Why is sharing the default setting?
 

I'm new to all this (including computers). With a greedy eye on all the goodies in music and film I decided to treat myself to a life membership package. What I didn't realize when installing LimeWire was that I would be forced to share files. I don't like anything I have no control over, and I don't believe the company's self-serving reassurances about it being risk-free. I'm screwed without LimeWire, obviously, and I'm sorry if this sounds a bit dim, but why is file-sharing not a matter of choice? Can anyone put my mind at rest or must I uninstall and reconcile myself to having thrown $58 down the pan?

Why is that you wanna join a file sharing network when you don't wanna share any of your goodies in music and film???

There are some possibilitys but I would not share them with you !!!

May be someone else will HELP YOU...

1st read the top sticky in this forum, and join the legion of the scammed. Sorry to say that, but you are not alone.

The basic version of LimeWire is free and can be downloaded here. http://www.limewire.com/english/content/download.shtml

contact your credit card company or bank and explain what has happened. You might be able to get them to reverse the charges.

I would uninstall that version as it appears to be bugged, flawed, or loaded down with spyware adware, and install the free version from the official LimeWire website in the link above.

Look you got scammed.........:rolleyes:

Thanks for this Fabion. I signed up with MyMusic.com. Installing LimeWire was mandatory I'm afraid - and it was the basic version, not the Pro. Both appear to have the same default so I'm not sure it would make any difference anyway, but you probably know more about that than me. It's going to be Tuesday now before I can contact my bank and through my bank the credit card company (I'm in England, where Monday is a public holiday). I'm not optimistic but I'll see what I can do. A shame really. The idea of something like this is a good one.

You can unshare if that is what you really want to do, but that defeats the purpose of LimeWire and p2p applications in general.

In LW tools>options>sharing ---- shared folders --- you can highlight the folder then select remove. You can repeat this process for each shared folder. Download sharing --- uncheck this box. Then click apply then okay.

In LW tools>options>uploads>basic ---- partial files ---- allow partial file sharing --- uncheck this box --- click apply then okay.

You can also unshare folders or files from the library tab. Highlight the folder or file you would like to unshare then right mouse click and click unshare. **Warning** Do not click delete if you do your files are gone and you will need a file recovery program to retrieve them.

It isn't sharing in principle that bothers me Fabion - merely that I should be able to confine sharing to the relevant folder within the P2P application, and not have to worry about the world and his wife having open access to my hard drive.

As I recall your default shared folder is the same as the folder where you put your downloads so your entire drive is not "open to the world and his wife"

It was to ask for reassurance on this point that I posted in the first place. If what you say is true, however, there would be no need for the warnings floating about regarding the potential for unauthorized access. I came across at least two such gentle reminders soon after signing up. Anyway thanks for your comment OAH, which was actually quite helpful.

In normal circumstanses you are fine, but if someone wants badly enough to get into any computer connected to the internet, They will do it. and this risk can be minimised by installing suitable protective software. The hackers are more likely to go after the Banking and Govenment sited than you or I, So I don't worry too much:)

Fair point. Of course the internet is the best means of population monitoring yet devised. The only way to real peace of mind is to get rid of your computer.

Internet Security
 

Dear Hobo & Edward54

Whereas in most circumstances I agree wholeheartedly with Hobo's postings there is one little bit I have a problem with:
You must have miss my recent posting, containing a URL link to the BBC news website, about a server harvesting PC user's IDs and financial details. You see, it's not just hackers you have to worry about but booby traps hidden in web pages set by criminals that want your information.

Here is the latest on the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4186972.stm

So, don't worry but be careful.

Edward, sorry you got scammed but that's the price you pay for rushing in without first looking, i.e. doing a little research.

However, you said: I strongly disagree with that statement, you forget that in the recent past, when our newspapers were in bed with our politicians, we were told lies upon lies because as simple people (the population of this country) it was felt that we couldn't handle the truth.

However, since the advent of the internet it has been much harder for our politicians and the government to lie to us and get away with it.

Having real information is enpowering and I feel that we have become enpowered and freer since the popularity of computers and the internet has taken off. We are much more able, in the history of this country, to fully take part in the democratic process because we now can find out what is really going on.

So, all in all, getting rid of our computers would be like getting rid of all motorised transport, i.e. stepping back into the bad old days.

