From the U.K.’s Private Eye magazine, issue 1194, dated 28th Sept – 11th Oct 2007:

Two months have passed since Cambridge University Press pulped a scholarly tome called Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World – the latest of many books to disappear after legal threats from the Saudi billionaire Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz. The last Eye carried a long account of the case, as does the current issue of Index on Censorship. But no word of it has yet appeared in any national newspaper.

The silence is deafening. In America, as we reported in the last Eye, Mahfouz’s use of British libel laws to stifle almost any author who dares mention him is becoming a cause célèbre. It’s a cause which should appeal to both left and right in Fleet Street, since the many publications pulped at Mahfouz’s behest in recent years range from Spartist to Neo-Con. And it should certainly appeal to editors, given the chilling effect of Mahfouz’s antics on free speech. Where are those liberal champions at the Observer when you need them? Where are the fearless libertarians of the Spectator?

Er, keeping their traps shut. Two weeks ago the Observer was set to run a column about Mahfouz by Nick Cohen, but then spiked it after a fit of legal collywobbles. Last Sunday Cohen alluded to him in a more general column about Saudi influence in Britain. By the time it appeared, however, the Observer lawyers had removed every mention of Mahfouz’s name.

Earlier in the summer the Spectator lined up a long piece about the litigious Sheikh by Brendan O’Neill, which listed all the pulped titles and concluded that this Saudi billionaire is “almost single-handedly determining what we Brits may read and hear about contemporary terrorism”. One thing Brits may not read, alas, is O’Neill’s piece: it too was spiked at the last moment!


Any typo’s are mine and not Private Eye’s, the links were not present in the article, I added them in the hope that they may help those not familiar with the references.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

...silly boy, don't you know censorship is all the rage everywhere today!

Didn't you know that we all need to be protected from reality...

---

Account frozen...

...silly boy, don't you know censorship is all the rage everywhere today!

Didn't you know that we all need to be protected from reality...

;))))) seen Ann Coulter's Remarks (practically everywhere on the NEWS ;)

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

...silly boy, don't you know censorship is all the rage everywhere today!

Didn't you know that we all need to be protected from reality...

;))))) seen Ann Coulter's Remarks (practically everywhere on the NEWS ;)

...she should be burned as a witch, but unfortunately, they'd censor it.

---

Account frozen...

1. Saudi Arabia owns more of britain than the british. What they say goes.

2. Rupert Murdochs News Corporation controls most of the british press, and therefore dictates what we will read and the slant put upon it.

When you add to that the tinpot Brussels beaurocrats poking their noses into what doesn't concern them, and our own governments open front and back door immigration policy......

Oh yeah, it's a blast living in modern britain ......

What really pisses me off is that I seem to be talking to myself......

nope - CHris - YOU are speakin' to these Boards AND i can 'ear you quite clearly Sir! . . . ;)

1. Saudi Arabia owns more of britain than the british. What they say goes.

But not Private Eye, thank goodness.

2. Rupert Murdochs News Corporation controls most of the british press, and therefore dictates what we will read and the slant put upon it.

But not the Observer (the Scott Trust, owners of The Guardian), or the Spectator (the Barclay Brothers, owners of The Daily Telegraph).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

nope - CHris - YOU are speakin' to these Boards AND i can 'ear you quite clearly Sir! . . . ;)

I know what you mean Richard, and thanks. But as the vast majority of people on these boards aren't in Britain, it isn't really their problem. The people who live in this country of mine don't seem to see or care, and it won't make squiddly dat difference who wins a future election, both main political parties are as bad as each other.

But, we still have guinness, so life goes on!!!!!!!!!!!

Your wrong Chris, my British friends (I have many of them) do mine and do care.

But the problem is that they, like us over here on the other side of the pond, are powerless in the face of self serving politicos who's only ambition is to get or remain in power. They'll say anything to get elected, and once in office, could give a damn about any principals or the desires of the electorate.

The bottom line is "money talks, and BS walks."

---

Account frozen...

Your wrong Chris, my British friends (I have many of them) do mine and do care.

But the problem is that they, like us over here on the other side of the pond, are powerless in the face of self serving politicos who's only ambition is to get or remain in power. They'll say anything to get elected, and once in office, could give a damn about any principals or the desires of the electorate.

The bottom line is "money talks, and BS walks."

And yet they (as a collective) never stop begging that gov't to save them. And yet you yourself seem to want to expand their power by giving health care to what you know are "self serving politicos who's only ambition is to get or remain in power." People that will "say anything to get elected, and once in office, could give a damn about any principals or the desires of the electorate."

There's a real inconsistency there.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Your wrong Chris, my British friends (I have many of them) do mine and do care.

But the problem is that they, like us over here on the other side of the pond, are powerless in the face of self serving politicos who's only ambition is to get or remain in power. They'll say anything to get elected, and once in office, could give a damn about any principals or the desires of the electorate.

The bottom line is "money talks, and BS walks."

And yet they (as a collective) never stop begging that gov't to save them. And yet you yourself seem to want to expand their power by giving health care to what you know are "self serving politicos who's only ambition is to get or remain in power." People that will "say anything to get elected, and once in office, could give a damn about any principals or the desires of the electorate."

There's a real inconsistency there.

I think the issue here is more that people of wealth are able to use the British libel laws as a means to put a gag on the press, a gag that here in the US would fall foul of the 1st Amendment. Private Eye has itself suffered as a result of these libel laws on many occasions, indeed it has a reputation of playing fast and loose with them (a reputation that I think is somewhat unjustified, but that's by the by). I'm not sure a line can be drawn from arguing in favor of socialized medical care to arguing in favor of limiting press freedom.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

expand their power by giving health care to what you know are "self serving politicos who's only ambition is to get or remain in power." People that will "say anything to get elected

expand their power by giving health care to what you know are "self serving CEOs who's only ambition is to get or remain rich." People that will "say anything to get rich... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I'm not sure a line can be drawn from arguing in favor of socialized medical care to arguing in favor of limiting press freedom.

I'm not drawing the line you suggest. I'm noting that it's inconsistent to note on one hand how bad politicians are for the electorate, that people "are powerless in the face of self serving politicos who's only ambition is to get or remain in power. They'll say anything to get elected, and once in office, could give a damn about any principals or the desires of the electorate," and then, on the other hand to to advocate giving those VERY SAME "politicos" MORE power over the powerless.

The same "self-serving politicos" just get more power out of the deal, and the people lose more of what they had.

That doesn't make any sense.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I'm not sure a line can be drawn from arguing in favor of socialized medical care to arguing in favor of limiting press freedom.

I'm not drawing the line you suggest. I'm noting that it's inconsistent to note on one hand how bad politicians are for the electorate, that people "are powerless in the face of self serving politicos who's only ambition is to get or remain in power. They'll say anything to get elected, and once in office, could give a damn about any principals or the desires of the electorate," and then, on the other hand to to advocate giving those VERY SAME "politicos" MORE power over the powerless.

The same "self-serving politicos" just get more power out of the deal, and the people lose more of what they had.

That doesn't make any sense.

...that's why are choice has always been the lesser of the evils.

---

Account frozen...

...that's why are choice has always been the lesser of the evils.

That's the way I think I'll be voting when the PM in Aus finally tells us when the election will be. Seems he likes to play games with it.

---

Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope.