Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The Andrew Gilligan Drinking Game

Andrew Gilligan - The 'Devon Loch' of British investigative journalism

Andrew Gilligan is, of course, the former BBC journalist whose
ace reporting skills fucked up a crucial news story about the Government lies which led up to the invasion of Iraq.

In fact, Gilligan did such a good job of fucking up the reporting of such a potentially damaging story that the prospects of any further serious mainstream criticism of those government lies was given a good strong kick in the balls – the pain of which lasted for a very long time indeed

So, imagine my delight on seeing a posting on a British '9/11 Truth' board (a perversely entertaining if somewhat depressing forum) which pointed readers towards a recording of a recent talk given by Gilligan

Yes, Andrew Gilligan giving a one hour talk on, amongst other things, professional standards in journalism

You couldn’t make it up

The person who posted the link promised that Gilligan’s presentation would give an insight into how the government bumps stories out of, and presumably into, mainstream news programming (by having a journalist make a spectacular balls-up of reporting those stories maybe?)

Personally, I didn’t learn anything new along those lines whilst listening to Gilligan but I did come up with the idea for a very good drinking game

What you do is play the speech and every time Gilligan says something that is bollocks you call out 'huzzah!!' and take a small sip of your favourite intoxicating tipple

And if you’re still sober after the first 20 minutes you’re not playing the game properly

(As a slight aside, a couple of times in his presentation Gilligan points his audience towards a peculiar wee article in the News Statesman called Spies and their Lies - written by journalist David Rose. Like Gilligan, Rose is another journalist of the highest professional standards and integrity, and in his New Statesmen piece he explains how he was recruited by and shilled for MI6 over a number of years. Back then he wasn’t telling the truth but it goes without saying that we can be absolutely sure that he is now)


And in the same vein, for people who take an interest in 9/11 and/or The Continuing Adventures of Gorgeous George Monbiot…

Legendary Cock Jock James Whale recently hosted
an on-air debate (sic.) between one of the acknowledged leaders (apparently) of '9/11 Truth', David Ray Griffin, and leading '9/11 Truth' critic George Monbiot – a man who has likened anyone who entertains the possibility of state sponsored false flag terror with plague carriers

The debate is fairly drab fare and offers much less potential for drinking game based self-intoxication but if you take a stiff shot every time Monbiot says something like ‘You’re too busy focusing on the detail to think about the bigger picture’ you should at least get a little tipsy.

If for no other reason, the recording is a worthwhile listen for 9/11 and 7/7 sceptics just to hear Griffin wax lyrical about his passion for One World Government, an objective he shares with Monbiot ... and one or two other interesting characters

It sure is great to know that one of leaders of ‘9/11 Truth’ has many common objectives with one of the leading critics of ‘9/11 Truth’.



Merkin said...

Worse and worse and worse and infinitum

paul said...

I listened to that part of the debate, and it was amazing how ineffective DRG was even though George was pretty feeble himself.

I've seen references to DRG's one world government but not much explaining his position, is he an endgamer or just a UN man? I don't know, and he was right to suggest if they wanted to talk about that, you should do it separately from 911.
He certainly hasn't shoehorned it into anything I've heard/read.

What with CFR,TLC,Chatham house, hotel bilderberg all serving international capital etc,I think there is some world order now, its crap and should well be replaced / dismantled. Which is, I suppose, a vision of a new world order.

Does GM want a new order? I thought he just wanted everyone to be nicer and shop more thoughtfully.

There's a teeny chance this WO phrase could get a little over/mis-used.

As for Gillighan, what he reported was 99% correct, shame he felt no need to defend it.

Maybe he didn't fancy sharing his source's fate (he didn't mention him, did he? I can't be bothered listening)

Stef said...

DRG was feeble imho

as for Gorgeous George he most definitely does want unified global governance - after all, big problems like global warming call for big global solutions - I know our views differ somewhat on George and he does come out with some decent stuff but his flip-flopping on the 9/11 business and the manner in which he goes about his global warming crusade just scream out the word 'twat' to me. I acknowledge that I may be being a tad unfair but OTOH he has been quite insulting about people who doubt Official Narratives which includes me - so he can fuck off.

Interestingly, if you listen to the debate all the way through George does concede that there was some kind of cover up post 9/11 but only a little one to cover up the US administration's incompetence - which is exactly the same line taken by the BBC's Conspiracy Files hatchet piece.

