Ed Lines

I DON’T suppose there’s much chance of our government being able to reclaim any of the £1m compensation it paid ‘innocent’ Guantanamo Bay detainee Ronald Fiddler in 2010.

That’s the same laughing boy Ronnie – more lately known as Abu Zakariya al-Britani – last seen grinning for Facebook as he drove his car bomb straight down the road to paradise (or hell), via Mosul.

Good luck scraping enough of your disintegrated bits from the Iraqi desert to make something of your impending fantasy encounter with 72 virgins, Ron.

(Maybe they can come back with you to try piece together enough of your todger to make the sacrifice worthwhile, eh?)

No, I don’t think so either.

We’re now being bombarded with the usual outpouring of “he’s a good guy really” rubbish from the Muslim convert’s family, with blame being thrown at everyone except the terrorist and his twisted faith.

Amidst that – again, as usual – there’s a complete absence of a realistic explanation from his family as to why he was cosying up to the Taliban in the first place, when the Americans threw him in Guantanamo.

Instead we now have plenty of custard pie-flinging between everyone involved in this circus, from who got Fiddler released by the Americans in 2004, to laying blame for authorising his lottery win over (unproven) allegations that MI6 officers knew he was being interrogated by the CIA.

I’m not going to get into Fiddler’s lack of gratitude to the UK for getting him out of Gitmo in the first place.

I’m not even interested in the intelligence failings over him heading to Syria (and presumably taking a chunk of ‘our’ million quid with him to donate to the ISIS cause).

What I want to know is this – why £1 million?

I want to say ‘why anything?’ but let’s accept there’s some measure of state culpability involved here.

But why £1m? Why an absolute fortune?

Whatever discomforts Ronald Fiddler endured he came home physically intact – and pocketed double the compensation a British soldier would receive for the catastrophic loss of both arms and legs.

So, who offered or authorised £1 million compensation for what another country did to the bloke and which we couldn’t have done a darn thing about, except get him out. Which we did, incredibly! And not just to him, but a veritable busload of ‘innocent’ Guantanamo internees.

Money’s no object it seems when it suits our suits to keep people quiet.

The cynic in me wants to think the compo was a number dreamt up by a government lawyer who knew his lawyer pal (representing Fiddler) was on a percentage fee. Don’t ever doubt that these charlatans all pee in the same pot.

But other questions remain.

His wife travelled to Syria to supposedly try to persuade him to come back.

Really? She hauled all five kids across a continent to just ask hubby to ‘come home honey’? Pull the other one love, it blares out the Islamic call to prayer.

More likely, she went to join him and found that living in a bombed-out desert dump wasn’t quite on a par with suburban Cheshire luxury, thanks to that £1m payout from we taxpaying stooges.

Apparently Missus al-Britani complained to some media sources that the compensation “wasn’t a million pounds” at all. I sincerely hope she isn’t complaining, given how things turned out.

Indeed, instead of politicians and lawyers arguing over who did what and when, I’d like them to tell us when they are going to repossess the terrorist’s home and reclaim any money left from his ill gotten gains.

As for the ‘nice guy’ apologists who refuse to condemn the suicide bomber? It’s just a shame they weren’t in the back seat grinning alongside him.

 

BRACE yourselves, folks, Doris is on the way. She’s going to be furious, wet and windy and you’ll know when she hits town!

By the time you read this ‘Doris’ will have come and gone according to the Met Office weather forecasters, rather like a bored in-law with nothing better to do.

Rumours that Drizzle Dan, Hailstorm Harry, Cloudy Colin and Sleetshower Sue (and trying saying that while chewing a toffee!) are queuing up on the Atlantic horizon remain unsubstantiated.

But Storm Doris? Really?

With a name like that ‘Doris’ should be a cranky maiden aunt with a leaky disposition and clacking dentures that don’t quite fit.

With either the storm or the relative, you might be tempted to board up the windows and bar the doors, but really it would all be a bit over the top.

I mean, we’re English! Stiff upper lip and all that! Just brew a pot of tea and put out a plate of biccies. Doris will soon be gone.

I’m sorry, but this name thingy just isn’t us at all – can’t we leave this hyped-up TV-style rubbish to the Americans?

At least when they get a Hurricane Hank or a Typhoon Tyrone, the poor Yanks know they’ve got a proper hoolie of a weather front ripping through.

They get towns blown away and houses flattened. We don’t even get a Sky dish blown off a council house.

What’s wrong with a genteel hint from the Beeb that it might be advisable to wear your big coat and keep a pair of wellies handy?

 

FAKE news is all the rage right now, with Wiggy Trump denouncing the world media (or anyone who criticises him) as making it up as they go along. You should know all about that Donny – just ask Sweden!

Given how many ‘serious’ people I see getting into a froth about completely fabricated rubbish which they then propagate by sharing on social media, I have to wonder where it will all end.

But it begs a serious question – what is the difference between the BBC news and fake news? Or is there one?

Try these for size: 1) Former PM Tony Blair says he will lead the UK’s Remain voters in their efforts to overturn the 2016 referendum which he claims was distorted by Leave campaign lies.

2) War criminal Tony Blair is willing to begin a civil war in order to reclaim a place at the centre of a new British political movement to replace the Labour Party.

3) Tony Blair and his wife Cherie have added to their huge property portfolio by purchasing the stunning Brassneck Atoll, an exclusive island just a short sail from Richard Branson’s Neckar Island in the Caribbean.

The BBC would tell you that ‘1’ is ‘news’ because it happened and Blair said it in those terms. They have a point, but it doesn’t make it true. And naturally it went largely unchallenged by the Beeb and liberal media.

I, however, would say that it is less news than propaganda because it suits the BBC’s hidden agenda.

In my view (and those of us who think Blair should swing from the same Iraqi gibbet as Saddam Hussein) ‘2’ might be comment as opposed to news, but is closer to the truth.

And finally (3) and the dream Caribbean island for Tony and his hag may or may not be fake news, truth or lie. Sure, I made it up, but it might mean we just haven’t found out about it yet!

Share this post