Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Was the Manchester Atrocity a "false flag" attack

I've seen rather a few people spreading the idea that the Manchester Arena atrocity was a "false flag" attack orchestrated by the British state in order to influence the outcome of the General Election in favour of the Tory party.

In this article I'm going to explain why I think that conspiracy theorising about "false flags" is deeply unhelpful, and look at the real political causes and the potential ramifications of such a serious terrorist attack at one of the pivotal moments of the 2017 election campaign.


The five days before Salman Abedi killed at least 32 innocent people by blowing himself up at the Manchester Arena were nothing short of a political meltdown for the ruling Tory party.

Their near-universally hated policy of asset stripping people who need social care in order to fund even more corporate tax breaks was going down like a shit pancake; their poll lead in England was evaporating, their poll lead in Wales completely reversed in a matter of days, their totally uncosted "magic money tree" manifesto was being ridiculed by all, Theresa May was clearly buckling badly under the pressure of some totally unexpected light criticism from regular Tory cheerleaders like Laura Kuenssberg and the Daily Mail.

A suspension of election campaigning couldn't possibly have come at a better time for the Tory party, which has led some to speculate that the bombing was a "false flag" attack.
  Tory security cuts

It's undeniable that the Tory government have spent the last seven years putting their bonkers "let's cut our way to growth" ideological austerity agenda above the security needs of the nation.

They've imposed extreme cuts on the armed forces, the police, the emergency services, hospitals and the UK border agency.

Anyone who tries to deny these cuts have happened, or that such severe cuts could be made without consequences is lying through their teeth. 

The Tories clearly put their economically illiterate cost-cutting drive way above the safety of the British public.

False flag?

There's a huge difference between noting that the Tories spent seven years endangering the British public cutting our security services and defunding our emergency services, and saying that they plotted this attack on purpose.

Just imagine the ramifications if they got caught out doing such a plot. 

All it would take is one whistleblower or one bit of evidence, and they'd face universal condemnation.

Yes their poll lead had more than halved since the beginning of the election campaign, but would they really risk deliberately planning a terrorist attack against their own country to cling onto power?

That's an incredibly strong position to take with no evidence to back it up.
  Discrediting others

In my view anyone making evidence-free claims that this was a Tory "false flag" attack against our own country is guilty of contaminating the political debate with extreme accusations.

By doing this they don't just discredit themselves, they discredit by false association all the reasonable people who oppose this horrifically malicious and incompetent Tory government.

The existence of these evidence-free smears can be picked up by pro-establishment lapdogs and spun into damaging "look at the unthinkable lies that lefties are spreading" narratives. 

Only a tiny percentage of people might make these evidence-free claims, but they can be turned into ammunition by the hard-right and bounced back against all anti-Tories in general.

Do we let the terrorists win?

There is no evidence whatever to support the "false flag" accusations, but there's no doubt whatever that this attack has been highly beneficial to the Tory party.

If this attack has succeeded in halting the Labour surge, and Theresa May walks into Downing Street with a whopping majority, it'll be a huge victory for terrorism. 

The terrorist will not only have succeeded in killing and maiming dozens, and traumatising thousands, he'll have fundamentally altered the UK political landscape in favour of a very pro-Saudi, pro-Wahabi political party.

Labour have announced a policy of ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia until they stop committing war crimes in Yemen. 

Jeremy Corbyn has talked openly and often about clamping down on the countries that fund ISIS/Daesh. The leaked Clinton emails revealed that the west have known that ISIS is being funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. There are at least 2,000 odd Saudis actually fighting for ISIS/Daesh and other Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq.

A derailed Labour surge and a thumping victory for Theresa May would certainly be music to the ears of the Islamist tyrants in Riyadh.


Of course the timing of this atrocity was highly beneficial to a Tory party on the ropes over their disgusting policies, their slipping poll lead, their uncosted manifesto, and their increasingly erratic leader, but I'm not going to entertain any evidence-free conspiracy theories that they plotted this outrageous attack to serve their own interests.