As for Gilligan, yes, he was 99% (maybe 90%) right but he'd left enough small turds in the punch bowl to really make a mess of the potential positive impact of the revelations. Is that because he's plain shit or because of something more complicated? I wouldn't know - if you do listen to his talk through it's fairly clear that he's a self-serving mendacious SoB

Stef said...

and yes he does mention Kelly near the end

= definitely a suicide apparently

reasons given for it definitely being a suicide...

- AG can't think of any government motive for killing Kelly
- even if there were AG believes that the government would have gone about it in a 'cleaner' fashion

aside from the reasoning being flawed and making no reference to any actual evidence it's an example of perfect journalism

someone also asks AG for his opinion on 9/11 to which he replies two or three times - 'I haven't done any work on it so I have no opinion...' cf. Greg 'Mind the Gate' Palast

paul said...

I hardly think we're far apart about george, why he takes up the sword of anti loonery is beyond me.
But then I don't think he or anyone really takes climate change seriously, otherwise they might be doing something about it, rather than creating fiat carbon markets, building runways, razing jungles for 'biofuel' and generally impressing on folks that the good times are well and truly gone.

The Antagonist said...

as for Gorgeous George he most definitely does want unified global governance

The interesting thing about that Whale Griffin Moronbiot debate is that, in the opening banter from both 'sides', Griffin makes the point that both he and George agree on the need for a World Goverment. (Team America, Fuck yeah!)

This lends a little support to the notion that certain 'leaders' guiding and shaping the '911 Truth Movement' might just be part of a cunning plot to bring Conservatism, World Government and more of the same to the rest of us.

Griffin wants world government. Loose Changer Dylan Avery is ex-military. So are various other prominent 911 'truthers' and dear old Alex Jones is an ex-cop and plaything of the Genesis Communications Network.

In the UK the 9/11 truthlings had at their helm one David Shayler ('ex' MI5, now one of the many self-professed Messiahs doing the rounds for fun and profit) along with his 'ex'-boss at MI5, Annie Machon, the latter of whom is still prominent within the 'movement'.

When you play both sides of the game, it's very difficult to lose.

Stef said...

rather than creating fiat carbon markets, building runways, razing jungles for 'biofuel'

well quite

Stef said...

/ adds 'NWO' tag to post

paul said...

Seems a fair enough to me, crazy window in the background, though

Stef said...


Cheers, I'll give it a spin later on today whilst I'm waxing the cat or some other essential household chore

as a general principle I'm personally open to the idea of some kind of world governing body; in the same way that I have no big problems with some form environmentalism, some form of communism, some form of capitalism, some form of religion, or some form of most things come to think it

It's the covert infiltration and manipulation of these kind of big ideas to suit the aims of a very small number of fuckers that I have a problem with

Stef said...

Seems a fair enough to me, crazy window in the background, though

I'm only 18 minutes in and have already seen enough to detach my jaw from my skull

Virtually every assertion he makes in that interview is bullshit

A few examples at random...

'The founding fathers did not rule out the influence of money when they created America'

Er, what about the Constitution and their resistance to any form of central banking?

'An armed militia of ordinary citizens is powerless in the face of a modern army armed with tanks and planes'

er, just like in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan...

'America currently has pre-eminent influence on the world because of its military strength'

= No mention of the significance of globally controlled capital whatsoever

'The cause of global conflict is the existence of nation states struggling for resources'

I've got some news for DRG, those resources are in the hands of private interests who use nation states as their playthings

plus lashings of global government is the only answer to Global Warming bullshit

DRG appears to have swallowed the Manufactured Problem - Reaction - Solution paradigm wholesale

and his talk of a Global Court reminds me of a key prophecy in Christian Zionist eschatology which requires a World Court to be set up in Jerusalem as part of the Messiah's new Kingdom

I won't be commenting on the remaining 25 minutes of what I suspect to be more of the same

dodgy, dodgy, dodgy...

and yes that window is crazy

paul said...

A little harsh on professor griff, have to fuck off now but will return to play the angel's advocate (if i can stay out of that geordie's sights)

Stef said...

A little harsh on professor griff


the 2nd half of the interview didn't have me poking my monitor quite so much as the first but, damn it, if he didn't keep touching on personal hot button subjects in such a cavalier way

Stef said...


do you think DRG knows anything about these puppies?