Memorial day - 8

Without doubt my favourite memorial in Victoria Embankment Gardens, London, is for the Imperial Camel Corps. It consists of an exquisite two foot high statue of a camel and rider. The bronze statue stands on a six foot high stone base. Carved on the base is:

To The Glorious And Immortal Memory Of The Officers NCOs And Men Of The Imperial Camel Corps.
British, Australian, New Zealand, Indian Who Fell In Action or Died Of Wounds And Disease In Egypt, Sinai And Palestine.

1916 - 1917 -1918

A bronze plaque lists the names of the fallen.

The Allied forces were evacuated to Egypt after the failure of the Gallipoli Campaign. Egypt which was then under British rule, was threatened by the Ottoman armies in Sinai and the Senussi confederation of tribes in its Western deserts.

In an attempt to suppress the tribes in January 1916, four companies of camel mounted infantry were formed from volunteers from Australia. The campaign was a success with the Senussi forced into submission towards the end of 1916. Indeed the camel companies had been so successful that a further fourteen companies were formed. Six companies were drawn from Australian Light Horse units, six British companies from Yeomanry mounted units and New Zealand personnel formed two companies. The companies were eventually organised into four battalions.

Because they were cheaper to purchase only male camels were used!

In 1917 the Corps took part in several battles for Gaza, suffering heavy casualties After Gaza, it took part in the attack on Jerusalem. After the capture of Jerusalem the corps was withdrawn for rest.

In May 1918, under General Edmund Allenby, the army in Palestine was reorganised. As a result both the Australian and New Zealand companies were remounted on horses. Their camels were given to the Arab forces under the command of Emir Feisal and T.E. Lawrence “Lawrence of Arabia”


(In 1921 Britain ensured that Feisal was selected King of the newly created country Iraq, which he ruled until his death in September 1933)


Part of the Corps 2nd Battalion took part in action in Jordan in August 1918.

The Imperial Camel Corps was formally disbanded in May, 1919.

Click her to see YesBut’s Image of the day.

YesBut who’s in charge?

No there hasn’t been a problem in downloading the photo on the left. It is a framed photo of the person who is governing Great Britain.

Tony Blair, who still collects a salary for being Prime Minister, has stopped taking an active part in government - he is far too busy touring the world trying to burnish his image. If he tried sand-blasting it, it would still remain tarnished. As much as he wants to convey the impression that he is leaving a dynamic legacy, in reality the “Blair legacy” is Iraq.

Ah you might think, Gordon Brown has unofficially taken control - nope. The last couple of weeks, being rudderless the Government Ministers have dropped a couple of clangers. Gordon doesn’t want to be associated with these, so he is maintaining a very very low profile, so low nobody knows where he is - even Gordon himself isn‘t too sure.

What a state of affairs. We will remain leaderless for another month, and then we will get a Prime Minister who will be there by default. How is it possible, in a so called democracy, can we be lumbered with a Prime Minister who has not been voted into office by: parliament, his own party or the general public.

It would never have happened in the USA! If the President has to stand down during his (sorry Hilary - and perhaps her) term of office the Vice President takes over. At least at the election the President and Vice President stood as a team and the electorate know who would take over if anything happen to the President.

I was incorrect in stating it wouldn’t happen in the US. It has once - any idea when?

In 1973 the Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign when he was accused of tax evasion and bribery. Richard Milhous Nixon the 37th President appointed Gerald Ford, the Republican Minority leader in the House of Representatives, as his Vice President. An interesting choice - poor old Gerald had difficulty in walking and whistling at the same time. Did Nixon think: “if it comes down to impeaching me and having Ford as President, or letting me serve out my term, they’ll choose the later?”.

On August 9th 1974, Nixon became the first President to resign. Gerald Ford became the 38th President and he chose Nelson Rockefeller to be his Vice President - the first and only time the president and vice-president held office to which neither were elected.

If we get through the next month without an active Prime Minister - it proves we don’t need one, and Brown should be told to stay in his little bolthole!

Click here to see YesBut’s Image of the day, and leave a suggested caption.

Free newspapers

Free newspapers serve three purposes:

1. To increase the risk of global warming, resulting from the number of trees that have to be cut down to provide the paper.
2. To incease litter in the streets and public transport when copies are discarded.
3. To mask the inefficiency of the National Health Service appointments system.

