Tony Benn ensuring that Brian Haw was not allowed to speak- oh the shock of it. Let's see...

-Member of the Privy council? CHECK
-Long history of infiltrating anti-government groups to ensure that they can be fully neutralised? CHECK
-Visited Iraq just before the invasion so that he could collect intelligence of the best political command-and-control centres to be bombed in the first phase of Blair's invasion? CHECK
-Father of a foul toady New Reich MP? CHECK
-Key architect of the destruction of so-called Old Labour, and the creation of the New Reich party that took its place? CHECK

I'm a little bit puzzled. You will all accept that the enemies of humanity will accumulate masses of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. You will all accept that they will engage in any amount of currupt business practices. You will all accept that they will tell any amount of lies in the Mass Media that they control. HOWEVER, almost none of you accept that the enemies of humanity will disguise some of their members in order to present them as FALSE OPPOSITION?

Compared to the cost of building a hydrogen bomb, or controlling a newspaper, OPERATION BENN is thousands of times cheaper, and thousands of times more effective. Why the hell do you think that the enemies of humanity would forgo this easy and cheap method of ensuring their goals? BECAUSE THEY HAVE HONOUR??? BECAUSE IT COUNTS AS CHEATING???

Dear god, Benn's disguise is more pathetic than Clark Kent's glasses, and yet you all say "he calls himself 'Tony' now, so he MUST be on our side'.

The saddest thing about people is that they have so little confidence in themselves, that they NEED to believe in the cult of fame, and positively demand a leadership of wolves-in-sheep's clothing.

Brian Haw represents you and I, outraged beyond all human endurance, speaking out because there is no possible way to keep the anger bottled in any longer. He is like the pupil that, upon hearing the Headmaster describe British troops in Iraq as heroes, stands up and gives the assembled pupils and teachers a big verbal dose of the truth. DO YOU THINK THAT YOU MASTERS CAN PERMIT THIS BEHAVIOUR? DO YOU THINK THAT THEY WILL ALLOW *YOU*** TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE WORTHY OF BEING SAID OUT LOUD. YOU ***MUST*** BE CONDITIONED TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, DEMAND THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF ARE ALSO GAGGED.

The most foolish thought that anyone EVER entertains is that if a concern or fear is expressed by a famous person on behalf of a larger group, then that fear or concern is being successfully taken care of.

All kinds of methods of political control are used across this planet, and the crudest ones are the least likely to suceed in the long term. The reason that your news programs expose you daily to the crude methods used by dumb thugs in second rate nations is so that you THINK that if YOUR government uses more sophisticated methods, it can't be evil.

GIVE THIS SOME THOUGHT. Which is better? Blair having his uniformed thugs beat down every anti-war protest with masses of state violence? Or anticipating and anti-war movement the moment he started planning his war programs, and placing HIS people in positions of leadership as those anti-war movements formed.

Why do you think that in the West, the media (TOTALLY in the hands of pro-government people) is constantly telling you that your politicians are stupid. WHY? Because THAT meme teaches you to dismiss fears that the government is using its power in any kind of intelligent pro-active way.

Blair isn't the smartest person in the world. However, even quite a dim-bulb would see the value of placing their people in control of organisations that will inevitably form in opposition to pro-war policies.

THE ANIMAL-RIGHTS MOVEMENT IS ***NOT*** CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT, SO BLAIR PASSES EVER MORE DRACONIAN LAWS AGAINST ITS MEMBERS, AND THEIR METHODS.

FATHERS-FOR-JUSTICE WAS ***NOT*** CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT, SO BLAIR USED THE SECURITY SERVICES TO RUN BLACK-PROPAGANDA AGAINST IT, CULMINATING IN THE 'KIDNAP' STORY, USED TO TERMINATE ITS ACTIVITIES.

THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENTS ARE ***TOTALLY*** INFILTRATED AND LEAD BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS, INCLUDING BENN. AS A RESULT, EVEN A PROTEST ATTENDED BY MORE THAN A MIILION PEOPLE WAS OF ***NO*** CONCERN TO BLAIR WHATSOEVER.

The greatest weapon Blair uses against anti-government movements is 'trainspotting'. This refers to the members of organisations that are more interested in the "day out" or the "social activities" or "being in the presence of famous people" than in the cause itself. Such people show no signs of distress when any amount of work results in ZERO EFFECTIVE SUCCESS. Indeed, a perversion often sets in, where the lack of success itself becomes the justification for the protest activities. Leaders like Benn know that the 'trainspotters' are key to his goals, because the 'trainspotters' will baaa and bleat loudly to drown out the voices of ANYONE that questions why the movement never achieves any victories.

When the enemies of humanity are sneaky, they are sneaky in simple-minded ways that anyone can be taught to spot. The problem is NOT the sophistication of evil people. The problem is that their victims are taught to take pride in their own stupidity, and vunerability.

Today, hundreds of Britons will change their utility provider by mistake because the door-to-door scumbag lied, and told them that their signature was merely required to prove that said scumbag had visited the address printed, and thus could be paid by their employer. Today, thousands of Britons will believe that Benn works on their behalf (so they can stop worrying) against Blair's coming Word War, because he spoke at an anti-war rally. Some stupidity cost money. Some stupidity costs the lives of millions (if not BILLIONS) of human lives.