However the evidence-free assertions that the Tories plotted this attack themselves are damaging to the fabric of British political debate. The Tories might well be an incredibly callous party, but in my view they're also far too incompetent to pull something like that off without leaving incriminating evidence all over the place.

The important issues at the moment are that they deserve intense scrutiny about the extreme cuts they imposed on the armed forces, police, emergency services, hospitals and border agency. Also serious questions need to be asked about the emerging accusations that the bomber had been shopped to the police several times for having links to Islamist extremism.

Perhaps the most important issue to consider is the fact that if this atrocity has succeeded in derailing the Labour Party surge, and Theresa May walks into Downing Street with a huge majority, it'll be one of the biggest victories for Islamist terrorism to date.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Check out this brilliant Twitter thread

This is a brilliant Twitter thread from a middle East expert called David Wearing. I'm reproducing it here for the benefit of people who don't do Twitter.

Follow him on Twitter here if you do: David Wearing

Remember what you've read here, and remember to follow David Wearing if you found what he said interesting.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


The sick new Tory propaganda tactic

Synthetic outrage is playing an ever more prominent role in right-wing political propaganda, and the latest displays of astoundingly hypocritical right-wing synthetic outrage in the wake of the Manchester Arena atrocity are the most sickening yet.

The tactic is to shout down anyone who tries to hold the Tory government to account with accusations that they're "exploiting dead children" by raising legitimate concerns about whether better government policy could have prevented the attack.

The worst case example

Loads of Tory sympathisers have been trying to shut down political debate by accusing anyone who holds the Tories to account of "political point scoring" but the sickest example of this revolting synthetic outrage tactic I've come across is this one (see image).

It happened after I posted an article detailing the seven years of severe cuts that the Tories have imposed on the armed forces, police, emergency services, hospitals and border force. You can read the article here and observe that it does not mention "dead children" (or any of the victims of the attack) one single time.
I even posted the article on Facebook with a status saying "Right-wing Tory sympathisers will inevitably react with synthetic outrage to this article because they believe that the Tories should never be held to account for their actions"

But one popped along anyway to accuse me of "exploiting dead kids" simply by providing some pertinent facts about the negligent Tory attitude towards public safety and security.

The brazen hypocrisy of this accusation is clear for all to see.

I didn't even mention dead kids at all. He did.

If anyone is exploiting dead kids for political purposes it's him for the way he invoked dead children to say "DON'T DARE QUESTION THE GOVERNMENT".

To use the disturbing thought of recently killed children for political purposes like this, and actually accuse the other person of exactly that behaviour is a truly sick display of hypocritical moral high-horsing.

remember: This Tory apologist was far from alone. There have been countless others using this synthetic outrage tactic to silence criticism of their beloved Tory government today. I just singled him out because his was by far the most sickeningly hypocritical.

So I say this. Don't let sick Tory propagandists use hypocritical displays of synthetic outrage to stop you from holding the Tory government to account.  They're trying to argue that if people die, then it's morally wrong to subject the ruling party in government to any kind of scrutiny.

If you see them doing it, expose them as the sick hypocrites they are.

The Murdoch empire

Instead of holding the Tory government to account over their savage cuts to the security forces, Rupert Murdoch's propaganda minions at The S*n have spent the last few days spreading lies and smears about Jeremy Corbyn so as to assist Theresa May back into power.

The S*n is clearly acting as direct political propaganda for the Tory party, and it's easy to see why.

The Tory manifesto is promising to sling the Leveson enquiry into press corruption in the bin, so that the right-wing press can carry on as if Murdoch's minions had never hacked into the telephone of a dead teenage girl.

We might well wonder where the Tory moral outrage is over what was done to Milly Dowler's family when Murdoch's minions hacked into her phone and made them hope she was still alive.

We might wonder at where the Tory moral outrage is that their beloved leader is promising to let Murdoch off the hook for Milly Dowler in return for total support in his main propaganda sheet.