They serve no other purpose.

You have an appointment to see a doctor at 11:20, (not 11:15 or 11:30 but precisely 11:20). Don’t kid yourself all appointments are created by a random number generator and are pure fiction. Turn up by 11:20 and if you are lucky you’ll see the doctor at 12:30. When he’s in a rush to get rid of you so that he can go for lunch. But that’s where the free newspapers comes into play. Left around the waiting room, you pick it up and turn to the Sudoku - caught again, concentrating on the puzzle you don’t notice time passing.

Yesterday I finished the Sudoku. All the magazines in the waiting room were pre World War 2, so I had no alternative but to read the paper - I use the word ‘read’ loosely. Turned the page, and my blood pressure shot through the roof. There in the paper was a photo of the face that was on TV screen every day during the months leading up to the Iraq war.

Supercilious, arrogant, lying, those are only the flattering epithets for Geoff “would you buy a second hand car from me” Hoon, the Minister of Defence at the time Britain went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was giving a “60 Second Interview”.

The first question was . . .Sorry I can’t even think about this heap of steaming dog excrement’s opinions. Only to say, in his opinion the Iraq insertion was a success. Asked why, if it was a success there are still British troops in Iraq? He replied, “The aftermath has been more difficult than expected”.

Its just like a surgeon saying, “Mrs Blogs, I have good news for you and not so good news. The good news is we successfully removed your husbands ingrown toe nail. The not so good news, he bled to death".

Now I can’t make up my mind, is this pathetic excuse of a politician so dim-witted that he thinks Iraq was a success, or does he think that we are so stupid we will believe him? The only glimmer of hope is at least we will soon be free of Blair.

I must finish with a classic quote from the interview.

What’s Donald Rumsfeld like?

Hoon: “He’s very straightforward. He said what he thought. He was always very clear.”


Rumsfeld the man that sounds like a maladroit randomly farting Babel Fish

• There are speeches I have made
• There are speeches I haven’t made
• There are speeches I have made which I should have made.
• There are speeches I have made which I shouldn’t have made.
• There are speeches I haven’t made which I should have made.
• There are speeches I haven’t made which I shouldn’t have made.
• There are speeches I know I have made
• There are speeches I know haven’t made
• There are speeches I know I have made which I should have made.
• There are speeches I know I have made which I shouldn’t have made.
• There are speeches I know I haven’t made which I should have made.
• There ar speeches I haven't made which I should have made
• There are speeches I don’t know haven’t made
• There are speeches I don’t know I have made which I should have made.
• There are speeches I don’t know I have made which I shouldn’t have made.
• There are speeches I don’t know I haven’t made which I should have made.
• There are speeches I don’t know I haven’t made which I shouldn’t have made.

Click here to see why I am so very very confused

YesBut not a good week to be British

Three events occurred last week which brought no credit to the British Establishment:

In interviews at the beginning of the week Gordon Brown was overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the forthcoming election for leadership of the Labour Party. He stated the election would give the opportunity for the party to discuss policies. In the meantime his henchmen were applying pressure on Labour Members of Parliament to ensure John McDonnell, who wanted to stand against Brown, didn’t have sufficient number of MPs to nominate him. The result Gordon “I’m a control freak” Brown was elected unopposed.

So when Brown takes over from Blair, nothing will change - more spin, “watch their lips say one thing, while their actions do something else”.

The British Ministry of Defence is either accident prone or inept. In the second fiasco in five weeks it has done a 180 degree turn and decided Prince Harry should not serve with his troop in Iraq.

The consequences:

• The Iraqi rebels can quite rightly claim victory that they prevented Harry from being deployed.
• The parents of British soldiers sent to Iraq, question whether their children are considered expendable?
• It puts the lie to Blair’s claims that the British are in control in Basra.
• What if any use will Prince William & Harry be in the army, if they cannot be placed in any danger?

Is the Ministry going to employ a school road crossing warden wherever William and Harry are posted to ensure they cross the road safely?
What should have been done?

• A risk assessment should have been done before they joined the army.
• If Prince Harry was to be deployed, it should have been done with no publicity.

The other debacle was The Ministry of Defence’s handling of the fifteen naval personnel captured by Iraq.


My bog of 20 April took as its subject the squalid attempt by members of the British Parliament to exempt themselves from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Fortunately on that occasion opponents by the use of filibustering foiled the attempt.

