The Squat

Geeklawyer’s temporary chambers

irrepressible as ever, Geeklawyer returns

In case you were wondering what happened to my real blog, the fans of TonyBlair have launched a rather miserable Denial of Service attack on my blog. I’m intending to deal with that as soon as I get time but in the interim I’m using this temporary blog at WordPress. WordPress generally know how to deal with DOS attacks so I hope it will survive a little longer.

It is of course deeply amusing that all the sycophants at keeptonyblairforpm have railed on me: impotently and laughably accusing me of being an al Queda supporter opposed to Western values. Values such as free speech which they now seek to deny me. The buffoonish BlairSupporter can barely contain his smirking at the DOS attack which I am guessing he organised.

Had they bested me in an argument they wouldn’t be doing this: but the dim and inarticulate inevitably resort to force when humiliated in a free debate.

Frankly I find it all amusing more than annoying, but since my readers are loyal I feel obliged to indulge them in this temporary literary morsel until I can find time to restore the old blog.

February 11, 2008 - Posted by | blogging


  1. Bravo Evil Brother. It is a shame that their ability to conduct a proper argument has led to them to terrorism. However I sense it may well backfire. Let me put my PR hat on.

    Comment by theladyrobinson | February 11, 2008

  2. And did those feet in ancient time
    Walk upon England’s mountains green
    And was the holy lamb of God
    On England’s pleasant pastures seen

    And did the countenance divine
    Shine forth upon our clouded hills
    And was Jerusalem builded here
    Among those dark Satanic mills

    Bring me my bow of burning gold
    Bring me my arrows of desire
    Bring me my spears o’clouds unfold
    Bring me my chariot of fire

    I will not cease from mental fight
    Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
    ‘Til we have built Jerusalem
    In England’s green and pleasant land
    ‘Til we have built Jerusalem
    In England’s green and pleasant land

    Comment by charonqc | February 11, 2008

  3. Well as far as squat’s go it’s not bad… now master how next shall we organize our guardian reading gang of leftist intellectuals to commit dastardly atrocities on the freedom loving blarites mwhahaaha..

    Comment by moon23 | February 11, 2008

  4. I came across your little local argy-bargy while having a little fun on the BlairSupporterPersons Site.

    I had done my trolling, which really had reached the end of its natural life, and was passing on to pastures new, but I now see that it is being thought that he is or his supporters have taken you off line

    You may be totally crass and a more than a little bit vulgar, but, Hey, humour comes in all forms. And you’re not exactly subtle!.

    Anyway, FWIW, I have taken the liberty of pointing out some of the, probably unperceived, hypocrisy and flaws inherent in Big Billy Goat Gruff’s making of his song and dance, and have sent those to him for the edification of himself and his readers. As I am a scrupulously even handed person, I have posted them here for other readers’ reference too

    On the more serious side, you will note that I do hope this gets sorted sensibly. There’s enough hysterical nonsense about at the moment without the world needing any more

    So: verbatim

    Dear MrKeepTonyBlairInaMuseumPrettyPlease

    While I really had no intention of returning, other than to have the odd chuckle to myself, I’ll resurrect myself for a last comment

    This is not my really not my fight, merely one I seem to have come across as I traverse the great Pavement of Life. However, if it is true, as it appears to be, that you and/or your supporters are pursuing this Geek bloke for what he wrote, then you do seem to be indulging in pot/kettle hypocrisy on a monumental scale. If your supporters are not aware of this, let me explain why.

    Let’s look at what you’ve said on your public blog. As source references, I have inserted your blog pages titles and relevant quotes from each as appropriate

    You know, perfectly well, all about the sort of strident banter that is quite normal on line.

    The Guardian Cif-ers and other such:

    ‘when they will temporarily shelve their anti-capital punishment principles and draw lots to decide which of them can have the honour of meting out to Blair his just deserts…Ah, the fools…..ARE THEY ALL FUNDAMENTALIST TERRORISTS?……I mean, how are we supposed to take these people seriously? …They can’t ALL be Islamist terrorists? …Surely not’

    Conspiracy Theorists Conspire To Halt Our Free Speech!:

    ‘And of course, the naysayers LIE. They lie while banging on about ‘lying’ politicians. The difference is that not a few bloggers advocate stringing up politicians for THEIR ‘lies’.

    About The Little Bloggers

    ‘Amazing, when you think of the junk that appears on Staines’ website with information from “sources” damning all and sundry for every sin imaginable. And when people on his blog call, for instance, for the public execution of political figures, there is no suggestion that THEY are inciting others to violence or treason. Libel is more threatening it seems’
    Well, unless you actually did do something about them, you clearly didn’t take them seriously, did you?. And when it seems that you actually did do something, insofar as you commented on CiF, you were taken as seriously as had the comments deleted, which seems to say more about a lack of understanding about what you can say than anything else.
    You seem quite happy to dish out insults yourself when it suits. Time is limited, so this will have to do

    Closing ‘Tony Blair’ Blog: Cold Turkey Time:

    ‘Next leader? Harriet Harman – NO NO NO!!! The wicked witch of the left.’

    You say you have no time for people making fun of other’s proposed death. Your site is riddled with similar humour.

