Following in their Masters Footsteps
Laurence, 10 Sep 2005 18:02:40
This may have already been postulated by another member of this group and I may have missed it but just in case it hasn't - here is a possibly curious parallel. I have not presented it in a 'serious argument' format but rather as a 'split screen' sketch in the style of 'fringe theatre'.
Blair 'saw' bombs in the desert, in the US in the '50s McCarthy 'saw' reds under the bed. It seems that Goggins and Jamieson are 'seeing' corrupting porn under the bed (which is where I used to keep mine in my teens).
***********************
BLAIR: There are weapons of mass destruction that threaten our society and can be here in 45 minuits
GOGGINS/JAMESON: There are weapons of mass corruption that threaten our society that can be here in seconds (via the internet)
BLAIR: We must go to war and remove the threat by force
GOGGINS/JAMESON: We must go to war and remove the threat by legislation
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Gosh, have you chaps got evidence ?
BLAIR: Yes
GOGGINS/JAMESON: Yes
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Can we see it ?
BLAIR: Um, we will find it after the war
GOGGINS/JAMESON: Er, we will find it after we have imposed legislation
TIME PASSES ... (pages fly from calendar. clock hands spin around etc)
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Oi, Blair, now you have bombed a country flat and killed loads of innocent people have you found your evidence of existance of them destruction things ?
BLAIR: Err, well, um, no. But it was not my fault, I honstly believed they were there, really I did, I was mislead, I did not intend to lie to the House or the people of Britain, the intelligence services got it wrong, their research was flawed err ... Oh look everybody, over there, there's a couple of natural disasters (phew, that was a near one)
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Oi, Goggins and Jamieson, now you have taken away another piece of individual freedom from the non offending members of society have you found your evidence of them corruption things ?
GOGGINS/JAMESON: Err, well, um, not exactly, no. But it was not our fault, we honstly believed they were there, really we did, the research was flawed err ... Tonyyyy, quick can you organise an earthquake somewhere please ?
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Oh bugger, hoodwinked again !
Exit stage left.
***********************
Kind regards
Laurence
Paul Tavener, 10 Sep 2005 19:33:03
>..... GOGGINS/JAMESON: Err, well, um, not exactly, no. But it was not our fault, we honstly believed they were there, really we did, the research was flawed err ... Tonyyyy, quick can you organise an earthquake somewhere please ?
> MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Oh bugger, hoodwinked again !
> Exit stage left.
I fear this is more likely:
Internet corruption are still on the increase there is still more to be done to rid society of these evil influences. Following the sucessful action agains violent pornography we now need to take action against urolagnia and extreme violence even when not in a sexual context this material is not legal to sell in the UK and should be further restricted to fill a gap in legislation...
stripey, 10 Sep 2005 23:31:06
In message
<1301409.1126377175956.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
admin@ofwatch.org.uk writes
>
>
>>..... GOGGINS/JAMESON: Err, well, um, not exactly, no. But it was
>>not our fault, we honstly believed they were there, really we did, the
>>research was flawed err ... Tonyyyy, quick can you organise an
>>earthquake somewhere please ?
>> MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Oh bugger, hoodwinked again !
>> Exit stage left.
>
>I fear this is more likely:
>Internet corruption are still on the increase there is still more to be
>done to rid society of these evil influences. Following the sucessful
>action agains violent pornography we now need to take action against
>urolagnia and extreme violence even when not in a sexual context this
>material is not legal to sell in the UK and should be further
>restricted to fill a gap in legislation...
Yes, it's far more likely that they'll try to spin things to suit their
agenda whatever the outcome. Heads they win, tails we lose, in other
words.
You can see a classic example of this with the self-styled "Safety
Camera Partnerships". If the number of road deaths and serious injuries
in a particular area go down in a particular period, it is automatically
hailed as a success for the cameras regardless of whether there may be
other factors (e.g. regression to the mean). If they go *up*, well, this
clearly demonstrates the need for more cameras and lowering more dual
carriageway limits from 70 to 50.
(Let's not get into a sub-thread about the merits of these things,
please, this example is given for illustrative purposes only)
--
stripey