When it comes to looking after their own interests MPs don’t give up. On Friday, the Bill was again debated in the House of Commons. To their eternal shame it was approved by a majority of 71 votes. It now goes to the House of Lords for consideration. Hopefully they will have more integrity.

And we return to where we started Gordon “two face” Brown has made a pledge to “bring more open Government”. Supporting the revision of the act to make Members of Parliament exempt from the Freedom of Information Act - a good start Gordon.

YesBut even if all that wasn’t enough, going shopping is like negotiating an obstacle course, click here to see.

Rewarding our heroes.

So the 15 Royal Navy personnel captured by Iran, have been given permission to sell their stories to the press. Good for them, they deserve compensation for their horrendous ordeal- having to wear those ill fitting suits - anyone would crack under such pressure.

I wonder will Leading Seaman Faye Turney buy a new scarf with the £100,000 she is reported to be getting from selling her story to ITV1’s Tonight with Trevor McDonald programme and to a newspaper.

I wonder how much compensation the widows and children of service men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan get?

Iran incident, UK crises.

Hopefully Iran and Britain are getting closer to negotiating the release of the British Naval personnel.

The incident was caused when the crew of two British Naval patrol boats were arrested by Iran, but the crisis was caused by the subsequent inept handling of the affair by the British Prime Minister. Anyone who read the Islamic Republic News Agency’s initial press releases would have seen Iran was seeking a low key negotiated resolution. It only became a crisis when Big Mouth Blair claimed the sailors were arrested in Iraqi territorial waters. No one with smallest amount of common sense or knowledge of the subject would have made such a statement. But it is typical of Blair’s approach to diplomacy - let us not forget that Blair has taken Britain into more wars than any other “Peacetime Prime Minister”.

Why was it foolish for Blair to claim the incident occurred in Iraqi territorial waters? The Maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran was established by the Algiers Accord in 1975. However at the time it was recognised the border, in the open sea outside the Shatt al-Arab waterway, was defined not in reference to a well established coastline, but to moving mudflats; consequently it was agreed the position of the border should be reviewed every ten years. No such review took place as Saddam Hussein “tore up” the agreement in 1980, at the start of the 1980 - 1988 Iran Iraq war. Consequently neither Iran nor Britain can claim the boats were in Iran or Iraq waters.

The situation was aggravated when the UK briefed the press using maps which delineated the boundary with a thick red line. It must be realised, the question of the location of the border is as sensitive an issue to Iran as the ownership of the Falklands and Gibraltar is to Britain.

Over the weekend, Britain seemed to recognise the prudence of following traditional and well established diplomatic procedures to establish contacts with Iran. This however was not helped by Blabber Mouth Bush, referring to the sailors as “British Hostages”. Then his partner Blair could not resist throwing in his three pennyworths with his belligerent mutterings.

This World will be a safer place when Blair and Bush finally leave office. Hopefully they will shut up long enough for the diplomats to do their work.

Tension growing between Britain and Iran?

The British sailors and marines held captive were shown on Iran television. The British Government condemned this as “the sailors being paraded on television”. The Iranians said the tape, showing the prisoners eating, was released to reassure their families that they are being well looked after.

I want to see a jingoistic free account and analyses of events. But once again the British press appear to be acting as the willing tool of Government propaganda. They shout “Is the Government doing enough to free our troops? “.

I am yet to see a forensic examination of the facts as stated by Britain and Iran. What do we know?

The Ministry of Defence says:

• At 07:39 hrs on 23 March 2007 a merchant ship located 1.7 nautical miles (3.1km) inside Iraqi territorial waters was boarded by crew from HMS Cornwall. The operation was observed by Cornwall’s Lynx helicopter.
• Communication with the boarding party was lost at 09:10
• The Lynx returned to the scene and reported the two boats were being escorted by Iranian Navy vessels toward the Shatt al Arab waterway
• The British state the Iranians first claimed the incident occurred at a location within Iraq waters, but corrected this to a position 1 nautical mile (1.9km) from its first position and within Iranian waters.

While the British Government is ignoring the fact, it must be noted while reference is made to distances from the boarder; agreement has never been reached between Iran and Iraq on the position of the boarder. Making definitive statements and basing a case on a location 1.7 nautical miles from a disputed and undefined boarder doesn’t stand-up to close scrutiny. A fact identified by Russia at the UN Security Council discussions on Thursday.

