Sir Richard Dearlove meets We Are Change UK

[ian neal]

This from D

New Elephant In The Room Clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gk9sABtJxM

SIR RICHARD DEARLOVE head of MI6 from 1999 - 2004
Confronted by We Are Change Uk and MI5 Whistleblower
Annie Machon at a talk entitled Intelligence and the
Media: Can Journalists be trusted with public
security? In a leaked Downing Street memo Sir Dearlove
is quoted as saying that, "the facts and intelligence
are being fixed (by the US) around the policy (of
invadiing Iraq)" subsequent to his prior trip to
Washington. Is this an instance in which journalists
have jeopardised public security? since the contents
of the memo were perhaps not what the government would
have wanted made public, or does the fact that the
majority of people are unaware of this memo illustrate
that there is a comfortable relationship of
subservience between the media and the establishment?"

For more clips and information about the film visit http://www.myspace.com/theelephantintheroom

[petros]

Visit

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2003111101



Cheese and port anyone?

[Larry O'Hara]

I don't agree with all the questions asked, and it is amazing that you allow Machon, who herself propagated disinformation while in MI5 and subsequently (eg over Lockerbie) to act as a protagonist only, but on balance this was an excellent intervention that really put Dearlove, undoubtedly a war criminal, on the spot. Well done!

[utopiated]

This type of intervention to expose the contradictions inherent in structures such as MI5/6 as well as shining a situationist halogen lamp on the stiff, aloof personalities they breed is by far the best form of demonstration.

Dearlove's SIS training obviously involved the gradual removal of a personality and sense of humour... you'd have thought that dealing with demonstrator subversives in front of the media would have been installed as part of 'Spook 101' - but it seems not.

[xmasdale]

I don't agree with all the questions asked, and it is amazing that you allow Machon, who herself propagated disinformation while in MI5 and subsequently (eg over Lockerbie) to act as a protagonist only.

How would you suggest we prevent her from acting as a protagonist? Lock her in her room? Tie her to the bed post? Put a gag in her mouth and handcuff her so she can't remove it? Drug her drink so that she's out for the duration of the talk? Would you be prepared to volunteer for implementing effective restraint, Larry?

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I don't agree with all the questions asked, and it is amazing that you allow Machon, who herself propagated disinformation while in MI5 and subsequently (eg over Lockerbie) to act as a protagonist only.

How would you suggest we prevent her from acting as a protagonist? Lock her in her room? Tie her to the bed post? Put a gag in her mouth and handcuff her so she can't remove it? Drug her drink so that she's out for the duration of the talk? Would you be prepared to volunteer for implementing effective restraint, Larry?

have you done this before?

[Mark Gobell]

Interesting choice of words Dr Larry.

The notion that anyone is "allowed" to do anything is truly bizarre.

Nice to know that you give credit where credit is due though Doctor, and as a "fellow cultist" I assure you that I will do all I can to exercise more control over these annoying free thinking activists in future.

Even nicer to know that you endorse at least one of the actions of the 9/11 Cult though.

If you agreed to go through the requisite programming we might consider your application . . . .

[TonyGosling]

What is unsubstantiated allegation merchant Larry O'Hara doing here? His is the free speech of the 'care in the community' type.

Thoughts about how to deal with the O'Hara's of this world appreciated as part of a revamped, and bullshitter free, free speech forum.
These are grave matters of millions of deaths and an impending World War III we are dealing with here and we can't have vultures like O'Hara flippantly doo-dooing all over the place.

I don't agree with all the questions asked, and it is amazing that you allow Machon, who herself propagated disinformation while in MI5 and subsequently (eg over Lockerbie) to act as a protagonist only.

How would you suggest we prevent her from acting as a protagonist? Lock her in her room? Tie her to the bed post? Put a gag in her mouth and handcuff her so she can't remove it? Drug her drink so that she's out for the duration of the talk? Would you be prepared to volunteer for implementing effective restraint, Larry?

[ian neal]

Larry has previously been asked only to post in critics corner but I wouldn't get concerned about an occaional post

[Larry O'Hara]

Larry has previously been asked only to post in critics corner but I wouldn't get concerned about an occaional post

Given I have no problem at all with a fresh inquiry into 9/11, why exactly should I be censored?