    There’s the example I quoted above, which I was happy to make a joke of at the time. Here’s some more, though

    Coup – Brown: “Nuffink to do wiv me, Guv”

    ‘How to kill the leader, and get away with it Or, as translated from one colloquial to another: “Whit, ME? Ah didnae dae it! Honest, constable. Never touched ‘im! Goat any proof? That’s no’ ma knife, by the way, by the way!”

    In other words, now that Mr Blair has been successfully removed, even if it takes some time to carry him out of Downing Street, he who will be obeyed (the guy … knifer next door), has spoken! Hear and watch him here, if you must……I hang on your every word, chancellor, as should you!’

    Hang, should Mr Brown, then?

    Closing ‘Tony Blair’ Blog: Cold Turkey Time:

    ‘But was he now a member of the undead, fated to be around for eternity, or at least until somebody (can’t imagine who) puts the wooden stake in?’

    Someone should shaft Brown’s heart then?

    2007, 2008 & “Britain out to Kill Putin” tales:

    ‘These ’senior figures’ should have presented the glass of Glenkillmeoff to Brown instead……He certainly needs it now. Cheers, Gordon. Doon the hatch.’

    Poisoning Mr Brown’s drink is OK, then?

    None of this is as ‘in your face’ as the comment you seem to have taken exception to, but there is an argument that it’s more insidious for that, in that the obviously ironic and satirical is usually brash and up front. Some of your own diatribe is far more subtle and less obviously clear as to its intent. It’s actually more easy to misinterpret

    Don’t get me wrong. I don’t for a moment believe that you personally intended to encourage anyone to do any of these things. But if you are complaining about others writing in similar vein, and that they might be impressionable enough to act on it, it’s sheer bloody minded hypocrisy in the context of some of your own writing.

    And I do trust that this helps Stan ‘the man’ Rosenthal come to some clarity that, if he has no sympathy with the Geeky bloke, given his stance in his post today, to quote…

    ‘Free speech never encompassed the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, for a joke. Nor should it encompass the right to call for the assassination of an ex-Prime Minister in the charged atmosphere of today’s politics, even if that call is made in jest’

    ….then he should definitely be having no truck with you either. If he has not seen these, I expect to see him condemn you roundly.

    Should he not, then he, like yourself, must be making some well hidden distinction between the jokes that Blair Supporters can make and the jokes that other people are allowed to make

    Then there is your other, potentially hidden, agenda. You are quite clear that you would restrict the rights of people to say as they think, in keeping with the lead of the Brothers Blair and Brown. For example

    Conspiracy Theorists Conspire To Halt Our Free Speech!:

    ‘After the mess the press made of ‘leaked information’ in the discredited loans for honours fiasco, and their adding up two and two to make five, I begin to think we really DO need to clamp down on the press’s free speech’…….There are so many people out there just waiting for “authoratitive” ‘facts’ – which are in reality at best interpretation and often simply opinion, that it’s becoming dangerous, in my humble opinion…………Unfortunately the long and the short of it is that the conspiracy tendency seems to be a consequence of a ‘mature’ (if that’s the right word) democracy and its attendant freedom of expression
    Mr Blair may famously have been of the ‘have to get the little one to switch the computer on for me” mindset, but by February this year the MOD had finally understood that the feral press and rampant bloggers had damned the PM and the MOD and the government as the biggest threats to mankind since – well the last biggest!……..And of course, the naysayers LIE. They lie while banging on about ‘lying’ politicians. The difference is that not a few bloggers advocate stringing up politicians for THEIR ‘lies’. The blogger meanwhile, can say what he likes when he likes without sanction. “Free speech” an’ all that!………..I prefer a democracy to the Anarchist Rule of the Little Bloggers!

    Now that the day of the close, trusted, political, assertive spin doctor seems to be over – [Alastair Campbell – you too are history (!) ] – they had all better get up to speed on today’s medium. The internet will be up in arms against you too soon, Mr GB/PM. Perhaps sooner than you think…….It’s The Internet Stoopid!

    And from the same blog:

    ‘Still, this website comes to its own warped and self-serving conclusions and states:…“To paraphrase another serial killer, George W. Bush, if we can’t bring Tony Blair to justice, we must bring justice to Tony Blair.”…..This sentence concerns me greatly. What exactly does it mean?……It’s easy to interpret that statement as a threat to the Prime Minister’s security…..Or is he simply referring to making a “citizen’s arrest” on the PM? If so, why does the writer not attempt to carry out this “arrest”? I think he should clarify the intent behind his words……In view of the fact that the original writer’s letter is linked to an American site which boasts the most “content plagiarised” on the net can we expect that this threat or/and incitement is being spread around the world. Why? Since his words could be intrepreted in more than one way, this kind of inference and freedom to interpret would surely not be permitted to happen in newspapers. Is a lower standard acceptable online?
    • Do the British Police recognise the potential seriousness of this?
    • Are they making their own inquiries as to intent.
    • Or are they acting on this as a “threat” NOW?
    • If so, are they closing down such webites? Perhaps they should be.’

    So, ‘this kind of inference and freedom to interpret would surely not be permitted to happen in newspapers’? Have you seen the trash written in the last couple of days in the MSM about the Archbishop’s speech? How naïve are you?