From known facts, it is obvious the boarding of the merchant vessel was ineptly planned and executed:

• Why didn’t HMS Cornwall see the approach of the Iranian boats on its radar?
• Why did the Lynx helicopter have insufficient fuel to remain on patrol? (The Lynx had returned to Cornwall for refuelling, at the time the Iranians captured the sailors).
• Why was there a failure in the communication system between Cornwall and the two patrol boats?

In an attempt to get an alternative prospective, yesterday I looked at the following Middle East news organisations:

Bahrain Tribune - no reference to the story
The Daily Star (Lebanon) - ditto

Middle East Times (Egypt) - a report that Iran says Britain exploited UN; and second sailor ‘confesses’.

Gulf News Online (UAE) - nothing in the headlines, but at the bottom of the page a link to an Iranian statement why the release of the woman captive has been put off

Arab News (The Middle East’s Leading English Language Daily) (Saudi Arabia) - At the end of a long report of a news conference given at the end of the Arab Summit at Riyadh, quote:

Asked about the Kingdom’s stance on the 15 British soldiers who are withheld with Iranian officials, Prince Saudi described it as “unfortunate.”
“We do not need any things to add to the already inflammatory situation in the region,” he said. He said he extended his heart out to the families of the captured British sailors

Islamic Republic News Agency (Iran) - reported on a telephone conversation between President Mahout Ahmadinejad and the Turkish Prime Minister, quote:

During the telephone conversation, Ahmadinejad underlined that the British troopers have for many times in the past violated international rules and conventions and illegally crossed into Iranian borders.
Despite their official commitment to avoid repetition of such illegal crossing into Iranian land and territorial water, the Britons have resorted to fabricated hue and cry instead of apology for their action and of helping resolve the issue through diplomatic channels, he said.
The Turkish premier, for his part, called Britain's threats for freezing ties with Iran as a "mistake" and urged the Iranian officials to permit Turkish ambassador to Tehran to meet the captured British sailors in an effort to foil the ongoing false propaganda.

In a separate report on the telephone conversation between the Iranian and Australian Foreign Ministers to discuss the arrest of the British sailors, quote:

The Iranian foreign minister hoped that the British officials will avoid the hue and cries launched by the media, which will make the issue more complicated.
"Iran welcomes pursuance of the issue by Australia if it can help Britain to act reasonably," he added.

Clearly in the Middle East the affair is seen as a low priority event. Even in Iran they are trying to cool the situation. Perhaps its time for the British to keep “Macho man” Blair off the TV and apply some quiet diplomacy. As for the British press, as can be seen from today’s copy of the Sun, it’s starting to lose interest.

They are at it again!

The press and ITV News are at it again. This is the headline of today’s News of the World.

So Friday night Prince Harry was in Boujis nightclub with Natalie Pinkham (who ever she might be).

Early Saturday morning he left via the backdoor only to be confronted by a pack of paparazzi. Harry lost his temper, so what, big deal. Now if one of them had stuck his camera in my face, I would have shoved his telephoto lens where the sun doesn’t shine.

In a few months time Harry will be deployed with his regiment to Iraq. This week we saw the news conference given by the United Nations Secretary General being disrupted by a mortar bomb. There is no safe place to hide in Iraq. Harry could be coming home in a flag draped coffin. He doesn’t have to go - as third inline to the Throne he could have been given a safe desk job in Whitehall. But he demanded to go with his men.

In tonight’s ITV News, after reporting the nightclub incident, the question was posed “Is he fit to lead a troop of soldiers in Iraq?” Now at this point I must refrain from writing what I would like to write and apply some self-control - but take it for granted expletives have been deleted. ITV News you pompous farting dollop of dung, get off your high pseudo moral high horse, and cut the boy some space.

Is ITV fit to provide a news service to the Nation? YesBut who can blame me for being grumpy and farting.

At The Going Down Of The Sun And In The Morning We Will Remember Them

Viewers watching last nights news broadcast were privileged to witness a scene filmed on the arid planes of Afghanistan. As flag draped coffins were loaded onto a Hercules transport plane, ranks of soldiers stood to attention paying respect to two fallen comrades. In turn soldiers paid tribute to two fallen heroes. As the transport plane flew over the assembled forces the pilot dipped its wing in salute.