Anyway, I feel that computers have done more good for mankind than it has done harm, without it the majority of us would still be in the information dark ages.



UK Bob

Re: Internet Security
 

I harboured similar reservations about Hobo's advice, but chose not to air them since others know more than me about these things. He is to a large degree correct in what he says however. There are pluses and minuses to all technological advances Bob. So far as our masters are concerned the major drawback is the free flow of information, which they've had little success in staunching so far. Soon, however, they will compel ISPs to install black boxes as standard (national security of course).

You know in spite of all I've said I do wonder if the wonders of the internet are not greatly exaggerated. Politically unacceptable opinion is easily suffocated. All the controlled media have to do is ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, deny it the publicity it seeks. After all people get their information about what is going on in the world from television, not the internet. Control terrestrial and satellite outlets and you control how people think. I agree about newspapers being in bed with politicans, but I doubt the world wide web has done anything to alter that particular arrangement.

Look before you leap is good advice. That's the problem. I DID look. I looked and found nothing untoward, nothing to indicate that installing the software meant agreeing to file-sharing. I'd have stepped back at once had I done so. So would most others, which is probably why they don't draw attention to it until your money is safely in their bank account.

Edward

I have no problem agreeing with your first two paragraphs, we have touched on a complex subject for which there is no definitive answer, i.e. the role computers and the internet play in modern society. Personally, I think that the use computers are put to is dependent on how much the person running the keyboard wants to know. If all he wants to do is play games then that is what he will do. But if he seeks knowledge then he will find that too.

However, Edward, you were the victim of a scam site, that is you paid for something that is free. You said that you did your research but I guess, as an inexperienced internet user, you looked in the wrong place for your information.

For example, never buy any software via the internet unless you can try it for 15 - 30 days free of charge, if you're asked for fanancial information you abandon the transaction.

I do all my shopping via the internet including software, furniture, kitchen appliances and most things that I own. Using the internet can be safe if you take the necessary precautions and keep your PC clean of all the spyware, keyloggers and diallers that your PC picks up while surfing.

So, in other words, I think that your inexperience got the better of you this time but if you gain the knowledge you need using the internet will become like crossing the road.

Until next time.



UK Bob

Thanks for this Bob. Ultimately I must chalk it up to experience, as you all but say yourself. Is http://www.mymusicinc.com really a scam site then? Crickey. Of course it's typical of me that I go for the life package instead of the I-year deal, a difference of around $40 all told, or about £25. I'll probably wear a jackass costume next time I leave the house.

However something has changed even at this early stage. Complacency is setting in. Panic, that natural accompaniment to vulnerability, has subsided to the extent that I'm actually beginning to enjoy myself now, downloading tunes I haven't heard in ages (everything from Ronnie Hilton to Vera Lynn and, of a more recent vintage, even James Blunt) and thought more or less unobtainable. It's as if I have access to whatever I want, when I want it, which is delusional but nice. If I could just muster the confidence to know for certain that the only information leaving my computer will be from the LimeWire user files and nowhere else, as I am led to believe, that would be so much the better.

Many don't care about online security of course. One American journalist, for example, dismisses it as shutting the door after the horse has bolted. As far as he's concerned they all ready have your details, an accumulation of data that continues to grow every time you use your credit card or write a cheque or draw money from a cashpoint. They know what you read, what food you like, what pornography you watch, which football team you support, even your medical history (patient confidentiality? You're having a larf...). There is nothing they don't know or can't find out about you in pretty short order - so stop worrying. It's true for me I have to admit. Like you I shop online all the time (I'd be lost without Tesco to deliver my groceries, and as for the temptations of Amazon and e-Bay....). Maybe the fellow has a point.

sharing is the default setting because thats what the hippies would do.


you can edit the types of files shared, change them to c;cpp;xml;xyz etc because its less likely for you to have those files on your system :) i was amazed at the amount of files that limewire wants you to share by default.. no wonder i saw people's contents of their c:\windows\system32 being shared on limewire because i thought that was very odd.

