I’ve spent much of today digesting a fine lunch served up in a private residence near Castillones, and – during the before/after of the event – trying to digest a ton of conflicting information about the latest Paris attacks.
I’m still waiting on replies to enquiries, but in the meantime I’d like to log one thing before the NVE police start warbling on again.
When informed Parisian prosecutors ‘get wrong’ the number of assailants involved in a Jihadist atrocity by 40%, one has to wonder whether it is incompetence, or something more pernicious.
To date, not a single old media title or mainstream news site has either used the arguments advanced in last night’s Slogpost, or credited the analysis. I’m not surprised, but I do think that a certain amount of Establishment tar-brush has been at work here: there has always been an undeclared turf war between the blogosphere and the MSM, and continuing to be blind to the laziness among their ranks is not endearing the write-it-down-and-print-it pro hacks to we in the allegedly amateur ranks.
To question the ‘official version’ of any event is not always to be a conspiracy theorist down the rabbit hole: when properly evidenced, it is a positive invitation to citizens to think for themselves. We have a UK government in power keen to discourage that – indeed, even make it illegal under certain circumstances. I’m acutely aware of the large number of space cadets in the blogosphere; but Old Fleet Street protectionism is playing into the hands of those in the kingdom of Camerlot who just love to divide and rule.
Since last night’s post about Paris Attack timelines, I have not received any deconstructions from any quarter concerning the discrepancies on timings, deaths, locations or participants highlighted therein. I don’t find this odd in a conspiratorial sense, just rather disappointing. But then – be it physicians versus surgeons or Freudians versus cognitive therapists – pretty much every turf war is based on insecurities about future income, and protection of ‘Guild’ privilege.
Anyway: throat now suitably cleared, I’ll try to give you a brief taster of what seems to be in the air tonight concerning the latest developments. Not as part of the newshound puppy socialisation class going on, but as a guide to future conclusions about the who and why of all this. Who and why is, after all, always preferable to hue and cry.
As luck would have it, two chums today mentioned their re-entry into France from Spain. A supplier of mine went back via ferry to the UK, and another mate flew into De Gaulle this morning: so after lunch I contacted both of them.
All those I spoke to said the security entering and leaving France was minimal – ie, normal. Small sample, fair enough: but not exactly suggestive of a Government genuinely worried about further insurgency and imminent threats.
Now here’s another snippet for which I’m indebted to regular Slogger Emma. Ever since this news story broke, I’ve been reading endless lazy references to ‘Hollande’s 9/11 moment’. My growing gut feeling since midday Sunday, however, is that this is more a Reichstag Fire moment.
Emma’s been taking a close look at the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, and the rules applying to declarations of a State of Emergency. President Hollande confirms he has declared “a state of Emergency lasting in the first instance for three months”. He’s entitled to do that, but Article 16 of the Constitution states unequivocally that ‘after 30 days, the Constitutional Council can be requested to determine in a public ruling whether or not the conditions that justified the use of Article 16 are still current. At any time beyond 60 days, the Council rules on this issue without the need for a referral.’
In addition, any citizen with an interest in the case can obtain the cancellation of emergency decrees by the Council of State, on the grounds that an Executive has exceeded its authority. It is located in the Palais-Royal in Paris, and largely consists of top-level lawyers. The Vice President of this Council of State is the highest-ranking bureaucrat in France.
So while François le Zero may seem to have a mandate for absolute power, he doesn’t. The best he can hope for is 60 days without automatic referral. And if at any time during the period involved evidence comes to light suggesting an SoE based on ‘false flag’, then every lawyer out to stake his claim to posterity is going to be on Hollande’s back….and there has rarely been a President quite so widely despised as the current incumbent.
Other probabilities and possibilities are beginning to emerge – some from the most unlikely sources. But in 2015, the provenance of any claim has to be by far the most important factor in judging its worth as potential evidence. As and when I have more on that, Sloggers shall be the first to know.