In the First World War the British Army were described as lions lead by donkeys. Fortunately they are still lions; unfortunately they are still lead by donkeys. The British Army is poorly paid, inadequately equipped and their families are housed in substandard houses. But the greatest indictment against the donkeys is the way they have fail to look after wounded soldiers.

The armed forces are poorly served by both the Civil Servants and Ministers of the Ministry of Defence. This Whitehall office block remains in a time warp. It always prepares and plans for the previous war. In the opening months of WW1 soldiers were expected to charge on horseback German artillery. It is a recognised fact that in Iraq and Afghanistan British soldiers are sent out on patrol in Land Rovers - perfect for the Yorkshire dales, but not when coming under hostile fire and roadside bombers.

Tomorrow the House of Commons will debate the replacement of the Trident System. A system designed to meet the needs of the Cold War. Again the Government want to spend £30 Billion on a system designed to fight a previous war, (it is estimated the system will cost £100 Billion over 50 years). In the future, who will the Trident missiles be used against? They say rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea. In the future rogue states will not have to develop nuclear bombs and intercontinental missiles.

Look at one event in November 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian ex-spy was poisoned with polonium -210. Traces of the highly radioactive metalloid were found in several locations in London. A rogue state could bring any city in the UK to a stop by simply having a suicide bomber walk its streets. No bomb would be detonated but the radio active source they carried would contaminate everyone they came into proximity. Over the next few days, people will start to feel lethargic and nauseous; soon the hospitals would be overwhelmed by people suffering from nuclear radiation poisoning. Under those circumstances a nuclear submarine with a missile system patrolling the Atlantic or Indian Ocean will be as useful as a sieve to carry water.

But don’t worry the Government is putting in place a system to prevent such an event - Identification Cards!

East of Suez

Yesterday Tony Blair gave a speech on the role of the UK’s Armed Forces in the 21st century.
Our Nation’s Future - Defence

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10735.asp

I quote one paragraph:

The frontiers of our security no longer stop at the Channel. What happens in the Middle East affects us. What happens in Pakistan; or Indonesia; or in the attenuated struggles for territory and supremacy in Africa for example, in Sudan or Somalia. The new frontiers for our security are global. Our Armed Forces will be deployed in the lands of other nations far from home, with no immediate threat to our territory, in environments and in ways unfamiliar to them.

Great Britain ceased being a true World Power 1941 when it required USA assistance to defeat Germany.

It emerged from World War 2 still thinking and trying to act as a World Power.

It took another ten years, and the failed attempt in 1956 to regain control of the Suez Canal and to topple Nasser, for the World to know Great Britain was no longer a World Power..

It took a further ten years, and the Labour Government of 1966 to drop the pretence of being a World Power. And the policy was put in place to by 1971 withdraw troops from East of Suez.

Subsequent Governments still tried to act, if not as a World Power, but certainly as a Country with influence on the World Stage. This pretence was supported by two props: the permanent seat and veto at the UN Security Council, and being a nuclear power.

For the next twenty years, irrespective of the public posturing, Governments knew their limitations and acted accordingly. There was a series of Defence Reviews, each resulting in the downsizing of the Armed Forces.

In 1997 New Labour won the General election, within a year Tony Blair had taken the Country into the first of five Wars.

At the start of 2007 Great Britain has troops on operational deployment in: Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia & Kosovo, Northern Ireland together with various UN missions. Blair is determined Britain should remain a nuclear power. But his latest speech is an attempt to roll back the years, and once again put on “The Emperors Cloths” of a World Power. We will once again try to influence events East of Suez. And to achieve this with a poorly paid, inadequately equipped, abysmally housed armed forces.

Blair, as one last desperate attempt to salvage his image and leave some heritage, has called for a great debate on Britain’s foreign policy. The big question is not Britain’s foreign policy but Blair’s powers of judgement?

Happy New Year

2007 has the potential of being a significant year in history.

It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see, during the year the UK will get a new Prime Minister. Tony Blair will probably resign between May and July. And unless a totally unforeseen event occurs Gordon Brown will take over. Although he is seen as the natural successor, he has a number of challenges that might find him wanting.