And as for the abuse from Gosling--well Mr Neal, it seems you have finally given up and given the lunatics the keys to the asylum (forum) which this nasty creature, Gosling, will use to full advantage to spread his poisonous abuse.

[Mark Gobell]

Yet labelling those that are calling for a new enquiry into 9/11 as a "cult" and naming individuals such as me in your wonderfully informative "parapolitical journal" as "fellow cultists" does not qualify as personal and/or poisonous abuse then Doctor ?

[xmasdale]

Thoughts about how to deal with the O'Hara's of this world appreciated as part of a revamped, and bullshitter free, free speech forum.
These are grave matters of millions of deaths and an impending World War III we are dealing with here and we can't have vultures like O'Hara flippantly doo-dooing all over the place.

I don't think anything need be done about a bit of light-hearted banter. If people use abusive language they damage their own credibility far more than that of the people they abuse.

But if people make defamatory, unsubstantiated allegations about others, we move into the realm of libel and this forum should not be used to libel people. Posts which are probably libelous should be removed as a general principle applying to all, not only those about people who send us solicitors' letters.

But as Larry now proclaims:

"I have no problem at all with a fresh inquiry into 9/11"

Whether he realises it or not, he has now joined this movement which he dubs "a cult". He has done the only thing which all we so-called "cult members" have in common: declared in favour of a fresh inquiry into 9/11. But perhaps he expected some kind of initiation to this "cult" to be required from new supporters - a subscription, a baptism ceremony, a briefing, a requirement to sign an agreement only to attend those meetings which the "cult leaders" "allow" him to attend. But no! That's it: merely a declaration of being in favour of a new 9/11 inquiry. He is now free go anywhere and express any opinion he wants to, while remaining part of this "cult".

Welcome, Larry. I had always taken you as an agent of MI5 tasked, for at least the past ten years, with discrediting Annie Machon and David Shayler, while posing as a free-thinking anarchist. Apologies for that thoughtcrime. It appears I must have been wrong. Just goes to show, you can never be sure about people - no one.

[utopiated]

Given I have no problem at all with a fresh inquiry into 9/11, why exactly should I be censored?

Awwwww, c'mon Lazza - you seem to do a fair bit of *self*-censoring - mostly focusing on your inability to read a copy of "Synthetic Terror" - a simple gesture a few of us have been trying to push thru that stubborn façade [oooh, look at that curly 'c' there - f'kin good me!] for the last 2 years at least.

You could do your own fresh [read: initial] inquiry of course... then we could maybe get you to drop using that hackneyed old statement I saw on a Cultwatch leaflet someone from London posted me yesterday...

"The 9/11 movement is at its heart racist as it firmly believes people of Arabian origin are incapable of staging such an event...".

...that one's old now and it really scrapes the barrel

[Stefan]

C'mon Larry, you complaining about a few harsh words form Tony, how black is that kettle looking from where you sit mr pot?

Any time people talk about any of the claims you guys make I debunk you quite simply by showing them to your website and watching their facial expression change when they look through the venom filled and uncontrolled ad hominem you can't help ozzing all over the screen -

- by the time they've read a few lines it's normally pretty obvious to them the two of you are far from unbiased observers, but have an irrational grudge which borders on the psychotic.

You might think about toning down your rage a little if you want to be taken seriously.

[conspiracy analyst]

Thoughts about how to deal with the O'Hara's of this world appreciated as part of a revamped, and bullshitter free, free speech forum.
These are grave matters of millions of deaths and an impending World War III we are dealing with here and we can't have vultures like O'Hara flippantly doo-dooing all over the place.

I don't think anything need be done about a bit of light-hearted banter. If people use abusive language they damage their own credibility far more than that of the people they abuse.

But if people make defamatory, unsubstantiated allegations about others, we move into the realm of libel and this forum should not be used to libel people. Posts which are probably libelous should be removed as a general principle applying to all, not only those about people who send us solicitors' letters.

