That "questions remain" is easy to say, but looking at reactions to the reportage of the di inquest is also educational.
Something seems to uncover in the di inquest, judging by the odd spleen that is getting splashed all over the news this week.
A farce, we are told, by ex-ministers.
A waste of taxpayers cash, we are told by the usual assortment of hack columnists, echoing the weird slag-offs that greeted this news item in uk indymedia, with the odd, pathological "ha-ha-car-crash-includes-famous-rich-person" spin. Odd, you might have thought that people on the left might have lost plenty of friends through "accidental deaths", defenestrations, etc so that they might ask a few basic questions, expect a bit of chaff, a few distractions, red herrings etc . . . . or is that precisely why the comments after each lof the two little news items relating to it in uk indymedia were QUITE such oddly passionate "roadblocks" - almost claiming that it was a sort of "lefty thoughtcrime" to dare THINK about it at all - in fact - "treachery to the working class" to waste good thinking on.
Hmmm.
Almost the pretence that there is a limit to the amount of justice in the world that we might sort out by trying to ensure that people that were loaded get crap investigations into their deaths - - - -
Worse, the pretence that getting nearer to the facts in a single criminal action couldnt possibly get us ALL a bit nearer to seeing how we are all getting scammed - in criminal ways - at the same time as getting "ripped off" or wasted in "political" ways, as you might say - in fact, I might argue that the criminal scams often try to use the "political" as cover, exacerbating the differences to polarise people - (QUITE different from radicalising them) - then play them off against each other . . . .
A quick "so why SHOULD we, then" bit.
The post-cold-war theme that is the excuse for the use of the state against people that ask awkward questions is the so called "war on terror" . . . . thats where all the "fellow traveller" type repression comes in, the "clash of civilisations" . . . . its easy to see that a celebrity that had, almost by accident, done a lot to have brought AIDS sufferers "in from the cold" had the sort of unintentional power to bridge that gap too, to a certain extent.
Then there is the little matter of having gone from campaigning to support those blown up by mines to campaigning for a prohibition on the entire weapons system - unpopular with certain types that might employ ex-covert ops types . . . .
worth the thoughts. a good source of extra ino is lobster 54
A farce, we are told, by ex-ministers.
A waste of taxpayers cash, we are told by the usual assortment of hack columnists, echoing the weird slag-offs that greeted this news item in uk indymedia, with the odd, pathological "ha-ha-car-crash-includes-famous-rich-person" spin. Odd, you might have thought that people on the left might have lost plenty of friends through "accidental deaths", defenestrations, etc so that they might ask a few basic questions, expect a bit of chaff, a few distractions, red herrings etc . . . . or is that precisely why the comments after each lof the two little news items relating to it in uk indymedia were QUITE such oddly passionate "roadblocks" - almost claiming that it was a sort of "lefty thoughtcrime" to dare THINK about it at all - in fact - "treachery to the working class" to waste good thinking on.
Hmmm.
Almost the pretence that there is a limit to the amount of justice in the world that we might sort out by trying to ensure that people that were loaded get crap investigations into their deaths - - - -
Worse, the pretence that getting nearer to the facts in a single criminal action couldnt possibly get us ALL a bit nearer to seeing how we are all getting scammed - in criminal ways - at the same time as getting "ripped off" or wasted in "political" ways, as you might say - in fact, I might argue that the criminal scams often try to use the "political" as cover, exacerbating the differences to polarise people - (QUITE different from radicalising them) - then play them off against each other . . . .
A quick "so why SHOULD we, then" bit.
The post-cold-war theme that is the excuse for the use of the state against people that ask awkward questions is the so called "war on terror" . . . . thats where all the "fellow traveller" type repression comes in, the "clash of civilisations" . . . . its easy to see that a celebrity that had, almost by accident, done a lot to have brought AIDS sufferers "in from the cold" had the sort of unintentional power to bridge that gap too, to a certain extent.
Then there is the little matter of having gone from campaigning to support those blown up by mines to campaigning for a prohibition on the entire weapons system - unpopular with certain types that might employ ex-covert ops types . . . .
worth the thoughts. a good source of extra ino is lobster 54