It doesn't exist, because all of their outrage about dead children is purely synthetic, and turned on and off for political purposes.

These tribal Tory apologists are the kinds of people who would have lapped up the disgusting front page lies The S*n printed about the innocent Liverpool fans at Hillsborough

They're the kind of people who would have sneered at anyone who (rightly) said that the tragedy was caused by police negligence, not by drunken rowdy fans as the right-wing propaganda lies claimed. 

In fact they probably would have used synthetic outrage to accuse the dedicated Hillsborough Justice Campaigners of exploiting the dead football fans to score political points!

That's how depraved they are.


Tory propaganda tactics are sick. They're often developed in order to trigger people's strongest emotional reactions like fear, anger, hatred, repulsion and outrage.

This latest "exploiting dead children" tactic is one of the most revoltingly hypocritical things I've ever come across, because not only does it invoke dead children for the political purpose of stopping people from trying to hold the government to account, it's also astoundingly hypocritical for doing precisely the thing that it accuses their opponents of.

If we ask dare to question seven years of harsh Tory cuts to the armed forces and police, these sick Tory propagandists will strategically lob the agonising thought of the poor dead children in Manchester into the debate in a desperate attempt to shut us up.

That's how sick they are.

The Tories are absolutely desperate and they're going to fight dirty as fuck from now on, so brace yourselves for much more of it. If they'll lob thoughts of recently killed children into the debate in order to defend their beloved party from scrutiny, they'll say or do literally anything won't they?

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


They cut our police and military, then say they're keeping us safe when the inevitable attacks happen

The sight of palpably relieved Tories strutting around and making themselves look important in the wake of the Manchester Arena atrocity was sickening, and enraging.

The Tories were on the ropes and bleeding heavily over their utterly depraved and almost universally hated Dementia Tax proposals. Labour had just soared up the polls (especially in Wales) and Theresa May had floundered and sneered her way through an excruciating press conference and an incredibly evasive and dishonest car crash interview with Andrew Neil ...

Then the Manchester Arena atrocity happened, election campaigning was suspended and the Tories spent the day strutting around in front of the cameras and making out that they're the ones keeping us safe, when they're actually the ones who let it happen on their watch.

Here are some indisputable facts:

It's absolutely clear that these ideologically driven Tory cuts to our armed forces, police, border force and emergency services are making Britain less safe.

But then when the inevitable attacks happen (the Westminster attack, the ransomware attack on the NHS and the Manchester Arena atrocity) the Tories love to strut about, look important, and pretend that they're the ones who are keeping us safe, not the ones who let these attacks happen.

It's astounding that so many people allow themselves to be hoodwinked by this deceptive Tory posturing. 

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Had the Tories spent less time trying to steal our private data, maybe they could have focused on preventing terrorism?

The Manchester Arena atrocity couldn't have come at a better time for Theresa May and the Tories.

May was completely falling to pieces over her hated policy of asset stripping people who get ill and need social care, Labour were surging in the polls (especially in Wales) and even the mainstream press were finally holding Theresa May to account over her maliciousness and ineptitude!

Then some horrible bastard killed and maimed dozens of innocent people in Manchester, including several children. Political campaigning was suspended, and Theresa May and her bumbling Home Secretary Amber Rudd could spend the following day strutting around, looking important and doing COBR meetings instead of floundering about ineptly trying to defend their horrific Dementia Tax.

Since campaigning was suspended I decided to give it a day until I asked the vital question:

What could the Tory government have done differently in order to prevent this sickening attack?

If you're the kind of person who pays attention to what your government is up to, you'll know that the Tories spent a considerable amount of effort last year on introducing the most extreme state surveillance laws anywhere in the developed world.

The Snoopers' Charter (The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 -to give it it's official name) is an astounding piece of legislation. Not only does it give the state the power to tell lies in court to secure convictions, it also gives over 20,000 state employees the ability to go trawling through all of our private communications data.