    Anyway, as we see, being willing to chill, or support the chilling of, other people’s freedom of expression, seems to be right up your street

    So, might this restriction in freedom be limited to a maintenance of your particular version of the truth, and the selling of that to the gullible masses as the one true way? You do seem to have such aspirations to such megalomania.

    Absurd Islamists – Victims – Radical Extremists – Loopy Civil Righters?:

    ‘At a relaxed and enjoyable garden party a few days ago I witnessed first hand the effects of the all-pervasive nature of the press’s campaign against Bush, Blair and the British government. (This government, by the way, in which Brown was a VERY high profile mover.)…..Almost to a man and woman, they were convinced Blair is a liar, a war criminal and a war- monger. Oh, and of course 9/11 was an inside job! Bush might be worse even than Blair, only he is not as bright, said they…..These are NOT stupid gullible people. They are people I respect and consider friends.

    Fortunately, for this small group there was light at the end of the tunnel. In all modesty – me.’

    Really? So you are BlairSupporter, Superhero, Light of the World and the Saviour of Mankind from itself?

    Look, I’m sure that you are probably a nice enough bloke. Being nice, however, doesn’t mean that you have any self-awareness and isn’t proof of omniscience or infallibility and you don’t seem to have these in any measure whatsoever

    Others might agree that you completely lack any semblance of proper judgment. I haven’t time to go into how you seem to think you know better than Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, former Chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee. People can read up on that nonsense up if they.

    This, though, is a classic.

    How Would Sharia Law Deal With The Archbishop’s Criticism?

    ‘But it comes to something when the Head of the Worldwide Anglican community genuflects to a semi-primitive set of uncodified, or badly codified mumbo-jumbo evolved to satisfy Mullah This or Imam That in Islamic State This or … well you know the restWith the greatest respect, it’s absolute rubbish, Archbishop.

    [Re-thinking the above – WITHOUT the greatest respect.]

    THIS, Sir, and not Tony Blair’s ’sell-out to Christian Europe’, nor his struggle against religious/political fundamentalism, is TREACHERY.’

    So, that’s your conclusion about what he wrote? It’s no more representative of what he wrote than, as my old mum would have said, fly in the air. And consequently, from that, it follows that the Archbishop is guilty of Treason? That’s fairly strong, isn’t it? Actionable? Maybe, I couldn’t tell you. But I’m sure that, as a good Christian, he’ll probably turn the other cheek. Reasonable? No, especially as it’s founded on an analysis which is so much rubbish and which makes a ‘Treachery’ conclusion somewhat akin to barking mad. And before you wrote that, you had the gall to say

    UK Barrister Urges Al Qaeda to “Assassinate Tony Blair:

    ‘But with free speech comes, or should come, responsibility’

    To put ‘Treachery’ forward to people, on a ‘public blog’, as what anyone in their right mind would reach as the logical conclusion from what the Archbishop said is, frankly, disingenuous. And to try and take in the sort of people who read your blog with that is downright irresponsible

    If that’s what you come to from the Archbishop’s paper, it’s no wonder you can’t read other people’s material without coming to a conclusion that would insult the combined intellectual capacity of the content of a box of frogs. And then, if what I have read is to be believed, have the audacity to make some attempt to disrupt someone’s life, and cause trouble for them, merely for what they wrote because you can’t recognize the irony and satire in it when you see them. That’s utterly pathetic.

    ‘All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens’. That’s a Wikipedia quote, but easy to find

    So the geek chappie said – “Why oh why oh why oh why can’t the useless rag-head pillocks in Al Queda assassinate him? It would be great PR for them: many of us would revise our low opinion of them if they could do us this one small service. Their ineptness is proof that the terrorism ‘threat’ is laughable.”

    Get it? Let me help. Blair’s legacy is such that, having fouled up our country through politically misadventures, our civil liberties are now being (really) trashed on the basis that the ((purported) reality of a) resultant terrorist threat is overwhelming and (the incongruity between that threat and what is really happening is that) they can’t even manage to bump off TB.

    And you had the cheek to suggest to me it might have been that ‘deconstructing the Good Archbishop’s multi-argument sentences proved too much for you. Always a possibility’.

    This IS the last word you’ll hear from me. I’ve not got the time to waste, regardless of how much fun it might be. I’m just not letting you and your devotees away with such nonsense. I don’t know this Geek chap from Adam, but if you are really serious about messing him about on the basis of a piece of flim-flam, then I’m not going to sit on the sidelines without saying something about it .

    Your complaining smacks more of a vexatious vindictiveness because someone has taken the proverbial out of your hero, and your hagiographical site, and sent yourself and your supporters off with a well deserved flea in their ear for a mixture of whingeing and being so gullible as take the blessed one at face value

    I had been prepared to merely pass on and say, as might Tony, ‘Hey!’, accepting you as some merely rather harmless soul from the odder edges of the net, entitled to put out his views as much as the rest of us; attracting a few hangers on; someone who may be a bit naive and at whom a few people might poke a bit of fun along the way, much as I did, but who will otherwise just fill up the ether with a bit more noise

    I’m inclined to think that I was wrong and that really you’re a rather pompous waste of space, with an over-inflated opinion of yourself. And that, as ever, is the most polite version I can muster.