This has been a good thread .. thanks to you both for the read. Perhaps it is that, with me too, complacency is setting in. Using a Mac helps, as we Mac owners know that nothing will invade our machines ...... until probably the day after tomorrow. ...... Bobs link had not escaped my notice. It was just very much at the back of my mind since I use neither Windows nor Internet Explorer . It would be wise to re-phrase my remark to " I would like to think that the hackers are more likely to go after the Banking and Govenment sites than you or I but that might be being a little optimistic but I think it is fair to say that I have nothing on this machine that could give them much joy!. I use Opera for making payments and my accounts and so on are on another ancient computer never connected to the net.

The great wealth of information available on the web can only be a good thing even if it is largely rubbish. At least it is not the 99% rubbish in the newspapers. In certain countries, I know, there is a lot of internet censorship, but in the western world I think it is too big now for any one to try to put brakes on it.

Enjoy the music Edward, that's what I came here for :)

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/2...ct.records.ap/

So they prosecute you now simply for telling people they've been checking up. I always thought that in a democracy the state had to justify its existence to the people, not the other way round. You live and learn.

what if someone accidently posts a file where a password could be decrypted? like a ftp client or ftp server? FlashFXP.ini and Serv-U.ini are both examples.

Sharing
 

Well Guys

My solution to the sharing problem is to set my LW shared folder on an external HD, not my "C" drive.

As for file extensions, I just realised that all the extensions I set up in my LW filter have been wiped out with the latest upgrade (4.9.28) now I have to type them back in, one at a time (bah!).

Hobo, you said:I too use Opera from time to time and I have noticed that this browser is also subject to picking up spyware when surfing. However, unlike IE which can be sorted out with Ad-Aware and Spybot, only Spybot can clean out Opera's cache. However, I speak of the PC version of Opera, not the mac's.

But it would be wise to check and make sure your Opera's cache is free of spyware.

Later.




UK Bob

Quotations are a bit eye-catching on this site aren't they? Sorry about that Hobo. As you suggest I'll stick to 'reply' where I can in future.

Regarding security I'm only surprised you're surprised. Very shortly we'll all be enemies of the state, make no mistake about it, though I don't think people will complain even then. People are scared. Deep down they know something is amiss. In such circumstances ignorance - wilful ignorance - is a pretty attractive option.

Talk to anyone of the lengths to which the shadow government will go to exercise control and, for the most part anyway, they won't want to know. They like the version of history television gives them, which conveys the reassuring idea that people act randomly and are, for the most part anyway, free.

This comforting view is regulary reinforced, needless to say, not least when it comes to the 'sixties. The official line on the 'sixties is that all the sloganizing, all the left-wing political agitation, all the 'love and peace' hedonism just happened, that it arose organically out of youthful disillusion with the standards of an earlier generation that had brought about two world wars. It's a romantic tale, one designed to appeal to the vanity of adolescence, needless to say, since young people always like to see themselves as agents of change.

The truth, unfortunately, is quite different. The 'sixties, or at least those events and cultural elements we have come to think of as characteristic of the 'sixties, were enginered. The purpose behind all the chaos and rebellion, just as with the introduction beat music, was to generate cultural schism by driving a wedge between the generations. Think about it. Cultures survive by being passed on from father to son, mother to daughter. Sever those connections, ennoble the principle of self-absorption in law with talk of natural rights, and you're halfway there.

I wonder how many who enjoyed the stories of 'revolutionary' hippies in San Francisco were also aware that Haight Ashbury had been carefully selected by the security services for LSD experiments, or that counter-culture heroes like Ken Kesey (author of 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest') were in fact CIA operatives? Peopl are so dumb it makes you laugh.

The truth, if they knew it, would leave them in shock, so they'd rather not know the truth at all. And if you think all this a million miles away from the subject of file-sharing, it isn't. Technology doesn't just happen along. It is developed, withheld (possible for decades), then released when true Masters of the Universe, the real players in world affairs (politicans are just bought-and-paid-for-puppets), feel it can be exploited to good effect. Conversely anything they don't control, no matter how potentially beneficial to mankind, will be ruthlessly suppressed. Consider what happened to Nikola Tesla if you don't believe me.

In the same way the ideology of the internet, that of a potent weapon in the battle against political coercion, should not be accepted at face value. Instead weigh it against the fact that improved communications between politically 'unacceptable' elements actually plays right into hands of those busy planning our enslavement. Consider that it would be easy enough to track and bust the pornographers they complain about all the time if that is what they really wanted, and could easily run terrorists off the internet if at any stage that had been part of the plan. Why did they choose not to when they had the means?

I believe the answer lies in a long game, a game of strategy. Remember, the best prisons are those where the inmates don't see the bars. Remember too that subversive behaviour adds to public disquiet. Public disquiet erodes resistance to the idea of surrendering ourselves to the state, the same state that is gradually withdrawing police protection in order to create the conditions it plans to profit from, and which will then proceed to offer what it should have provided all along, but on harsher terms and at far greater personal cost.

Sorry to bang on chaps! I'll be good in future, I promise.

Edward

I am just about to go home and so can't give an in depth reply, I will also admit that though I recognise what you are talking about there is still a vague end-game I can't quite grasp.

You have hinted at a long-term conspiracy aimed at enslaving mankind, except for an elite few. So I ask this question, almost in complete ignorance, who are the elite that will benefit from mankind’s enslavement and will this not lead to all out war between the elite and everyone else?

Also, you say that, on the whole, people are scared, which is probably right, but we loose that fear when out loved ones are threatened and, under certain conditioned, we are willing to even give our lives for what we believe, remember 7th July.

Anyway, I’m off home.

Later.



UK Bob

I'm not sure what you mean by 'end-game' Bob. If you are asking what they are trying to achieve the answer is World Government. Such an instrument will admit of no 'democracy', no accountability of any kind, and isn't intended to.

The conspirators, often referred to as 'Illuminati', advance their objectives by undermining established cultures, loosening old loyalties, old bonds, destroying continuity, to which end they've directed a sustained campaign against the western nation state in recent years. Their method is simple: admit unlimited numbers of illegal immigrants while using the threat of imprisonment and/or accusations of 'racism' to silence dissent. Quite what they made of Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor of West Germany, claiming that multicultural societies don't actually work except at the point of a gun is anyone's guess, but we'll have our fill of gun-wielding officialdom in the years ahead unless we get our heads out of our arses.

All of which brings me to your other point, regarding people defending their own. I just wonder whether they'll be able to even if they have the stomach for it (which I doubt). After all they have no weapons, and no access to any. Blair outlawed hand-gun ownership in the wake of the Dunblane massacre.

Dunblane, by the way, is a fascinating subject, not least because the truth about events leading up to that terrible day has still to be told. Governments, we know, act in haste, telling themselves they are responding to the public mood, when in fact they just succumb to panic induced by incompetence - which is exactly what happened in the wake of this ghastly incident, so we were told, with the unedifying sight of politicians at Westminster striving to prove themselves at one with the general mood of hysteria by making possession of a firearm an offence punishable by the sort of sentence not even some murderers have to worry about.

Thus was born the idea of wrong-headed but well-intentioned legislation, of questionable ministerial behaviour we could probably forgive given the circumstances. Well, they would say that wouldn't they? But was it the whole story? As the available ways and means of denying the state power over our lives get fewer and fewer we are surely entitled to ask whether banning hand guns was intended simply as a public safety measure, or whether its real purpose was to deny people the means to defend themselves when at last the scales fall from their eyes and they find themselves cornered with nowhere to go. The police have to be armed, we are told repeatedly, because of the number of illegal guns on the street nowadays. But there is a problem with this. For if the true cause of our difficulties with increased gun crime is illegal weapons flooding in from abroad we have to ask why the Dunblane measures were enacted in the first place.

Hamilton's gun was legal. It had a licence. Moreover it is here that we find another piece of the story begging to be told, for Hamilton's application for a renewal of his firearm licence was opposed by the police, albeit by lower ranking officers (i.e. not influential Freemasons). It has never been revealed why this happened, just as it has never been revealed why no-one thought to warn Hamilton's Scout Troop about his convictions for sex offences against young boys or, more interesting still, how an ill-educated loner living on benefits and in a run-down bedsit comes to be on personal terms with many members of Scotland's political elite.

One explanation, courtesy of Scotland's Sunday Herald, claims Hamilton exploited his contacts as a youth-worker to provide boys for secret parties attended by some of the most powerful political figures in the land, parties held on a yacht anchored in the waters of a remote Scottish loch. Since this sort of information is likely to be greeted with disbelief in some quarters, I append proof. As to why the story did not 'break', I merely ask you to use your imagination. Something rotten in the state of Denmark perhaps? If anyone would like the articles, I can e-mail them to you.





