MOBBKLUBBEN
Bloggarna är ingen klubb. Vi är inget kompisgäng som gått i samma skola eller jobbat på samma arbetsplats. Vi är ingen liten skara heller.
Vi är fria röster som ibland möts i vissa intressefrågor utan att känna till detaljer om varandra. Det är bloggarnas styrka samtidigt som det är en svaghet.
Styrkan ligger i att åsiktsbildningen är både självständig och öppen. Den sker med andra ord inför öppen ridå. Men det finns inga lojaliteter oss emellan som kräver att vi ska stå eniga. Vi korrigerar, skäller, käftar – kort sagt argumenterar med ansenlig takhöjd. Vi är vana vid mothugg.
Svagheten utgörs också av just detta: vi binds inte samman av annat än just frågan. Vi behöver sällan mötas på mingel och middagar. Vi har inga personliga hållhakar på varandra. Därför är vi ingen maktelit – vi kan ju inte tvinga varandra att vara eniga.
Bloggarna är allt det som medieeliten inte är, på gott och ont. I toppen av mediehierarkin sitter folk som känner varandra alltför väl. Många av dem tycks inte förstå att vissa människor styrs av principer, inte av pengar och personliga förmåner.
När de då marknadsför Monica Antonssons fatala avslöjande av Liza Marklunds osanna historia om Gömda gör de om det till ett författarbråk. Som om det vore något personligt. För det verkar vara mediemakthavarnas enda referens. De personliga banden, kotterierna som de tillsammans skor sig på.
Men bloggarna är ingen klubb. Kompismobben runt Marklund är det.
Popularity: 98% [?]
Bli min
Unni! Vill bara tacka för din bok "Boven i mitt drama kallas kärlek".
Det var dags för mig att läsa den nu. Och trots att jag inte borde slå på mig själv gör jag det. Så jag läser korta stycken i taget. Mår illa, skäms och förbannar mig för min naivitet.
Du är klockren i din berättarkonst!
Tack för ditt mod att berätta din historia. Kram!
Ja hur är det ordspråket lyder? Genom sig själv känner man andra?
Om jag ska försöka tolka in lite psykologi som jag för tillfället studerar så har du helt rätt i ditt resonemang. Naturligtvis går man till det man är bra tränad i när man blir trängd, det är inte så konstigt egentligen och att gammelmedia känner sig hotat i dagsläget betvivlar jag inte. Då är den lättaste utvägen att gå på beprövade tekniker som är väl inövade. Fast det har förstås inte slagit så väl ut just den här gången, sorry guillou, och förhoppningsvis kommer det aldrig att fungera igen.
Jobbigt det måste vara att chefredaktöra, krönikera och överhuvudtaget jobba på AB idag. Nu ställs helt plötsligt krav från någon jävla bloggmobb som granskar media självt och höjer sina röster för en bättre kvalité på deras eget arbete. Konstigt med människor som skriver så förbannat mycket och gratis dessutom. Hur fan går det ihop?
Det går ihop precis som du säger Unni, som jag börjar bli van nu så sätter du formuleringar som passar jäkligt bra in i mina tankebanor.
Ha de bra.
That is just it, opinions! Anyone can have an opinion. To have a discussion and argue issues of interest one must have sound (or at least reasonable) premises and argue them logically.
Anyone can get the answer and "proof" desired by arguing logically. To do that one only has to begin with the premise of one's own opinion.
What proof exists that without reasonable doubt proves that Osama has only assaulted Mia three times and that he has never threatened her (his words and kind eyes)?
It is reasonable to believe that threats were made and that she was assaulted more than three times. It is also reasonable to believe that if Luis was threatened for what he did to Osama, Mia was also scared.
We all have different psychological make-up but it is common that victims of abuse continue to be scared of their abuser regardless if he/she has been convicted and has served his/her sentence. If the abuse is traumatic enough for the person, extensive and/or goes on for a long time, victims can develop fear for all people of a certain sex or ethnicity or even hair colour and smell etc.
It is important that the issue of supporting women and men that report abuse and assault is not twisted in such a way that that our authorities are too scared to believe them, don't you agree?
If a women is raped by 4 men in a flat and they all say that she agreed to it and she says no I didn't. She doesn't have any injuries as such but she displays fear, cries and says she doesn't want a doctor to examine her she just wants to "wash them off". Let's say that they've been to the pub, she has been drinking and followed them up to the flat voluntarily for a party after pub closed. Do you think police, forsakrings kassan and other authorities should not believe her.
