Monday, 29 December 2008


I know Wikileaks isn't exactly our flavour of the month just now, due to it being the original publisher of 'The List', but during the arguments I got involved in on the Web (on non-nationalist sites) someone told me not to criticise Wikileaks too much because, with my being a BNPer, it may one day save my neck by leaking something. I had to concede the point as it is obvious from regular reading of it that indeed, it has no favourite friends or enemies.

Despite my being on the list, and having had one of the infamous phone calls (he was easy - not exactly the brightest star in the sky) and an awful lot of spam, I am a supporter of Wikileaks. We need a site like it out there. Read on to find out why.

Back during the 'Spycatcher' days when injunctions were flying around like confetti (remember?), my brother and I used to talk of the chances of a newspaper being served with an injunction ... and then a further injunction preventing the paper from telling readers about the existence of the first injunction. Well, under our current zanulab government the situation is infinitely worse - seems now even the injuncted person may not be told of the injunction .... with 10 years jail as the penalty for violating said secret injunction. George Orwell hadn't a clue eh?

"" December the 15th saw a secret UK court hearing, with secret participants, produce a secret order to secretly gag the population, the terms of which are secret and the revelation of which is punishable by up to 10 years of imprisonment. How many of these orders exist is unknowable — we glimpse at the severity of the problem only when the orders are violated. So let's start violating them.

Wikileaks previously released the gag order for the Northern Rock bank collapse, now we release the secret gag order made by High Court Justice Tugendhat on Dec 15, 2008 aimed at covering up an email leak from the British establishment. The secret order first targeted UK newspapers, but our copy was destined for the UK Parliamentary blogger 'Guido Fawkes', editor of ''. The summary states:

1. The identities of the Applicants/Claimants must remain confidential.
2. The fact of the existence of the Orders must remain confidential.
3. The terms of the Orders must remain confidential. ""

Do follow the link and read the entire article. Might also be a good idea to read the extra links at the bottom of it.

Having just violated article 2. above, can I now expect a 2 a.m. visit that might last ten years? Bring it on.



1 comment:

Airborne said...

This website needs rejuvenating, it is not user friendly.