Here is a follow-up article, from March....






[Quote]Blair's Protection of Elite Paedophile Rings Spells the End For His Career

Exclusive to Propaganda Matrix.com by Mike James in Frankfurt: March 11 2003

NATO boss and Blair government insider Lord Robertson has threatened to sue Scotland's leading independent newspaper over internet allegations that he not only used his influence as a Freemason to procure a gun licence for child killer Thomas Hamilton, but was also a member of a clandestine paedophile ring reportedly set up by Hamilton for the British elite.

On 13 March 1996, Hamilton, armed with four hand-guns, opened


fire on a junior school class, killing 16 children and one teacher before turning the gun on himself, shattering forever the idyllic 13th century Scottish town of Dunblane.

The controversy is certain to topple the Blair government, which has already issued a D-Notice to gag the press from revealing the names of known paedophiles within the British executive, including at least two senior ministers; and the case highlights the government's antipathy toward the Sunday Herald and its brand of independent journalism that has, among other things, exposed the role played by the domestic security agency, MI5, in helping the IRA to carry out terrorist atrocities.

As reported by this journalist last month at Propaganda Matrix and Counter Punch, and by the Sunday Herald's Home Affairs Editor, Neil Mackay, the British intelligence services are actively engaged in preventing any further child sex revelations that could incite further hostility to an already unpopular Prime Minister and destroy the morale of troops set to invade Iraq. An intelligence officer told Mackay that "a 'rolling' Cabinet committee had been set up to work out how to deal with the potentially ruinous fall-out for both Tony Blair and the government if arrests occur."

Some commentators, mindful that one of Tony Blair's closest confidante's is a practising paedophile, are even suggesting that this particular scandal, and not Blair's repeated lies and fabricated reports in regard to Iraq, may well prove the downfall of a government mired in sleaze and corruption. The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list of Labour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides, Phillip Lyon.

The latest allegations came to light following a campaign to lift the secrecy on the Dunblane massacre. Large sections of the police report were banned from the public domain under a 100-year secrecy order. Lord Cullen, an establishment insider, also omitted and censored references to the documents in his final report. Parents and teachers were advised to concentrate their efforts on a campaign to outlaw handguns instead of focusing on how the mentally unstable Freemason, already known by the police to be a paedophile, had obtained a firearms licence for six handguns. Hamilton allegedly enjoyed good relations with both local Labour luminary George Robertson and Michael Forsyth, the then Scottish Secretary of State and MP for Stirling. Forsyth congratulated and encouraged Hamilton for running a boy's club. Hamilton was also found to have exchanged letters with the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth.

The rumours and allegations concerning Lord Robertson's ties to Hamilton, and the possibility that the American intelligence services may be blackmailing Tony Blair into continued support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, have been given fire by internet investigator and intelligence expert Michael Keaney:

"An additional, and potentially explosive, aspect of US leverage over Blair is the FBI's investigation of users of child porn websites which has already claimed a number of high profile scalps. [....] The biggest two fish that come to mind are indeed high profile: firstly there is George Robertson, who today has announced that he will step down as NATO Secretary General after four years and two months in the job. Were he to be fingered the fall out would be spectacular but short-lived -- he's been a long time out of the cabinet and is sufficiently distant from Tony to be regarded as not requiring the presentational finesse of a "rolling" Cabinet committee, whatever that might be. However, our second candidate is most certainly very closely identified with the prime minister, and retains a high profile [and] continues to operate at a very high level indeed, whether in Europe, Japan, or even the Middle East."

"Peter Mandelson began political life as a member of the Communist Party, soon "seeing the light" and instead getting involved with the CIA/MI6-financed Socialist International youth wing and the Labour Party, through which he rose in parallel with his experience working at London Weekend Television with other A-list regulars like John Birt and Michael Maclay, now public mouthpiece of Hakluyt, the private sector spook outfit run by a bunch of "ex" MI6 types including the widow of ex-Labour leader John Smith. This sort of background and connections makes Mandelson very useful in the sort of corridors-and-alleyways diplomacy and networking that is the real substance of international relations and intelligence gathering. [....] If Mandelson is indeed the suspect, then the damage this could cause may fatally wound Blair."

