Duncan Robertson, infiltrator: sad life, mysterious death...

[Larry O'Hara]

One for those interested in stress being put on infiltrators. Why not check out the story below: a little feeling tells me this story will go viral, and in the process the fact Notes From the Borderland magazine first broke it will be conveniently forgotten. Except by those who have no axe to grind: and we ourselves have no axes, we use a quill...

http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...ncan-robertson-sad-life-mysterious-death.html

Much more to come: watch that (and this) space.

Over to the apologists?

 

[chilango]

Apologists for who/what, Larry?

On a side note, good to see the website looking much better these days.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Thank you for web-site comments, though still a lot more to do.

By apologists i mean those who will seek to deny/minimise his activity, and cover up the cause of his death. Agree I am anticipating somewhat: the result of experience. But as you imply, most reading the thread will not be apologists, so I sit corrected...

 

[free spirit]

fyi Larry that website is unreadable in google chrome, and firefox all the text runs over the images.

It's working ok in Internet explorer.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

thanks for that, useful to know

 

[butchersapron]

Fine for me in chrome.

 

[chilango]

fyi Larry that website is unreadable in google chrome, and firefox all the text runs over the images.

It's working ok in Internet explorer.

Fine for me in Chrome.

 

[free spirit]

hmm, it's now working ok. It was the images from the flash(?) box at the top of the page that were all being spread all the way down the page, so probably a glitch - we occasionally get something odd happening with a similar feature on our site.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

I am not surprised, justly wryly amused, that were this a thread about infiltrators featured in The Guardian, there would be hundreds of replies. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't think any of the Special Demonstration Squad people actually topped themselves. Yet I have good reason to believe Duncan Robertson may well have done. A clue is found in the thread title 'mysterious death'...

 

[Larry O'Hara]

For those at all interested, and having no desire to cover things up, check out this updated article
http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...ncan-robertson-sad-life-mysterious-death.html
which analyses the admission by the just published (23/5) and very late May Searchlight magazine that the late Mr Robertson (unflatteringly gracing the front cover) was indeed their agent, and Gerry Gable the Executor of his will. Was Gerry a beneficiary? What does the death certificate say? These just add to the questions that need to be asked.

 

[malatesta32]

slightly off topic larry, ,but what about the woolwich murder case and spook involvement? new website looks good too!

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Interesting that Mr Tilzey likes going off-topic. Three aspects to spooks and Woolwich. First, preposterous to imply this was some kind of Manchurian candidate/false flag scenario. Clearly not. Second, reported aggressive attempts to recruit one of the suspects unsurprising. Third, to imply the chief assailant changed his character because of Kenyan police beating misses the reason why he (allegedly) went--to fight jihad.

And as for the late Mr Robertson? Some evidently want hurried 'closure', but you are not going to get it.

 

[bignose1]

Sorry Larry thats a bit harsh...and bollocks. Ive been on topic quite a bit...count em up.......And have chosen for the sake of all to keep out of certain threads...to encourage an insult free time... for all... (and my sanity) My puns are tiring I admit on occasions but I can assure you and you should know it...theres no silly agenda.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

Sorry, but that link contains some of the most turgid prose I've read in years. It's meandering vagueness, culminating in some very loose implications. If you have a theory, state it. Don't just waffle around the outskirts, and for the love of fuck don't just ramble on building to a "I'm just asking questions" conclusion.

So what is your hypothesis?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Sorry, but that link contains some of the most turgid prose I've read in years. It's meandering vagueness, culminating in some very loose implications. If you have a theory, state it. Don't just waffle around the outskirts, and for the love of fuck don't just ramble on building to a "I'm just asking questions" conclusion.

So what is your hypothesis?

Interesting approach, to accuse us of turgid prose/vagueness/waffle. We clearly state our hypothesis, but to summarise

1. This sad and damaged man was an infiltrator, who his handlers couldn't care less about ('duty of care')
2. He is now dead
3. We think he topped himself
4. The truth will out in due course.

Simple enough for you?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Sorry Larry thats a bit harsh...and bollocks. Ive been on topic quite a bit...count em up.......And have chosen for the sake of all to keep out of certain threads...to encourage an insult free time... for all... (and my sanity) My puns are tiring I admit on occasions but I can assure you and you should know it...theres no silly agenda.

Not sure what you are saying here. But your views on the sad case of Duncan Robertson would be most welcome

 

[Lemon Eddy]

Interesting approach, to accuse us of turgid prose/vagueness/waffle. We clearly state our hypothesis, but to summarise

1. This sad and damaged man was an infiltrator, who his handlers couldn't care less about ('duty of care')
2. He is now dead
3. We think he topped himself
4. The truth will out in due course.

Simple enough for you?

No you bloody didn't clearly state a hypothosis. I mean, fuck, check your opening paragraph:

With due apologies to Johnny Rotten, we thought that quote apposite for this salutary tale, exclusive to Notes From the Borderland, though no doubt others will soon rush in. Duncan Robertson (hereafter DR) was a British National Party (BNP), and more recently National Front (NF), member, who died a couple of months ago, at the early age of 48. He was, we believe, no ordinary member, but an infiltrator: precisely for who is a moot question. We have known about this for some time, and had Duncan’s death never been mentioned publicly would not have referred to it. But the BNP obituary of 29/4/13 [1] changed all this, so we are breaking the story, not least because we have pertinent questions to ask of those pulling his strings. DR was not, to our knowledge, an agent provocateur along the lines of Tim Hepple/Ray Hill/Matthew Collins and others NFB has covered, though any credible evidence he was we would be interested to hear. Rather the reason for covering his career is we think it eminently possible (given what we surmise to be the manner of his death) that his handlers failed in their duty of care towards him, and if so, as with former Met police infiltrators featured heavily in the Guardian, exploring this possibility is in the public interest. Step forward Paul Lewis and Rob Evans? Or maybe not...

