-product. There are so many things I could say to express my deep mistrust and yes, anger of these new media Irish opinion makers. Their world service can be a titillating export but their rampant censorship of the restless native's replies stinks to high heaven, of arrogance, cultural imperialism and age old repression.
I don't vote right wing as far as I know, so maybe that also explains my antagonism to them. I don't believe the Brutish Bullscutter Coperation, which henceforth will be simply called the BBC, offer anything approximating legitimate alternatives for this country, indeed any country but thats their business. I disagree with their monarchy, class system of commoners, lords, inherited privilige and intolerance of diversity or alternatives.
Lest you think nationalism is blinding me, do not confuse my rants against Brutish Bullscutter with the many Scottish, English and Welsh friends I have known down through the years, most of whom are the salt of the Earth in my opinion and great people.
It goes against every fibre of my being and tradition to be rude to people but you have got to stand up for your identity these days or become a smiling zombie product of their pundits and seductive manipulating bullscutter.
Brutes are people too but we must take this tour d'arse with all of its insanity, as a relief from the bland sanitized, couldn't give a fuck mercenary BULLSCUTTER ! of our age.
The Constitution of the USA was framed by Brits who were in the habit of their Monarchy marching them off as cannon fodder to the latest war, for their own good of course. The first American terrorists or rebel framers of the American Constitution, were hell-bent and determined to prevent this and wrote into their Constitution the first Article, that the power to make or authorize war, would be reserved to the representatives of people in the Congress, not in the Executive or Presidency.
So for Bush and Blair, two products of their respective secret services and their compliant media, to instigate first strike warfare, that has so far slaughtered "1,331,578" mostly innocent civilians, are war crimes and major constitutional issues(for any state with a pretence to democracy, never mind exporting it) but the BBC world service basically chooses to ignore this and give these war criminals an easy ride. Yes we had Hutton's report, just like we had Widgery in Ireland but hypocrisy is always the byword of the BBC.
Today it is still Iraqi's who suffers but as sure as night follows day, tomorrow it will be more Irish, American and British who will be the victims of the eternal wars of the US & UK. Students of objective history know it repeats itself for those who refuse to learn or ignore the truth of its lessons. This is the legacy of censorship. This is the legacy of world service media of war crime enablers such as the BBC. - IrishBlog
Recalling the Downing Street Minutes
By Ray McGovern
July 26, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- Seven years ago this week, then British Prime Minister Tony Blair gathered his top national security advisers at 10 Downing St. to hear a report from U.K. intelligence chief Richard Dearlove, just back in London from face-to-face talks with then-CIA Director George Tenet in Washington.
Blair and President George W. Bush had been talking regularly by telephone for several months. But, as is well known, even the most secure phones can be tapped, and there are some things — like preparing criminal wars of aggression, I suppose — that are so outrageous one doesn’t dare take any chances.
Besides, Blair apparently had some misgivings about taking at face value the Texas-size braggadocio he was hearing at the other end of the phone about what was going to happen to Saddam Hussein and why. It is understandable that he would seek independent, authoritative confirmation that this was also what Bush was sharing with his top accomplices.
Who better to confirm or deny than Bush-vassal Tenet, who met six mornings a week with the American president to discuss the President’s Daily Brief?
Blair prevailed on a reluctant Tenet to host a visit from Dearlove on Saturday, July 20, 2002. Blair had seen enough of the garrulous Tenet in action to be able to calculate — correctly — that once you got him talking about secrets he was privileged to know about, kernels of truth could be gleaned from beneath all the usual bull. Documentary evidence now shows that the Dearlove dug out some remarkable kernels.
Matthew Rycroft, aide to Blair foreign policy guru David Manning, was taking minutes at the Downing Street meeting on July 23, 2002, minutes he immediately circulated to Blair and other participants. The minutes observed quite bluntly that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Enter an unknown patriotic truth-teller who eventually gave a copy of those minutes to London’s Sunday Times which, after performing due diligence regarding their provenance, published them on May 1, 2005. Blair himself has been careful not to dispute the authenticity of what then became known as the "Downing Street Minutes."
We Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity also performed due diligence and were first off the mark with "Proof Bush Fixed the Facts," May 4, 2005.
Too Late the Leak
The Downing Street Minutes represent the kind of documentary evidence after which trial lawyers, intelligence analysts – and serious investigative journalists – lust.