Or what about a celebrity who is being assaulted by the celebrity partner?
In regard to the changes of details etc to disguise the identity of the people in "Buried alive", well that is another story.
Just some thoughts.
Jenny
Tack snälla systerdyster! Krämer / Bunni
Hallå söta Unni bunny! Har lånat en dator för att kunna läsa ikapp mig på min favoritblogg(min egen dator är dum nu).Du skriver så klokt som vanligt och aj lav jo! puss och kräm jo,just det,blev så förbannad på Aro och G-W Persson på efterloyst för ett tag sedan när Natalies mördare var på tv.Direkt efter inslaget när man fått se hur hennes pojkvän dödat henne ,sitter G-W och skämtar.Så fruktansvärt smaklöst,empatilöst,jag var så jäkla arg på honom.. idiot.
Så sant som det är sagt!
Jenny, your "what if" scenario has a rather serious flaw: it disables the mechanism that allows the falsely accused to seek exoneration, even when there is a lack of evidence and even when the accuser is a person who displays mythomanic tendencies. A system where all accused are to be considered guilty until proven innocent of various crimes they could have possibly committed unnoticed but have not been formally accused of, is untenable. In the case of Osama Awad, the problem is not only Mia "Eriksson's" lack of evidence of further abuse but also the factual circumstances that disproves some of the claims of continued abuse (that is, abuse beyond what Awad has actually been convicted of). Awad is for example accused by Mia "Eriksson" and Liza Marklund of having committed assaults on the family when he could not possibly have been present at the scene of the crime. he is accused by them of leading a band of Arabs in breaking down the Mia "Eriksson's" door in Sweden and beating the family – but he was actually staying with relatives in Canada at the time and his physical absence from the country is documented in official immigration documents.
The comparison with Unni's abuse is also flawed: Mia "Eriksson" has never officially reported any serious abuse like that suffered by Unni and has never presented any evidence of having suffered that kind of abuse either. On the contrary: Mia "Eriksson" has presented them in book form and in the tabloid press only and when challenged, has relied solely on the claim that an alleged domestic abuse victim must always be believed if the victim is a woman who demonstrates enough emotions to indicate that the accusation is valid (even if the man is smaller and weaker and has been permanently crippled in a car accident in a case of aggrevated assault by a suitor of Mia "Eriksson" who used the car as a deadly weapon, and even if the woman is as big and sturdy as Mia "Eriksson" – the method to determine guilt by judging the strength of the emotions in the abused is applicable only on female victims of abuse). As evident on various television shows through the years, "Eriksson" is pretty efficient at producing tears of self-pity to prove her case. But unfortunately, her modus operandi leaves the field wide open for good actors with melodrama as their specialty, other people who are able to put together compelling performances and win advantages even when hard facts contradict their accusations. This concerns me, which is why I am taking the time to answer you. A person should at least have to be present in the same country during an assault in order to produce reasonable doubts about his innocence, wouldn't you say Jenny? And people sgould, in general, be consdiered innocent until proven guilty? Or perhaps that logic does not apply if the accused happens to be a Muslim immigrant, and thus guilty by definition? Perhaps he really is the black-eyed demon Liza Marklund has made him out to be, the kind of annoying alien apparition she writes that she sometimes finds sneaking around in the periphery in immigrant shops, almost invisible in their brown shirts and dark faces even when they suck on neon-colored sodas?
While it is true that domestic abuse against women often go unreported, an unwillingness to report does not appear to be a problem of Mia "Eriksson's": I believe she has reported abuse from all three men she has children with, even the father of her first child who decided to challenge her claims and who in the end managed to get custody of their son when she abandoned him. The non-Swedish men in her life were not so lucky; Mia "Eriksson" disappeared with Awad's daughter and removed him from her daughter's life forever.
What makes Mia "Eriksson's" story highly problematic is the fact that so many interviewed witnesses say that she is lying, different individuals with no apparent reason to misrepresent the facts, such as representatives for government authorities in Sweden and various persons in her hometown described in her "true" story who have now stepped forward to go on the record with name and picture in Antonsson's book in order to state that the section that concern them, their institution or department is factually incorrect. Among the authorities interviewed are Eva Hedlund, the Secretary of Social Services who was in charge of the social service department during Mia "Eriksson's" flight from Oxelösund, the director of the refugee housing compound where Awad and Mia Eriksson's Chilean husband lived (who states that Mia Eriksson didn't work there as claimed and that there has never been a band of Arab refugees terrorizing Oxelösund), the landlord of the building where she lived (who says there were never any bars installed in front of her windows and no front door was ever lifted off the hinges of her apartment) and the former friends and neighbors (who attest to the fact that Mia Eriksson went to Awad's apartment in a jealous rage several times, screaming "whore" through his mail slot when he was dating other women and when let in, caused damage to the interior, tearing down his curtains in anger over the fact that their relationship was over), and the different owners of inns and hostels where the family lived on their comfortable, all-inclusive holiday flight between inns around the Swedish countryside, paid for by the state through a secret, off-the-record decision by a Social Democrat party member friend of Mia Eriksson's father in an authoritative position within several departments.
It is consequently not only the assaults that are made up to create this financially rewarding book drama, but also unrelated circumstances, such as the accusation against the local church made by "Maria Eriksson" and Liza Marklund. They state in the book that the church refused to protect Chilean immigrants because the local priest considered people who had participated in Pinochet's regime unworthy of help. The concerned priest and church officials have come forward to categorically deny this allegation. They state that the congregation assisted every refuge who turned to them for help and that they were proud to help all who showed up on their doorstep. Other, more obvious lies are the false statements about psychiatric evaluations of Osama Awad presented by Mia "Eriksson" and Liza Marklund. They accuse him of being a psychopath and sociopath, whom they say went through official psychiatric evaluations that show he is damaged psychologically by the war in Lebanon (he is even accused by Marklund/Eriksson of having committed hideous war crimes, slaughtering women and children "with his knife used as a penis"). However, no such psychiatric evaluations exist but are made up from scratch by "Maria Eriksson" and Liza Marklund. In addition, Awad was not stationed in the area where the Muslim refugee camps were attacked and since he is a Muslim himself, he states that he would have been on the side of the people killed in those camps had he actually been present in the area. Another case of the alien demon being in more than one place at the same time, Jenny? Antonsson has presented the official character evaluation done at the time of the abuse case filed against him by Mia Eriksson, which is the only evaluation on record. It concluded that he was healthy, did a good job as an employee at Eletrolux, did not abuse drugs and had no other problems, and ended with a statement that there was no valid reason to keep him under surveillance. The evaluation also presented the criminal record of both parties, and the record shows that both parties had a criminal record: for Mia "Eriksson" the record shows "forgery and suspected fraud" (förfalskande av urkund och eventuellt bedrägeri). This is part of another set of lies presented by "Maria Eriksson" and Liza Marklund: they made many drastic improvements to improve on Mia "Eriksson's" character. She was certainly never accepted to medical school as she has claimed over and over, but went through a special education program and has no higher education. She has lived almost all her productive life as a grown-up on social security and is, according to records presented in Antonsson's book, still collecting disability support from the government of Sweden, in spite of the fact that she has been well enough to work very successfully as an author, making millions of dollars on the "true" books about her flight and asylum in the United States. She truth, according to several persons interviewed, is that she fled Sweden for Chile when the social services recommended that her children be placed in protective custody because of their state of neglect. Mia Eriksson refused to send her daughter to school, and when she fled her hometown the no longer had help from the state-sponsored domestic assistant who had helped her with the household chores before (which is rather unusual for people who are not in need of assistance due to old age or some form of disabling handicap). Mia "Eriksson" eventually refused to leave her bed at all in protest over the fact that the Swedish government had turned down her request for a contribution of SEK 350.000 as a lump sum to the family so they could buy a house in Chile when they wanted to emigrate and start a new life away from all those marauding Arabs who, according to "Eriksson" were even out and about in the deep forest of the vacation paradise of Dalarna to hunt her.
Mia "Eriksson" has been caught in so many exaggerations and lies unrelated to those that concern the alleged abuse by Osama Awad that I'd venture to state that she is a highly unreliable source and her accusations against Awad therefore carry little weight in my opinion. When you take all the evidence into consideration, it is no longer one person's word against another's but a whole choir against a pretty loud and out-of-tune soloist who may be a good performer, but who is unable to hide the false notes. She does not exactly appear to be overly concerned with the truth. Jenny, in the end one is left to wonder: Is there anybody except you and her closest circle, consisting of her parents and siblings, still willing to state that this is a true story with just small changes instigated in order to protect the identity of those involved? Not Liza Marklund at least. She has changed her tune completely and now states that the book is strictly fiction, a tale told from Mia Eriksson's perspective, and tale that she did not really fact check as she has previously claimed but relied on Mia "Eriksson" for. A rather cowardly retreat by a co-author who once kicked Mia "Eriksson" off the front page as a co-author for the second edition in order to claim all the glory for herself as the creator of this questionable tale.