So please be clear:

1) Who was he an infiltrator for? Rather laughable you should call this a moot point, when it's clearly central to the issue.
2) Why do you think he topped himself? Shit, you state that he was "chronically unhappy"? Is that the reason he killed himself?
3) What truth do you think is going to come out?

You're looking to create interest in an issue. It's imperative you actually describe the issue.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

No you bloody didn't clearly state a hypothosis. I mean, fuck, check your opening paragraph:






So please be clear:

1) Who was he an infiltrator for? Rather laughable you should call this a moot point, when it's clearly central to the issue.
2) Why do you think he topped himself? Shit, you state that he was "chronically unhappy"? Is that the reason he killed himself?
3) What truth do you think is going to come out?

You're looking to create interest in an issue. It's imperative you actually describe the issue.

I apologise: I had thought your original question might be genuine, and took it in that spirit. Given the article (and post-script) answers question one, and adequately deals with question 2, that only leaves three. The truth I hope to come out is that he topped himself, and to a certain extent why. The paragraph you sneer at was introducing someone few have ever heard of. Essential, though apparently not in your world.

 

[free spirit]

Interesting approach, to accuse us of turgid prose/vagueness/waffle. We clearly state our hypothesis, but to summarise

1. This sad and damaged man was an infiltrator, who his handlers couldn't care less about ('duty of care')
2. He is now dead
3. We think he topped himself
4. The truth will out in due course.

Simple enough for you?

actually Larry, Lemon Eddy has it right, the style that piece is written in is pretty difficult to read - I gave up the first time it was so bad, and just managed to struggle to the end this time.

Maybe if you stuck to the point of the article instead of diverting off all over the place it might have attracted some debate on here.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

I apologise: I had thought your original question might be genuine, and took it in that spirit. Given the article (and post-script) answers question one, and adequately deals with question 2, that only leaves three. The truth I hope to come out is that he topped himself, and to a certain extent why. The paragraph you sneer at was introducing someone few have ever heard of. Essential, though apparently not in your world.

The question was genuine. Your style of prose is frankly as clear as mud. A person you allege was an infiltrator killed himself. You mention at the outset he was chonically unhappy. You make vague insinuations as to how his handlers (whoever they might be) failed in his duty of care to him (whatever his role might have been)

Seriously, if you want to accuse people of contributing to his death, you need to be way more specific here.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

The question was genuine. Your style of prose is frankly as clear as mud. A person you allege was an infiltrator killed himself. You mention at the outset he was chonically unhappy. You make vague insinuations as to how his handlers (whoever they might be) failed in his duty of care to him (whatever his role might have been)

So, you got there in the end!

Seriously, if you want to accuse people of contributing to his death, you need to be way more specific here.

As a holding piece, specific enough for the time being.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

actually Larry, Lemon Eddy has it right, the style that piece is written in is pretty difficult to read - I gave up the first time it was so bad, and just managed to struggle to the end this time.

Maybe if you stuck to the point of the article instead of diverting off all over the place it might have attracted some debate on here.

I fully realise our analytical expository style does not easily fit with either instant sound-byte culture or twitter-influnced culture. The style is certainly different to the norm, but it'll do for us. It requires serious concentration, as you imply by the word struggle. But there you have it.

 

[free spirit]

I fully realise our analytical expository style does not easily fit with either instant sound-byte culture or twitter-influnced culture. The style is certainly different to the norm, but it'll do for us. It requires serious concentration, as you imply by the word struggle. But there you have it.

if you#re happy restricting your readership in that way, then fair enough, but it probably answers your query as to why a Guardian article would illicit a lot more responses than an article you write.

I'm not trying to have a pop for the sake of it here, you obviously put a lot of effort into researching your articles, I just think it's a shame they're doomed to stay largely unread because your writing style puts people off and makes it hard to grasp what the key points actually are.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

if you#re happy restricting your readership in that way, then fair enough, but it probably answers your query as to why a Guardian article would illicit a lot more responses than an article you write.

I'm not trying to have a pop for the sake of it here, you obviously put a lot of effort into researching your articles, I just think it's a shame they're doomed to stay largely unread because your writing style puts people off and makes it hard to grasp what the key points actually are.

That is not why the Guardian is hegemonic: it is so because the Last Century Left take their news agenda uncritically from that paper, and don't think for themselves enough. More on the Guardian later, mind

 

[Larry O'Hara]

For those who are interested (far less than should be). I have written a detailed report on the inquest of Duncan Robertson held 20/6/13, available here:
http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...e/127-duncan-robertson-inquest-exclusive.html

Because it does not suit the agendas being pursued currently, Paul Lewis of the Guardian did not attend: bit too cutting edge/contemporary for the Guardianistas perhaps ?

 

[Tom A]

Bumped, because there is more that one person whom feels that Searchlight should come under more scrutiny regarding this, especially since they have been spying on and wrecking activist movements years before people had heard of Mark Kennedy. It's only in light of that I have realised what a toxic organisation Searchlight is, since it spurred me to read up on all the allegations I dismissed as "conspiracy theories" in the past.