Freedom of information requests have revealed that thousands of state employees at dozens of non-terrorism related state agencies (such as the Gambling Commission, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Food Standards Agency) have been empowered to snoop on us.

The question now, in light of the appalling terrorist attacks in Westminster and Manchester that have happened since the Snoopers' Charter came into force, is was this snooping law an effective use of time and resources?

Instead of focusing their efforts on ensuring that a load of people at the Food Standards Agency can now access your private communications data, maybe the government could have done something that would have actually helped to prevent these appalling terrorist attacks?

This isn't political point scoring. It's a legitimate line of enquiry.

Both of the horrifying attacks in Westminster and Manchester happened under this Tory government. And both of them happened after their flagship state snooping policy became law in November 2016.

Asking how these awful attacks happened, and what the government could have done differently to prevent them are legitimate questions.

These are legitimate questions that the mainstream media should be asking (instead of crudely and dishonestly smearing the opposition party leader in order to help Theresa May back into power).

I think it's legitimate to conclude that if the Tories had expended less time and resources on their obsession with accessing our private communications data, and some more time and resources on measures that would actually help to prevent terrorism, then perhaps these terrible attacks might have been prevented?

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Tuesday, May 23, 2017

People are yearning for fascism

The reaction from the extreme-right former BNP nutters who run the Britain First hate chamber is always to jump on any atrocity in order to spread as much hatred, division and discord as possible.

Some-time leader of the ragtag band of fascists Jayda Fransen quickly uploaded a bizarre video in which, to a backdrop of patriotic music, she repeatedly exhorts the British people to "rise up" for the sake of our children. However she explains nothing whatever about how such an uprising would be organised (Britain First usually struggle to get more than a few dozen nutbars to attend their marches) or what the actual endgame of this fascist uprising would be.

The video has an astounding 29,000+ shares (obviously al lot of them through their paid clickfarms in Turkey and India) but still, vast numbers of people have seen the video, and over 16,000 have left comments.

Of course there are some people trying to stem the tide by talking a bit of sense (the invasion and occupation of Iraq created the power vacuum in which ISIS grew - bombing Libya and Syria has only increased Islamist fanaticism in those places - Saudi Arabia funds, arms and supplies Islamist fighters but Theresa May and Donald Trump lick their boots - blaming all Muslims for ISIS is like blaming all Christians for the KKK ...) but the overwhelming majority of comments come from people who are openly and publicly yearning for terrorism.

Here is a selection:

This just goes on and on. These are just from the first couple of hundred comments out of over 16,000.

Who is responsible?

Primarily Facebook are responsible for allowing their website to be used as a platform for the encouragement of fascist views. They've been allowing Britain First to cleate a closed ideology echo chamber for years, in which people are encouraged to write bigoted and fascist diatribes through positive reinforcement (lots of likes).

Huge numbers of these comments break Facebook's terms and conditions, yet they do nothing to clamp down on this hothouse for bigotry and fascism.

beyond Facebook, at the root cause of the problem are the government and the media.

The UK government has developed a top down rote learning style of education that produces millions of adults that are basically incapable of critical thinking. Put extreme-right hate comics like the Daily Mail/S*n/Express in front of these people and they'll learn all the bigoted scapegoating tropes about immigrants, Muslims, the unemployed, refugees, lefties, and liberals are to blame for the consequences of almost four unbroken decades of hard-right neoliberal economic madness from the Westminster establishment.

Both the Tory and New Labour governments felt they would benefit from a crude and uneducated lumpenproletariat, who are too cognitively stunted to properly question their actions, so they dumbed-down the education system, making the exams ever easier to pass, and keeping stuff like philosophy, economics and critical thinking well away from the national curriculum,

The problem is of course is that if you under-educate people to keep them stupid and reactionary, there will always be someone who comes along with an even simpler narrative to appeal to the stupefied population.