"An interesting development that may, or may not, be related to this, is the publication of an article in last Sunday's Observer by David Aaronovitch. He and Mandelson are longtime friends, having been together in the Communist Party and at London Weekend TV. Aaronovitch was, until recently, a leading political commentator for the Independent, on whose "international advisory board" (the standard vanity collection of august persons put together for the ego of newspaper proprietors like Tony O'Reilly and Conrad Black) sits Peter Mandelson."

"Since switching to the Guardian Media Group at the beginning of this year or thereabouts, Aaronovitch authored an article on child abuse in which he pleads for common sense to prevail, rather than the lynch mob: 'Strangely I trust the police to act sensibly (because, like the analysts, they’ve seen it all): it's the rest of us I worry about.'"

"That much depends upon the behaviour of the US Justice Department, which ultimately has responsibility for the investigation, must be a worry for Blair. One need only imagine how this must colour the views of John Ashcroft regarding the moral fibre of British cabinet ministers and the laxity of the prime minister who chose them in the first place. How easy would it be for the suspect to be named in a story that miraculously surfaced outside of the UK (thereby circumventing the D Notice and leading potentially to a re-run of the Spycatcher fiasco of 1987)?

"Whoever is on the suspects' list, we can see that already this 'rolling' cabinet committee is busy leaking stories that serve at least to delay the shock of the inevitable, eventual revelation, buying valuable time if nothing else. Thus you can depend on the Guardian to save the day for Tony, and here's some helpful tip-offs courtesy of MI6 that help to distract from what's really going on, whilst bolstering the reputation for integrity and financial propriety that has marked Blair's dealings with businesspeople like Bernie Ecclestone, Richard Desmond, Lakshmi Mittal, etc."

"I have come to the considered conclusion," says a correspondent of Keaney, William Palfreman, "that the events surrounding the Dunblane massacre, and the subsequent submissions to the Cullen enquiry that have been put under to 100 years of secrecy, far out weigh in political significance issues such as our opposition to the EU [and] what it entails. It is inconceivable that T Blair, Jack Straw [and] Gordon Brown can survive in office as this matter becomes known. It totally undermines the Labour government, and could easily be a case of the Queen feeling she has to use reserve powers to call an emergency general election, such would be the loss of confidence."

"This scandal is far more important that anything that has happened here in living memory, in fact I can think of no parallel for it. It certainly ****** all over anything that happened to Kennedy or was done by Nixon. I am surprised, given the gravity of this matter, that [an] attempt has yet to be made on his life, for surely we are dealing with desperate people here. It also explains a few strange things, such as just why T Blair & co. were so keen to ban all handguns, and why such obviously talentless nobodies like George Robertson have risen from being backbench nobodies a couple of years ago to Defence Secretary, and now Secretary-General of Nato."

"[....] Now where in this is there a national security risk so great, that documents part of the public enquiry are now state secrets to be held for 100 years? Funny kind of public enquiry. Why, when Thomas Hamilton's application for a gun licence was turned down, due to him being regarded as a man of unsound character [and] him being the object of several paedophilia investigations, did his MP, our friend George Robertson (now Lord Robertson, Secretary-General of NATO), write him a glowing character reference, and personally see to it that his application was successful, when he knew the grounds for the original refusal were because he was suspected of procuring boys for sexual services?"

"Or take a certain boat seized on Loch Ness [Loch Lomond] by the Strathclyde Police. It is a very rare thing for assets to be seized in the UK, as [there] are no asset-forfeiture laws. When it does happen, there is normally a trial at least, with things only being seized if they are proven to be bought with money proven to be consequence of a proven crime. Even then, they are sold by public auction. How come, then, was this very valuable boat sold for the tiny sum of £5000, without an auction, to none other than our friend Thomas Hamilton, a man of no financial means whatsoever, nor a sailor, nor lived anywhere near any open water. Why did not the boats owners complain about having their property stolen from them in this manner? I can only conclude because it was being used for some very serious criminal activity, and those on board were merely glad to escape prosecution. Also, it seems rather odd in such circumstances that not only were the owners happy to avoid prosecution enough to lose a valuable boat, but that the Strathclyde Police were not willing to prosecute. And yet, after these improbable events, it wound up in none other than our friend Hamilton's hands. Could he have been a blackmailer as well as a paedophile?"

