I see that my second article has been hidden. I'm posting it here. Questions to ask before trying to censor this information:

Why does Anna Torv, niece of Rupert Murdoch and star of Fox TV's "Fringe" share a residence in Kensington with Arran Alexander MacDonnell/"Antonin Alexander" for the past couple years? She is now married, but the tabloid media that usually report this stuff ignore this illicit affair. Why were two photographers who never had problems selling photos to News of the World and Sun threatened and intimidated when attempting to sell photographs of the couple out together in public and holding hands? Why were these photos seized and shred without payment or explanation?

Why would a UK citizen (Arran Alexander MacDonell/"Antonin Alexander") who is nominally employed at British consulate in New York be writing an anti-Scotland website and why is he on the Consulate's payroll even though he seems to live most of the time in London? Why is an employee of the UK government allowed to be a paid consultant for News Corp?

Why would David Cameron say to his one of his aides in confidence on August 12th, "Make sure the Scotland boycott is top on the agenda this week" days before the Internet campaign started? How would he even know a boycott was in the works?

A person here called Norvello wrote "Hmm. Obviously it takes a conspiracy involving David Cameron / the FBI / CIA / the funders of the IRA / Murdoch to paste together a poxy single-paged website containing a daft rant about Scotland."

Have you thought that maybe it was appeared to look that way? Why on August 24th did Michael Levine, a prominent California businessman and advertising consultant aligned with AIPAC officially announce a national boycott:  http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/michael-levine/boycott-scotland and raised thousands of dollars for an anti-Gaddafi protest in New York organised by a pro-regime change lobby with ties to AIPAC? Why did two women involved with a climate change group in New York start a Boycott Scotland petition AT THE SAME EXACT TIME the boycott website went live and then deny they are part of the campaign? One of the women is now known to be an American cousin of Annabel Goldie of the Scottish Conservatives with ties to David Cameron. Someone informed the women on August 21 that their names were visible on the petition, and one of them had a Scottish surname (which further investigation led to Annabel Goldie) - they then took their names off and renamed the petition sponsor to "Concerned Citizens".

Why was a package containing photos of several the above figures intercepted by MI5 not reported by the press? Why was the Truthseeker website which attempted to publish this information with scanned evidence hacked and taken offline after it did so? It's back online but only because Truthseeker agreed not to publish this information. We don't agree with caving in but it's understandable. What we want to get back are those photos.

The question that hasn't been asked is why the Boycott Scotland website was made to look like it was done by one or two persons but clearly involves a number of high-profile figures in the US, UK, and Canada. The trail keeps leading back to London and Rupert Murdoch and David Cameron.

Why were several UK nationals who had written to the boycott website and were planning on attending a pro-Libya counter-demonstration at the UN denied entry into the US? Why did two others find themselves on a no-fly list? Those are only the ones we know about.

Our estimation is that the boycott website was set up to look like it was by one or two people, but really set up to collect names and information about people writing in. If thousands of people wrote in to the website with their names and opinions of US foreign policy and UK domestic policies, then that is a convenient way for the US and UK to both develop a list of people to watch out for.

The persona of "Antonin Alexander" is more and more apparent to be a fiction invented to create confusion and disarray. This is a classic example of a false flag operation and I can't say that there is a better example out there. Only a few blogs actually had the guts to question where the boycott was coming from and to state that it was of UK origin and possibly a Unionist front operation.

A columnist at Lew Rockwell wrote: "The Boycott Scotland website was not thrown together by a bunch of illiterates. It’s an impressive-looking collection of opinion, fact, and news items stitched together by a thread of righteous anger." -  http://www.lewrockwell.com/liechty/liechty28.1.html

He also writes: "Most Americans I talk to have never heard of the boycott, and most Scots seem to support the remarks of the Scottish first minister"

Other writers have also claimed that no one in the US heard about it, only people in the UK. This lends even more weight that this is a UK based false flag designed to collect names and addresses and other intelligence about anti-Unionist, anti-US people in the UK.

The reason why its obvious that this was the work of more than a few people is the fact that they went to great lengths to make it SEEM like it was. And in a way it is since it is the brainchild of David Cameron. Just like how they did everything to make the backlash SEEM to be real. The question you have to ask is in the end who profits? The only group to gain anything out of this entire affair are the Conservatives. Cameron even sent the London mayor to New York to "fix things" and making Labour look bad.

The classic strategy of false flag is to create confusion and make it difficult to pinpoint the origin - this has already been done and very effectively. In the UK it was made to be a HUGE story, a HUGE backlash and then in the US no one was talking about it. Backlash was a myth. But the effect is done - Cameron comes out with lots of support, Brown and Labour look miserable, and Unionists gain a stronger foothold in Scotland just as the issue of independence was being readied for a new referendum.

Comment was deleted!

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/438620.html

Hahahaha, what an idiotic pile of crap! Still at it are ye? Aye,yer a funny one there, Danny but so far yer the only mentally defective person here. A police mole and rat who likes to brag about being arrested, goes round shouting about anarchy but rats on his mates to the cops, makes alot of noise but says nothin. Go live in Libya since yer fash masters there are calling.

I refer you to my reply to your previous smear on this thread -

 http://www0.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/438684.html?c=all

Not sure what guideline I broke but maybe you can tell me.

Not everyone is suited to being a moderator, and one of the important IMCista volunteer roles is moderating.

I'd be a crap moderator for instance. I'm a fairly good reseacher but I am too emotionally involved to be trusted hiding or editting other peoples posts when I disagree with them. Some people can do this task well though, but not everyone who thinks they can moderate can actually moderate decently. Each time you hide a post you have to ask yourself 'Did I just hide that post because I don't agree with it, or because it could be potentially damaging?' Of course infiltrators don't ask themselves that.

Even to me though, my past two posts on this thread don't make any sense since you've hidden the smear I was responding to. Publishing my rebuttals when you've already hidden the smear reads like nonsense to the casual reader who hasn't clicked on the ?c=all option. IMCistas have often hidden my posts, sometimes fairly, sometimes nonsensically, occasionally really dubiously to my great annoyance. There are obviously skilled moderators and obviously unskilled moderators within IM. I'd suggest this place would improve if you kept that role for the people who are skilled, even if that means fewer admins and more delays.

Worse than that, IM-UK has become such a worthwhile site that the security services will have repeatedly attempted to infiltrate you. I know of one infiltrator in IM-Scotland, and I wouldn't trust any of that collective because of that. Each collective is as weak as it's weakest link.

In my arrogant opinion, it is better to be small, and to be slow, than to be an unwitting instrument of the state. Some of the admins here do not have the necessary skills or temprement to moderate due to a shortage of resources/volunteers, while one or two others are doubtless infiltrators. Moderation though is your public image and these skills can be passed on by more experienced IMCistas.

Yeah, feel free to hide this too, as long as some of the IMCistas consider it.

Not everyone is suited to being a moderator, and one of the important IMCista volunteer roles is moderating.

I'd be a crap moderator for instance. I'm a fairly good reseacher but I am too emotionally involved to be trusted hiding or editting other peoples posts when I disagree with them. Some people can do this task well though, but not everyone who thinks they can moderate can actually moderate decently. Each time you hide a post you have to ask yourself 'Did I just hide that post because I don't agree with it, or because it could be potentially damaging?' Of course infiltrators don't ask themselves that.

Even to me though, my past two posts on this thread don't make any sense since you've hidden the smear I was responding to. Publishing my rebuttals when you've already hidden the smear reads like nonsense to the casual reader who hasn't clicked on the ?c=all option. IMCistas have often hidden my posts, sometimes fairly, sometimes nonsensically, occasionally really dubiously to my great annoyance. There are obviously skilled moderators and obviously unskilled moderators within IM. I'd suggest this place would improve if you kept that role for the people who are skilled, even if that means fewer admins and more delays.

Worse than that, IM-UK has become such a worthwhile site that the security services will have repeatedly attempted to infiltrate you. I know of one infiltrator in IM-Scotland, and I wouldn't trust any of that collective because of that. Each collective is as weak as it's weakest link.

In my arrogant opinion, it is better to be small, and to be slow, than to be an unwitting instrument of the state. Some of the admins here do not have the necessary skills or temprement to moderate due to a shortage of resources/volunteers, while one or two others are doubtless infiltrators. Moderation though is your public image and these skills can be passed on by more experienced IMCistas.

Yeah, feel free to hide this too, as long as some of the IMCistas consider it.