    I’ll leave you with the appropriate, jocular, ‘Gleska greetin’ to such as yourself. ‘Awa’ ’n play wi’ a bus’. Oh, and in case you are in any doubt whatsoever, that’s truly black humour.

    Please note that should you set your heart on a Darwin Award, and decide to try that, the moral responsibility for doing so in the event of any adverse outcome is all your own, insofar as you would merely be giving a tangible demonstration of suitably qualifying innate stupidity.

    On a more serious note, (I aways at least try to take the shovel from people) I do hope you do what is needed to get this sorted sensibly. There’s enough hysterical nonsense about at the moment without the world needing any more

    This is going to get posted elsewhere too. I don’t trust you one whit on matters relating to freedom of speech so I want people to see it in un-moderated form elsewhere

    Comment by Scunnered, O'Aberdein | February 11, 2008

  5. Should you post the offending article back here? That would seem to be the best idea.

    Anyone else see the irony by the way of their attacking of your (almost certainly) legal comments using a (certainly) illegal DDoS attack?

    Comment by Usefully Employed | February 11, 2008

  6. GL, I’m outraged by what has happened and wanted you to know that I’m standing shoulder to shoulder with you at this distressing time.

    Comment by John Bolch | February 12, 2008

  7. Brief response to one and all: Yes I do intend to post the original article here.
    John: not really an outrage just a bunch of rather weird obsessives with too much time on the hands and too few IQ points.

    Charon a good rousing htym I sung often at school – but I do need th commy version, obviously.

    Scunnered: as you say, I am more than a little bit vulgar but I do it with such style. Really pompous? or pompous as an amusing persona? You decide.

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 12, 2008

  8. TheLadyRobinson: your support is as welcome as your wit.

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 12, 2008

  9. GL: No, I was never outraged either (just saddened) – perhaps my Tony Blair/George Bush 9/11 ‘shoulder to shoulder’ joke was a little too obscure or, more likely, simply not very good.

    Comment by John Bolch | February 12, 2008

  10. So this is where the Tony hater and his gang have come to. You canno’t escape us, we are the decent people who love dear Tony.

    Comment by Keeptonybliarforpm | February 12, 2008

  11. john – the perfect reference but in the context it was too obscure for me – and i do obscure.

    how lovely to be persecuted, geek. how important you must feel as the man single-handedly destroying err whatever it is you have destroyed. better being antichrist than a boring old barrister. and what better reason to move to wordpress where the blogging is so much better. vague mutterings of support and solidarity…

    scunnered – yer greet jobby ye (sorry – as a geordie i love anyone but lowlanders – nicked our bloody sheep – but can’t quite get the accent right). poor old tonyblairman’s finger fell off about line 17 and now he has no hope of reading anything. and if he could, you think he might actually get it? the willfully blind and deaf have made themselves so for a reason. it’s a shame to waste your entirely correct and well-presented arguments on something so dead and wooden; you could perhaps employ them on a fencepost.

    i do love it when the brain-dead get active!

    Comment by simply wondered | February 12, 2008

  12. back again – i got three old duvets smelling of piss, a bottle of diamond white and a rather mangy dog – i shall cal him tony, tho he may be a girl.

    if you’re going to live in a squat, let’s do it properly. off to get a sofa out of a skip – may need a hand to shift it. rip stuff off the wall and we can have a nice fire when i get back.

    Comment by simply wondered | February 12, 2008

  13. Put up a hitcounter and demonstrate that this sort of behaviour doesn’t work.

    Comment by Simon Myerson | February 12, 2008

  14. Since Scunnered has seen fit to repeat his turgid, never-ending tome from the excellent Blair-Supporter site allow me to do the same, only mine is much more succinct and sensible.

    “How dare the defenders of this dangerous clown claim any sort of moral high ground on this matter! Free speech never encompassed the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, for a joke. Nor should it encompass the right to call for the assassination of an ex-Prime Minister in the charged atmosphere of today’s politics, even if that call is made in jest.

    If the GL site has indeed been closed down this is a blow not against civil liberties but against arrogant hooray henries with a seriously warped sense of humour. It is also a huge victory for common decency.”

    No one on that site answered the actual points being made and I don’t suppose any of you clever chaps can answer them on this site.

    Of course when I discovered that your old site was unavailable I had assumed that you had seen sense and had closed it down yourself. Silly me for believing that you guys are open to reason and a sense of decency.

    Looks like this matter will have to be settled by the Bar Council and/or the police.

    Comment by Stan | February 12, 2008

  15. Tsk, call yourself a geek and you don’t know how to keep a site up under a DDoS attack? 😉

    To be fair, it’s not an easy task, depending on how much traffic is being chucked at you and how useful your hosts are (obviously not very if your site’s still down).

    There are several things you can do, such as caching (e.g. WP-Cache for WordPress), tweaking the Apache config (if you can), migrating the site to a VPS so you get more control and guaranteed resources, hosting larger files on Amazon S3, minifying some of your code, etc. If you’d like a hand, send me an email.

    Comment by ManxStef | February 12, 2008

  16. First you, then Camden (although secretly I am not upset about the latter since I have no need for either a piercing or a tattoo).