The Britain First hate chamber doesn't just encourage people to blame immigrants and Muslims for all of society's ills as the Westminster establishment and their chums in the media encouraged people to do, it also encourages them to yearn for fascist solutions to "the Muslim problem" like discrimination, ethnic cleansing, mass killings, asset confiscation, and cultural eradication.

The people openly and publicly yearning for fascism in this way aren't crazy cultists who hang out with Britain First nutters in real life, they're ordinary people who live, and walk, and work amongst us.

If fascism does rise in the UK these are the ones who will vote it into power, and whoop with delight every time it erodes and destroys another part of British democracy, British culture, or the British rule of law.

They're our work colleagues, checkout workers in our supermarkets, the drivers of our busses, Zero Hours Contracts labourers in our factories and warehouses, nurses in our hospitals, assessors at our welfare offices, builders of our homes, and teachers in our schools.

The threat of Islamist terrorism is real, and it is terrifying to think something like the Manchester atrocity could happen to our loved ones, but the growing threat of latent fascism is much more terrifying, and it's growing like a huge cancer in the middle of Facebook.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


The shocking way right-wing hacks are responding to the Manchester atrocity

The extreme-right always revel and delight in terrorism. Whenever an attack happens they gleefully flock to social media to spread their hateful and divisive ideologies, and bask in the extra publicity they get.

Witless abuse

Some of these people are thick. There's no other way of putting it. They react to hateful acts against innocent people with hate speech and abuse of innocent people because they don't have the thinking skills to react in a coherent manner. They see something terrible and they instinct is to lash out. They spew bigoted abuse and call for extremist measures because they don't know any better.

The three examples cited in this article illustrate the kind of hateful and divisive extreme-right drivel that gets spouted by countless thousands of stupid bigots every time a barbarous act of terrorism is committed.

Right-wing polemicists

This article isn't about stupid bigots though, it's about something much more sinister.

Some of these hatemongers are not thick. They're intelligent enough to know exactly what they are doing. Extreme-right ghouls like Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson always spring into action the moment an act of terrorism happens.

In the wake of the Manchester Arena atrocity a journalist from the right-wing Daily Telegraph called for the introduction of imprisonment without trial and the building of "internment camps" for "suspects". Another journalist from the even-more-right-wing Daily Mail openly called for a "final solution".

These people aren't furious thickos blabbering their vile opinions onto Twitter because they're too stupid to process terrorist atrocities in a more coherent manner, these right-wing polemicists are deliberately piggybacking on a tragic event in order to promote their dream of the abolition of British values and their replacement with their own extreme-right ideological fanaticism.

Allison Pearson

The Telegraph journalist is called Allison Pearson (you may remember her as the one who called for the Scottish First Minister to be killed just for expressing her political opinion a few months ago). She decided to use the tragedy in Manchester to call for the abolition of the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty so that "suspects" can be rounded up and put into "internment camps".

The stated aim of Pearson's wish to abolish the British legal principle that it's wrong to imprison innocent people is to "protect our children", but we all know the real reason. Pearson hates and resents the fact that other people are protected by the legal system and can say things that she disagrees with.

She has already expressed her wish to see Nicola Sturgeon killed for expressing political ideas that conflict with Pearson's own, and now she wants to use this atrocity to give the government carte blanche to indefinitely imprison anyone they don't like, without having to prove that they're guilty of any crime first.

Pearson also doesn't care that the internment camps in Northern Ireland were massively counter-productive, with the injustice of mass imprisonment without trial triggering an immediate upsurge in violence and providing perfect recruitment rhetoric for the terrorist organisations that the half-baked policy was actually intended to disrupt.

Pearson doesn't give a damn about an effective response to terrorism, she simply doesn't like living in a liberal democracy with a judicial system and the presumption of innocence. She just really wants to live in a police state where the government can drag people out of their houses and lock them up without presenting any actual evidence that they're guilty of anything, and the atrocity in Manchester is nothing more to her than a glorious opportunity to piggyback her beloved fantasy of living in an extreme-right police state onto other people's suffering.