Best, Sophia
Ta mig fan, det här var seriöst! Vilken bloggerska!
Hej Unni!
jag läser ofta din blogg och gillar den,men sluta att skriv om Marklund och gänget!Kramar till dej
Sophia: Tack!
Det som retar mig så svårt är när man som LM sprider dimridåer och försöker förskjuta fokus. Lite, eller ganska mycket på det viset som Jenny gör ovan.
Problematiken är naturligtvis oändligt större för LM och Mia, dem förstår att ett medgivande kommer att öka trycket.
Paradoxalt nog precis som deras nekande.
Jag vet faktiskt inte ens vad jag skulle råda dem, hedervärdast vore väl att betala tillbaka pengarna till alla som köpt boken och som känner sig lurade.
Vad jag däremot vet är att LM, Gio och alla som försöker släta över det här, i fortsättningen har kysst stor del av sin trovärdighet hos mig adjö!
Min gissning är att LM fortfarande har det jobbigaste framför sig i den här soppan.
Med tanke på de personer som har farit illa (sonen, Osama och Hermon) pga LMs fabel, så nej.
Sluta inte skriv om detta Unni, snälla!
Fortsätt stötta Monica.
That´s my two cents…
P.S. En pudel att lära av i närtid är miljöpartisten som efter sitt hjärnsläpp på Newsmill, förbehållslöst bad om ursäkt http://falkopingsskvaller.blogspot.com/2009/02/forlat-jag-hade-fel.html. D.S.
Sophia phu, det var ett bra inlägg. Jag tror inte "jenny" känner innehållet i denna blogg.
Unni, det är dig jag nu ser bredbent med svärdet upphöjt över huvudet som en Kali =) Det är uppfriskande med någon som vågar säga rakt ut hur det är. Vi blir grundlurade varje dag. Av "makten" igenom media. Det är så lätt att glömma att det mesta är ägt och köpt. Hur många kvällstidningslöp är inte köpta varje vecka? Hoppas nu fler fastnar på de rätta ställerna i nätet istället där människor diskuterar sina åsikter gratis och utan en bakomliggande agenda där en osanning måste bändas till sanning för att få tyst på folk.
Läs boken "Kontrasternas Spel" av Per-Johan Ödman (om man inte gjort det.) Hur Svenskarnas mentalitet har blivit formad av "makten" genom tiderna. Den boken öppnade mina ögon. Sen tänker jag på "1984" och ryser.
Jag läser också David Ickeś alster på hans hemsida för att få en annan spegling av det skådespel USA's makthavare nu bjuder världen på. Media är ett MONstER.
Få se hur länge man får tänka fritt i webben, här är det också våra innersta tankar och begär skannas av för analys om hur vi mår och vad vi vill. Orwell skrev att tankarna kan "de" aldrig ta ifrån en människa och det är sant, men på nätet läggs dom ut på silverfat. Det ska bli intressant att följa utvecklingen de närmsta 20 åren. Vad händer när dom gamla papperstidningarna är passé, och fria, obundna nättidningar har tagit över? Med stora bloggar och forum där folk samlas och kommer göra vad? Med Tanken kan man förändra allt? Mycket spännande!
Tack Unni sluta aldrig vara rebel__ kräm xxx
kräma på Soul Rebel med bob och tosh!…………. "im a rebel – let them talk,soul rebel – talk wont bother me.
Im a capturer, soul adventurer, night and day…"
Gah! Riktig vår-sång! xxx
Jag hoppas att ni som skriver så skarpt och välformulerat här förstår hur viktiga ni är. Ibland hinner jag inte svara, men utan er skulle allt kännas meningslöst.
Go, go, go!
Vilka föreställer den fantastiska bilden?!
Sophia, I have pasted a comment that I wrote in response to Ronge's article about Liza Marklund at the end of this comment it clearly defines what concerns me.
In regard to arguments and logic I think perhaps I did not make myself clear. To use an example then, when you refer to Mia as "a person that displays mythomanic tendencies" you are using your opinion as a premise in an argument rather then a proven fact. In the arguments about "the truth" there is a mix of few facts with a majority of opinions and guesses. It is impossible to develop even a reasonable theory out of this. To believe that all people except Mia speaks the truth is for starters simply not reasonable.