"But the main thing is what might explain sections of the public enquiry are now under the hundred year rule. There are only three levels of secrecy in the UK for state secrets, the 30 year rule, the 80 year rule and the 100 year rule. Normal secrets, like Cabinet discussions, government papers, espionage, all that, are under the 30 year rule. Only a very small number of things ever reached the 80 year rule, particularly events in the Sudan with Kitchener in 1902, where it seems that an act of genocide was committed, and some things that happened 1914-18, as well as things like potential peace negotiations in 1941, and just about everything to do with the IRA (after all, people are still alive after 30 years) come under the 80 year rule. Of them, the darkest of state secrets, when the events of '02 were getting a bit close to their limit for comfort, a further class of secrets was created to last a hundred years, and tiny number of things were put in it - e.g. Kitchener in '02, some World War I things."

But none of these things can be said to apply to Dunblane. That was a case of a common criminal [and] sexual pervert committing some fairly ordinary murders, of a kind that happen from time to time. Even if a backbench Labour MP was implicated, or may have been involved in a large paedophile ring in Scotland, that is not a matter of vital national importance. You have a prosecution, there is a bit of a scandal, everyone is disgusted and one MP goes to prison. Big deal: such things happen. You certainly would not make such information a state secret just to save one unnamed backbench nobody's miserable neck. Governments simply don't go to such extreme lengths to save nobodies - power broking just doesn't work like that. There must be issues of profound national importance working here, and I put it to you that anything that involves certain events in Scotland is more likely to be someone of cabinet level than anything else.

If the physiologically flawed [although Thomas Hamilton was these were the words of Tony Blair when speaking of Gordon Brown] Thomas Hamilton was the centre of a paedophile ring in Scotland that procured boys to people of the amongst the highest rank, and Tony Blair [and] Jack Straw covered this up by the Official Secrets Act (They would do the covering, as both the Prime Minister's [and] Home Secretary's permission is needed to put some something under the 100 year rule.) it is hard to see how they or their close colleges could possibly remain in office, even if they were never inclined to such flawed behaviour themselves. The government would fall."

That prospect seems to be energising a government now considered to be fighting for its political life, even to the extent of killing the review process by which some of the banned sections of the Cullen Report would be made public, arguing that freedom of information would somehow harm other abused children in Dunblane.

In a recent interview with the Guardian newspaper, Michael Matheson, the Scottish National Party's shadow deputy justice minister, said: "There are more documents covered by the 100-year rule than this police report. Some of them have nothing whatsoever to do with children. We need to look at why such a lengthy ban has been imposed on them. I have been contacted by a number of families affected by the tragedy who are anxious to ensure this information becomes public. And so far we have no guarantee that it will. We only have a review."

"It is important we make available, if it is at all possible, any information that is available about people in the public eye," said the Scottish first minister, Jack McConnell.

When Tony Blair took office following a landslide victory in 1997, few commentators would have suggested that this man would be willing to drag his country into a war of unjustified aggression against a people that have done no harm to the British public. Nor would anyone have surmised that a Labour government would hitch its political fortunes to a shabby cabal of fanatical neoconservative Zionists working to make real their much-touted biblical Armageddon. And no one could have predicted that Blair's nominally "Christian" administration would transform itself into a licentious club of flamboyant homosexual cruisers and out-of-control paedophiles.

But it is now becoming shockingly clear that the slavish adherence of Tony Blair and Jack Straw to the Bush line on Iraq may have less to do with principled arguments, and much more to do with the fear of CIA and FBI revelations that would make them two of the most hated politicians in modern British political history.

There is only one way out for Tony Blair - resign.

(The British Labour government, 1997-2003. Rest In Peace.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael James is a British freelance journalist and translator, resident in Germany for over 11 years.

References:

Robertson considers action over web allegation
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=290762003

Alleged Pedophiles at Helm of Britain's War Machine
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/alleged_pedophiles.html

Call to lift veil of secrecy over Dunblane
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...895056,00.html

MP aide facing porn charge
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002400885,00.html

Child porn arrests 'too slow'
http://www.sundayherald.com/30813



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End Game
 

Edward

First of all I will say this, although there are things that you have written I will totally disagree with, i.e. right wing interpretation of history, hand gun issue, Zionist conspiracy etc. I will agree that we were dragged into a needless war with Iraq. I will go as far to say that the reasons we were given at the time were pure fabrication and our leaders knew this when they were selling it to us. The only man in the government that asked “where is the evidence” and had the courage of his convictions to resign in protest was Robin Cook, who has now sadly passed away.