Brown will have to establish himself as the Leader of New Labour. The Blairits are not going to welcome him with open arms. And to date he has shown himself to be not a team player. His normal, nay his only tactic is bullying, and if that fails sulking. Unless he can become a leader, his tenure will be short lived.

He will also have to establish a connection with the Electorate. Opinion polls indicate the British public see Brown as a dour grumpy Scotsman. Like Ted Heath before him, he is incapable of creating a sense of warmth and understanding. He might be able to win the minds of the electorate but fail to win their hearts.

All eyes will be on the Gordon Brown / David Cameron duel. It is there for Brown to win and Cameron to loose. By that I mean David Cameron has the advantage, as long as he doesn’t do anything stupid, he will be seen to be a charismatic leader, in contrast to Brown's coldness.

The Government will have two objectives to pass laws: to extending to 90 days the period the police can detain a suspect without charging them; and the compulsory carrying of Identification Cards. To achieve the latter, will require a shift in public opinion. This will be achieved by the explotation of fear. Muslims will continue to be demonised as a group to be feared. There will be high profile anti-terrorist exercises, possibly involving the closing or disruption of airports. And they will say:

“If we have ID cards, we would be so much safer, and there wouldn’t be these disruptions”.

If by the end of the year, opinion polls show a consistent swing towards the Conservative Party, New Labour might panic and call an early election - its better to win with a much reduced majority, than wait and loose power.

2007 will be seen as the key year for the Middle East. Either as the year a start was made to establish peace between Israel and its neighbours, or tragically as the year of missed opportunities when the region fell into a deeper state of chaos and aggression. The Civil War in Iraq will get bloodier with no sense of hope. Unfortunately Bush neither has the intellect nor the leadership qualities to influence events. The challenge for him will be either to find a way of withdrawing US troops, or diverting US public attention from the US troops death toll. To divert attention, US could increase the pressure on Iran.

Unfortunately in the USA efforts will not be directed at getting Bush to take leadership, rather politicians will be positioning themselves in preparation to the 2008 Presidential Elections.

In Europe, Russia will continue to flex its “power” muscles. It will use the threat of cutting off gas supplies to blackmail other Countries either to comply with its will or to turn a blind eye to its continued abuse of human rights.

In Asia, China and India will continue, at an accelerated rate, to expand their industrial and technical might. Tension will also increase between the two countries as the competition for energy resources intensifies.

On the sporting front. There will be two World Cups competitions. In September & October the Rugby World Cup will be held in France, which will be won by New Zealand, with Australia or South Africa as the loosing finalists. The ICC Cricket World Cup will be held in the West Indies in March / April. While Australia is the undisputed Champions of the 5 day Test Match game; it is not so dominant in the one day format. Chance plays its part in influencing the results of one day matches, so predicting the ultimate winner of the Cup is not easy. One thing is certain; England will not participate in the final.

Final prediction, it will be a long hot summer.
It will rain in London on Saturday 21st July and Sunday 12th August.

Is it true?

This week there was a programme on TV about David Icke. He is a former Coventry City goalkeeper and BBC sports presenter turned writer and campaigner who's convinced, amongst other things, that Earth is run by "reptilian humanoids".

If you want to find out more check out http://www.davidicke.com/icke/index.html

Normally a programme about someone who believes the Earth is run by "reptilian humanoids" would be enough for me to hit the off switch. But I‘m glad I didn‘t.

I was interested not only by what Icke had to say, but my reaction to the programme.

A person’s opinion can range from sane evidenced fact to fantasised mythology. This is especial true in Icke’s case.

As a listener (viewer) how do you judge the validity of statements made?

Some of the things Icke was laughed at and called a madman for saying in the 1990s have now become fact. His statement on the progressive constraint by Government of individual freedoms is demonstrably correct.

And I start listening to what he said, I nodded my head in agreement. Then he started taking about it all being a reptilian humanoid’s conspiracy, and I think “is he a nut case?” The same reaction to the statements made in the 90’s.

Now how am I to know what is an appropriate reaction? Must I reject all the statements made? Or can I pick and choose?

A man says he’s the son of God, (as Icke has done), he’s crucified, but 2000 years later people still follow his teachings. Be honest what would have been your reaction if you lived in Israel 2000 years ago?

The most powerful man in the World makes a statement, it’s supported by evidence provided by a number of sources. But where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?

Who can you believe? And how do you judge what to believe?