On the Noam Chomsky point, I wouldnt be too worried about people sighting Noam Chomsky’s remarks, his opinion can easily be debunked itself, as Griffin has done. He also said that a Government cant keep a secret, patently false itself, although the put options on united airlines etc show otherwise anyway! Chumpsky also says even if the Government had committed murder it is of no significance. Those who reside with Chomsky on this issue lack their own critical thinking. of course it has significance. chomsky does not debunk, rather he puts up reasons to marginalise an alternative theory to avoid looking at truths which proove him wrong, just like many I have spoken to. We need a new news media, non journalist reporters, etc.

A friend of mine said yesterday that any new newspaper would have to cater for all tastes, I told him that is the business of selling news, not reporting it. Perhaps Noam is too worried he might lose some of his audience, I suggest he believes what he says, but only because he simply hasnt looked at the evidence.

“According to LawLord’s advice, I’ll keep the evidence until a trial is brought.”

So, in short, he has no evidence that he is going to mention, he is just going to continue making libellous allegations with zero basis.

Gullible people will believe him, sensible people (the majority of those posting it seems) will just laugh.

M

Regarding your comment about access to prominent figures in the security services you’ll find such information is available to anyone who can use Google e.g. http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/events/view/-/id/818/

Daniel Obachike doesn’t have ANY evidence that We Are Change London are ‘MOD’ and he has completely discredited himself.

It is up to the person making the accusation to prove it is true. Here is a basic guide to libel law in the UK:

http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html

“In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you’ve got to prove it! ”

But “libel” is really not the point; I don’t think anyone is going to bother going to court over this.

The point is: what purpose does your blog serve it it makes statements about people without any evidence or argument provided to back them up?

Who but a simpleton would read the above and agree with you that these people work for the MOD since you have provided them no reason to. Unless you are going to explain why or how you know this, the assumption will always be that you are just making stuff up.

And I’m sorry Daniel, but I think you are.