What a real shame that because things haven't went as we'd all have liked (war and poverty continue), that we start to condemn some of the very people who are part of the movement to change the world for the better. I'm not too keen on some of the judges in UK courts, but give me them over you guys (Brian B, twilight, King Amdo) anytime if your judgements are based on such crap evidence. If you have a valid point to make, back it up. You may be right, but you certainly haven't proved it here. Presumably our contributions are designed to inform and stimulate; so maybe we should take the time to ensure that we make some degree of sense. The chances are that we all believe that the world doesn't have to be this way, and whatever our individual visions of the future, we can unite on much more than currently divides us. So yes, let’s argue and debate and criticise. But let’s not fall into the trap of stupidity, superstition, and prejudice that allowed so many to uncritically accept Blair's baseless accusations, misinformation, and lies in the run up to the invasion and throughout the occupation. If we want to create a better world, we're going to have to surpass that, and take others with us. If we want others too to be able to see through the crap, we're going to have to teach by example, not indoctrination. That's why we can't afford to be reckless with accusations such as have been aired here. Right or wrong, we ourselves would hate to be judged on the same criteria.

As an answer to the previous comment, I would say that I believe a lot of what I posted to be statement of real verifiable facts and not superstition - the weak Stop the War position at election time is a fact. I really was unable to present my anti-war view point at election time. I do not believe that Brian Haw's supporters would lie to me about Brian having requested to speak at the march and being refused (plus having done so on previous occasions). Speakers at the march really did talk of Iran being a 'regime'. Also I don't believe in condemning people so I haven't done that either. The only thing I would change about the article is that maybe I shouldn't have started one paragraph with Jeremy Corbyn's name, and I failed to complete one sentence, but I can't change that now.

Brian, I accept that not everything I wrote is relevant to your contribution. It was meant as a general criticism of the three comments that preceded mine.
To deal with your points alone, if you “would prefer a democracy-first approach”, maybe you could forgive Tony Benn, “as the President of the Stop War Coalition [who] could pull a few strings”, for not abusing his position and pulling a few strings. Maybe you could suggest to your local STWC that Brian Haw be included at the next demo. As you have attended STWC meetings over the last 3 years (as I have done only sporadically), you’ll know that as a collection of volunteers, we’re not as organised as we’d like to be. I am often critical of actions and decisions of the STWC, especially when I’ve been too lazy or whatever to attend organising meetings. Normally, when I’m critical of the STWC, I refer to the organisation as “them”; when I have praise, “they” become “we” or “us”. However, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s unfair to condemn when I’ve left it to others to organise. If I want it to be different, then I have to play my part. Attending demos is important, but if you’re as critical of the world as you seem to be, you are going to have to do more.

You are obviously intelligent so you don’t need me to point out that if the STWC tells people to vote for a particular party, then those members that disagree (at that point in time but not necessarily 6 months down the line) are probably lost forever; those who don’t have a problem with the choice were probably that way inclined already. Imperfect though it may have been, advising people to consider candidate’s positions reference the war was probably the best alternative. There is no doubt that individual members aired their own views more specifically when relating with the public at stalls etc—it didn’t require too much imagination: “personally, I believe that the only party worthy of a vote is…”

As for Andrew Murray “helping to support the war agenda”, I refer you of my earlier comments on the basis of fair judgements.

If you’re unhappy with the STWC, change it!

"you have attended STWC meetings over the last 3 years (as I have done only sporadically)"

Then you have no right to lecture me on getting involved. I have supported the Stop the War Coalition for three years.

"you’ll know that as a collection of volunteers, we’re not as organised as we’d like to be"

The problem isn't lack of organisation - there's plenty of that. It was the policy. When it came to the crunch it failed.

Reading twighlight's comments reminded me of what a great larf Indymedia is to read. Every conspiracy nutter and twiglet in the book gathers here to rant. Tony Benn went to Iraq to spy out the command and control centres for the US? Sheesh. Reminds me of those bonkers student discussions where each new contribution gets more and more in need of urgent help.

Anyone for blaming Dennis Skinner for running the US hegemony?

My intention is not to "lecture you". Sorry if my original comment seemed overly attacking; I have already acknowledged that it wasn’t all “relevant to your contribution. It was meant as a general criticism of the three comments that preceded mine.” I have given my opinion, which in some areas differs from yours, but probably not on as many issues as your defensive attitude might suggest. I hope that maybe we can learn from each other. We obviously didn't stop the war so we clearly need to look at our strategy, as you have done. Sometimes in the STWC, we seem to blindly follow people who seem to know what they're talking about. Maybe they're right, but either way, we need to question and understand their logic before we accept it. But neither should we blindly accept any criticism as being accurate without questioning the arguments. I imagine that you agree with that.

I mention my sporadic involvement in STWC organising meetings over the last 3 years only as this is the time frame you mention in your original article. Hard to believe, I know, but it has now been over 3 years since the invasion of Iraq began. Around 6 months after the invasion, my working pattern changed and I began to attend STWC meetings only sporadically (fortunately, my girlfriend, the group treasurer, was and is still able to attend and volunteer me for stuff whether I like it or not, and I was and am still able to do the weekly street stalls). In the period from around September 13th 2001, to October 2003 however, you would certainly be able to find some who were more active in my local STWC (some people are truly inspirational and live to help others; myself and my partner also make time for ourselves), but not too many. If you still feel that this level of activity renders my opinion invalid, fair enough.

I accept though that my fairly extensive involvement makes me responsible for its failings as well, and probably liable to being overly defensive of its utility. I have developed a tendency to forget to question our activity as much as I initially did, and your article/response has made me aware of that.

We could all do with being less defensive and slightly more humble if we are ever to succeed in the many aims that we share.