But as Larry now proclaims:

"I have no problem at all with a fresh inquiry into 9/11"

Whether he realises it or not, he has now joined this movement which he dubs "a cult". He has done the only thing which all we so-called "cult members" have in common: declared in favour of a fresh inquiry into 9/11. But perhaps he expected some kind of initiation to this "cult" to be required from new supporters - a subscription, a baptism ceremony, a briefing, a requirement to sign an agreement only to attend those meetings which the "cult leaders" "allow" him to attend. But no! That's it: merely a declaration of being in favour of a new 9/11 inquiry. He is now free go anywhere and express any opinion he wants to, while remaining part of this "cult".

Welcome, Larry. I had always taken you as an agent of MI5 tasked, for at least the past ten years, with discrediting Annie Machon and David Shayler, while posing as a free-thinking anarchist. Apologies for that thoughtcrime. It appears I must have been wrong. Just goes to show, you can never be sure about people - no one.

Tarpley must have converted him
After all he changed his position on 9/11 since hearing him in the flesh.
No two ways about it.
The 'cult' is getting bigger.

[ian neal]

Whether he realises it or not, he has now joined this movement which he dubs "a cult". He has done the only thing which all we so-called "cult members" have in common: declared in favour of a fresh inquiry into 9/11. But perhaps he expected some kind of initiation to this "cult" to be required from new supporters - a subscription, a baptism ceremony, a briefing, a requirement to sign an agreement only to attend those meetings which the "cult leaders" "allow" him to attend. But no! That's it: merely a declaration of being in favour of a new 9/11 inquiry. He is now free go anywhere and express any opinion he wants to, while remaining part of this "cult".

Ah but I don't believe he has been shown our secret funny hand shake, so he can't be truly one of us

[Mark Gobell]

Ssssshh !

[andyb]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZKswvFedoM[/youtube]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

That's what I call DIRECT ACTION! good work! (Did I see Andy in that more 4 docu' 'Taking Liberties' last week?)

Can 'we are change UK' not target Fleet street editors complicit in the 9/11 cover-up?

[karlos]

War criminals should be publically humiliated exactly like this.
Nice work again guys.

[fish5133]

Some good serious questions . Wonder how Sir Richard manages to square that circle or do ex MI6 just have a warped mindset and sense of duty?

[outsider]

Some good serious questions . Wonder how Sir Richard manages to square that circle or do ex MI6 just have a warped mindset and sense of duty?

Warped mind-sets are part and parcel of serving TGAOTU, Jah-Bul-On, Moloch etc.

[paul wright]

Strikes me that Sir Richard is left naked alone unprotected on the London streets, whilst being (justly!) harangued by 'wild conspiracy theorists'
Without doubt an important piece of evidence
No protection in spite of the ample forewarning
Is Dearlove being taken down along with Brown and his cohorts and maybe Bush?
He needs to be crapping himself.

[xmasdale]

That was Brilliant!!

Well done Simon, Andy and We Are Change.

[mark_e]

Inspirational!

[xmasdale]

How long did you have to wait for Sir Richard to emerge from Chatham House?

Do you think he came out because you were shouting outside?

[John White]

Maybe I'm outa synch here but I thought this was one of the poorer efforts from WAC. The loudspeakering was OK, and yes we are only human, but it did amount to haranguing the guy through the streets and pouring frustration onto him... it didnt go "too far" but it was close and could have been used to cause a lot of comeback onto the activists involved. All others saw was angry young men chase an older guy through the streets. He was pretty stressed: what if he'd had a coronary?

I just feel there a lessons to be learned because it seems to me this one nearly went wrong

[TimmyG]

good work guys

i'm afraid i have no sympathy for dearlove
he deserves nothing less.

we need to stand up for humanity before the ptb have got the system so tight that we are completely helpless to say or do anything the state doesn't want us to.. which might be a real scenario in the not too distant future

[Newspeak International]

Dave Sherlock says:

Well done to the WAC boys. Andy. B was going for it there.

But I have a poignant question. Why did they allow Dearlove to walk the gauntlet? It was clear by the bull horning session previous that he could walk into trouble. Why did they let him out? Surely they would have had a car right outside for him to slope into.

Suspicious?

What do you think?

[paul wright]

My point exactly. I made a suggestion as to the why above. Or is it that these kind of people regarded as wielding a great power are actually defenceless and weak when seriously challenged by the common folk
Still, strange that he was left alone for this. This is the kind of thing that people need to think about, man