    Comment by theladyrobinson | February 12, 2008

  17. actually, i’m doing piercing of any body parts free for all here in our commune/squat. and you get a swig of diamond white afterwards if there’s any left after ‘sterilising’ the needle. on second thoughts with the weird shit manxstef and stan are spouting we may have to go easy on it.
    at least that crack’ho ladywassname is making the place look decorative. dye reckon she was actually a lady?

    cripes – stan reckons the cops are gonna be round to hassle us again about that old plot to kill the former priminister. we don’t seem to have got very far with it, tho.
    oh yeah – nearly forgot, some bloke with a noose and nasty staring eyes was asking which of you was the geek – i helpfully pointed out stan.

    i see tony’s crapped on the floor again. off to get a cat – maybe i’ll call it civil liberties and see if they get on.

    Comment by simply wondered | February 12, 2008

  18. huzzah! Geek is back online.

    Comment by opinionatedbean | February 12, 2008

  19. Sadly Mary – not really. My ISP is playing with some anti-DoS kit so it may be up and down.

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 12, 2008

  20. but your temporary squate allows you to atleast share your thoughts with us.

    Comment by opinionatedbean | February 12, 2008

  21. Oh Stan!

    My tome’s turgidity merely reflects that of the original blog content used to illustrate its rampant hypocrisy and inconsistency. Its length reflects the volume of such. You must be one of the frogs in the box if you can’t see that.

    Comment by Scunnered, O'Aberdein | February 12, 2008

  22. ah the turgid tomester – come and share the daimond white – mind out for tony; he’s prone to snapping.

    Comment by simply wondered | February 12, 2008

  23. SW: did you call me a crack whore? Thank you

    Comment by theladyrobinson | February 12, 2008

  24. a decorative one

    Comment by simply wondered | February 12, 2008

  25. Simon: I think GoogleAds rather than a hit-counter; let’s get straight to the point eh?
    ManxStef: You have pinned me as the fraud I am. ‘Geek’ indeed. I will avail myself of your views in due course.

    MsRobinon: I wasn’t that upset about Camden but what are all those teenage Italian tourists going to do for army surplus gear now? or Cannabis/tree bark?

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 12, 2008

  26. Re the spoof Blair Supporter site, they say that imitation is the best form of flattery, or more precisely in this case, going to the trouble of setting up a parody site is an admission that the original one has drawn an awful lot of Geeky blood.

    I see there are still no reasoned answers to the points made in my last posting. But that’s par for the course for those who regard political discourse as just a jolly jape.

    Comment by Stan | February 12, 2008

  27. Hey Stan, have you ever thought of shutting up and then people will only hate you for the way you look?

    Try it.

    Comment by theladyrobinson | February 12, 2008

  28. And before you answer Stan, Ms R can already tell. She is all knowing

    Comment by theladyrobinson | February 12, 2008

  29. Huzzah I can log in and not be spammed. Anyway GL can we get back to normal and hear you on your other area of expertise – ie; the news today regarding downloads. This affects us all – ok not as much as Tony Blair’s sneezes, but hey I want my music.

    Comment by theladyrobinson | February 12, 2008

  30. Glad to see you back in action.

    Nil desperandum illegitimi

    And good luck with the free speech.

    Comment by Andrew McGee | February 12, 2008

  31. This is disgraceful! Stupid fanatics

    I hope your official blog is restored soon.

    Comment by Ekaterina | February 13, 2008

  32. Thanks Ekaterina. Only I am permitted to be disgraceful

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 13, 2008

  33. MrRobinson. An interesting topic and I shall blog an update on on it (I did a post on the main blog – which I’ll try and copy over)

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 13, 2008

  34. You should just admit that I beat you hands down in the debate. Many of your readership have been convinced now that Tony was the best leader this country has ever seen. You may think it’s funny setting up this mock site, but it’s just prove that one day Tony will be PM of Europe and there is nothing you can do about it.

    Everyone knows your blog has really been shut down by the government who are taking my complaint against you very seriously indeed. I don’t know why you keep up your lies.

    Comment by keeptonybliarforpm | February 13, 2008

  35. Still ignoring the points I’ve been making? Evidence that you’ve lost the argument, methinks. Along with the insults of theladyrobinson & co. which is always a giveaway on these matters.

    Comment by Stan | February 13, 2008

  36. I believe we’re ignoring you Stan because we’re tired with your ranting how immoral we are for daring to suggest that Blair is not a genius, but is in point of fact a failed barrister who had to do something with his life just to keep up with Cherie.

    Comment by opinionatedbean | February 13, 2008

  37. My insults Stan, are to you as a man and have nothing to do with your ridiculous murmurings. Ignoring the argument you and your strange posse have with GL, you are both charmless and witless and these are not qualities desirable in a man.

    We of course may all be wrong/immoral/depraved and Tony Blair should indeed be canonised (or is that crucified?) but at least we wear it lightly.

    Kick off your shoes Stan, relax. Get a life.

    Comment by theladyrobinson | February 13, 2008

  38. As I’ve said, insults are the clearest sign that you’ve lost the argument. Pathetic, really.

    Comment by Stan | February 13, 2008

  39. Stan. You are tiresome, but to be as polite as ever…..

    Look above for your name and the phrase ‘If he has not seen these, I expect to see him condemn you roundly’

    There is no difference between ‘current’ and ‘ex’ PMs. I have looked for your condemnation and found none.

