… in light of yesterday’s news – which ought to have been emblazoned across your front page in three inch block letters but mysteriously wasn’t – that the war criminals have won, and the courageous man who brought us the truth about them has lost, would any of the following, all in your employ, care to comment?
Hannah Jane Parkinson
Still vomiting, Hannah Jane? Here’s a more recent shot of the two with their mum, on a visit to see dad.
Owen Jones (moonlighting here for the Independent but undeniably one of your chaps)
I realise of course that you have many others on your payroll, columnists even more fulsome in their trashing of this man. It’s just that the views of those I single out – darlings of an identity politics obsessed ‘woke’ and/or, in the cases of George and Owen, the fuzzier end of socialism – carried greater weight with a credulous liberal intelligentsia which duly turned its collective and politically correct back on his merciless ordeal.
Do these six have what it takes, I wonder, to show a tiny fraction of the courage the man they so vilely traduced has shown, and come out with an unqualified mea culpa?
No? Well it was worth a shot, I guess … 1
* * *
- Postscript a few hours later. Saturday’s Graun posts an editorial condemnation of the ruling. (I’m being absurdly generous here. The piece, by the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, houses a one-sentence reference to it. Tucked into the penultimate paragraph we learn that “… the ongoing extradition of Julian Assange sets a terrible global precedent, because Assange is being prosecuted for making public classified information, something journalists do routinely …” ) This, as discussed fifteen months ago – Julian, Guardian and the Law of Volitionality – is a textbook Guardian play: tricklets of tears over outcomes it so ably facilitated. My pal Bryan Gocke goes into some of this black comedy in his onthebrynk post today.