I waited maybe half a day before I tweeted a question that had been on my mind from the moment I heard that Bob Crow had died of a heart attack: is it possible this tragic death should not be dismissed as natural causes?
I did not want to be the first to raise this question. So I bit my cyber tongue for hours. Nothing is more guaranteed to have disgusting peddlers of NATO and NSA propaganda smear you than to suggest the British State might have had a hand in this without a shred of evidence. So I waited to see what others thought before wading in.
Hours past and no one so much as questioned the official position that this was beyond a shadow of doubt a natural death. Eventually I decided to pose it as a question, and I need to explain why I did that. But before doing that, I’d like to note for the record that I immediately discovered that I was not alone in asking this question, one others had been afraid to say out loud. Some of my Twitter followers and Facebook friends admitted they had asked themselves the same question, but said nothing.
Let’s be clear what I am doing here. I most emphatically am not jumping to any conclusions. Extraordinary claims, it goes without saying, demand extraordinary proof. And I don’t have any proof. Not a shred of it. At any rate, I have no proof at this point in time. But scientists know that if you don’t look for evidence it can get missed. Expecting it to fall into your hands is a very stupid thing for the scientifically-minded to do.
As Richard Feynman pointed out in one of the most memorable moments in his career as a popularizer of science, the first thing you must do if you are looking for a new theory is you guess. But it doesn’t stop there. Then you need to search for evidence, by conducting experiments, backed up by mathematically coherent explanations that accounts for all the evidence found, and for that not found.
But we opt initially for educated guesses, not any old wild stab in the dark. We are not irrational. But is it or is it not irrational to look for evidence that Bob Crow may have been murdered? Poisoned? Poisoned by people who knew exactly what they were doing? People who appreciated why they needed to use a hard-to-trace poison, one that simulated a heart attack, a condition that could be used to throw the voters off the scent of what really happened?
What is irrational about asking the coroner to look for this kind of evidence of such hard-to-trace poison? Anyone who descends into the gutter to say only a psychotic conspiracy theorist would dare to pose such a question is a degraded apologist for exactly those who may have been behind a political assassination.
Let’s not forget about the ‘state rape’ perjurers and agent provocateurs of Bob Lambert’s Special Branch undercover cop unit. No less than ninety percent of that unit tricked the female victims of their spying to have sex with them. In at least one case, one of these police spies targeting the left got a woman pregnant. He then abandon her for the family of the real, the degraded, sick bastard that this undercover cop was all along.
Only a NATO loving bastard like Rupert Murdoch’s David Aaronovitch would dismiss as conspiracy theorists those of us who ask if MI5 might have poisoned Bob Crow? David Aaronovitch is a man who called those who fought for justice for Catholic civil rights lawyer Pat Finucane ‘conspiracy theorists’. It is well documented that Pat Finucane was murdered by assassination squads working with Loyalist Death Squads, allegedly who went native.
What about Tony Benn? Given his age, I am not questioning the overwhelming likelihood that he died of natural causes. Despite how sharp he remained to his final days, and how committed he remained to playing a full part in the resistance to all forms of injustice, if I discovered that Tony Benn had been poisoned, I would be genuinely surprised. The chances of that strikes me as extremely remote. Why do I say that?
Why would MI5 assassinate Tony Benn when he was was so frail, and no longer any serious challenge? Why take the risk of bumping off Tony Benn at this point, given how an exposee of such a crime carried such risks that would outweigh the potential benefits? I don’t believe they are recruiting people that stupid.
Having said that, what Emily Maitlis, Huw Edwards and Andrew Neil refuse to remind their viewers about is that Tony Benn has gone public to say that one British Intelligence agent – Airey Neave – had once told him he would be assassinated if he became Prime Minister:
Why on Earth won’t Andrew Neil tell Daily Politics, Sunday Politics and This Week viewers about this? Or why won’t he call Tony Benn a liar? Is it because Tony Benn has been ordained a ‘national treasure’, and has a good deal more credibility than the Daily, Sunday and Weekly Andrew Neil?
If we believe Tony Benn when he tells us that he would be assassinated if he became Prime Minister, what does this mean? Why has there been no investigation into this claim? Is it because MI5 did not have to carry out their threat, because First-Past-The-Post, Shirley Williams and David Owen, and BBC propaganda managed to destroy Tony Benn’s career without having to put a bullet in his brain, as their pals in Chile did to Salvador Allende?
Has there been no inquiry into Tony Benn’s claim because the threat is being dismissed as a tasteless joke?
Or is it because Andrew Neil, Emily Maitlis and Huw Edwards are terrified of the British voters being brought up to speed with exactly how much of a threat the Tory British Establishment considered Tony Benn to be?
Is Chris Patten scared of BBC license fee payers discovering just how contemptuous of democracy his chums in MI5 are? Is he afraid of voters even asking if the British State could opt for the General Pinochet ‘solution’ to democracy?
Just how many BBC broadcasters are literally as well as metaphorically in the pocket of British Intelligence. How many of them have a conflict of interest that reduces their broadcasts to simple lies, directly sponsored by MI5 to do their dirty work for them?
Here is an example of how some BBC broadcasters defy British Intelligence agencies utterly out of control.