    So, on the advice of Solomon, who wrote ‘Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself’ (Proverbs 26:4 – New International Version UK), I’m not wasting my time further, nor, by the other comments, is anyone else

    Comment by Ho Hum | February 13, 2008

  40. Um, I believe I own the copyright on that particular idiom Stan; are you really so unoriginal that you have to turn to the sentiments of a pro-geekster to try and defeat an er, anti blair argument?

    Comment by kika | February 13, 2008

  41. No Stan, the clearest sign that one party has lost an argument is when they attempt to silence the other party.

    Comment by John Bolch | February 13, 2008

  42. Sorry Ladything if this poor excuse for a man has not been able to charm your ladyship. But silly me again, I thought there were more important things at stake here.

    John, have you considered the possibility that GL might have closed the site down himself to destroy the evidence and cover up his tracks in case of investigation? This site might just be a ploy to present himself as a martyr to free speech. Wouldn’t put anything past him.

    Comment by Stan | February 13, 2008

  43. WOW, Stan,

    You really are clutching at straws, aren’t you?!?!

    Comment by kika | February 13, 2008

  44. You have the right to remain silent, Stan, and you certainly have the right to state your position – as is clear from the fact that your posts are published here …. but anything you do say may trigger a response you may not like.

    Sometimes … silence can be very useful… as is knowing when to sit down. Repetition rarely adds to knowledge or clarity, save wit those who do not read words properly, or choose not to read words properly – and often bores…. lessening the force (if any) of the original proposition.

    I’m afraid I agree with John Bolch – silencing opposition is not the way to go….

    Ironically… Tony Blair was more than able to deal with those who opposed him – with debate, persuasion and, at times, humour.

    Anyway… compared to the the rather serious issues going on the world – this is a walk in the park.

    I’m off to watch The Producers… I always enjoy listening to that song “Springtime for Hitler”…. Mel Brooks knew how to produce an amusing pastiche….

    Comment by charonqc | February 13, 2008

  45. Usual typos I’m afraid – very big fingers tonight.

    Comment by charonqc | February 13, 2008

  46. Stan. You are tiresome, but to be as polite as ever…..

    Look above for your name and the phrase ‘If he has not seen these, I expect to see him condemn you roundly’

    There is no difference between ‘current’ and ‘ex’ PMs. I have looked for your condemnation and found none.

    So, on the advice of Solomon, who wrote ‘Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself’ (Proverbs 26:4 – New International Version UK), I’m not wasting my time further, nor, by the other comments, is anyone else

    Comment by Scunnered, O'Aberdein | February 13, 2008

  47. Stan (or may we just call you ‘keepblairforpm’?)

    The problem with answering your point about “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” is that the answer is not likely to shut you up.

    It isn’t that you wouldn’t understand the answer to your question, though you wouldn’t, but rather that you don’t even understand your own question.

    As you have just demonstrated, the commonly misconceived point is not that free speech is not absolute but that, in the words of the eminent Justice Douglas Holmes it should be constrained only where “speech is brigaded with action”.

    As you have discovered, the danger of standing on the shoulders of giants is that it is a long public and embarrassing way to fall off.

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 14, 2008

  48. A,If the Theatre is on fire than shouting fire is actually a good thing to do. There are always other contingent factors that one must take into account; it is therefore a pretty weak and simplistic analogy.

    B, It presupposes an automatic reaction to the object of speech that denies any agency to those that hear the speech. E.g. If someone shouted fire it is unlikely that people would actually stampede. There are a few examples where the person speaking has control over the reaction, e.g. if one was to lead a blind man off the edge of a cliff. However with something a nebulous as a political speech, comedy, offensive art etc, a direct causality cannot be proven. In these cases people also have time to consider what is being said, unlike a reaction to a fire alarm that require an immediate response.

    Someone could quite easily construct a counter argument, in that by supporting Blair you are supporting his militaristic endeavours in the middle-east. These have killed far more people than any terrorist attack ergo we should shut down your site for inciting the support of Blair, and the war crimes he is responsible for.

    If Geeklawyer had taken down his site himself then why would he start up another one? That really doesn’t make any sense. Anyway it is possible to look at the traffic to his site and see that a narrow range of IP addresses are launching the DOS attack.

    Comment by moon23 | February 14, 2008

  49. I don’t think Stan has worked out that we have all given up trying to argue with him because he’s demonstrated he’s unable to do so in the time honoured manner of listening to your opponent, and then refuting their argument with some rational and logical thoughts of your own.

    So instead we are messin’ with him. It’s cruel but I like sport.

    Comment by theladyrobinson | February 14, 2008

  50. My Dear Stan,

    Will you pass on my regards to your friend Tony. He would make a splendid President of the EU.

    It would be a small consolation to the British people.

    Comment by james c | February 14, 2008

  51. My Lady: all the best sports are cruel and you play so very well.

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 14, 2008

  52. Moon23, far be it for a mere, unmanly, member of the lower orders to question the erudite musings of a highly superior legal person but I was careful to refer to someone shouting fire in a crowded theatre FOR A JOKE – an entirely different matter! If your response is indicative of the debating skills of the others I can see why they have stopped trying to argue with me.