Though the unauthorized disclosure did not come early enough to head off the war, which had started more than two years before the document surfaced, the unique disclosure could have thrown some harsh light on the war’s origins — IF the Fawning Corporate Media in the United States did its job.
However, having been acrobatic cheerleaders for war on Iraq, the FCM did its level best to suppress this documentary evidence of the war’s fraudulent character.
Enter John Conyers, bless his heart, who was House Judiciary Committee ranking member at the time. Sadly, it is necessary to reach back four years to find the last thing Conyers did that took any courage, but one must give the timid please-don’t-say-impeach-in-my-presence Conyers his due with regard to the Downing Street Minutes.
(Full disclosure: Conyers had me arrested on July 23, 2007 — the five-year anniversary of the plotting at 10 Downing St. — when I would not leave his office until he agreed to do his duty under the Constitution to launch hearings on impeachment.
I stressed that, like him, I had sworn an oath – in my case as an Army officer – to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; that my oath carried no expiration date; and that it was the Constitution that I was trying to protect and defend.
Unimpressed, Conyers called the Capitol police. I was quickly marched out of the Rayburn building off to jail, and later convicted of unlawful assembly. I would add only that, while we Irish are notorious for bearing grudges, I continue to believe — strongly — that Conyers’ inaction did grave damage to our Constitution by shirking his duty to start the orderly process called impeachment that the Founders intended for use in removing a president who thought he could act like a king.)
With respect to the Downing Street Minutes, though, Conyers did manage a temporary fit of courage. Readers may recall that he scheduled a "hearing" for June 16, 2005, in the only space the Republican majority would make available — a basement room under the Capitol.
On the morning before the hearing, Amy Goodman invited Conyers and me to be interviewed on Democracy Now. Just before the interview, I had a chance to look at the editorial page of Pravda, er, I mean the Washington Post, for that morning, and guess what? The Post saw fit to mention the Downing Street Minutes, though dismissively so as not to tarnish the newspaper’s glorious cheerleading for war.
"The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration’s prewar deliberations," the Post’seditors wrote, explaining why the leading newspaper of Washington had largely ignored the contents of the British documents. "Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002."
I just now downloaded the Democracy Now transcript of my comments that morning, and was happy to see that I managed to suppress — sort of — the anger seething inside me (although my wife tells me some of it broke through). I beg readers’ indulgence:
RAY McGOVERN: Well, Amy, we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity had been saying for three years that the intelligence and the facts were being fixed to support an unnecessary war. We never in our wildest dreams expected to have documentary proof of that under a SECRET label: "SECRET: U.K. EYES ONLY" in a most sensitive document reserved just for cabinet officials in the Blair government. And so, what we have now is documentary proof that, as that sentence reads, the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
The Washington Post this morning is still at it. They quote that sentence, and they say, "Well, this is vague, but intriguing." Well, there’s nothing vague about that at all, and it’s not at all intriguing. It’s highly depressing. Now, we veteran professionals, we professionals that toil long and hard in the intelligence arena are outraged at the corruption of our profession, but we are even more outraged by the constitutional implications here because as Congressman Conyers has just pointed out, we have here a very clear case that the Executive usurped the prerogatives of Congress of the American people and deceived it into permitting, authorizing an unauthorizeable war.
And, you know, when you get back to how our Constitution was framed by those English folks that were used to kings marching them off to the war blithely, for their own good, of course, those framers of our Constitution were hell-bent and determined, and wrote into the very first Article of our Constitution, that the power to make or authorize war would be reserved to the representatives of people in the Congress, not in the Executive. And so, for that usurpation to happen, that is a constitutional issue, and we’re even more outraged by that. …
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Michigan Congress Member John Conyers who is holding a hearing on the Downing Street Memo tomorrow, and has won a small victory. It will actually be able to be held in Congress. Ray McGovern also with us, a long-time C.I.A. analyst for more than a quarter century, a top briefer for former Vice President George H.W. Bush. I wanted to ask you about Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, who had said that there were no weapons of mass destruction, cited by western officials, U.S. officials, for many other reasons, but they never brought up that issue. Can you talk about the significance of this?
