Friday, 18 July 2008

In this month's issue of Searchlight, David Williams makes a right fool of himself. He picks on Nick Kollerstrom by repeating unverified reports about him. Nick a neo-nazi? Rubbish, he led the Green Party for 12 years, wrote a seminal book on the dangers of lead poisoning, and is in peace groups. Check your facts Williams. Then it gets totally stupid - Williams writes about an event on 12 April and another on 14 April as if they are two days apart. Two days and two years,
but Williams uses sleight of hand, or just ignorance, to make the shadow appear as substance.
In fact the event on 12 April - 2006 - is innacurately described, as are other details.
The cover uses an image of someone, not Kollerstrom himself - but a close resemblance - and then uses the words "Apologist for terror". Utter rubbish.
It is clear they ran out of Nazis to write about, and so this was cooked up. Who is David Williams anyway? Clearly he lacks skills as a writer, and as Kollerstrom pointed out in a letter - which may or may not be published in the next issue - Williams never even got in touch with him to corraborate any of this.
The Jewish Chronicle did that and wrote a balanced piece, but other papers seem to have no editors at the helm. The Eevning Standard, for instance, under "mendacious" Robert Mendick,
wrote that Nick was calling 7/7 victims' family members and telling them that their relative's body had been placed at the scene. No. Kollerstrom did not. No idea where Mendick got this garbage, one suspects Rachel 'North'. He did talk to a family member who had himself expressed some doubts about the official story, and went public with these in the Herald Tribune. It was not improper for a researcher to call someone who had expressed an opinion publicly, especially as there were discrepencies with the official story. Those bashing Kollerstrom do not hesitate to call family members, including those who did not go public and whom Kollerstrom did not call, so there are two sets of standards here. The Evening Standard is the paper that proclaimed Jean Charles de Menezes to be a bomber - when in fact he was an innocent victim! And they got their 'facts' from a witness named Mark Whitby - who has since disappeared, maybe back to the CIA.
It does seem that the more sensible questions Kollerstrom asks, the more the idiot press goes after him to paint him a 'neo-nazi', as 'ratbiter' makes him out to be in Private Eye. They did at least print his letter, which was well written and sets the record straight (this week's issue).
Years ago Kollerstrom had a taste of this when he took the government to task over lead and the coverup. They cried that this was all hysteria, nothing to worry about folks, but were caught out as liars, and we did change the laws to protect ourselves from lead, thanks in part to Kollerstrom. Many people are in good health today due to his efforts in that investigation, which took couraage to undertake. Today he is facing much the same people and is making a choice that will benefit us all.
On some issues I do not agree with him, but there is bound to be some mistakes made in any research, and it is not appropriate to vilify someone for those mistakes. This is only a process meant to discredit his progress on the 7/7 investigation, which, as so many of us have already deduced, has something to do with the CIA and Rob Kiley of that shadowy outfit, put together ni 1947 with the aid of a lot of Nazis who escaped justice.