    Milady, might it not be possible that it is I whois playing with you lot. Must stop though, it’s becoming too easy.

    Comment by Stan | February 14, 2008

  53. So you’re back, you gutless little shit.

    Rest assured, it won’t be for long. Those who call for the assasination of Tony Blair will be found out and destroyed.

    I hope you’re shitting yourself in whatever cesspit you’re holed up in.

    Get ready for an orange jumpsuit, some waterboarding and the electric chair, you feckless, Islamist shite.

    Comment by 'Simple' Sam Brown | February 14, 2008

  54. Stan: yes, quit while your behind. Moon23 is not a lawyer. You’re playing with us? Yes, of course you are.

    Sam! You’re back, how lovely. What took you so long? Couldn’t remember how to turn the PC on? We have missed your sparkling wit. And Stan must feel good to have someone around who makes him look erudite.

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 14, 2008

  55. ….Ahhh I love the smell of human rights in the morning, just as Sam does; evidently he is a HUGE fan of extraordinary rendition, and indeed of insulting and racist remarks. Be careful “mate” – there is legislation out there that also applies to you, too……..

    Comment by kika | February 14, 2008

  56. Nae palmistry will ever read Sam as human, right?

    (with apologies for the most dreadful puns yet)

    Comment by Scunnered, O'Aberdein | February 14, 2008

  57. Kika, you treacherous little shit, where are my racist remarks? Go on you cunt, where the fuck are they?

    Calling someone an “Islamist” is not a racist insult, it is insulting their anti-Western, pro-terrorist, anti-democratic views, you fuck.

    You in turn have slandered me as a racist.

    Name me one, just one of the vermin held at Guantnamo who were in any way innocent of being pro-Saddam, pro-Taleban al-qa’eda sypathisers…

    Comment by "Simple" Sam Brown | February 14, 2008

  58. O Dear, Sam – you really are loosing the plot. You are a parlour racist of the highest order – I am quite sure that, each time you come upon a gathering of people who happen to ascribe to Islamist principles you immediately equate them with notions of ” build a better bomb” or some such; its just that you are far too cowardly to openly admit it. Hence this astonishing tirade of swear word and insult, and it is in this respectI have not the slightest doubt that you are as much of a slap-headed pea brained mysogynist ( not that you know what the word means) as much as you are racist.
    You really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

    Comment by kika | February 14, 2008

  59. You scummy bastard. How dare you call me a racist?

    Anyone who ascribes to “Islamist principles” must be destroyed. They are scum. The vast majority of Muslims are not pro-terrorist, if anything they utterly despise cretins like yourself who try to link good Muslims with low-life like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abu Hamza, somehow implying they’re all the same and their human rights deserve protecting.

    Likewise the Muslims of Iraq. They hate pricks like you who opposed their liberation.

    Why shouldn’t they have democracy? You are the racist, with your sickening belief that it’s OK for the British to have the right to vote but not the Iraqis.

    Misogyny? No, you are the real misogynist, with your support for Islamist extremists who don’t accord women equal status with men. You spineless, hypocritical fuck, I’ll bet you even opposed the overthrow of the Taleban by the great Blair and Bush in 2001. That’s the Taleban, need any reminders of how they treat women?

    Why don’t you just crawl back into the little hole from where you escaped and fuck off.

    Shame on you.

    Comment by "Simple" Sam Brown | February 14, 2008

  60. ‘Name me one, just one of the vermin held at Guantnamo who were in any way innocent of being pro-Saddam, pro-Taleban al-qa’eda sypathisers’

    Probably all of them Sam, as there is virtually no credible evidence that pro Taliban, al-Quaeda sympathisers were ever pro-Saddam

    Comment by Scunnered, O'Aberdein | February 14, 2008

  61. Ah, Sam. off you go again. I am amazed that you garner so much out of a small post with respect to my personal beliefs. It seems to me that the harder you try to jam your overinflated and extreme beliefs down my throat the less convinced you are of of the possibility that you may be right. lets not forget, you are the one calling for ‘waterboarding, the electric chair and orange jumpsuits’ in an earlier post. Further,that you persist with insults based largely on swearing continually suggests a lack of abilty to formulate reasoned and cogent argument. I sincerely hope you don’t go about in the real world addressing women in such a rude manner – it really won’t get you anywhere, you know.
    Haven’t you heard the saying ” empty vessels make the most noise?”

    Comment by kika | February 15, 2008

  62. Crikey I’m not a lawyer, I’m far to principled for that! 🙂 Last time I checked our Brains were not linked like the Borg, so I wouldn’t use inductive reasoning to pass judgment on others debating skills from my humble contributions.

    I didn’t check back to see that you had put the clause that it was a joke, it’s still a simplification of the situation though isn’t it! My point B (above) highlights different types of speech.

    Here let me give you an example:


    This sentence is unlikely to result in the stampede scenario as portrayed in your analogy because of a number of variable factors. The main factor is that it’s written down and not shouted.

    Within the specific context of an enclosed crowded space, where there is a risk of fire then shouting this would be irresponsible and dangerous. However you can’t create a universalized law that you should ban shouting fire in a crowded theatre, because there might actually be a fire. You have to look at each case individually.