RAY McGOVERN: Yes. This gentleman’s name was Hussein Kamel. He was one of Saddam Hussein’s sons-in-law. And he defected in 1995 and was thoroughly debriefed by U.N. and U.S. and U.K. debriefers. He had quite a story to tell, because he was head of the missile, chemical, biological and nuclear programs in Iraq. And he was able to finger some of the things that the U.N. inspectors did not know, and what he told them turned out to be quite right. He also told them that the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and weapons were destroyed at his order in July of 1991, right after the Gulf War. That’s in black and white. It’s in the debriefing report. An enterprising British researcher went to Vienna. I don’t know how he got access to the debriefing report, but he did, and he found out that Kamel also said, as I said, that all those weapons were destroyed at his order. Of course, he was in charge.
Now, curiously enough, that seemed to escape our leaders. It was never cited, although Hussein Kamel himself was held up as the paragon of a reliable source. Dick Cheney, himself, in his major speech of 26 August 2002, held Hussein’s son-in-law as one of our most lucrative, reliable sources, but he never told us that this source, this wonderful source, also told us that all those weapons had been destroyed in July of 1991 at his order. Now, there’s no excuse for them not knowing that. It may have slipped in a crack between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., I suppose, but it also appeared in Newsweek four weeks before the war. Four weeks before the war, the report that Hussein Kamel, their paragon source, had said all those weapons had been destroyed. Now, the C.I.A and the spokesmen there and all of the other spokesmen in government said this was ludicrous, this was false; besides, it’s untrue and everything else. And they came down real hard on it.
Guess what our domesticated press did with that. No more story on that, because they were all cheerleading for the war. And I’ll just make one more point about our domesticated press. The Washington Post today in this lead editorial says that these memos were not given much play in the press because, (quote), "They do not add a single fact to what was previously known about the administration’s pre-war deliberations." Now, if The Washington Post knew that as of 23 July 2002, the president had, in the British words, inevitably decided on war, if they knew that the president intended to use as justification the conjunction between terrorism and so-called weapons of mass destruction, and if they knew that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy, you know, they really ought to — they surely should have told us that, The Washington Post should have.
It’s really ludicrous. It would be laughable if it weren’t so serious a situation. Because what needs to happen here is you have a start-up newspaper in Washington called The Washington Spark, okay? Now, on the 11th of May, they carried the whole story, including the memo itself. Right here. Now, that hasn’t appeared in The Washington Times or The Washington Post, but here in The Washington Spark, new start-up paper, just days after the memo, it’s there. So it’s possible there’s some kind of a rule against publishing things that are so critically damaging of our president, and the editorial in the Post today is Exhibit A.
When the Conyers hearing was held on June 16, 2005, the witnesses included Gold Star mother and anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz, and me together as panelists. (My prepared remarks can be seen at "June 16 Testimony of Ray McGovern.")
The room was more than somewhat cramped, but half the space was allotted for the TV cameras — including C-SPAN, which carried the proceedings live.
Fitting with its dismissive attitude toward the Downing Street disclosures, the Post sent satirical columnist Dana Milbank to cover the hearing and his article the next day dripped with sarcasm.
"In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe," Milbank wrote. "They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official."
Milbank also took some cheap shots at Conyers, who – Milbank wrote – "banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him ‘Mr. Chairman.’" [For the article's full flavor, see the Washington Post's "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War," June 17, 2005]
Now seven years after the Downing Street Minutes were written – and more than four years after their disclosure – they remain one of the most damning pieces of evidence against both the Bush administration for its criminal deceptions in leading the nation to war and the FCM for its complicity in hiding the truth from the American people.
As philosopher George Santayana wisely observed a century ago, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
First published at Consortiumnews.com
BBC BRUTISH BULLSCUTTER COPERATION
Don't even give them a chance to launch their Bullscutter !
Oh, no. Brutish Bullscutter Coperation. Don't come fucking near me today. Dear Jaysus, you Kerry fucking recruits and gobshites all over the Irish media are their by-product. There are so many things I could say to express my deep mistrust and yes, anger of these new media Irish opinion makers. Their world service can be a titillating export but their rampant censorship of the restless native's replies stinks to high heaven, of arrogance, cultural imperialism and age old repression.
I don't vote right wing as far as I know, so maybe that also explains my antagonism to them. I don't believe the Brutish Bullscutter Coperation, which henceforth will be simply called the BBC, offer anything approximating legitimate alternatives for this country, indeed any country but thats their business. I disagree with their monarchy, class system of commoners, lords, inherited privilige and intolerance of diversity or alternatives.
Lest you think nationalism is blinding me, do not confuse my rants against Brutish Bullscutter with the many Scottish, English and Welsh friends I have known down through the years, most of whom are the salt of the Earth in my opinion and great people.
It goes against every fibre of my being and tradition to be rude to people but you have got to stand up for your identity these days or become a smiling zombie product of their pundits and seductive manipulating bullscutter.
Brutes are people too but we must take this tour d'arse with all of its insanity, as a relief from the bland sanitized, couldn't give a fuck mercenary BULLSCUTTER ! of our age.
The BBC are a World service of bullscutterers, of secret agents and surveillance, that might come straight out its own spy drama Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. The facts are that the BBC was involved with genuine spies and they operated behind the scenes at Broadcasting House.
The BBC's relationship with MI5 in the late 1970s and early 1980s was most intimate at the same time as millions of viewers were watching the adventures of George Smiley in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and -Smiley's People.
Confidential papers reveal that the BBC allowed MI5 to investigate the backgrounds and political affiliations of thousands of its employees, including newsreaders, reporters and announcers.
The files confirm the BBC's secret links with Secret Services demonstrating that it was responsible for vetting 6,300 different BBC posts at one stage, almost a third of the total workforce at the time. They also confirm that the corporation held a blacklist of certain kinds, that could be a bar to appointment or promotion as is standard in any police state.
Documents exist which show that senior BBC personnel try to hide these links in the face of awkward questions from the almost extinct free press. The documents mention a "defensive strategy" of "categorical denial". One file states: "Keep head down and stonewall all questions."
The BBC always refuses to be drawn on its collaboration with the secret services.
An internal BBC memo confirms: "We supply personal details to the Security Service. If there is any adverse information known, we receive this information and also, where necessary, an assessment based upon the involvement of the individual. This is presented to us as advice;management then make the decision as to action."
The BBC personnel subjected to this second kind of scrutiny was termed as "counter-subversion vetting". Details of freelance television and radio staff also routinely passed on to the security services subjected to background checks by MI5. In many cases, the spouses of applicants also subjected to scrutiny.
A memo discovered, dated March 7 1985, stated: "Secrecy of the complete vetting operation is imposed upon us by the Security Service " During the first four months of 1983 for example, they investigated 619 different individuals.
Archived papers show that in 1968, Sir Hugh Greene the BBC's then director-general and John Arkell, the head of administration, evaded questions on the issue during an interview with a journalist. A memo from Mr Arkell, dated March 1 1968, to another senior colleague states: "You might like to get a bit of credit for the BBC next time you talk to MI5 by telling them that I stuck resolutely to the brief which you prepared for me in spite of very pointed and penetrating questions.
"I still denied that we had any vetting procedures."
The BBC will not comment.
Nevertheless the BBC continues with a policy of brutal censorship of feedback from citizens all over the world, where it beams its consistent culture of constant war, into its ex-colonies of now compliant client states, staffed by regimes organized before their departure. Their cultural warfare applies across the board to seemingly innocent matters, such as sport and humour even by its own 'commoners' (its not a democracy).
Below is a clip of a famous comedy series, much of the material was censored by the BBC, as it was suggested by some to be satire of the BBC itself and a parody of them as simply a subservient Ministry of Silly Walks, to conform with their regulation and control of British society and their ex-colonies including the US.
John Cleese the actor featured here, left the show after the third series, so he did not appear in the final six episodes that made up series four. It is believed that the rampant BBC censorship was too upsetting for him to continue in a creative manner.
BBC BRUTISH BULLSCUTTER COPERATION
Don't even give them a chance to launch their Bullscutter !
Oh, no. Brutish Bullscutter Coperation. Don't come fucking near me today. Dear Jaysus, you Kerry fucking recruits and gobshites all over the Irish media are their by-product. There are so many things I could say to express my deep mistrust and yes, anger of these new media Irish opinion makers. Their world service can be a titillating export but their rampant censorship of the restless native's replies stinks to high heaven, of arrogance, cultural imperialism and age old repression.
I don't vote right wing as far as I know, so maybe that also explains my antagonism to them. I don't believe the Brutish Bullscutter Coperation, which henceforth will be simply called the BBC, offer anything approximating legitimate alternatives for this country, indeed any country but thats their business. I disagree with their monarchy, class system of commoners, lords, inherited privilige and intolerance of diversity or alternatives.
Lest you think nationalism is blinding me, do not confuse my rants against Brutish Bullscutter with the many Scottish, English and Welsh friends I have known down through the years, most of whom are the salt of the Earth in my opinion and great people.
It goes against every fibre of my being and tradition to be rude to people but you have got to stand up for your identity these days or become a smiling zombie product of their pundits and seductive manipulating bullscutter.
Brutes are people too but we must take this tour d'arse with all of its insanity, as a relief from the bland sanitized, couldn't give a fuck mercenary BULLSCUTTER ! of our age.
This article is about how the BBC moderator uses the laws of 'correct' language to make lives hard for the working class. While this happens everywhere, it's done from a British perspective. People in New Zealand and Australia probably won't need to make many changes - people in the US and non-English speaking countries will. Also, it has a reference to collecting 200 pounds, which people outside Britain will need to change to local currency. 'Breaking the laws of language' Why will most people never be 'suitable' for reading the news?
A guide to the workings of the grammar police. Careful what you say, the language police are just around the corner. Don't let them catch you saying that. You'll be in trouble, that's not proper English. OK, you won't get a fine or sent to jail, but they'll try to stop you passing GO and collecting your 200 pounds. It's done very subtly, by making people feel self-conscious and inadequate about their language. And then they start to mumble, and are seen but not heard. games grammar police play Can I have another biscuit? You've got hands, so it's physically possible. Uh? I didn't do nothing. Ah, so you mean you did do something? No! What's odd about these cases is not the language of the first speaker, but the reaction of the second. The message was understood perfectly well. What sort of language user is deliberately awkward, slows down the whole business, and makes the other person feel uneasy or embarrassed? Someone who hasn't grasped what language is for. Not a linguist, certainly, but a pedantic parent or moderator for the BBC, or someone aspiring to these groups.
If we wanted to be pedantic (and it's a good laugh to take them on at their own game) we could direct them to the philosopher of language, JL. Austin and his Speech Act Theory. Like all the best theories, it was a brilliant flash of common sense. Although we can often work out the sense of words in isolation; as a social act, language can often have a different force once it's used in context. 'That's right, just dump your dirty clothes all over the floor.' On the surface, this looks like a congratulation plus a command. But even a child can work out what the speaker actually means. So why does this co-operative principle break down, once a child is speaking to an adult? Power and status.
It's a bit like turning clothing from a practical and personal issue into a power game, dictating who must wear a tie round their neck, where and when.(Only men, with suits, but not in bed as a sexual aid, that's the advice.) the nonsense of language laws 'You can't begin a sentence with 'but''. But, I just have! There's a bit of nonsense for you, saying 'You can't' when you clearly can. Challenge the language pedants, and they rely on two authorities: Latin and Maths. 'To boldly go where no man has been before.' Don't split an infinitive. You couldn't in Latin, because it was a single word with an ending. But in English it's two words 'to go', so there is clearly an option of putting another word in the middle. (There was a more pressing complaint about the Star Trek slogan - Women went there too). Two negatives make a positive. That's how it works in Maths. So, all languages work in exactly the same way and they work like Maths? Plenty of languages use double negatives: 'No hace? nada'- I didn't do nothing. We all know that repetition is a way of emphasising a point. who gets picked up on suspicion? Repetition is a no no- when it suits them. 'I can't stand it, me.' is ignorant repetition; 'I, myself, think...' is right posh. 'More nicer' and 'most biggest' are wrong, but Shakespeare was the greatest English writer, so inventive and expressive in quoted lines like 'More nearer' (Hamlet) 'This was the most unkindest cut of all' (Julius Caesar). Whether something is right or wrong depends on the status of the person, and it helps if they've been dead for sometime. top-down or bottom-up? The fallacy is to have a 'top-down' view of language. Language was not devised by one person, like a game, and it doesn't have rules like a game. The inventor of Snakes and Ladders thought it up and dictates the rules- it only works if everyone accepts that you go up ladders and down snakes. There isn't even an elected governing body for language, like FIFA for football. Language is NOT A GAME, with a Great Inventor in the Sky. Try a 'bottom-up' view instead. Languages evolve gradually through contact between groups of people, who need to find a way of communicating. There can only be communication if people share agreed ways of expressing meaning.
The notion of a private language is so odd-if a person has their own unique expression that no-one else recognises, it can't be a 'language'. Children have no status. When they say 'Don't giggle me.' it's a mistake- you can't use a noun as a verb. Oh, unless you're a businessman and want to 'table a motion' or 'chair a meeting'. Advertising copywriters are a bit naughty about the rules of language too: 'You've been Tangoed' but, well, they're making loads of money, so we'll put up with their funny ways. And it might be useful to have a few of their catchy political slogans. Poets? 'a grief ago'. A bit mad, some of them on drugs, but we'll make an exception for culture. And we could turn it into exam fodder. Humour? Again, it's probably best to stick with the death test. 'Fox hunting is the pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable.' Oscar Wilde has been dead so long now, we can even overlook his sexual preferences.
Foreign speakers saying things like 'I burst myself into tears'? Come on, it's not their language! The cliche is 'burst into tears'. Interesting, though, how the new phrasing adds power to the image. pushing together or pulling apart? The way that languages develop is a delicate balance between two powerful tendencies. Pushing in one direction is the need to conform with existing conventions. The most obvious is the way infants absorb the language they hear and experiment with those sounds to find ways to communicate. Anyone plunged into another language environment has to try to pick up a different set of ways to express themselves. (Up to now, we have demanded that other peoples pick up our English language- a sort of invasion and colonisation by language.) But this need to adapt happens for adult speakers in our home environment- apart from all the different languages spoken in England, there are so many varieties of English. Yes, they are referred to, in a derogatory way, as dialects- the dialects of different regions and classes and ages- but they survive because they work. The fact that they have little status needs to be challenged. 'A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.'
All languages adapt and change because of contact between people. The more contact, the more pressure to change. That doesn't mean that we immediately take on every style of language we come across. Language is a badge of identity. Some people want to maintain an identity that is distinct and make very little shift in their style of speech; others want to be taken as part of that group. We balance a need to fit in, with a need to remain individual. Every person's language is as unique as their fingerprints. You cannot pin a language down in a dictionary or grammar book and say 'That IS THE English language.' Such books are a snapshot of the language, out of date from the moment they are written. Pulling in the other direction is the need to stretch the language, so that new things can be expressed in different ways. Each new generation learns the habits of the old and moves on. Nothing stays exactly the same and it's the emerging generation that makes the changes: hairstyles, architecture, music. And of course some people tut- is it nostalgia, need for stability, weariness? Whatever, it's the conservatism of age. Pre-fabricated chunks of language, cliches- we need them for practical reasons, like lack of time; we can't re- invent the wheel every time we open our mouths. But someone has got to start adapting the wheel or inventing new ways of travel.
Those who resist changes in a living language should have better reasons than: 'That's not the way I was taught when I was a child.' What about good reasons like: 'It's dishonest to use euphemisms to mask the realities of warfare.' 'That's so longwinded and pompous, you're not getting your point across.' If there IS a law of language, it is that it should be used as a skilful tool for communication. Only complain if it doesn't work. People who invent other laws are using language as a loaded weapon and they are pointing it at people who have already had their voices stifled.
BBC BRUTISH BULLSCUTTER COPERATION
Don't even give them a chance to launch their Bullscutter !
Oh, no. Brutish Bullscutter Coperation. Don't come fucking near me today. Dear Jaysus, you Kerry fucking recruits and gobshites all over the Irish media are their by-product. There are so many things I could say to express my deep mistrust and yes, anger of these new media Irish opinion makers. Their world service can be a titillating export but their rampant censorship of the restless native's replies stinks to high heaven, of arrogance, cultural imperialism and age old repression.
I don't vote right wing as far as I know, so maybe that also explains my antagonism to them. I don't believe the Brutish Bullscutter Coperation, which henceforth will be simply called the BBC, offer anything approximating legitimate alternatives for this country, indeed any country but thats their business. I disagree with their monarchy, class system of commoners, lords, inherited privilige and intolerance of diversity or alternatives.
Lest you think nationalism is blinding me, do not confuse my rants against Brutish Bullscutter with the many Scottish, English and Welsh friends I have known down through the years, most of whom are the salt of the Earth in my opinion and great people.
It goes against every fibre of my being and tradition to be rude to people but you have got to stand up for your identity these days or become a smiling zombie product of their pundits and seductive manipulating bullscutter.
Brutes are people too but we must take this tour d'arse with all of its insanity, as a relief from the bland sanitized, couldn't give a fuck mercenary BULLSCUTTER ! of our age.