Secondly, and to be fair to the international readership of this forum, this is really not the place to air views on British politics, the majority that use this forum will not understand it.

However, now that I have read your post I can now understand why we went to war, i.e. to cover up what was really happening. This is a trick that previous governments have played before, when there is something nasty about to break in the news invent a crisis and divert attention. Also, although we have a more diverse press and media coverage than ever before they, the press and TV barons, are still too cosy with the government (they would have the same relationship if the government was formed by our current opposition).

Finally, and to see if I understand what you are saying, you believe that the world is inexorably sliding into an engineered chaos designed by an elite so that a new world order can come into being. I may be complacent but I believe that no society can be designed to last forever, throughout history there have been great civilisations that have crumbled to dust or have been swallowed up by the surrounding vegetation.

I honestly feel that as human beings we are temporary creatures and everything we do, no matter what it is, will be temporary. That is not to say we give in to the inevitable, we fight illnesses with new medicines, we fight ignorance with new methods of learning, we fight necessities with new inventions, etc. but we also fight injustice which would in instantly created under a world order.

I could go on but now is a good time to stop.



UK Bob

Do you disagree on the basis of research or simply because you find the idea inconceivable? Using 'right-wing' in its now fashionable perjorative sense, as though conservatism were itself somehow inherently offensive, probably answers my question.

I confined my remarks to Britain because I thought I was talking to people from the same neck of the woods. This is an international conspiracy, however, and what goes on here has clear implications for people around the world, since their own governments are mixed up in it. The 'international readership' probably has the intelligence to work this out for itself. My guess is they're enjoying the exchange, and are fascinated by the Herald material. The Left is always desperately pious, of course, but this is just a device to conceal the fact that what they denounce as suppression by the 'right' is actually part of the wider moral imperative among socialists, who then portray censorship as a means to enhancing human understanding - or indeed as an apparently laudable instinct for courtesy that wishes to avoid confusing our 'international readership'.

Diverse? Diverse enough, say, to uniformly sit on a story the public had every right to read? What does 'diverse' mean in your dictionary? That some newspapers have gothic letterheads while others go for Times New Roman doesn't make them diverse. They exist, they prosper, because they toe the line. You might want to look at the curious case of Lord Northcliffe and the Daily Mail. What happened in the 1920s to a supposedly all-powerful press baron holds many lessons for us today. Research Bob. Research. You've every right to disagree, but this is more than a mere conspiracy theory. The books and journals of senior military and political figures (including Lord Halifax, Neville Chamberlain and others) over many decades attest to what has been and is happening - figures who not only quickly found themselves out of favour for voicing their concerns but in some cases were actually (and illegally) imprisoned for doing so.

You are wrong Bob. You have every right to be wrong, but wrong you are notwithstanding. You are wrong because you assume fighting injustice in any new society will be more or less the same as fighting it in ones that have gone before. It won't be, and cannot be. We are on the threshold of a world like no other in history, a world which will be, is intended to be, hell on earth. In what period of history has the population of the entire globe been monitored 24 hours a day? There is no precedent. To impose this on us, of course, they need an excuse, which is why we are having a flurry of terrorist activity.

The technology is easy. That's been around ages. The trick is to gain public acceptance. That takes years, which is why they are still coat-trailing. Haven't you noticed how, every time a child goes missing, some busybody or another speaks about microchipping offenders? Now, both here and in America, bought-and-paid-for politicians are speechifying about a microchipped population. Just think of the time you'll save not having to carry all that personal information around with you! Just think how relieved you'll be not having to worry about your child being abducted because we'll know where he/she is 24/7!

Americans sometimes refer to a frog in a pot. Put a frog in a pan of cold water and put the pan on a fire. The frog will not jump out of the pan. It will boil to death. And it will do so because the change in temperature has been so gradual as to go unnoticed, until it is too late.

Probably best to end it here, and to agree to differ, as you say.