The unspeakable woman

We all know that the unspeakable woman who writes for the Daily Mail and appears on the LBC radio station is a relentless self-publicist who spews extreme-right views because they garner her more and more attention, and because all of this attention does wonders for her earning potential.

Whenever an atrocity happens this vile woman pops up to spew some outrageous comment and then revel in the tide of hate that she's triggered, laughing at the liberals who generate even more publicity for her by getting upset and spreading links to her work all over social media to condemn whatever outrageous shit she's deliberately decided to spew this time.

Make no mistake about it. The use of the term "final solution" was no mistake. The unspeakable woman will have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the phrase "final solution" and it's obvious Nazi connotations before deciding to use it.

She'll have weighed up the huge tide of free publicity against the risk of her losing her job at LBC, or facing criminal charges for hate speech, and concluded that the publicity tide from calling for a Holocaust of Muslims outweights the potential repercussions.

The unspeakable woman will have concluded that if anyone actually tries to hold her to account for using Nazi language to promote the idea of a genocide of Muslims, she can just play the victim card.

She knows how easily extreme-right people can be lured into self-pitying victim complex mode, so she's hoping that she can set herself up as the poor innocent martyr of the extreme-right who is being unfairly punished for expressing an opinion.

Whether she actually wants to see a Holocaust of Muslims is actually beside the point. She might actually believe it, or she might have expressed that particular opinion just for the publicity and cash without actually believing in it at all.

The important thing is the intent. She knows that the only possible outcome from using the Nazi term for the Holocaust in such a way was going to be a significant tide of free publicity. If she gets sacked or put on trial for it, all the better, that's just even more free publicity.

The right-wing press are out of control

A journalist from the Daily Telegraph (a once respected highbrow newspaper of the centre-right) has openly called for the demolition of British values and the establishment of a police state in which the government can imprison anyone without trial just on the suspicion of criminal intent. A journalist from the Daily Mail has gone even further by calling for a Holocaust against Muslims.

These are extremist views that would have only found acceptance on the National Front fringe back in the 1970s, but the right-wing press has degenerated to such an extent these days that these abhorrent fanatical views are becoming more and more mainstream. It's the influence of right-wing polemicists like Allison Pearson at the once respected Daily Telegraph who are doing the groundwork in shifting these abhorrent, fanatically right-wing, and profoundly anti-British ideas into the political mainstream.

What we can do

  • Write to the Daily Telegraph to complain about Allison Pearson's increasingly erratic conduct here.
  • Write to LBC (here) and The Daily Mail (here) to complain about the unspeakable woman's use on Nazi language.
 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Why self-imposed political silence is a misguided reaction to terrorism

I've thought long and hard about what to write about the appalling act of barbarity that happened at the Manchester Arena.

Obviously the most important thing is to send condolences to the bereaved and the hundreds of people who have been injured or horribly traumatised by this disgusting act of savagery.

The next most important thing is to praise all those who helped. The emergency services, the people who looked after traumatised children, the people who offered their homes and businesses as refuge, the taxi drivers who took people home for free. You're what's great about Britain. You did yourselves, and Manchester, and Britain proud at a time of terrible trauma and suffering.

Another thing that is clearly implicit in what I've already written is condemnation of this barbarity. Even against a backdrop of all of the dreadful ongoing suffering in places like Syria, Iraq and Yemen, a deadly attack on a crowd full of teenagers and children who had just been out to enjoy a music concert is exceptionally depraved.

The next thing to note is that some people's reactions to this horrific attack are simply disgusting. The people who have used this terrible tragedy to tell sick jokes, make bigoted generalisations about all Muslims, or launch repulsive political attacks on certain politicians, you know who you are, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Having covered those important points, I'm now going to turn to the main thrust of this article.

No moratorium on political discourse

Some people have tried to piggyback on this tragedy to try and silence political debate.

They've tried to claim that talking about any other political issue at the moment is somehow disrespectful to the victims. I'm going to explain why I profoundly disagree.

The people who commit barbarous acts of terrorism don't do it for no reason. They do it for impact. They want to fundamentally change the places they attack, and the people who live there.

If we stop what we were doing, or refuse to proceed with what we were going to do, they've succeeded in changing our daily lives, and if what we were going to do is talk about politics, they've succeeded in undermining our democracy by stifling the democratic engagement that would otherwise have happened.

In my view the UK political parties are playing a very dangerous game by suspending their political campaigns out of misguided respect, because what they're actually doing is sending terrorists (Islamist fanatics and right-wing extremists alike) a very clear message that they can severely disrupt our democratic processes by timing their violent attacks to coincide with our elections.

They're essentially incentivising terrorists to attack during elections.

Silence gives the extremists a void to fill

We know from experience that horrific incidents like this generate massive surges of hatred from the extreme-right, and that no amount of begging for restraint, consideration or sensitivity is ever going to stop these people from piggybacking on other people's misery to spread their divisiveness, bigotry and lies.

So any moratorium on political discourse in the wake of such events just leaves the floor open for the most depraved, extreme and opportunist people to shout their mouths off and revel in all the extra attention they're getting.

Unsavoury examples

Just look at the pictured tweet from a Tory supporter called Tim Dawson.

If all the progressives, the left, the greens, the liberals, the centrists, and the moderate centre-right types bind ourselves to a period of political silence over the Manchester Arena attack, or any other brutal act of savagery, we're just giving utterly depraved people like Tim Dawson a silence to shout their hateful and divisive abuse into aren't we?

Look at this next Tweet from another anti-Corbyn ranter called Robin Marchesi. Look how he accuses Jeremy Corbyn of what he himself is guilty of. 

Jeremy Corbyn clearly didn't try to politicise the attack at all, he simply expressed his condolences and praised the emergency services (as pretty much all other leading politicians did too).

This Robin Marchesi however clearly does politicise the attack by pretending that Corbyn's Tweet is somehow offensive, and that it's cost Labour a vote.

A quick look through Marchesi's Twitter contribution history reveals that he's been spreading anti-Corbyn bile for months, and was clearly never intending to vote for Labour.

This track record of anti-Corbyn abuse indicates that Marchesi is a sickeningly dishonest concern troll who was intent on politicising the tragedy by pretending to have lost faith with Corbyn when he had actually hated him all along.

As is so often the case with extreme right-wingers, they're accusing someone else of what they themselves are guilty of.

Look at this third right-wing reaction to the appalling attack in Manchester.

See how this person using the name "Brexit May" uses the tragic circumstances to brand all Muslims "filth" and as an excuse to use an old (2016), traduced, and out-of-context quote in order to smear the Muslim mayor of London Sadiq Khan.

The full quote from Sadiq Khan is "Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you have to be prepared for these sorts of things, you have to be vigilant, you have to support the police doing an incredibly hard job, you have to support the security services" - which makes it very clear that he was saying that working to prevent terrorist attacks is of fundamental importance in big cities.

If believing that the role of the state is to prevent terrorists from harming civilians makes a person a "massive prick", then I'm a "massive prick" too, and I guess you probably must be one too aren't you?


I'm going to continue to write about politics today.

Not because I don't care about the victims, but because I don't want to let the terrorist(s) who did this win by stopping me from living my life as I would have done otherwise, which would have been writing about political issues and engaging in democracy.

A second reason for not self-imposing a moratorium on political commentary is that I don't want to leave the political floor wide open for the most depraved extreme-right opportunists to spew their hate, deceptions, bigotry and abuse into the void while the rest of us remain silent.

If the majority of decent people choose self-imposed political silence as some kind of misguided tribute, we're giving in to the terrorists and we're allowing the extreme-right the space to dominate the political debate and steer society towards the violent clash of civilisations they crave just as strongly as the Islamist fanatics do.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.