I do believe however that when women, men and children do lie about having been abused they do enormous damage to those that really have been abused. To determine what is abuse however is difficult and how we handle the abuse if different depending on our psychological make up. Personally I have overcome child abuse and I have never laid charges because I knew how impossible it would be to proove. However I have met one of my abusers since and that person cannot look me in the eyes. In this instance that is the only justice I will get and I am satisfied with that.
It is important to note that I did not refer to the abuse that Unni was subjected to. I was thinking about the alleged abuse by Papa Dee on her partner. The outcome was quite different there. The abused women said she wasn't abused, however she wasn't believed. It can be difficult for educated people and people of high status to admit even to themselves that they are abused.
On the subject of Unni's abuse, I must say that I admire her courage to report, and I am glad that the police that she reported to, believed her and more importantly did actually write it down. I have worked in non-for-profit organisation (and volunteered) for many years and know how dreadfully common it is. The police are overworked, they do not want to take the time to write the report, often because they think that "she will withdraw her statements anyway". I do not defend this, but it explains whey it happens because abused women often do withdraw their statements. Unfortunately many police also have little or no understanding of issues surrounding abuse and assault.
To read and understand what abuse is, sheds light onto the often relatively irrational behaviour that women and children (and men) that are subjected to abuse displays. I strongly suggest that anyone blogging on this issue do educate themselves thoroughly.
Abused people often defend their abuser, say it was my fault because I provoked him/her etc. It is common that no documented reports are to be found at the police even when the abuse actually has been reported.
Sophia, I do not believe that an abused person's report is to stand unchallanged. In fact there are avenues to argue "the other side" of the story. Unfortunately I have witnessed first hand the results of a women not being believed. Literally no one believed her and I got to know her when I was her support person after she had her throat slit and left for dead.
I have also supported children who after many years reported abuse by parents and step parents. In particular I remember the "upstanding community member" who stood accused after his oldest son stood up in order to protect his younger brother. The jury in the case felt that the abuse happened "so long ago", why drag it up now. This, now young man went through so much pain and suffering dealing with his abuse to deal with his shame of people knowing. He went through this for his much younger brother and this was the result. The jury thought he was exaggerating and thought him mean to destroy his father's career for something that happened so long ago. I don't think the jurors are bad people, they just don't know much about abuse. Every person abusing is somebody's father, brother, uncle, son, mother, daughter, aunty, neighbour, teacher etc. They are just ordinary people and it is scary to believe it happens. It is easier to think it can't be that bad. I say: yes it can, whether it is in Sweden or anywhere else.
Anyway, here is the comment I posted on Ronge Kommunikation:
Do consider that people may not “choose” the side of Liza Marklund nor Mia, but rather that they are concerned about the damage “drevet mot LM” does to abused women and children by arguing that to believe a woman’s word is not sufficient proof even though it has been established that she has indeed been assaulted. It is reasonable to believe that threats have been made and that abuse other than what Osama was found guilty of has also taken place. If Mia’s second husband was under threat because of what he has done to Osama, it is reasonable to believe that Mia was threatened also. Even if she was not it is reasonable that she was scared. If you’ve been hit and threatened, you don’t stop being scared of your abuser just because he/she has been found guilty and served his/her sentence.
There appear to be no or little insight and awareness amongst the “bearers of truth” in relation to the complex issues surrounding abuse. And “in the name of truth” and in your belief that everybody except Mia speaks the truth you show absolute disregard to the subject matter. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water and no one cares. You just wants the truth to be known. What proof does Osama have that will convince the Swedish people that he “only” abused Mia three times (for which he was convicted) and that he never threatened her?
Please pause and step back, get some perspective.
You constantly refer to the people affected in Oxelesund, Osama and Micke in particular. I cannot see any recent comments from them and wonder how they feel about you speaking almost “on behalf” of them. It is as if their lives, thoughts and feelings have become public property, free for all. I am aware that they have spoken out themselves and appeared publicly. However, who stops to consider how they may feel now? Do they want to continue to be heard? If so, do they prefer to have their own say rather than have other people speak for them?
I’m just wondering.
All the best to all involved (more or less).
Jenny
det skulle vara kul om bloggvärlden kunde ringa in mer alternativa debatter.oftast tycker jag det bara blir kommentarer på medie elitens korrumperande svärmerier…då blir man pigg när du Unni inte behöver vara så PK(politisk korrekt) hela tiden..mediekåren granskar ju makter i samhället men det skulle vara på sin plats med lite granskandet av ved de själva pysslar med.du är en samhällskraft att lita på Unni!