Rehashing a smear-campaign

That is at the centre of this and the Guardian is guilty as fuck (pardon this expression). So what gives? Well on August 10 2025 I wrote a blog article where I gave light to an article they posted on August 7th 2025. I did it in ‘The emotional grab’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/08/10/the-emotional-grab/) as I said there, I had some issues with the article. And I stated “And in that story, we see one photo of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which was taken in Riyadh, May 2009. It is the only time that his royal highness is mentioned. There is no mention of him anywhere in the article, I checked. So why is he there? Because of the mention of Saudi Arabia?” Then we get “Then we get the wife Emma, she is mentioned four times, and twice by name. What is her involvement? Or is she merely dressing (like a Window) making this story more ‘humane’ The more I read it, the less it makes sense.” I ended the article with “In the end I wonder what this article served. It was not the truth (too much emotion and too little evidence for that), was this another anti-Saudi smear campaign? I am not sure but as we see the lack of evidence and no reference to the declassifieduk site, which could have been used to spice up the article. I reckon that this counterbalanced the article and the article would make even less sense. But that is merely my view on the matter.” So now we get (less than 21 hours ago) the same article as a podcast (By David Pegg. Read by Shane Zaza), as such, what is this rehashing of a smear campaign. Is the Guardian setting out feelers for politicians? I didn’t bother listening to the podcast as there are too many issues with the printed article and if they are resolved it would prove that the Guardian isn’t doing its job correctly. It is a simple setting we tend to see in a smear campaign. So what is the issue with the British government (because this is evidently the push as I see it) So what did the Saudi government do wrong? Did they not rise the oil prices too much? Did they not buy enough British sportspeople? Your guess is as good as mine and I reckon that the Guardian owes the readers (and listeners) a decent explanation. And if it was rehashing for news levels, the Guardian left a lot on the floor. There is the EEA report in 2022 where they stated (outright) that 50% of all the environmental damage was done by 147 factories (I gave light to that a few times), but no that never made the papers apart from the settings that they (and their friends) felt happy with. And they were eager to blame airplanes for all that environmental damage. Even Taylor Swift got that dirty spade of clubs (hidden joke there). As I showed the readers that 41,000 flights a day more amounts to a lot more than the private jets out there. And to wreck Tim McGrath’s day out there this week. He was every bit as guilty as the Guardian itself. And when I see that the EEA report hands out the setting to 147 facilities in Europe. How does the smear-campaign towards Saudi Arabia men make the top 25 anywhere?

That is the setting of the day and the Guardian advertising that they are under pressure doesn’t make the cut. Clean up your editorials to begin with and then give proper light to the EEA reports.

Have a great day, I’ll be looking into Microsoft a little more today.