    As far as I’m aware this is why incitement is a rather difficult charge to bring against people, as people have free will and agency, who can tell what has influenced them.

    When written on a blog where you have time to digest the information and make your own decision. You also have to take into account the humors context in which the post was written.

    The crowded theatre example becomes meaningless as soon as you start to examine the complexity of the example. Probably why the US supreme court didn’t buy it as an argument when it was used to try and prosecute commies distributed literature.

    Comment by moon23 | February 15, 2008

  63. Here is an example of a man who but for luck would have been in Guantanamo. He was obviously guilty too.

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 15, 2008

  64. A typical piece of casuistry (yes, us oiks CAN use words like that!) by Moon23 to dodge the point being made. To spell it out once again so that even YOU can understand it, “only joking, guv” is no defence if a cry of “Fire!” when there is no fire, results in an injury-inducing stampede. Neither does such a defence stand up if calls to kill Tony Blair tip some Islamist fanatic over the edge to do the deed. Geeky be warned!

    Comment by Stan | February 15, 2008

  65. Stan,

    You may well be able to use the word causitry or even autistry the problem appears to be that, as an ill-educated oik, you don’t appear to understand it.

    Nor it seems to appear capable of understand moon23’s rather simple to understand arguments that shouting ‘Fire’ in a theatre is a defence if it is not believed, wasn’t intended, wasn’t reckless to and results in no panic injury death disaster nuclear war or sudden outbreak of lottery winnings.

    And, for the nth+1 time, there was no such call nor have you shown that it was likely to be perceived as such.

    Stan. Can I suggest that you go out and find a girlfriend? Or a boyfriend? Stalking me on this blog is both funny and funny but not healthy for you. I appreciate being bullied as a boy and sexually abused by your stepfather was painful, but put it all in the past and move on. Find new friends, ones who don’t say: “Oh God, You! Er, hi Stan. How are you?”

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 15, 2008

  66. GL, if your last post to me is indicative of your barrister skills, it’s no wonder that you have so much time to spend on the bog (sorry, typo-error, I meant blog – but the end product is roughly the same!).

    As I said at “the other place”, put-downs beget put-downs but you can still break the vicious cycle by doing the decent thing and just admit you got it very wrong on this one. Who knows, it might well count as a mitigating cicumstance come the day of reckoning.

    Comment by Stan | February 17, 2008

  67. Stan, I’d like to reply but MsR has threatned to kick me in the nuts if I reply to any more Blair Nutters. Being Australian I don’t think the threat was a metaphorical one.


    Comment by geeklawyer | February 17, 2008

  68. My darling Stan,

    It is such a pleasure to read your stout and determined efforts to prove that Mr Greeklawyer is guilty of high treason.

    I agree with you. There is no difference between people like Amery, who actively supported Hitler and Greeklawyer who dares to insult St Antoine of Iknowmycauseisjust. As you point out with such perspicacity, that is because Amery tried to persuade the British people that they could not win the war, whilst Greeklawyer has suggested that Blair be asassinated. On the basis (which, my dear you do not enunciate entirely clearly, but which must be implied) that no one in Greeklawyer’s audience has a sense of:
    1. Irony
    2. Humour
    3. Balance
    they are precisely the same thing. Well done Stan!

    Just in case you do ever meet a human being, it is as well to remember that irony, humour and balance is what distinguishes us from the Orang Utans. But, Stan, providing you keep staring that mirror straight in the eyes, you have no need to worry.

    Yours, caringly


    P.S. Perhaps you could attempt to teach little Sam I Am to talk properly. If he has internet access he really should be past the stage of thinking it big to swear. Do take your parental responsibilities seriously Stan.

    Comment by VM | February 17, 2008

  69. I have to say that GL’s responses to the latest round of blogging exchanges reminds me of one of those sad stags who have just lost a rutting contest and slouch off emitting the odd and ever fainter bellow in a pitiful attempt to save face.

    Comment by Stan | February 18, 2008

  70. “… As I said at “the other place”, put-downs beget put-downs but you can still break the vicious cycle … ”

    Stan you seem to be so dim you can’t even recall the comments you made one day ago nor the wit to understand the implications of your own inept metaphor. I suppose it comes of having the IQ and memory of a goldfish.

    Having thoroughly trashed the arguments and logic of the simian retards such as yourself Simple Sam BliarSycophant et al in that other place it is pointless to continue; Indeed it would be cruel to humiliate you further. You remind me of the playground wimp having suffered a beating who, when at a suitably safe distance, mutters “I’ll get you next time, you see if I don’t.” Knowing all the while that his yellow streak will never permit it.

    As I’ve told you before you should learn to quit while you’re behind. And I must deliver my promise to MsRobisnon not to rattle the Monkey Cage.

    I have concluded that this thread should end since I have no desire to let you humiliate yourself further; frankly I’m embarrassed for you.

    Comment by geeklawyer | February 18, 2008

  71. […] released him knowing full well that he intends, following one lawyer’s site’s advice, to assassinate Tony Blair, the Queen, all of Parliament and the every child at the school for […]

    Pingback by Terrorist not really a terrorist says loony psycho terrorist friendly terrorist judge « The Squat | February 22, 2008

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: