ARTICLE: How Chilcot will whitewash the Iraq War

Hat tip: http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/05/heres-chilcot-will-whitewash-iraq-war/

The long awaited report from the UK government’s inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq is going to be released on Wednesday.

But make no mistake: the process was designed from the start to let decision-makers off the hook for their roles in an illegal invasion that has destroyed a country and paved the way for the rise of the Islamic State.

A hint at the report’s findings were revealed by Lord Butler, who led a previous 2004 Iraq inquiry, which concluded that while Tony Blair had been “wrong” about Saddam Hussein’s WMD capacity, he did not deliberately deceive anyone:

“You can see the mistakes that deceived the intelligence community into thinking Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I have talked to the agencies and I hope that they have learnt the lessons from that,” said Butler.

Conflict of interest

Sir John Chilcot, who chairs the current inquiry, was a member of Butler’s team for that previous inquiry. The secretary of the current inquiry is Margaret Aldred, who was previously deputy head of Defence and Overseas Secretariat (subsequently Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat).

According to the Cabinet Office Annual Report and Resource Accounts for 2004/5, when Aldred began her role:

The Defence and Overseas Secretariat (DOS) has been at the forefront in coordinating the Government’s policy in Iraq following the end of the conflict with regular meetings of ministers, senior officials and video conferencing with officials in Iraq. Over the past year, DOS has coordinated policy development on Iraq.

Yet Aldred herself, despite being someone involved in the government’s Iraq policy, has not been called as a witness to the inquiry – although her successor in the same post was.

Chilcot and his aides refused to disclose information on Aldred’s own role in government policy on Iraq. As noted by Chris Ames, editor of the Iraq Inquiry Digest which has tracked the inquiry since it began:

The Inquiry’s willingness and ability to reveal the extent of her role is clearly compromised by the fact that she is its secretary. In concealing the conflict of interest, the Inquiry is concealing the truth of what happened.

Ames noted that the inquiry would have “little credibility” if it refused to come clean about its own connections to the government’s Iraq policy.

The first casualty

This should not be a surprise given that the first inquiry by Lord Butler was already a bankrupt whitewash of the highest order.

Butler’s report (6.4 para, p. 499), for instance, claimed it was “well-founded” that Saddam Hussein was trying to illegally obtain uranium for his so-called advanced nuclear weapons programme, from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The allegation was based on forged documents, which Butler claimed the British had no idea were forged.

Butler’s pathetic, fantastical version of events is so astonishingly absurd that it is not taken seriously by any journalist or historian who actually understands the Niger uranium intelligence scandal. Yet somehow in legitimate public discourse, it is still considered credible – and Butler receives ample air time with a straight face, without a single question about his role in obscuring the facts.

Don’t worry, you’re not going mad. This is the exceptional state of British journalism today.

In 2012, I and a team at the Institute for Policy Research & Development conducted our own peer-reviewed independent investigation into the public record data concerning Saddam’s alleged efforts to get uranium from Niger.

In our report, Executive Decisions: How British Intelligence was Hijacked for the Iraq War – which was submitted to Chilcot’s inquiry – we pointed out that Britain’s White Paper on Iraqi WMD made the uranium claims, despite the British having being warned by George Tenet, head of the CIA, not to include them.

The claim traces back to ‘intelligence’ that was examined and discredited way back in 1999. Falsified documents were discovered in the form of written correspondence between officials in Niger and Iraqi agents. The documents had been submitted to the CIA by British officials.

But the documents were quickly dismissed at the time and found to be crude forgeries containing laughable errors: names and titles not matching individuals in office at the time; the Niger government’s letterhead being obviously cut and pasted, and the signature of a government official who had retired long ago having been forged.

Senior officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) described the documents as “so bad” that he could “not imagine they came from a serious intelligence agency.” The IAEA confirmed the forgery within hours.

But years later, this rank bullshit still made it into Britain’s official ‘intelligence’ assessment of the state of Iraq’s WMDs. It was then conveniently quoted by President Bush in his State of the Union address to Congress in 2003, helping to rile up public support for war.

Sadly, you won’t find the self-righteous pundit class lambasting the venal culture of self-serving power that allowed the systematic concoction of such “conspiracy theories” against official enemies to flourish in the heart of Whitehall.

Lies? What lies?

And here lays bare the methodology of vindication to be deployed by Chilcot and his friends: admit real failures, loudly condemn officials for failing, but contextualise the decisions leading up to the failures as entirely unintentional, then ultimately blame the failure on faulty systems across government.

The most that Blair and his warmongering friends can be accused of, then, is bad management.

But here’s the reality: the regurgitation of discredited forged nonsense as ‘British intelligence’ – which had already been rejected by the CIA and IAEA – speaks not to ‘faulty intelligence’ but to the deliberate ‘politicisation of intelligence.’

But false intelligence did not make its way inexplicably into the intelligence system because our intelligence agencies are underfunded and badly organised, and really, really believed what they were saying, poor darlings.

It made its way in, because political leaders made pre-conceived, ideological decisions about going to war.

Those decisions were untenable if the intelligence wasn’t there to back their decisions. So they exerted massive pressure on the intelligence community to find or make that intelligence.

Cherry picking

In leaked UK government memoranda between March and July 2002, references are repeatedly made to “poor” intelligence about WMD, and the “thin” case for war that it presented.

Indeed, then head of MI6, Richard Dearlove, confirms that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of regime change, “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”

Senior intelligence officers in MI6 and the CIA also confirmed that intelligence was being deliberately manufactured to support “the opposite conclusion from the one they have drawn.”

One MI6 officer said:

You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence. Yet that is what the PM is doing.

And a CIA official concurred:

We’ve gone from a zero position, where presidents refused to cite detailed intel as a source, to the point now where partisan material is being officially attributed to these agencies.

Chilcot’s abject failure to get to the bottom of this reveals the extent to which our democratic checks and balances in foreign policy decision-making are fundamentally broken – and confirms the institutional lack of accountability that allows this broken system to continue unabated.

The Chilcot report will be used to let the people who lied their way into war off the hook. It will also reinforce the idea that they did so with unquestioned benevolence, despite terrible and regrettable failures of management and judgement.

Don’t be surprised to find much of the pundit class – who, by the way, overwhelmingly and shamelessly clamoured for the invasion – chorusing in agreement.

They have blood on their hands too.

ARTICLE: Oppression Finally Arrives in the British Police State

Hat-tip: http://www.westernspring.co.uk/gagging-camerons-counter-extremism-measures/

“Over generations, we in Britain have built something extraordinary: a successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy. Our country today is more vibrant, buoyant and diverse than ever before in our history.” These are the opening words of our Prime Minister David Cameron’s forward to the document presenting his government’s ‘Counter Extremism Strategy’, and all people grounded in reality will recognise at once how delusional they are. While the population of Britain are indeed more ‘diverse’ than ever before, no-one outside of a funny-farm, and certainly no-one with first-hand experience of life in our inner cities, could possibly describe our society as currently more vibrant, or more buoyant than ever before.

David Cameron then goes on to talk about the ‘British values’ of freedom, inclusivity and democracy that we have, according to him, come to cherish.

One might think that with all the ‘vibrancy’ and ‘buoyancy’ that our increased ‘diversity’ has brought us that we British people would be falling over ourselves to welcome even more ‘diversity’, and that there would be no need for duress on the part of the Government to persuade us that we must accept more. All is not as David Cameron pretends however, because the ‘Counter Extremism Strategy’ aims to prevent the polarisation of our society in which disparate communities and disparate individuals reject the government’s insistence that we must all live happily, cheek-by-jowl with people who are alien to our way of life. In short, the Counter Extremism Strategy is intended to intimidate communities into accepting the imposition of multiculturalism and multiracialism that few people actually want.

If we truly had built something ‘extraordinary’, a ‘successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy’, with greater ‘vibrancy’ and ‘buoyancy’ than ‘ever before in our history’, there would be no need for the government’s Counter Extremism Strategy. This whole issue therefore, and the government’s position is predicated on a lie.

David Cameron goes on, “One of the greatest threats we face is the scourge of extremism from those who want to divide us. We see it in sickening displays of neo-Nazism, Islamophobia, antisemitism and, of course, Islamist extremism”, oh, of course!

David Cameron says, “… of course, Islamist extremism”, in order to emphasise the only form of extremism that the indigenous British are actually concerned about. His focus here on ‘Islamist extremism’ is intended to distract us from the real intention of the legislation being proposed and to provide the Draconian measures planned with an element of ‘sugar coating’, making them easier to swallow.

Cameron states that government has in the past been “too tolerant of intolerance”, and with regard to Islamic extremism he is right, however with three Race Relations Acts, in 1965, 1968 and then 1976, and finally the Equalities Act of 2010, each act ratcheting-up the restrictions on our freedom of action and freedom of speech regarding race, government have already taken very oppressive steps where so-called right-wing extremism is concerned.

At any time over the last sixty or seventy years government could have almost completely defused the race issue in this country, by simply halting mass immigration from the Third World and by allowing people the freedom to discriminate as we see fit. This would have significantly limited the impact of non-White immigration on our society and by not forcing disparate peoples into contact with each other, public resentment would have greatly diminished. This would have been the response of a moderate government, but sadly, successive governments have not been moderate, they have sought to flood our country with non-White immigrants and to force us to interact with them at every step and turn of our lives. We have been governed by a succession of extremist governments, with the extreme aim of forcibly creating a multiracial society and inducing our people miscegenate.

The Race Relations Act 1965 represents the measures that the Labour government of Harold Wilson thought appropriate in 1965. The measures contained were considered the limit of what could be achieved in terms of coercing the British people forcing us to submit to the presence of a significant non-White population in this country. By 1968 however, the Wilson government thought they could get away with more and they introduced more extreme measures, and by 1976 the Labour government of James Callaghan introduced even more extreme measures.

Finally, came the Equalities Act 2010, which creates an onus on every government department and every public body to take active steps to promote ‘diversity’ and suppress any expression of opposition. The race relations regime established by the Equalities act creates a rigid legislative framework making discrimination virtually impossible and making public dissent from the ostensible goals of tolerance and diversity so costly as to be untenable.

The measures incorporated within the Equalities Act however, were thankfully only designed to punish those who break the law, and this is where the governments proposed counter extremism measures go right off the ‘Richter scale’ of law enforcement measures as far as civilised Western nations are concerned. The new measures include measures to ‘disrupt’ the lives of people who have not broken the law, but who are judged by the authorities to hold and disseminate views with which the government disagrees.

“We will disrupt extremists, aggressively …” says David Cameron, “We will disrupt all those who seek to spread hate and we will prosecute all those who break the law”, adds the Home Secretary Theresa May. Let us be clear, when a government imposes measures that disrupt the lives of its citizens simply because those citizens hold beliefs that are contrary to those of the government, and in circumstances where the citizens concerned have neither employed violence nor broken the law, this is not ‘law enforcement’, it is not ‘protecting the people’, it is not ‘good government’, it is out-and-out oppression!

Illustrating the hypocrisy of these new measures, the government document detailing the proposed counter extremism strategy begins Chapter One with the words: “Life in our country is based on fundamental values that have evolved over centuries, values that are supported and shared by the overwhelming majority of the population and are underpinned by our most important local and national institutions. These values include the rule of law, democracy, individual liberty, and the mutual respect, tolerance and understanding of different faiths and beliefs”.

It does not seem to have occurred to David Cameron or Theresa May that ‘the rule of law’, means that government does not act outside of the law by persecuting with disruption orders, those who have been law abiding. It does not occur to them that a central tenet of ‘democracy’ is the right of freedom of expression, a freedom that successive rafts of so-called hate-speech legislation has already substantially curtailed, or that ‘individual liberty’ confers upon people, freedom of belief, and freedom of conscience. That is, the freedom to hold beliefs not shared by the government and in some instances directly opposed to those of the government, providing the people holding those beliefs act within the law.

In Chapter Two of the government document, it states under the heading ‘Disrupting Extremists, “We will create new targeted powers, flexible enough to cover the full range of extremist behaviour, including where extremists sow division in our communities and seek to undermine the rule of law”. Furthermore, in Chapter Five, dealing specifically with ‘Disrupting Extremists’, it continues, “there remain extremists in our society who cause an immense amount of harm, while being careful to stay just the right side of the law. In addition to strengthening our use of existing powers against such extremists, we will introduce new, carefully targeted powers to challenge the most active and persistent individuals and groups”.

Bear in mind here, the government are not talking about terrorist groups being targeted for disruption, nor are they talking about criminal organisations that break the law, they are talking about ‘disrupting’, that is, persecuting people for simply holding and disseminating dissident beliefs. These are the sort of tactics which a generation ago, and perhaps even a decade ago would only be associated with totalitarian regimes, or autocratic governments in Africa or Asia.

The government document continues: “The police have a range of powers to deal with extremists. However these powers are neither comprehensive nor are they always flexible enough to respond to the risk. For example it is not currently possible to ban groups which stir up racial hatred, or to stop the activities of extremists who deliberately set out to sow divisions between communities and encourage young people to reject the fundamental values and institutions on which our society is based.

“We will therefore introduce new powers to: ban extremist organisations that promote hatred and draw people into extremism; restrict the harmful activities of the most dangerous extremist individuals; and restrict access to premises which are repeatedly used to support extremism.”

When we realise how low the threshold is becoming in terms of the authorities deciding what is considered to be racial hatred, the implications of the above two paragraphs become frighteningly clear. The ‘working definition of anti-Semitism’, which is currently being promoted in government circles by Jewish groups, asserts that, “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations”, amounts to anti-Semitism, and as we all know, in the minds of Judeophiles, anti-Semitism is the most heinous form of racism. Therefore, we can expect to see certain nationalist organisations banned under the government’s new measures.

The measures that have already been vested in the Home Secretary under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, include:

House arrest;
Travel restrictions and/or denial of passport;
Exclusion from certain geographical areas;
Denial of banking or other financial services;
Banning from buying or selling property;
Banning the use of computers or telephones;
Banning association with certain other individuals;
Proscribing certain kinds of work or study; or
Electronic tagging and/or curfews.

Refusal to comply with such a disruption measure would of course be an arrestable criminal offence.

Most importantly, we must make as many people as possible aware of these new measures and the way in which they deviate into naked oppression in a way that the law in the UK has not done for hundreds of years or more. These measures will undermine democracy in the name of protecting democracy; they will undermine the rule of law while professing to do the opposite and they will similarly undermine freedom of belief and freedom of conscience, and we must make our people beyond the nationalist community aware of this. We must make them understand that if government find they can behave in such a cavalier fashion without any adverse repercussions, this kind of crude and lazy law enforcement will increase, sweeping aside the civil rights of everyone and sooner or later we will all find ourselves living in a police state.

14/6/15: ARTICLE: U.K. Squanders £5.2 million of YOUR Money on Foreign Celebrity Jolly

• Former foreign secretary spent four days hosting London summit last year But no summit on the 1,400 children who were raped and sexually abused in Britain.
  
• Food bill came to £299,000 while taxis, hotels and transport cost £576,000 This amount totals £875,000 that could be spent on investigating the 1,400 children who were raped and sexually abused in Britain. 
  
• Foreign Office annual budget to tackle sexual violence in conflict is £11m What about spending £11million on tackling rape and sexual abuse in the U.K.?
  
• American Bar Association in Congo said rape prosecutions had fallen They are falling in the U.K., too, because the government, judiciary, and police are actively covering up the crimes and wasting money elsewhere to deflect attention.
  

ABOVE: 1,400 Child Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs Discovered in Rotherham, UK

This is what YOU are voting for.

William Hague faced criticism as it emerged that a high-profile summit he held with Angelina Jolie about rape in war zones cost more than £5million.The former foreign secretary spent four days hosting the lavish summit in London last summer, which he said would help to eliminate the scourge of sexual violence in conflict.The food bill alone came to more than £299,000 while spending on taxis, hotels and transport for dignitaries came to £576,000, according to figures obtained under Freedom of Information laws.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3123755/William-Hague-s-three-day-global-rape-summit-Angelina-Jolie-London-summer-cost-5-2million-host-rate-sexual-violence-conflict-zones-increasing.html#ixzz3d4vgPO8n

(Tue 9/6/15) Article: Expenses and sex scandal deleted from MPs’ Wikipedia pages by computers inside Parliament

 

The Expenses Scandal 2009: Remember all these crimes committed that we the People would have been imprisoned for? http://eotp.org/expenses-09/

References to ‘chauffeur-driven cars’ and a criminal arrest wiped from online biographies in run-up to election

Expense claims and a Westminster sex scandal were deleted from MPs’ Wikipedia pages by computers inside Parliament before the election, The Telegraph has found.
Details of a police arrest, electoral fraud allegation and the use of “chauffeur-driven cars” were also been wiped by people inside the Commons.
The revelation will raise suspicion MPs or their political parties deliberately hid information from the public online to make candidates appear more electable to voters.

More than a dozen online biographies of sitting MPs were doctored from computers with IP addresses owned by the Houses of Parliament in the run-up to the election.
Requests for comment were made to all the MPs in question via their party press offices, but just a handful replied to say the changes had nothing to do with them.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia kept up to date by users. However each change is tracked and linked to an IP address – a unique string of numbers that identifies each computer using an internet network.

By looking at the changes made by computers with IP addresses owned by the Houses of Parliament it is possible to see what edits are being made from inside the Commons.

The Telegraph has discovered persistent changes to MPs’ biographies made from Parliament in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to hide embarrassing information from the electorate.

(2014) Tory party donors are handed NHS contracts worth £1.5BILLION under health reforms

                                                                        

ABOVE: £692,592 donor: Paul Ruddock’s firm has profited from NHS contracts

Private health care firms with Tory links have been awarded NHS contracts worth nearly £1.5billion.

Circle Health landed £1.36billion worth of health service work after several ­of its investors gifted about £1.5million to the Conservatives.

And Care UK has contracts worth another £102.6million. Its chairman John Nash was made a peer after boosting Tory coffers by £247,250.

Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham, who ­uncovered the figures, fumed: “Nobody gave David Cameron ­permission to sell the NHS to his friends.

“It’s shocking the same Tory donors who ­bankrolled the development of their NHS reorganisation policy are now ­profiting from the sell-off of NHS services.”

Labour’s research shows Circle Health’s parent company, Circle Holdings PLC, is owned by a series of hedge funds.

Lansdowne Partners, with a 29.2% stake, was founded by Sir Paul Ruddock, who donated £692,592 to the Tories.

David Craigen, who gave the party £59,000, is also involved in Lansdowne.

Invesco Perpetual owns 28.7% of Circle Holdings. It was set up by Sir Martyn Arbib, who donated £466,330.

Read on:  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-tory-party-donors-handed-3123469

VIDEO: We’re at War!

VIDEO: So Bad it Should be Illegal

ARTICLE: MPs to escape expenses investigations after paperwork destroyed by Parliament

Lets take a look at the rap sheet of the parasites in power: The Expenses Scandal 2009. Had we the public done the same we would have been imprisoned for theft, fraud, and tax evasion. Welcome to the two tier system where the parasites are by any objective measure evidently above the law.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT: “PARASITE: A creature which obtains food and physical protection from a host which never benefits from its presence.” (Chambers English Dictionary)

House of Commons authorities have destroyed all evidence of MPs’ expenses claims prior to 2010, meaning end of official investigations into scandal.

 

MPs accused of abusing the unreformed expenses system will escape official investigation after the House of Commons authorities destroyed all record of their claims, the Telegraph can reveal.
John Bercow, the Speaker, faces accusations he has presided over a fresh cover-up of MPs’ expenses after tens of thousands of pieces of paperwork relating to claims made before 2010 under the scandal-hit regime were shredded.
Members of the public who have written to Kathryn Hudson, the standards watchdog, to raise concerns about their MP’s claims have been told there can be no investigation due to lack of evidence.
Under the House of Commons’ “Authorised Records Disposal Practice”, which is overseen by Mr Bercow’s committee, records of MPs’ expenses claims are destroyed after three years. The move is necessary to comply with data protection laws, a Commons spokesman said.
However, under that same set of guidelines, the pay, discipline and sickness records of Commons staff are kept until their 100th birthday. Health and safety records are kept for up to 40 years, while thousands of other classes of official documents on the day-to-day running of the House are stored indefinitely in the Parliamentary Archive.

Read on:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/11204405/MPs-to-escape-expenses-investigations-after-paperwork-destroyed-by-Parliament.html

 

 

 

(2014) New Labour’s Tax Evasion -AGAIN

 

Yet again the “party of the worker” doesn’t practice what it preaches. But then, what else should we expect from parasites? Here is New Labour’s last tax evasion: http://eotp.org/tag/tax-evasion/

A property company run by the Labour Party has paid no tax in eight years, despite earning millions of pounds in rental revenues, the Daily Telegraph can reveal.

Labour Party Properties Limited (LPPL), which owns a £6.3m portfolio of properties, has paid no corporation tax since 2003.
In those eight years the company has received a total of £8.7m in rents but declared losses of £279,000.
A Labour Party spokesman said the firm had done nothing to intentionally cut its tax bill.
Ed Miliband has repeatedly accused multi-national companies such as Starbucks and Google of failing to pay their full share of tax.
The latest accounts show LPPL, which is wholly owned by the Labour Party and whose directors include Iain McNicol, the Labour Party general secretary, received £1,189,000 in rent from 21 properties in 2011. Around forty per cent of the portfolio, worth £2.5m, is rented on the open market, while the other buildings are leased to local parties as offices and social clubs.

Read on:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10260728/Labours-property-firm-paid-no-tax-for-eight-years.html

ARTICLE: Government gave money to notorious Paedophile Information Exchange on the orders of Special Branch, claims Home Office whistleblower

• Former government employee says he saw evidence PIE was given grant
• He claims the money was paid to group under orders of Special Branch
• Insider says he thought funding was ‘inappropriate and outrageous’ but his pleas were shrugged off by his boss at the time 
• Follows report which found that abuse ring ‘might have been covered up’

A Home Office whistleblower today repeated his claims the government department funded the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) on the orders of the police.

Former civil servant Tim Hulbert said money was transferred to the organisation on the orders of the Metropolitan Police’s Special Branch.

Mr Hulbert worked in the Voluntary Services Unit of the Home Office which approved grants to various outside organisations in the late 1970s and early 80s.

He said he went to his manager after seeing that funding was being given to PIE – the lobby group formed in the 1970s to campaign for a reduction in the age of consent – but his concerns were shrugged off.

Former Home Office employee Tim Hulbert said the department provided funding to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), on the orders of the Metropolitan Police’s Special Branch

The retired government worker told Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘Every quarter, the list of current grants that were up for consideration for financial support would be circulated through the office and I believe that I saw a copy of that which referred to the re-funding of PIE.

‘It was an organisation that was campaigning for the reduction of the age of consent to four. I thought that was inappropriate and outrageous and for a government department to be funding it, I thought was wrong.

‘I went to see my boss and he told me, firstly, that PIE was a legitimate campaigning organisation and it did have significant links to the National Council for Civil Liberties and other organisations that were recognised.

‘Secondly, I was told that it was being funded a the request of Special Branch.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2831219/Government-gave-money-Paedophile-Information-Exchange-group-says-Home-Office-whistleblower.html#ixzz3JDJnk9GZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

ARTCILE: Cameron attacked by sexual abuse victims after calling claims of Home Office cover-up a ‘conspiracy theory’

Oh, a ‘conspiracy theory’ is it? The evidence suggests not. Ca-moron’s exercise in damage limitation. -Ed.

 

 

 

• NSPCC boss Peter Wanless calls the Prime Minister’s comments ‘wrong’
• National Association for People Abused in Childhood says it’s ‘appalling’
• Came as the Home Secretary admitted there may have been a cover-up

Campaigners for survivors of child sexual abuse have savaged David Cameron after he called claims of a Home Office paedophile cover-up a ‘conspiracy theory’.

Referring to the findings of a review into allegations of a VIP paedophile ring, the Prime Minister said on the campaign trail in Rochester that ‘conspiracy theorists’ would have to ‘look elsewhere’.

Last night the author of that review flatly called Mr Cameron’s comments ‘wrong’, while the National Association for People Abused in Childhood said his intervention was ‘appalling’.

It seemed to directly contradict an extraordinary admission by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, that there ‘might have been a cover-up’ of an Establishment paedophile ring by her department in the 1980s.

The comments by Mrs May and Mr Cameron came after the publication of a report into how her department handled papers relating to alleged child abusers at Westminster.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2831025/Cameron-attacked-sexual-abuse-victims-calling-claims-Home-Office-cover-conspiracy-theory.html#ixzz3JDCFF7F1

(VIDEO) Prime Sinister David Cameron Offensively Lashes out against Americans

VIDEO: Thomas Sherridan Joins Ian R Crane to Discuss Widespread Vote-rigging in the Scottish Referendum

THIS EPISODE :
– SCOTLAND … Arising from the Ashes of a vote fix?
– CAMORON says “Non-Violent Extremists as dangerous as Islamic State”!
– Were UK MP’s bullied into supporting another illegal war?
– Australian Government introduces Orwellian Surveillance Laws
– Dr David Ray Griffin : 9/11 – A New Pearl Harbour
– The Global Political Awakening …. Bring it on!

ARTICLE: Prime Minister David Cameron Says “Non-Violent Conspiracy Theorists” Are Just As Dangerous As ISIS

..So if we send our enemies flowers and not bombs we are, by our dissident mindset, still ‘terrorists’ and will therefore feel the full wrath of the State? Welcome to post-Modernity, people… WE ARE ALL ‘TERRORISTS’ NOW.

 

David Cameron told the U.N. that “non-violent extremism” is just as dangerous as terrorism and must be eradicated using all means at the government’s disposal.

He references 9/11 and 7/7 Truthers as examples of the type of extremism that must be dealt in a similar fashion to ISIS.

If you thought Obama’s War is Peace speech to the U.N. was creepy, wait until you get a load of this.

Cameron is officially announcing a the plan to use a full assault on dissenting views.

 

Hat tip: http://www.globalresearch.ca/david-cameron-says-non-violent-conspiracy-theorists-are-just-as-dangerous-as-isis/5404412?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=david-cameron-says-non-violent-conspiracy-theorists-are-just-as-dangerous-as-isis

 

 

(2014) “Conservative” Party’s Warmonger Brooks Newmark -RESIGNS IN DISGRACE AMID SENDING PORNOGRAPHIC PHOTOS OF HIMSELF TO A REPORTER

ABOVE: Brooks Newmark MP and his flight of fancy who he presumed is more appealing than his wife.

A Tory minister leading David Cameron’s drive for more women in politics exchanged X-rated photos with an undercover reporter posing as a female party activist.

Married dad-of-five Brooks Newmark, 56, who co-founded campaign group Women2Win, stepped down as Minister for Civil Society yesterday – and today admitted he had been “a complete fool”.

The MP for Braintree, Essex swapped sexually explicit images and asked to meet the reporter, who was posing as a young Tory PR girl called Sophie while investigating the alleged inappropriate use of social media by MPs.

Newmark initiated a private message conversation online and, during ­flirtatious chats and photo exchanges, sent a graphic snap exposing himself while wearing a pair of paisley pyjamas.

During a late-night chat with the undercover reporter, who had sent him an explicit picture supposedly of “Sophie”, Newmark asked for a more explicit picture “without your hands in the way and legs parted”. He then said: “I will send you something in return – that way we each have a secret.”

The sleaze scandal will send shock waves through Downing Street as the Tories state their case for re-election at their party conference this week.

It heaps fresh embarrassment on the Prime Minister who faces accusations of sexism after failing to attract women to take up leading political positions.

The male reporter, a freelance ­journalist who passed the information to the Sunday Mirror, was carrying out an undercover probe into claims by sources that MPs were using social media networks to meet women.

Posing as a “twenty-something Tory PR girl” called Sophie Wittams, he set up a Twitter account featuring a profile picture of an attractive blonde female and began following several MPs.

ABOVE: Cry-baby Ca-moron knowing he and his traitors in the “Conservative” party are finished. Two Tory MPs have already defected to UKIP. 

After posting a string of innocuous public tweets about tennis, Sophie was then followed by Newmark, who sent her a direct private message on July 6 saying: “Glad you appreciate my humour and how seriously I take my sport!”

He initiated a lighthearted chat about his “mundane” political tweets and asked her to follow him on Facebook.

Three days later Newmark invited Sophie to a Women2Win event and told her to “feel free to drop by Parliament anytime for a chat”.

He then said it would be easier for them to communicate over the phone via text messages and gave her his personal mobile number.

The pair continued to chat on the networking site Whatsapp where they initially discussed Sophie going on blind dates with other men.

On the evening of July 16, after Sophie told him she was lying in bed, Newmark wrote: “By the way I have no idea what you look like so post a pic to me on Whatsapp so I know what you look like when I meet you.”

In reply to a picture Sophie sent after midnight, the balding MP sent a picture of himself sitting on his bed and wearing a white T-shirt.

He forwarded another of himself below the waist as he reclined on his bed watching television in a pair of dark blue and red paisley pyjamas.

Sophie wrote: “Should I send another pic that is the question.” Newmark replied: “Wasn’t that the deal?”

Sophie asked how far he was willing to go. He wrote: “That’s very brave talk.”The reporter then sent a more intimate image, supposedly of Sophie, and Newmark wrote back saying: “You took my breath away!”

He then sent her a close-up of him with his hand covering his bare chest.

The pair discussed taking “it to the next level” before Sophie replied with an explicit naked picture and asked him to promise not to show anyone.

Newmark wrote: “You must be kidding! I’d never do that. But resend without your hand in the way and legs parted and I will send something in return. That way we both have a secret.” He added: “Assuming it meets my request and I reciprocate you MUST swear on a stack of Bibles you won’t show pics as I promise not to show pics of you? OK?”

The MP then sent a graphic image of himself to the reporter.

It comes as Westminster faces angry calls to crackdown on a culture of lechery and sexism in the wake of several sex scandals including accusations made against Lib Dem Lord Rennard by female party members.

Ministers are bound by a strict code of conduct requiring them to uphold “the highest standards of propriety”. Two days after sending the explicit snap he sent another message saying: “I want a standing full body shot but you can cover up any modest bits you wish.”

SOURCE: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-minister-brooks-newmark-quits-4335398#ixzz3EdlBDPZH

ARTICLE: House of Perks: MPs claim record £103mn in expenses

MPs’ staff, travel and accommodation costs reached £103 million last year, up from £99 million the previous year and £95 million in 2009 – the peak of the parliamentary expenses scandal.

More than £80 million was spent on staff salaries and £11 million on office costs. The bill for accommodation, covering hotels, rented homes and utility bills, was £6.9 million, while £4.5 million were claimed for travel and subsistence.

The Democratic Unionist Party’s Jim Shannon had the biggest claim at £229,262, including £38,215 on travel and £12,126 on hotels.

The bill for MPs’ expenses reached record levels last year, as more politicians put their spouses and children on the public payroll.

A total of 170 MPs employed relatives, at a cost of more than £4 million. The previous year, 150 MPs had family members on the payroll.

Senior Conservatives who employ relations include Defence Secretary Michael Fallon and Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. Laurence Robertson, the MP for Tewkesbury, employs his ex-wife and his wife. Anne Adams is paid £40,000 to £45,000 as a senior parliamentary assistant, while his ex-wife Susan Robertson gets paid £25,000 to £30,000 as a senior secretary.

Andy Silvester, from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Taxpayers will be deeply concerned that the cost of Westminster is going up again.

“David Cameron pledged to reduce the cost of politics after the excesses of the expenses scandal. Politicians must be held accountable for their promises. Combined with the ever-increasing number of peers, that promise looks increasingly difficult to keep.”

He added that there was “nothing wrong with employing family members if they’re qualified for the job, but there needs to be total transparency whenever that’s the case.”

The details were released in an annual report by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) on Thursday, which was set up to handle MPs’ pay after the 2009 expenses scandal.

In 2009, the Telegraph revealed that MPs misused their allowances for private purposes for years, causing public outrage. The political scandal resulted in arrests, resignations and dismissals, as well as public apologies and the repayment of expenses. Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who claimed back expenses for her husband’s adult movies, was one of the high-profile politicians that were exposed.

IPSA chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said reforms to the system had saved £58 million over four years. He said: “Such is the progress made since the scandals which came to light in 2009, our work is attracting the attention of parliaments around the world.”

This week, Marcial Boo, IPSA’s chief executive, proposed that MPs should get a 9 percent pay rise next year, arguing that MPs did an important job and should not be paid a “miserly amount.” David Cameron, whose basic salary as prime minister is £142,500, has opposed the salary increase for MPs.

The basic annual salary for MPs currently stands at £67,060, two and a half times the UK average salary of £26,500.

Source: http://rt.com/uk/187252-mps-claim-record-expenses/

STATE CRIME: Videos and Analysis of Vote-rigging in the Scottish Referendum

RON PAUL SUSPECTS FOUL IN SCOTLAND REFERENDUM!

Scottish referendum: Police investigate electoral fraud probe in Glasgow

PETITION: We the undersigned demand a revote of the Scottish Referendum, counted by impartial international parties.

VOTE FRAUD IN SCOTTISH REFERENDUM?

 

WARNING: Something terrible could be happening in Parliament on Monday

This is from Tom Watson MP. If he’s right, it’s vitally important that you read the following and act on it:

Last Thursday there was a curious announcement in the Chamber of the House of Commons. At the session to announce future business, Leader of the House, Andrew Lansley said this:

“Monday 14th July — consideration of a Bill, followed by a motion to approve the first report from the Committee on Standards on the respect policy”

If you look on Parliament’s web site tonight, you will not see the name, nor the text of the Bill to be considered.

None of your elected backbench MPs have been told what Bill is to be debated on Monday. It’s Wednesday evening. Tomorrow, MPs are on a ‘one line whip’ ie they can return to their constituencies this evening.

Imagine how outrageous it would be, if tomorrow, the government were to announce emergency legislation to an empty chamber. Imagine if that emergency legislation was to be introduced on Monday or Tuesday, with the intention of it slipping through the Commons and the Lords in a single day. Imagine if that Bill was the deeply controversial Data Retention Bill.

It’s a Bill that will override the views of judges who have seen how the mass collection of your data breaches the human rights of you and your family.

Regardless of where you stand on the decision of the European Court of Justice, can you honestly say that you want a key decision about how your personal data is stored to be made by a stitch up behind closed doors and clouded in secrecy?

None of your MPs have even read this legislation, let alone been able to scrutinise it.

The very fact that the Government is even considering this form of action, strongly suggests that they have an expectation that the few people on the Liberal Democrat and Labour front benchers who have seen this legislation, are willing to be complicit.

No matter what you think about this issue, if you care about democracy, make sure your MP does not walk through the chamber and vote for legislation nobody has had the chance to debate and question.

Hat tip: http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/something-terrible-could-be-happening-in-parliament-on-monday/

ARTICLE: Government Passes a ‘Gagging Law’ to Outlaw Critics Ahead of 2015 Elections

Massive hat -tip to Scriptonite

In January 2014 the UK government passed the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.  A bill gagging charities, NGO’s, bloggers, community groups and most attempts at organised opposition to the government in the year prior to a general election…and just in time for the General Election next year.

What is the Gagging Law?

 The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, or Gagging Law, was hailed as the UK government’s answer to the issue of commercial lobbying.

But, this bill does not take on the political power of wealthy corporate lobbyists.  Instead, it kneecaps any attempts at organised local and national opposition by civil society, so as not to influence the outcome of general elections.  It is a gagging law.  The law puts in place a range of bureaucratic and financial barriers amounting to a gag on free speech and effective opposition.  These include:

• The maximum that can be spent before groups have to be registered with the Electoral Commission £20,000 in England and £10,000 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

• Reduce the overall UK-wide spending limit before elections from £988,500 at present to a new limit of £450,000.  To put this in perspective – campaign group 38Degrees has 1.7m members, this would mean neutering their spending power on posters, staff, adverts and ancillary costs to just 26p per member.

• Putting in place a spending cap of just £9,750 in a particular constituency, in the year running up to a general election – while the local MP can spend as much as they like until just 4 months from the election.

The new spending limits will come into effect on 19^th September this year.

This is the state if affairs after a successful campaign of opposition put forward by the likes of 38Degrees, Oxfam and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party MP, along with concerned bloggers such as Another Angry Voice and Vox Political, and journalists like Polly Toynbee and Owen Jones.  This opposition won important concessions – but the bulk of the bill remains intact and now, law.

What Does this mean for Free Speech?

This means that groups across the political spectrum, find themselves in an unlikely alliance of  opposition to a bill that will silence them all.  Whether you want to bring back fox hunting or save your local hospital, the Bill will prevent you organising to do so.  As 38Degrees put it:

“It’s telling that so many groups who wouldn’t normally agree with each other have united to oppose the gagging law. Groups that speak out in favour of hunting, windfarms, HS2 or building more houses are joining together with groups who say exactly the opposite.”

The British Medical Association: “if the Bill is passed, its impact could be deeply disturbing, especially as it raises concerns about what this would mean for freedom of expression”.

The Trade Union Congress (TUC) Head of Campaigns Nigel Stanley called it a “chilling attack” on free speech.

Iain Anderson, the deputy chair of the Association of Professional Political Consultants said “The bill doesn’t capture the vast majority of what lobbyists do. We want all lobbying covered in a statutory register.”

Tamsin Cave, of pressure group SpinWatch called the Bill a “deliberate act of divide and rule, that has the signature of Lynton Crosby [the Conservative Party’s election strategist] all over it…This bill, as it stands, is worse than nothing. It is bogus.”

Liz Hutchins, senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said it was a “bad day for anyone wanting to protect the environment, save a hospital or oppose tuition fees”.

And Corporate Lobbying Remains Untouched

 It is beyond challenge that UK politics has become corrupted by commercial interests.  This is not a single party issue, but a systemic issue.  But it is not merely about commercial interests paying campaign donations – we have a broader system of revolving doors between politics and business, combined with patronage and favours that this Bill will not touch.  Here are just a sample of modern examples this bill will do nothing to prevent:

Osborne

In 1994, future Chancellor George Osborne was photographed at a party, with his arm around a sex worker called Natalie Rowe, sitting at a table full cocaine.  In October 2005, Natalie Rowe came forward to release the picture and her story to the press.  Rowe sold her story to the Sunday Mirror.  However, to the surprise of Rowe and the Mirror, Andy Coulson broke the story in a leader column in the News of the World.  Not only that, but the story was spun in a manner entirely sympathetic to Osborne, stating that he was ‘a young man when he found himself in a murky world’.  Rowe’s lawyers allege that Coulson stole the story by hacking her phone, and used it to gain leverage with the future chancellor.

And lo, on news of his resignation from the News of the World – Andy Coulson became Director of Communications at Downing Street, despite recently resigning in shame over phone hacking allegations.  He was recruited on the recommendation of none other than George Osborne.

Theresa May

Present day Home Secretary Theresa May’s husband is a director/shareholder in G4S. May has faced several conflict of interest allegations during her tenure.  One of the most egregious was the case of G4S winning a £200m contract to run Lincolnshire police operations.  G4S had recruited law firm White and Cade to support their bid.  In a stunning coincidence, May invited Tom Winsor, a lawyer from the same firm, to conduct ‘an independent review of police reform’ in the run up to the bid – giving the lawyer access to privy information and contacts.Stephen Green & HSBC

HSBC were found guilty in a court of law of funnelling the proceeds of crime through their books knowingly and deliberately.  This was not the act of some rogue trader.

HSBC set up a subsidiary firm with the specific intention of using it to launder the money of Mexican drug barons.  It spirited over $7bn of the stuff between 2001 and 2007.

Stephen Green, the Chairman of HSBC while all this took place, was appointed Trade Minister by David Cameron and now sits at the heart of UK government.

Philip Green

The owner of retail outlet Arcadia, which owns Topshop, is notorious for his tax avoidance schemes.  In 2005, he gave himself the biggest pay cheque in UK history, £1.2bn.  However, by putting Arcadia in his wife’s name (who lives in the tax haven of Monaco and hasn’t done a day’s work for the company) and channelling funds through a string of offshore accounts, Green managed to shift £300m out of the hands of the taxman.  This money could have paid the full £9,000 a year tuition fees for 32,000 students, or the annual salary of 20,000 nurses.  Instead, it sits in Green’s bloated wallet.

Furthermore, despite building a £5bn empire on the back of sweatshop labour – Green refused to sign a pledge to improve safety conditions for Bangladeshi workers after a series of avoidable accidents which left scores dead and injured.

Yet, the Tories appointed this man as their business tsar, leading an ‘efficiency review’ into government spending.  Therefore while Green refuses to pay his share into the pot of public money, he is given power to dictate how that public money is spent.

Libor

Despite persistent rumours about rate-rigging, and receiving information from several sources that an investigation was required – the UK regulator failed to act until it was forced into action by US regulators in 2012.  So why were the Tories so slow to act?

It might be coincidental of course, but some of the Conservative party’s most generous and powerful donors were involved in the scam.

Former Tory Party Treasurer Michael Spencer has donated almost £5m to the party.  This gave him access to dine with the Prime Minister at Chequers.

His firm iCap was fined £55m by regulators in the US and UK for LIBOR rate rigging, and three of his employees face up to 30 years in jail if convicted.  It is notable that while the US fine stood at £41m, the UK fine was a mere £14m (just 4% of their £330m pre-tax profits in 2008, the height of the rigging).  One might suggest this was a decent return on a worthwhile investment.

Lynton Crosby

Cameron has paid £500,000 to appoint Lynton Crosby as the Tory party election strategist.  Crosby is Cameron’s political compass, steering the Prime Minister to launch and ditch policies, and gain the party victory in 2015.

Crosby is an Australian strategist who helped John Howard to four elections victories, and was behind Boris Johnson’s successful campaign to gain re-election as London mayor.

Other items on Crosby’s CV include lobbying for tobacco firm Philip Morris, and he is reported to have signed a £6m deal to lobby on behalf of the firm just last November.  Crosby has also advised energy firms engaged in Fracking in Australia, championing shale gas over sustainable and renewable energy.

And in a remarkably unsurprising turn of events, this year the Tory party chose to ditch its policy on plain cigarette packaging, Osborne announced a raft of tax breaks on Fracking firms, and David Cameron went from promising “Vote Blue, go Green” to “get rid of all this green crap.”

The Bill will do the sum total of diddly squat to deal with these consistent and endemic abuses of power and privilege.

And don’t think Labour are coming to the rescue either.  I have previously covered the parallel issues for the Labour Party.  Labour will not overturn this legislation if they come to power, they have zero interest in doing so.

What Now?

One word: Resist.

Charities, campaigners, community groups and yes, bloggers like myself, will now figure out exactly what their legal standing is in this dark new age of restricted speech – we just don’t know.  But regardless of whether our opposition is legal or not, in coming months and years, we should not bow our heads in resigned acceptance of this most blatant attack on hard won democratic rights.  It is not enough for us to wave our hands, sigh and comply.  If opposing the government in a non-violent way such as organising a leafleting campaign, or transporting people to protests, or writing blogs and petitions calling on voters to act in their own interests is illegal – then let us break the law.  Thomas Jefferson once wrote: “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” Well, man or woman, our time has come.

The rank hypocrisy of Tony Blair: He threw open Britain to millions of immigrants, but now sneers at Ukip

One of the foremost enemies of the people is Tony Blair

There is a particular tone of voice that BBC presenters use when announcing that the airwaves are to be cleared for an interview with Tony Blair.

A solemn preamble conveys the sense that after that morning’s tawdry squabbling of contemporary pygmy politicians such as Nigel Farage, this is the main act.

In truth, very few of us outside BBC headquarters want to hear anything more from Mr Blair, apart, that is, from him uttering one single word. Which is why I stay tuned, in the forlorn hope that I might one day hear Blair say: ‘Sorry.’

That is, sorry for leading us into ill-judged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with thousands of casualties on all sides; sorry for permanently damaging our country’s diplomatic standing by fatuously endorsing President George W. Bush’s cack-handed statecraft; sorry for changing, through a purposeful policy of mass immigration, the cultural fabric of our country without first asking if there was a consensus to do so.
Gabble

Mr Blair is a man who will gabble silkily for lucrative corporate bonding sessions or cosy media interviews.

But he will never utter what we actually want to hear from him – the faintest hint of contrition to those of us living in the country that he seems effectively to have abandoned.

Presenter Jim Naughtie was full of credulous deference towards Mr Blair on yesterday’s Radio 4 Today programme.

Inevitably, Mr Blair was not actually in the BBC studio. On this occasion he was ‘joining us from Berlin’ – a change from Ramallah or Dubai or the other places between which he flits on private jets, and from which he tends to broadcast when taking a break from his crowded schedule of lectures delivered for a vast fee.

The most striking aspect of Blair’s performance yesterday was his assumption that the spectacular progress made by Ukip in last week’s local and European elections came out of the blue sky and had nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with him or the policies of the government he led.

‘I’ve always said you have to have proper controls in place on immigration,’ Mr Blair intoned, unchallenged.

This peculiar assertion is punctured by the research of Migration Watch, which estimates that immigration during the New Labour years added three million to our population.

It also ignores the account of a former Blairite speechwriter, Andrew Neather, that from late 2000 onwards the deliberate policy ‘was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.

More than that, New Labour’s open-door immigration policy was designed, Mr Neather said, to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

Well, the consequences of that shamefully irresponsible politicking are now to be seen, both in the eastern European migrants crammed six to a room in East London, and in Ukip’s electoral progress.

Nigel Farage would not be grinning at us from the pages of our newspapers with an empty pint glass on his head were it not for Mr Blair’s policies.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2641199/Tony-Blairs-rank-hypocrisy-He-threw-open-Britain-millions-immigrations-sneers-Ukip.html#ixzz33i7mporI

ARTICLE: Paedophile Politicians Are Above The Law says EU!

By Ben Fellows of Before it is News

Also by Ben Fellows: (2012) Conservative M.P. Ken Clarke -”GROPED MY PENIS WITH HIS HAND…[THINKING] I WAS FIFTEEN AT THE TIME”

The question that I’ve been asking is, how can politicians be above the law? Well according to the European Union, all politicians of member states have immunity against prosecution for all criminal and civil offenses with the exception of hate crimes and parking offenses, which beggars belief!

Article 28 of the Treaty of 8 April 1965 establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities (the merger treaty) lays down that the European Communities shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of their tasks, under the conditions laid down in the protocol annexed to that treaty.

Articles 9 and 10 says…

Article 9

Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or

legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance

of their duties.

‘Article 10

During the sessions of the European Parliament its Members shall enjoy:

(a)    in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

(b)   in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of

detention and from legal proceedings.

(c)    Immunity shall likewise apply to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.

(d)   Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.’

“UK POLITICIANS ARE IMMUNE FROM QUESTIONING OR PROSECTION”

So the only time a politician isn’t immune is when they are caught in the act of committing an offense. So if the Cook Report Tapes ever show up then perhaps Ken Clarke could be prosecuted for sexually assaulting me as he would have been filmed in the act of committing a crime. Unfortunately, the lawyers protecting these politicians have placed a time limit on even making a complaint, so Ken Clarke could escape questioning on those grounds if the tapes were found and made public. Effectively, the UK parliament and European Union have given members of parliments a license to get away with murder, literally. In general, this form of immunity is such that, unless the British Parliament or the EU gives its authorization, no member may be arrested or prosecuted for acts not carried out in the performance of their duties.

Of course unless politicians are filmed and recorded twenty four seven then there is no hope of bringing any prosecutions against any politicians within the European Union super state, which is why politicians get caught for minor offenses like parking offenses, speeding offenses or hate crimes. There have been the occasions whereby investigative journalists in recent months have filmed politicians and caught them in yet more “Cash for Questions” scandals but we can’t rely on mainstream media journalists all the time.

So why are Politicians Immune from Prosecution? Well to find out lets look back into the history of the parliamentary system.

In ancient Rome, the tribunes of the people enjoyed special protection in order that they should freely exercise their functions. Anyone who infringed that prohibition was liable to punishment and could even be executed.

Today’s right to immunity is based on the same basic idea, although, fortunatly for me, it does not incur the same penalty! The representatives of the people must enjoy certain guarantees to underline the importance of their office, but more importantly to give them the peace of mind they need to implement their mandate.

The origins of parliamentary immunity date back to a session of the English Parliament in 1397, when the House of Commons passed a bill denouncing the scandalous financial behavior of King Richard II of England. Thomas Haxey, the member who was behind this direct act against the King and his court, was put on trial and sentenced to death for treason. Following pressure applied by the Commons, however, the sentence was not carried out, and Haxey received a royal pardon.

This event prompted the House of Commons to review the right of members of parliament to discuss and debate in complete autonomy and freedom, without interference from the Crown. Freedom of speech, introduced into the House of Commons at the beginning of the sixteenth century was confirmed in the 1689 Bill of Rights, which expressly protected discussions and acts of Members of Parliament from any form of interference or objection from outside of Parliament.

ALL POLITICIANS HAVE IMMUNITY, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE RETIRED!

Unlike inviolability, non-liability has an absolute quality, reflected in particular in the duration of its effects: the protection afforded is maintained even after the member’s mandate has come to an end. In other words all politicians have immunity even when they are no longer politicians and have retired. However, whilst there may well have been very good reasons to safe guard parliament from the interference of the crown. Its clear that these privillages are being abused along with the nations children.

When it comes to Paedophilia, child abuse and sexually motivated crimes should politicians still have the right to immunity?

After all how is abusing children part of their Parliamentary mandate? I have never voted for any politician to abuse children. It’s clear that after the Jimmy Savile case it appears that he had immunity from prosecution along with other powerful Paedophiles and child abusing celebrities. The Daily Star Sunday tells of police being told “Stop investigating if you want to keep your jobs” when investigating an alleged paedophile ring at the heart of Margaret Thatcher’s government. A teenage rent boy had alleged that a cabinet minister at the time, who is still alive, had abused him. He also named judges and civil servants. We now know that they were then and will always be, immune from any form of prosecution or questioning by the authorities.

I was informed by the Metropolitan Police that there were protocols in place that meant politicians are above the law and cannot be questioned. I guess they were referring to these EU rules which now govern us all.

Shouldn’t the public be informed of these EU rules? Where is the report on the BBC and other mainstream news outlets informing the public of the EU’s rules. Perhaps the BBC executives and board members are also immune from prosecution like all the other Paedophiles in the country it seems. Perhaps it’s time to change the EU and UK rules on paedophiles operating in and around Westminister. However, if you think that it’s just the Politicians who are immune from prosecution then think again. These privillages also apply to civil servants, their assistants, witnesses, experts and anyone who is involved in the meetings including private individuals in business .

Isn’t it time for politicians to stop being immune against prosecution in regards to child abuse or will we allow these paedophile politicians to continue to abuse parliamentary rules and our children? Not being immune from prosecution may not stop paedophilies but it will mean that “we the people” can have them arrested and prosecuted when witnesses are brave enough to come forward.

 

ARTICLE: Iraq Inquiry: why Sir Jeremy Heywood should be stripped of his role immediately

As the Telegraph reports today, Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, is blocking the publication of correspondence between George W Bush and Tony Blair ahead of the Iraq War, together with later correspondence between Gordon Brown and Mr Bush – thus effectively stalling the already heavily delayed Iraq Inquiry.

No security issues are at stake. The blocking of the correspondence between Downing Street and the White House is an affront to democracy and prevents us from forming a judgment about the most disastrous war in recent British history. Sir Jeremy Heywood should now be removed from all decisions relating to the Iraq Inquiry, because he was himself deeply involved in the flawed government process in the run-up to and after the invasion of Iraq.

Sir Jeremy was appointed Tony Blair’s principal private secretary in 1999. Within a short space of time (as his senior colleagues have told me in detail) he became an intrinsic part of the collapse of the process of government which took place after 1997.

As Sir Robin Butler graphically described, the principles of sound, accountable administration were abandoned and replaced by “sofa government”. Decisions were made informally by a small coterie including Blair, Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Powell and Anji Hunter. Sir Jeremy was the only civil servant who was granted full access to the sofa.

The sloppiness of this new Downing Street machinery became manifest in the summer of 2003 when the Hutton Inquiry into the death of David Kelly tried to reconstruct the process which led to the release of the name of the MOD scientist in national newspapers. Lord Hutton learnt that four meetings, all involving senior officials and cabinet ministers, each chaired by the prime minister, took place in Downing Street to discuss Dr Kelly in the 48 hours before his name was released. In an amazing breach of normal Whitehall procedures, not one of these meetings was minuted at the time.

In the normal course of events it should have been the job of the principal private secretary to the prime minister – ie Jeremy Heywood – to draw up these minutes. Yet he did not do so.

This episode shows that Sir Jeremy Heywood is much too implicated in these matters to be permitted to make decisions of deep sensitivity concerning the White House/Downing Street correspondence.

David Cameron must now urgently intervene to strip Sir Jeremy of his role, and take control of the decision himself. If he fails to do this, the Prime Minister himself risks becoming complicit in what now looks more and more like a giant cover-up involving elements of the British establishment and political class to prevent the truth becoming known about how we became involved in the Iraq War.

Hat tip: Peter Oborne http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100244895/iraq-inquiry-why-sir-jeremy-heywood-should-be-stripped-of-his-role-immediately/

ARTICLE: The Queen’s Speech and 12 words that insult every British voter

Buff the trumpets, polish the footmen, and marvel at all the pomp involved in pretending to be a democracy.

As the heralds pootle out a tune and the ladies-in-waiting hold Brenda’s ermine cloak, consider the fact that everything in her speech is politics.

As Phil the Greek tries to stay awake and glares at the plebs, consider the fact that Parliament has just been closed for 19 days because the government ran out of ideas.

And when the Queen peers through her thick plastic specs to announce her great reforming government will bring in a law to sack misbehaving MPs, try not to put a fist through the wall.

The Queen will say: “My ministers will introduce legislation on the recall of members of Parliament.”

At precisely the same moment, Nick Clegg’s carefully-scrubbed face will beam with self-righteousness and unimpeachable morality.

Because this is something every single party leader said they would support after the expenses scandal of 2009.

This plan was in the Coalition agreement in 2010, which said: “We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrong-doing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.”

And here we are, after four years of government in which it has conspicuously not become law and we’ve been plagued by the likes of Patrick Mercer (disgraced, resigned, golden handshake), Eric Joyce (disgraced, resigned, still in a job) and Mike Hancock (suspended after “prima facie evidence” of “unwanted sexual advances”, still in a job).

And all of whom, if we had that power of recall, might well be down the Job Centre some time ago signing on for £70 a week rather than £67,000 a year with access to subsidised beer.

We’ve also got catastrophically low voter engagement with the political process, with a 15% turnout for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 36% for the Euros and just 65% for the last general election where everyone was so unpopular we ended up with “whoever isn’t Gordon”.

The man who runs the country today wasn’t voted into the job. He took it. A mere 36% of voters backed him and that doesn’t put him within screaming distance of a democratic mandate to, for example, hack about the welfare state.

So we need some Parliamentary reform. We need some of the turkeys in the House of Commons to tell one another that Christmas can be a time of fun and feasting.

The time is ripe, and the tide of public disdain is high. People want change.

So perhaps that’s why on February 13 the recall bill was unceremoniously dumped.

It had, as promised, given voters the right to recall a MP with a petition backed by 10% of voters to trigger a by-election.

The trouble with this is it would change stuff.

It would, specifically, switch the loyalty of MPs from their party to mainly their voters, who could yank them off the gravy train with little notice.

This would mean the party machinery – the concept of leader loyalty, voting with the whip, staying on-message to get promoted – would sail out of the window quicker than a potty full of yesterday’s crap.

And that would mean party leaders would find it harder to push through unpopular ideas like the bedroom tax, war, or increased taxes.

And in Coalition government, loyalty is in much shorter supply than rebellion.

Cabinet jobs that buy support have to go around more people, constituency associations put pressure on MPs over issues like gay marriage, and in the first three years of this Parliament Tory and Lib Dem MPs rebelled in 39% of votes.

So Dave and Nick looked at the recall bill and said to themselves: “Shit, no.”

Then they looked at their last year of government, a total lack of any ideas, and a desperate need for something they could say had cleaned up politics.

And then they reintroduced the recall bill for the Queen’s Speech, with the slight tweak that if 10% of local voters signed a petition it would trigger a meeting of MPs to consider whether to sack an MP.

You might want to read that bit again.

The new bill, so proudly announced with all the trumpets and gold twiddly bits, is going to give MPs the right to discipline MPs.

Which is something MPs already have, via the Standards and Privileges Committee, and which did such a marvellous job with Maria Miller’s expenses.

And this new bill, which will cost us taxpayers money in terms of Parliamentary time, food, heating, light, wages and clerical costs, will give them this right they already have while pretending it’s giving us that right.

This is not recall.

This is not democracy.

This is not on.

It’s like trying to stop child abduction by putting the Childcatcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang in charge of it.

You might as well go to London, stand at the gates of Downing Street, and laugh hysterically at every passer-by.

With this great reform, an MP will be able to take the money and never turn up at work for five years. They will be able to leave the party their voters chose, become a Communist, abandon their pledges, and commit any crime attracting a jail sentence of less than one year’s custody and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

(And FYI, less than a year’s sentence would include assaults, £12,900 of expenses fraud, getting your wife to take your speeding points, and possession of child porn.)

Ask yourself this question: If your MP found in possession of child porn, admitted it and was sentenced to six month’s imprisonment, would you want to sack them?

WELL, YOU CAN’T.

In those parts of the world where recall takes place, it does not lead to politicians being wrongly removed from office by vexatious campaigns.

They have voters who feel empowered, and politicians who have a good reason to keep their noses clean.

We do not have recall.

We do not have voters who feel empowered.

We do not have politicians who are forced to behave themselves.

We just have Nick Clegg, who has this morning used the Queen to deliver the British voter a shattering insult.

You blow trumpets about that if you can. All I can hear is a giant raspberry, and the cynical cackling of people who know they’re safe.

* Contact your MP to demand proper recall here and sign Zac Goldsmith’s petition for the same here.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queens-speech-12-words-insult-3643946#ixzz33ho6NvuU

PARASITES: cast-off ministers given golden goodbyes of almost £90,000 including payment to richest MP in Commons

Tories and Liberal Democrats axed in the reshuffle will receive a total of £88,687 on ‘Money Monday’ in Whitehall.

Taxpayers face forking out almost £90,000 in “golden goodbyes” to reject ministers today.

Tories and Liberal Democrats axed in the recent reshuffle can pocket up to £17,000 apiece tax free on what has been dubbed Money Monday in Whitehall.

Conservative Richard Benyon – the richest MP in the Commons, who stands to inherit £110million – is in line for more than £5,000 of public money.

Officials say that the severance pay is a legal entitlement but Ireland is changing the law to end the cash for cast-offs scheme there as part of austerity measures.

Campaigning MP John Mann said that the UK should follow suit.

Labour’s Mr Mann said: “There is no basis whatsoever for paying this in Britain. We should follow their lead.

“These people are still getting generous MPs’ pay. It is an insult to people struggling across the country that they get a golden handshake.”

All departing ministers are entitled to three months pay if they do not get another job within three weeks.

That means that those dumped in the last reshuffle can claim the cash from today.

Former Cabinet minister Michael Moore is set to pocket £17,042 after he was sacked as Scotland Secretary.

Fellow Lib Dem Jeremy Browne is among five ex-Ministers of State who are in line for £8,086 after being axed.

Conservative Simon Burns can also pocket the huge sum even though he quit to stand unsuccessfully for Deputy Commons Speaker.

Benyon is one of three junior ministers who are entitled to £5,760 each. Three of his fellow Tories get £4,646 after leaving the whips office. Two of them, John Randall and Greg Knight, have also received knighthoods.

In all, taxpayers face paying out £88,687 to ex-ministers.

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “Severance pay is widely used across both private and public sectors. Ministerial severance pay has been required under legislation since 1991.”

But low tax pressure group the TaxPayers’ Alliance echoed John Mann’s call for the payments to be axed.

Spokesman Jonathan Isaby said: “When money is so tight and David Cameron talks about wanting to reduce the cost of politics, it beggars belief that these golden goodbyes are still being doled out to ex-ministers.

“After all, having left these posts, they will all still get the MPs’ annual salary of more than £66,000.

“MPs taking on a ministerial role know full well that it’s no job for life and ought to be planning their finances accordingly.

“Taxpayers will be especially baffled that even those who resigned of their own accord still get these tax-free payments worth thousands: which of their constituents working in the private sector would get a bumper payday for quitting their job?”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/reshuffled-ministers-90000-golden-goodbyes-2648408#ixzz2xirtrG00

(2014) Conservative M.P. Mark Menzies -resigns amid claims he paid male escort for sex and drugs

Mark Menzies, 42, quit his post as Parliamentary Private Secretary after a Sunday Mirror investigation by Matthew Drake in Sao Paulo

A top Tory MP resigned as a Ministerial aide tonight after a Sunday Mirror investigation into claims he paid a teenage rent boy for sex and drugs.

Mark Menzies, 42, quit his post as a Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) over allegations made by a Brazilian male escort.

Rogerio Santos claimed Mr Menzies, 42, paid for his services 18 months ago, before showing him around Parliament.

The 19-year-old then claims the MP asked him to supply him with illegal methedrone.

His allegations led to Mr Menzies ­dramatically quitting last night as a ­Parliamentary Private Secretary with the Department for International ­Development.

He said: “I have decided to resign as a PPS after a series of allegations were made against me in a Sunday newspaper.”

We were contacted by Santos in a series of emails last week in which he openly admitted being a rent boy.

He told us: “I have been having sex with a Conservative MP for money.

“Mark also asked me to buy methedrone.

“I have personal messages of him talking to me about drugs.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-mp-mark-menzies-resigns-3300512#ixzz2xiiZfD6r

ARTICLE: Britain’s Richest MP Wants to Gag Press and Prevent Stories Which Might Embarrass Politicians

For background information on “press regulation”/State control of media, see The Common Purpose – State Control of the Press by Appointment from the free press.

A Tory MP and landlord making a fortune from housing benefit payments to the poor has called for changes to the Freedom of Information laws used by the Mirror to expose him .

Richard Benyon, the richest MP in a Commons packed with millionaires, wants the rules altered to prevent stories which might embarrass ­politicians being dug up by journalists.

He made nearly £120,000 in housing benefit from just one council last year through his inherited £110m family estate, we revealed last week.

But Mr Benyon has now called for changes to FOI laws stating “we need to make sure that the Act is there for what it is designed to do” rather than “raking up political ammunition”.

He also complained in a blog post for the rightwing website conservativehome.com that this newspaper used a “picture of me looking as posh as possible”.

The Mirror’s investigation with the GMB union revealed a string of politicians and political donors raking in housing benefit along with the Crown Estates, which supports the Queen, and Prince Charles’s Duchy of Cornwall.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/richard-benyon-britians-richest-mp-3204549#ixzz2xMo5YQ1A

(2014) Tory M.P. Maria Miller -SYPHONS £1MILLION FROM SUFFERING TAXPAYER IN FRAUDULENT CLAIM

“PARASITE: A creature which obtains food and physical protection from a host which never benefits from its presence.” (Chambers English Dictionary)

 

Fraud is fraud but only to the public. If you are an M.P. the criminal, corrupt and decadent System allows you to claim that you “made a mistake” and thus avoid prison. Clearly, people, there is a two-tier justice system –but still the fools keep voting for it. It just never ends, does it Expenses Scandal 2009. By any objective measures this regime is riddled with criminals and parasites.

Culture Secretary to be censured for abusing parliamentary expenses system after overclaiming for her mortgage and making £1m profit on sale.

The Culture Secretary abused the Parliamentary expenses system by over-claiming for her mortgage and then failing to fully co-operate with an investigation into her conduct, The Telegraph can disclose.

Maria Miller, the Culture secretary, is set to have to repay up to £5,000 and be censured for her claims – following an official Parliamentary inquiry which is expected to report as soon as this week.

It can also be disclosed that Mrs Miller has recently sold the south London house at the centre of the scandal for a profit of more than £1million.

The Cabinet minister, who has previously been supported by David Cameron, is expected to come under intense pressure to resign when the results of the official inquiry are made public.

The Prime Minister will be loathed to lose the state-school educated female member of his Government but any minister found to have abused the Parliamentary expenses system is likely to be seen as a major electoral liability.

One Conservative source said: “We simply cannot have a member of the Cabinet found to have abused the expenses system in any way this close to vital elections.”

Parliamentary authorities first launched an inquiry into Mrs Miller’s claims more than a year ago following an investigation by The Telegraph.

She was exposed after claiming more than £90,000 over four years for a second home where her parents lived in South London – rather than submitting claims for cottages she rented in her Basingstoke constituency.

The Parliamentary Commissioner is understood to have concluded that the arrangement did not lead to Mrs Miller benefiting financially. However, the Commissioner is unlikely to have been aware of the seven-figure profit made in recent weeks by the minister.

Mr and Mrs Miller sold the large house in Wimbledon for £1.47 million on Valentine’s Day of this year. They originally bought the house for £234,000 – which means the house value increased by £1,236,000.

Between 2005 and 2009, she claimed £90,718, which was only £115 less than the total amount she could have claimed. Although the house only cost £234,000 in 1995, the Millers took out a large mortgage against the house – and claimed the interest on the mortgage from the taxpayer.

In November 2007, they increased the mortgage from £525,000 to £575,000. The rules state that MPs could only increase their mortgages to pay the costs of necessary improvements – and that these should be signed off with the parliamentary authorities.

The Parliamentary inquiry discovered that Mrs Miller over-claimed for her mortgage and so should repay around £5,000 to the expenses watchdog.

The over-payment is understood to have occurred because Mrs Miller did not adjust her claims downward claims for mortgage as interest rates fell during the period under investigation.

The Telegraph also understands that the MPs want Mrs Miller to apologise to Parliament for not co-operating in a “timely manner” with the Commissioner.

MPs who sit on the standards committee are thought to be waiting for more financial information to consider at their next meeting on Tuesday before finalising the penalty to be imposed on Mrs Miller.

The MPs are frustrated that they have had to wait for months for basic financial details about the amount of money she over-claimed.

The Parliamentary report is understood to contain a memorandum which details the various attempts made by investigators seeking Mrs Miller’s mortgage details.

One source said: “If she had just said sorry she would be in a much stronger position. It will be a question of embarrassment and if she showed the best judgment.

Read on:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/10729984/Maria-Miller-to-have-to-repay-thousands-of-pounds-and-apologise-over-expenses-claims.html

(2014) Conservative Council to Ban Feeding the Homeless

THEY spent much of the run-up to the election trying shake off their image as the nasty party.

But a heartless group of Tories have ­revealed their true colours by banning charities from running soup kitchens for the ­homeless.

Conservative Westminster council in Central London also wants to make it an offence to sleep rough – while slashing £5million of funding to hostels.

Astonishingly, town hall chiefs claimed soup kitchens only “encourage” people to sleep on the streets.

Westminster council, one of the richest in the land, wants to bring in a bylaw making it an offence to “give out food for free”, punishable by fines. The twisted move blows apart David Cameron’s Big Society boast that an army of ­volunteers will flock to help those worse off.

And it sparked a storm of ­criticism. Reverend Alison Tomlin of the Methodist church in ­Westminster said: “The proposals are nothing short of disgusting. This bylaw punishes people solely for their misfortune and belongs in a ­Victorian statute book, not the 21st century.”

Labour’s London mayoral ­candidate Ken Livingstone added: “Only the Conservatives would try to make it illegal to give food to the homeless.

“With Tory mayor Boris Johnson cutting affordable housing to a trickle, the number of people sleeping on the streets is rising and cuts to housing benefit threaten ­thousands more with eviction and homelessness.”

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, leader of the Labour Group, said: “Nothing illustrates the cold-hearted and callous approach of the Conservatives than this attempt to criminalise those offering help to ­homeless people.

“I thought this was what the Big Society was supposed to be all about, generous-hearted people giving their time to those less fortunate, at no cost to the public purse. This is a nasty, mean move from a nasty, mean party.”

A consultation paper says rough sleeping and soup runs would be banned in the Westminster Cathedral Piazza and surrounding area. Labour said the cruel move comes as the council ­withdraws funding for three hostels in the borough and housing trust.

But Westminster’s Daniel Astaire risked provoking further fury by declaring free food “keeps people on the street longer”. He added: “Soup runs have no place in the 21st century. It is undignified that people are being fed on the streets. They actually encourage people to sleep rough with all the dangers that entails. Our priority is to get people off the streets altogether. We have a range of services that can help do that.”

A council spokesman said soup runs attract up to 100 people at a time, “making it a no-go area for residents, with issues around litter, urination, violence and disorder”.

3Tory councillor John Fareham has apologised after calling opponents of Hull council’s £65million cuts “retards” on Twitter. He said: “I got it wrong.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/feeding-homeless-to-be-banned-by-tory-run-westminster-113433#ixzz2xMikI0oV

VIDEO: How the Lib-Lab-Con is Destroying Britain

A five-minute synopsis of the threat you and your family face from the criminal, corrupt and decadent regime that the fools keep voting for. (See first 6 minutes.):

 

(2014) S.N.P. Leader Alec Salmond -“BULLY” WHO FACES BAN FROM ABERDEEN COUNCIL

       

THE First Minister could prevented from carrying out any formal business in areas such as parks and offices for six-months, if the plan is approved by the council on Wednesday.

 

FIRST Minister Alex Salmond is facing a six-month ban from all council premises in Aberdeen for behaving “like a bully”.

The leader and his team of Scottish Government ministers would be prevented from carrying out any formal business in areas such as parks and offices, under the plan being put to the full city council on Wednesday.

Labour councillor Willie Young, who proposed the unusual move, said relations are at an all-time low with the Government.

It follows complaints from the city about the level of financial support from central government. Mr Salmond recently suggested the city administration is “incompetent” for its handling of a decision which he says could cost Aberdeen £7.3 million.

Mr Young said: “Mr Salmond has acted like a bully and spoken unacceptably about the city council.

“The only way to tackle a bully is to stand up to him.

“We’d obviously want to get the Scottish Government round the table and see if we can come to a better understanding, but I fully expect support for this action.”

The ban, if backed, would only extend to official business.

“If he wants to go for a walk with his wife in one of our lovely parks, no one will stop him,” Mr Young added.

A spokesman for Derek Mackay, the local government minister, said: “Willie Young is the £7.3 million man. His actions in voting against plans which would have seen a £7.3 million increase in funding for Aberdeen were bizarre as well as against the interests of the people of Aberdeen.

“The Scottish Government has good relations with all of Scotland’s other 31 councils – despite those councils being of many different political colours. In that context it is the increasingly bizarre comments from the Labour-Tory alliance at Aberdeen City Council which stand out.”

Read on: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alex-salmond-faces-ban-aberdeen-3204235

VIDEO: Conservative Party Ken Clarke M.P. -“PAEDOPHILE”

(2014) S.N.P. M.S.P Bill Walker -WIFE BEATER

DISGRACED former MSP Bill Walker is to be released from jail this week after serving only half of his 12-month sentence.

Last night the news was greeted with dismay by anti-domestic violence campaigners.

The wife-beating former SNP politician was jailed in September for violent assaults on three ex-wives and a stepdaughter over a 30-year period.

The 71-year-old, from Alloa, had denied 23 charges of assault and one breach of the peace but was found guilty of all charges at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. After serving six months, the former Dunfermline MSP is due for release from Dumfries Prison this week.

Opponents of the law, which sees prisoners serving under four years freed after half their term, said Walker’s release “exposes the nonsense” of the system.

At his trial, Sheriff Kathrine Mackie heard how Walker gave his first wife, Maureen Traquair, a black eye days before their wedding in 1967. His second wife, Anne Gruber, said Walker kicked and punched her and knocked her to the ground. And his third wife, Diana, testified that the politician repeatedly struck her.

Walker plans to appeal against his conviction and has a court hearing scheduled for April 17.

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser said: “This just exposes the nonsense of automatic early release.”

Graeme Pearson, a former senior police officer and now Scottish Labour’s Justice spokesman, said: “Many people will be disappointed Bill Walker has only served six months of a 12-month sentence.”

Read on:  http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/465264/Wife-beater-MSP-Bill-Walker-gets-early-release-from-prison

 

 

 

 

 

(2014) New Labour Leader Willie Smith -ANOTHER LABOUR PAEDO CAUGHT MAKING CHILD RAPE IMAGES

A Labour Party Leader for the Corby Council of England has been caught downloading images of children being raped by paedophiles on the internet. Willie Smith was arrested by police after his Child Pornography ‘Stash’ was discovered which was so large it took up the space of Two computers.

Parents in the Kingswood area of Corby are said to be horrified, One parent claimed that she had voted for Labour Councillor Willie Smith and was horrified that she had voted for a man who enjoyed watching and making images of children being sexualy abused by pedophiles.

Police applied for a search warrant for Willie Smith’s home address on the Lloyds Estate where many families live with children. Parents Against paedophiles (PAP) representative for Northampton Angela Clarke commented, ”This takes the Labour paedophile list to 45 now. We aim to push the issue with every school and nursery about Labour party paedophile activities (PIE) by more than Ten previous Labour school governors, to keep them off school councils, organisations and other governing bodies. We informed schools in One area, of paedophile boy scout leader and child rapist Timothy Edmeades upon his release,  within Three months, he was arrested for filming boys under Ten years old in the same area as before.”

Hat tip: Labour25: http://labour25.com/2014/01/23/labour-leader-willie-smith-caught-making-child-rape-images/

ARTICLE: Eric Joyce M.P., Patrick Mercer M.P., and Mike Hancock M.P. -“PERFECT EXAMPLES OF PARLIAMENT’S LOW STANDARDS”

In any other profession, the three errant MPs would have been shown the door.

A few weeks ago, James Arbuthnot, after a long and almost pointless career, announced that he was standing down as a Conservative MP. Mr Arbuthnot, whose final position was as chairman of the backbench defence committee, gave an interview which seemed to suggest that he was now hoping to find jobs in the defence business. He could not resist one final, parting bleat: “The constant assumption that everybody in politics is in it for their own good, or is a crook, gets very debilitating after a bit.”

Mr Arbuthnot, whose expenses claim as revealed in the Telegraph included a bill for work on the family swimming pool, money he later repaid, was voicing a characteristic complaint among members of the political class. They are convinced that they are underpaid, under-appreciated and asked to uphold standards that would never be expected from an ordinary person.

This view needs challenging as urgently as ever. Five years after the expenses investigation revealed evidence of criminality, fraud, cheating and greed among a substantial minority of MPs, there is still a problem. I only have space here to look at three examples, one from each main political party, each exposing the way that Parliament tolerates disgraceful conduct that would not be allowed in any other walk of life.

The first involves Eric Joyce, Labour MP for Falkirk, who head-butted a Conservative MP and caused damage and mayhem in the Strangers Bar of the House of Commons. At a later date he wrestled two policemen to the ground during a karaoke night at the Sports and Social Bar. There was another episode in an airport, but that is a complicated story and need not detain us here.

The second concerns the Conservative Patrick Mercer, who was exposed by BBC Panorama and the Telegraph for accepting £4,000 (by a reporter pretending to represent the Fiji government) to ask parliamentary questions.

The third case is the most topical: the Lib Dem Mike Hancock, who has been accused of making a series of inappropriate advances towards a female constituent suffering from mental health problems.

According to an internal Lib Dem report carried out by a QC, and leaked to the Guido Fawkes website, the alleged victim provided “compelling prima facie evidence of serious and unwelcome sexual behaviour by Mr Hancock”.

There are grounds for sympathy for all three MPs. Colonel Mercer will always merit great respect as a soldier who carried out nine tours of duty in Northern Ireland, ending up as commanding officer of his regiment, the Sherwood Foresters. Eric Joyce, an admirable politician in his lucid moments, clearly suffers from a serious drink problem. There but for the grace of God go many of us. The allegations against Mr Hancock are very disturbing, but he denies them, and they have not been proved. I have been told that he is a conscientious local MP.

Nevertheless it is extraordinary that any of them remain in their jobs. MPs often demand more money and expenses with the insistence that they occupy a serious and responsible position in society comparable to senior civil servants, headmasters, GPs or high-ranking members of the Armed Forces.

Yet it is quite inconceivable that Joyce, Hancock or Mercer would have survived for a single second had they occupied a position in a serious profession. A drink-drive conviction is career death in the Army, let alone the kind of drunken brawl that is Mr Joyce’s speciality. A doctor with charges of the gravity being levelled against Mr Hancock, particularly when given credibility by an internal investigation, would surely not be allowed to carry on holding surgeries. Parliament, however, has very low standards.

Messrs Joyce, Hancock and Mercer carry on collecting their salaries of approximately £66,000 a year, not to mention expenses that, according to one estimate, will total, collectively, around £500,000 (enough to pay the annual salary for more than 20 nurses) by the time they finally quit at the next election. The evidence suggests that, in return, they don’t carry out much work.

Eric Joyce has voted 97 times in 489 divisions (19.8 per cent) since being stripped of the Labour whip just under two years ago. Patrick Mercer has voted on 24 occasions out of 184 divisions (13.6 per cent) since he resigned from the Tory Whip. Mike Hancock has much the best record of the three errant MPs, with a voting record of just under 45 per cent since he lost the Lib Dem whip in May 2013, but this is nevertheless a very low total for a backbencher.

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that three constituencies have gone at least partially unrepresented in recent months, and Parliament is relaxed that this should remain the case. Portsmouth, where Hancock is MP, has cause to feel especially neglected. His neighbouring MP, the Conservative Penny Mordaunt, recently participated in an exhausting televised diving competition, though she claims she scheduled all her training out of parliamentary hours.

One would not expect that Speaker John Bercow, a notorious expense “flipper”, to be much bothered by this kind of conduct, and he hasn’t been. However, it is surprising that neither the Prime Minister nor either of the other two main party leaders tolerate the situation. Their supporters point to the fact that the three MPs have been stripped of the whip; but this argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

Before the 2010 election, the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour each pledged that they would legislate to allow voters the power of “recall”, thus giving ordinary people the chance to force a by-election. The proposal was so uncontroversial that it slipped easily into the Coalition Agreement: “We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing the voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrong-doing.”

The Coalition government finally published a Bill in draft form last December, but it comes too late and – worst of all – puts a parliamentary committee in charge. As the Tory dissident Zac Goldsmith told the Guardian last week: Recall it is “about empowering voters not parliamentary committees. The Government’s proposals are the opposite of what was intended and promised.”

Why have David Cameron and Nick Clegg broken their promise? It is impertinent to speculate about motive, but my guess is that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are terrified of a by-election. Hancock’s Portsmouth South constituency and Patrick Mercer’s Newark are classically vulnerable to the Ukip electoral insurgency.

Meanwhile, up in Falkirk Ed Miliband and Labour have serious problems of their own. With Labour discredited, the Scottish National Party could easily win. So all three party machines seem to have concluded that it is better to allow Hancock, Joyce and Mercer to wander round Parliament like a foul smell than to allow voters their say.

It is a decision that shows the habitual contempt in which the British political class holds voters. By an interesting paradox, that contempt is the reason for the rise of Ukip in the first place. To answer James Arbuthnot’s complaint, it is no wonder that so many people believe that “everybody in politics is in it for their own good, or is a crook”.

Hat tip: Peter Oborne at The Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10604812/Joyce-Hancock-and-Mercer-are-perfect-examples-of-Parliaments-low-standards.html

(2014) VIDEO: New Labour Mayor John Murray -ANOTHER NEW LABOUR PAEDOPHILE JAILED FOR RAPING A CHILD

Paedophilia is widespread in the Establishment: Judges, police, and especially politicians are involved. See here for evidence.   Those who are courageous and honourable in defending our children are silenced by political persecution. One would think that whistleblowers would be celebrated instead of harassed and imprisoned without charge or trial. But no, not in this sick society headed by a criminal “elite” who are kept in power by fools and their votes.

Free Robert Green -NOW!     http://www.freerobertgreen.co.uk/

Video: Former Lord Mayor of Cork John Murray is jailed

A Labour lord mayor has been remanded in custody for sentence after a jury today convicted him of raping a child two years after he served as the city’s first citizen. John Murray (83) had pleaded not guilty in Court to sexually assaulting the child at four locations in the city on various dates between March 1996 and October 1998. Following six hours of deliberations spread over two days, the jury of seven men and five women found John Murray, guilty of raping the child after hearing evidence from 17 witnesses. A longstanding member of the Labour Party, Murray was first elected to the City Council in the 1985 local elections and re-elected in 1991. Two years later he was elected Labour lord mayor. There were emotional scenes outside Court after the verdicts as the complainant and her parents and other family members hugged each other before thanking the investigating police for all they had done. The woman told the court that the reason she didn’t come forward until adulthood was that she was afraid that she wouldn’t be believed. “He intimidated me – he was a very high profile man, he had been the Labour lord mayor.”

Hat tip:   http://labour25.com/2014/02/20/the-chain-the-mayor-forged/

Article: Vote Labour -Get a Paedo for a Neighbour

Why now? Why after all this time –after patriots, nationalists, and the alternative media have been exposing this for years– does the Daily Mail suddenly cover the outrage?

Enemies of the People posted this story over 4 (FOUR) years ago:  (2009) LABOUR FIGURES’ BIZARRE LINK TO PAEDOPHILE GROUPS:

Will there be a public enquiry or a national cover-up? Will Harriet Harperson and her husband, Jack Dromey, be resigning as an M.P.s in disgrace?  

How three of the party’s most senior figures campaigned for a vile paedophile group now being probed by police for ‘abusing children on an industrial scale’

• Documents found by Mail show link between Left-wing and paedophiles
• Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt held senior positions at National Council for Civil Liberties before rising to top of the Labour party
• The NCCL was an ‘affiliate’ of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), whose members may have abused children on an ‘industrial scale’
• Paperwork reveals NCCL helped lobby Parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to as low as ten and called for incest to be legalised

ABOVE: “We’re all in this together.”

Appearing in the pages of a Left-wing magazine called Rights, it was, by any account, an extraordinary letter.

Written by one Mike Morten, who lived in London and described himself as ‘both a paedophile and gay’, the letter complained that laws forbidding him from having sex with children ‘interfere with my life and civil liberties’.

‘Consensual sex between adults and children is simply people of different age groups being nice to each other,’ it argued.

Morten then criticised recent newspaper articles which had described perpetrators of child sex offences as ‘molesters’.

‘This is a loaded and pejorative term,’ he declared. ‘It’s a totally inaccurate description of us, and a put-down, in much the same way that “pansy” is a put-down of gays and “n*****” a put-down of blacks.’

The letter was dated October 1982, and today his words seem so bizarre, so appalling, that a casual reader could be forgiven for wondering if they are a grotesque spoof.

No magazine, of any political persuasion, would dare to carry material that attempted to portray paedophiles as some sort of oppressed minority.

Neither would the oxygen of publicity be given to a self-confessed sexual predator who, like Morten, wanted to convince readers that small children might somehow ‘enjoy’ being abused by adults.

The publisher of a printed title which advanced such morally repugnant views, apparently in the name of political correctness, would surely be committing career suicide.

Yet Rights was no knockabout spoof. And the people behind its publication certainly didn’t sink without trace.

Quite the reverse, in fact.

The now dog-eared 1982 magazine, which I have unearthed in archives, was the quarterly journal of the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), the well-known lobby group which is now called Liberty.

Known as a radical campaigning organisation, the NCCL was that year being run by three tub-thumping young Left-wingers who would rise to extremely senior positions in the Labour Party.

One was Patricia Hewitt, who as general secretary of the NCCL from 1974 to 1983 was at the helm of the organisation. She went on to become Tony Blair’s Health Secretary, and nowadays has a lucrative seat as a non-executive director on the board of BT earning £160,000 a year for a part-time job.

Another was Harriet Harman, the current Labour Deputy Leader. She served as its legal officer from 1978 until October 28, 1982, when she won a by-election and entered Parliament as the MP for Camberwell and Peckham.

A third was Jack Dromey, Harman’s husband, who sat on the NCCL’s executive committee for more than a decade.

Please read on for much, much more:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562555/Labours-child-sex-apologists-How-three-partys-senior-figures-campaigned-vile-

(1950-1966) Then-Labour Cllr. Cyril Smith -HOMOSEXUAL PAEDOPHILE

Homosexual Paedophile Cyril Smith molested and tortured children during his 16 years as a school teacher and Labour Councillor.

 

Although we have heard Constantly by the Labour affiliated media that Cyril Smith was aligned to the liberal Democrats, hidden evidence has shown his dirty deeds attacking boarding school children go way back into the 1960′s.

 

One of the Seven children who were attacked at the ‘Cambridge Boys Hostel’ which was funded by Freemasons, said that Cyril Smith who was employed by the hostel, pulled him into a secluded room and told the child he was to be punished. The child was made to pull down his pants and was made to bend over Cyril Smith’s knee while he had his bottom spanked and fondled. Another child was subjected to the homosexual paedophile’s torture because he had taken money from another boy. Labour councillor Cyril Smith made the second child remove his pants so he could fondle and squeeze the boys testicles.

 

Labour Councillor Cyril Smith attacked and raped at least 7 male children while at the Cambridge Boys Hostel. Cyril Smith was the local Labour councillor from 1950 to 1966. The  Cambridge Boys Hostel was closed down in 1965.

Hat tip:  http://labour25.com/2013/03/21/a-glutton-for-boys/

 

(2013) New Labour Mayor Graham Pearson – arrested for possessing child rape photographs

A Labour Party mayor and primary school teacher has been arrested for possessing child rape photographs.

Graham Pearson, 54, was arrested at his Cherry Crescent home in Balladen, Rawtenstall, for having a stash of violent rape photographs of very young children.

He was bailed to return to Rawtenstall police station while officers considered whether charges should be brought against him.

But Mr Pearson, who is a Labour party council leader, was formally cautioned when he attended one of his council appointments.

A Lancashire Police spokesman said: “Lancashire Constabulary have given an adult caution to a 54-year-old man from the Rossendale area for possession of indecent photographs of children.

“We arrested Mr Pearson at his home address.”

When asked about the caution, Mr Pearson said: “I have no comment to make.”

Mr Pearson went missing from his home, and police issued an appeal for his return. His silver Chevrolet car was also said to be missing. But he was later discovered hiding in the Cumbria area.

He was a Hareholme ward councillor and also served as Mayor of Rossendale.

Hat tip:  http://labour25.com/2013/01/16/mayor-on-the-run/

VIDEO: Labour’s Cyril Smith -PAEDOPHILIA BEFORE HIS TIME IN THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS WITH THE FULL BACKING OF THE ESTABLISHMENT

In the video Chris Marshall, one of many victims of Cyril Smith, makes the following uncomfortable points and asks some serious questions of the Establishment that is directly involved with your children.

…people knew about what he was doing, people that worked close to him. Why didn’t they come forward…why didn’t they open their mouths? They knew what he was doing. They were quite happy to go and watch him get knighted; they were quite happy for him to be an MP, a mayor or something… People knew what he was doing; why didn’t anyone say anything.

The answer is obvious and simple: because the Establishment is riddled with paedophiles, degenerates, criminals, traitors… who look after each other and who are a direct threat to you and your family.

(2006) New Labour’s Lord Janner –HIS AID IS MYSTERIOUSLY MURDERED

Well, it seems that the plot thickens. Please join the dots. Look at the mysterious murder of Liberal Democrat Cllr. Frank Beck It is plausible that Lord Janner knew each him (the Establishment is extremely incestuous). How intimate their relationship one can only guess, but perhaps Beck was ready to cut a deal with the authorities to lessen his sentence by implicating Janner -hence the mysterious murder.

Unfortunately, this case is just the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of paedophiles and persons related to it in the Establishment can be found here, documented in several pages http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/ This is in addition to the rapists http://eotp.org/tag/rapists/ and other sex criminals http://eotp.org/tag/sex-criminals/ .

Paedophilia is rife in the Establishment. No wonder the MET have refused to investigate Cyril Smith -heaven knows what what would be uncovered. And MI5 didn’t know about Jimmy Savile -even though he regularly associated with royalty! PMSL! What a risible insult to our intelligence.

STILL GOING TO VOTE FOR THE MACHINE NEXT YEAR, FOOL?

The one-time aide to Lord Janner was stabbed to death in July 2006, just a month after moving to Washington DC to take up a prestigious internship on the potential presidential campaign of Virginia Governor Mark Warner.

On Friday, Christopher Piper, 26, and Jeffrey Rice, 23 were sentenced to a combined 89 years for robbing and murdering the 27-year-old, described as one of Anglo-Jewry’s rising stars.

Both men pleaded guilty to the charges of second degree murder and burglary at the District of Columbia Superior Court in May. Rice was sentenced to 52 years in prison and Piper to 37 years.

Speaking to TJ yesterday, Senitt’s sister, Emma said: “Although I didn’t think the sentence was long enough, I don’t think any thing would be long enough. The last year has been like a movie and you wait for the credits to roll, but they won’t.”

The family said in a statement that they would have liked the sentences to be longer but were happy with the outcome. “We were all dealt a life sentence on 9 July 2006. We have to live with the constant nightmares; they must live with his blood on their hands. Although the sentences dealt to his attackers were not as long as we would have liked we do feel that some justice has been delivered.”

Handing down the sentence, the judge, Neal Kravitz, described the attack as “a savage murder” adding that it was his responsibility to ensure the perpetrators “never again pray on innocent people”.

Senitt, originally from Pinner, was walking a female friend home in the affluent neighbourhood of Georgetown when they were attacked by a gang demanding their cash and possessions. Piper used a pellet gun disguised as a handgun to steal the woman’s purse and also tried to sexually assault her, the prosecution said.

Senitt was stabbed in the chest and had his throat slit by Rice while trying to protect his friend. He died from his injuries.

The family expressed disappointment that an unnamed 15-year-old was only given juvenile detention until the age of 21 after admitting charges of felony murder, conspiracy, armed robbery and theft.

The case of a fourth suspect, Olivia Miles, accused of driving the getaway car has been kept confidential.

A statement was also read out during Friday’s hearing from the female friend Sennitt was trying to protect. A lawyer for the woman, who has remained anonymous, said the pair were confronted by the men outside the mansion where Senitt was staying. They were separated and Piper forced her to the ground and fondled her, the statement said. She screamed she was being raped. She said Senitt’s last words were: “They’ve cut me.”

Her statement added: “No one deserved to spend their final moments like this, especially Alan.”

Lord Janner, who worked closely with Senitt on interfaith charity, the Co-Existence Trust, told TJ: “It’s an eternal tragedy which haunts me every day. He was a great young man and we worked together very happily. His loss was a disaster for his family, friends and the whole community.”

89 Years For Killing Alan by Marc Shoffman

2013 New Labour Lord Janner -HIS HOME RAIDED BY POLICE REGARDING SEX ABUSE

• Officers raided the home of Lord Greville Janner of Braunstone, Leicester
• Leicestershire Police spent two days searching his flat in Barnet
• The force refused to comment on what was seized at the property
• Spokesman said no arrests have been made in connection with the raid
• Neighbour describes seeing police ‘coming and going’ for days
• Lawyers for the peer say he is helping police with their inquiries

Police officers have raided the London home of Labour Lord Greville Janner, as part of an ‘on-going criminal investigation’ in to historic sex abuse allegations, it has emerged.

Officers from Leicestershire Police spent two days searching the peer’s £600,000 apartment in Barnet, north London.

The force refused to give details of what was seized at the 85-year-old’s home but confirmed it is part of an on-going probe.

It is understood the investigation is into allegations of historic sex abuse.

A police spokesman said: ‘Leicestershire Police can confirm its officers executed a search warrant of a property in Barnet, London as part of an ongoing criminal inquiry.

‘No arrests have been made at this stage.’

The former barrister was named Baron Janner of Braunstone, Leicester in 1997.

The peer’s lawyers WilmerHale said in a statement, that Lord Janner is helping police officers with their inquiries.

The statement said: ‘Lord Janner has not been arrested but has been assisting the police with their inquiries. We are not able to make any further comment at this time.’

Builders working on a renovation next door to Janner’s home saw a number of police cars and officers at the address on Monday and Tuesday.

One said: ‘There were loads of police cars here on Monday and Tuesday. They were coming and going all day.

‘I don’t know what happened, but they’ve been back quite often ever since.

‘I think the old man that lived there was arrested, but I’m not sure.

‘They were here on Tuesday and came back on Wednesday.’

The huge white-fronted property in posh West Hampstead contains six luxury flats.

Janner was at home on Thursday afternoon but refused to answer the door.

A young man, who identified himself as ‘Jameson’, claimed he was the Lord’s personal spiritual healer.

He said: ‘The Lord won’t come to the door. He is exhausted with all the stress of dealing with the police.

‘He’s old and needs his rest. I don’t want to say any more.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526924/Police-raid-home-Labour-Lord-historic-sex-abuse-probe-spend-two-days-combing-600-

ARTICLE: Greville Janner, VIP child abuse and the mysterious death of Frank Beck

Hat tip: The Coleman Experience: http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/the-mysterious-death-of-frank-beck-2/

In 1994, Frank Beck died in Whitemoor prison whilst serving a staggering 5 life sentences for alleged child abuse.

Frank Beck had been implicated in the abuse of boys in Leicestershire care homes.

Frank Beck had always maintained his innocence and claimed he was imprisoned because he’d exposed alleged abuse by a high-profile politician.

Frank Beck was appealing against his conviction and sentence.

Leave to appeal and legal aid were granted in January 1993 and Anthony Scrivener QC, one of Britain’s most eminent lawyers and former chairman of the Bar, agreed to take the case.

Frank Beck’s solicitor said at the time of his death

‘He was very impatient for the appeal to go ahead. His death came out of the blue. Normally the case would lapse and die with him but his family and close friends are discussing the possibility of carrying on with the appeal. This would not be unprecedented.’

Beck was convinced there was enough new evidence and material that was not put before the original court due to non-disclosure by the prosecution which would have made the original conviction unsafe and proved his innocence.’

In 2011 the following anonymous comments were left on a blog which was discussing his death:

“ In 1991, after accusing Janner of paedophilic behaviour with a teenager, Frank Beck was arrested and charged with the sexual and physical abuse of children in his care over a thirteen-year period.

At his trial Beck stated that: – “One child has been buggered and abused for two solid years by Greville Janner“.

Immediately after this, Janner who just happens to be, ironically, a long time member of the boy scouts association, and Sir David Napley, his solicitor, went to Police headquarters in Leicester.

Whereupon, the following statement was issued:

“We have advised Mr. Janner that he is prevented from making any statement at this stage”.

Shortly afterwards, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alan Green, let it be known that “for lack of evidence”, Janner would not be prosecuted, even though Paul Winston, who was just thirteen when he and Janner first met, was able to describe Janner‘s home, the hotel rooms they had shared, and Janner’s habits and person in detail.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, himself, was arrested for kerb-crawling in Kings Cross a little while later.

Green had come to the attention of the police previously for this same misdemeanour and was quietly given a formal warning.

The scandal prompted his resignation from public office and the suicide of his wife.

In court, Paul Winston, who was, at the time of Beck’s trial, a married man with children, stood up for him, as did several other witnesses, paying credit to his achievements and behaviour and confirming his anti-Janner testimony.

He said Beck had counselled him over his relationship with the MP, and had brought the affair to an end.

He also stated that he had had a beneficial effect on his life. According to Winston’s evidence, he was invited to Janner’s home near Golders Green, whilst Janner‘s wife was away, and this led to his sharing Janner’s bed where they “cuddled and fondled each other”.

Thereafter Winston testified that, over the next two years, he was regularly sodomised by Janner.

Beck discovered what had been going on after Winston was put into his care, at which point, he informed his superiors at Leicester Social Services.

At one point, Janner visited the care home with a new bicycle for Paul but Beck denied him entry and would not allow the gift to be passed on. This was confirmed by another witness at the trial.

Nevertheless, Beck was found guilty and sentenced to twenty-four years in prison, with five life sentences to run concurrently for his “crimes”.

Janner was never brought to court, nor was he ever called upon to testify.

Frank Beck died suddenly of a “heart attack”, shortly before his appeal was due to begin.

He was, by all accounts, a fit man at the time of his death.

He never stopped protesting his innocence and Janner’s guilt.

His two main solicitors, who admitted to being sceptical in the first instance, believed him at the time that he was found guilty.

One of these solicitors has since been killed in a road accident, and the other has been subjected to police harassment on a major scale.

Frank Beck was a resident of Braunstone in Leicester when the events described above were taking place.

When Janner was ennobled in 1997, he took the title, Lord Janner of Braunstone.

The man responsible for ennobling Greville Janner was Tony Blair.

The following very interesting comments were left :

” I was in the courtroom when beck gave his evidence in full :his death by food poisoning in custody was very convenient for all those he said he had supplied the boys to in the local area .”

” Blair had a macabre sense of humour as Braunstone is the area Frank Beck used to live in. Beck was guilty. But he almost nailed Greville Janner.”

Isn’t it about bloody time the police looked again at the mysterious death of Frank Beck?

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/the-mysterious-death-of-frank-beck/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/the-mysterious-community-security-trust/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/the-magic-of-greville-janner/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/who-is-uri-geller/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-black-magic-of-peter-mandelson/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/tony-blair-bp-elton-john-rentboy-barbados-magic-circle-lockerbie/

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/category/leicestershire-frank-beck/page/2/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/cliff-richard-cherie-blair-melvyn-bragg-operation-fernbridge-friends-in-high-places-and-the-barbados-connection/

(2013) New Labour Cllr. Balbir Sandhu -POLICE RAID HIS PREMISES LOOKING FOR ILLEGALS

BORDER police raided a clothing factory owned by a leading city politician yesterday, leading to the arrest of five illegal immigrants.

The officers were acting on a tip-off when they targeted the A Star clothing factory belonging to Normanton ward councillor Balbir Sandhu.

All 40 staff were questioned while the UK Border Agency officers checked their immigration status with fingerprint scanners.

Labour councillor Mr Sandhu said he was “shocked” when the officers burst into his factory in Stanhope Street at about 10.30am.

Read more: http://legacy.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Immigration-cops-raid-Derby-city-councillor/story-17574139-detail/story.html#ixzz2lnB321td

ARTICLE: Crystal Methodist and New Labour/Co-operative Party Luvvie Paul Flowers investigated 8 years ago

Disgraced former bank boss was investigated for sending an email with alleged ‘sexual connotations’ to colleagues in 2005.

A disgraced banker caught on camera apparently buying drugs was investigated   about his conduct eight years ago, it has emerged.

Paul Flowers, the former Co-op Bank chairman, Methodist minister and local   councillor, was forced to refer himself to the Standards Board for England   for sending a “joke” message that is alleged to have “sexual connotations”   to council colleagues in 2005.

Although councillors who had been sent the message raised their concerns with   the council at the time, five years later Mr Flowers was selected by Ed   Miliband, the Labour leader, for his Business and Industry Advisory Group.

Mr Flowers, 63, has now been suspended from the Party and his church after   film footage apparently showed him discussing the purchase of class A drugs.

He is being investigated by police after being caught on camera apparently   trying to buy crystal meth, cocaine and ketamine. He has now said his   actions were “stupid” and “wrong”.

He was reported to have bought drugs days after giving evidence to the Commons   Treasury committee on how the bank lost £700 million. When Mr Flowers   appeared before the committee he was criticised for apparently lacking a   grasp of the basic facts about the bank or the issues surrounding it. He is   not expected to be recalled, but the scandal has put more pressure on   regulators to increase checks on people appointed to senior banking roles.

Following the drug investigations it has since emerged that in 2011 Mr Flowers   was forced to resign from Bradford council after adult content was found on   his computer when he handed it in for repairs. At the time he cited   “personal reasons” and increased responsibilities at the Co-operative   Banking Group for leaving the council.

Following the latest disclosures, Grant Shapps, the Conservative party   chairman, has written to Ed Miliband telling him the behaviour and actions   of Mr Flowers have “shocked and appalled the public”.

“They have also raised serious questions about the Labour Party to which you   have not yet adequately responded,” he wrote. Mr Shapps added that people   asking “honest” questions about how much the Labour party knew about Mr   Flowers’ past were met with a “wall of silence”.

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls’ office has said that he will not give back a   donation from the Co-operative Group of £50,000, made in March 2012 when Mr   Flowers was chairman of the bank and a director of the group.

Len Wardle, the Co-op Group chairman, yesterday resigned, citing “serious   questions” raised by the scandal surrounding former banking chairman.

Mr Wardle had earlier announced his decision to retire next year, but the   Co-op Group said he has now resigned “with immediate effect”.

A spokesman for Bradford Council said: “A conviction more than 20 years   previously does not prevent anyone from standing for election as, or serving   as, a local councillor.

“The Standards Board for England concluded that the ‘e-mail’ incident was not   serious enough to require an investigation. That was a decision for the   Standards Board for England, not Bradford Council.”

Read on:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/10461306/Paul-Flowers-investigated-eight-years-ago.html

ARTICLE: Ed Miliband held a private meeting with drug shame bank chairman

• Methodist minister Paul Flowers, 63, caught on camera buying drugs
• It was just days after he was grilled by MPs over his bank’s performance
• Flowers boasted of using ketamine along with cannabis and club drug GHB
• Ed Miliband held private talks in Commons office with disgraced bank boss

Ed Miliband held private talks in his Commons office with the  disgraced Co-op Bank boss embroiled in a drugs scandal, it emerged last night.

The revelation left the Labour leader facing potentially damaging questions about his relationship with the Reverend Paul Flowers.

Flowers is being investigated by the police after being caught on film apparently buying hard drugs, including crack cocaine and crystal meth.

But last night it emerged that Flowers had enjoyed astonishing access and influence at the top of the Labour establishment for years.

Labour sources confirmed that Mr Miliband had personally appointed Flowers to his elite Business and Industry Advisory Group in 2010 — and even invited him for private talks in his Commons office last year.

It also emerged that Flowers described Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls as a ‘political friend’ and boasted of helping to arrange a £50,000 donation for him from the Co-op last year.

Both Mr Miliband and Mr Balls deny being close to Flowers, who was suspended by Labour last night for ‘bringing the party into disrepute.’

A spokesman for Mr Balls, one of 32 Labour MPs sponsored by the Co-op, said he had never held a meeting with Flowers and never discussed the donation with him.

The near-collapse of the Co-op Bank is embarrassing for Labour, which has long ties with the organisation.

Last year Mr Miliband hailed the firm as the future of banking in a speech at the its headquarters.

And many MPs receive financial support from the Co-op, including shadow Treasury chief secretary Chris Leslie, shadow Europe minister Gareth Thomas and shadow constitutional reform minister Stephen Twigg.

Labour’s Business and Industry Advisory Group was set up by Mr Miliband to provide him with personal advice on business policy.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509659/Miliband-held-private-meeting-drug-shame-bank-chairman-Labour-leader-facing-difficult-questions-relationship-Paul-Flowers.html#ixzz2lmwSS9Qw

(2013) Conservative Cllr. Cencizham Cerit -GUILTY OF VOTE-RIGGING

A landlord who stood as a Conservative councillor in a local election has been found guilty of electoral fraud.

Cencizham Cerit, 47, of Primrose Drive, Ashford, stood for election to Ashford Borough Council in November 2011.

Canterbury Crown Court heard Cerit delivered 200 postal vote applications to the council containing false or forged signatures.

The postal applications were not accepted and Cerit lost the election by 87 votes.

The landlord, who owns 60 properties in the Ashford area, was also found guilty of submitting his nomination paper knowing it contained false
signatures.

Read on:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-21342599

ARTICLE AND AUDIO: The Revd Paul Flowers ticked all the right ‘progressive’ boxes — that’s why he could get away with anything

Sustainability. Tick! Inclusivity. Tick! Fairtrade. Tick! All that mattered to Labour was the Crystal Methodist’s show of liberal piety.

Yet again, one particular question has formed on lips up and down the land. How in heaven’s name could so many people have failed to spot such a spectacular abuse of a public position?

We heard it first in the Jimmy Savile scandal, when the posthumous discovery of half a century of predation left people incredulous that so many had known about but done nothing to stop his serial depravities. Now a similar question needs to be asked about the Revd Paul Flowers, the disgraced Methodist minister and former chairman of the Co-op Bank who was filmed apparently handing over £300 to buy a stash of cocaine and crystal meth and also boasted of using ketamine, cannabis and a club drug, GHB.

The real scandal, though, is not just that he was a staggeringly incompetent bank chief who knew next to nothing about banking and presided over a bank that somehow fell into a £1.5 billion black hole. It is not even his predilection for cocaine, crystal meth and the occasional ‘two-day, drug-fuelled gay orgy’ (to use his words). The scandal is that no one spotted that he was spectacularly unsuited to the jobs he was given — or if they did, they chose to do nothing about it. Yet again, a public figure with his ethics pinned to his sleeve somehow existed beyond proper scrutiny.

In the frame alongside the deeply un-fragrant Flowers are various institutions which now have questions to answer. The Co-op Bank, which elected him chairman. The Labour party, which banked his donations. Ed Miliband, who dined with him and appointed him to Labour’s financial and industrial advisory board. And the Methodist Church, which appointed him a ‘superintendent’ minister and designated him a trustee for its investment funds and property — even though he had next to no expertise in business.

Oh — and he has also been a member of the Advertising Standards Authority, vice-chairman of the National Association of Citizens’ Advice Bureaux and chairman of Manchester Camerata, the city’s chamber orchestra, not to mention chairman of the drug abuse charity Lifeline and the Terrence Higgins Trust. He is an icon of our time.

So how come none of these bodies ever spotted his spectacular unsuitability to be a member of the Great and the Good?

His striking unfitness to advise anyone on economic matters was demonstrated at the Treasury select committee earlier this month. Asked to state the Co-op Bank’s total assets, he guessed £3 billion; it was actually £47 billion. His performance may well have caused onlookers to scratch their heads and ask themselves: just what exotic substances is he on?

Read on and listen to the audio:  http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9082571/an-icon-of-our-time/

ARTICLE: United Nations Finally Admits to Purposefully Killing off European Native Peoples

The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

He also suggested the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.

He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.

He told the House of Lords committee migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”.

‘More open’

An ageing or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the “key argument and, I hesitate to the use word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states”, he added.

“It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.”

Read on:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

ARTICLE: Conservative M.P. Brian Binley -FINALLY ADMITS THAT M.P.s ARE PARASITES

Brian Binley MP: ‘We have to be careful, politicians scrounge all the time.’

MPs enjoy lavish hospitality at the expense of the British taxpayer and a Maltese bank.

On a taxpayer-funded trip to Malta, as he enjoyed the hospitality of a bank and prepared to attend a complimentary open-air concert that evening, Brian Binley MP was alerted to the presence of a local politician wandering nearby.

“You see, we are totally corrupt,” he said to one of his hosts.

ARTICLE AND VIDEO: Liberal Democrat M.P. Nick Harvey -TOLD HE IS A DISGRACE FOR CLAIMING TRAVEL TO REMEMBRANCE DAY

Former Royal navy engineer Fiona Laing embarrasses Sir Nick Harvey after Remembrance Day service.

A Royal British Legion worker approached a former Armed Forces minister following a Remembrance Day service and ‘reimbursed’ him for £7.20 in expenses he claimed after attending a previous ceremony.

Fiona Laing, 45, marched up to Sir Nick Harvey, 52, in front of other dignitaries, officials and members of the public, and gave him an envelope containing the money.

Read on an watch the video: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10441802/Former-Wren-to-ex-minister-You-Sir-are-a-disgrace.html

(2013) New Labour Cllr. Josie Channer -STEPS DOWN IN DISGRACE OVER £2,000 PARKING FINES

LABOUR’S parliamentary candidate for the seat of Kingswood has stepped down over parking fines, the BBC reports.

 

Josie Channer owes more than £2,000 in parking and late payment fees to the Borough of Barking and Dagenham, where she also sits as a councillor.

 

She also chairs the local authority committee which scrutinises parking.

Read on: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Labour-parliamentary-candidate-Kingswood-steps/story-19887684-detail/story.html

VIDEOS: ‘Beheadings-R-Us’ by Cameron and Hague-backed Syrian “Rebels” (WARNING: Graphic Images)

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/07/18/syria-beheadings-r-us-by-obama-backed-and-armed-fsa-jihadist-rebels-warning-graphic-images/

ARTICLE: How £120 Million of Workers’ Subs Supports New Labour’s War-crimes, Treason, and Champagne Socialism

THE full scale of the unions’ financial grip on Labour is revealed today by a Sun investigation.

ARTICLE: WARNING! John Cruddas MP -WANTS TO FORCE PARENTS TO DRUG THEIR KIDS OR LOSE THEIR BENEFITS

 

Cruddas’s previous rap sheet:

(2012) New Labour M.P. John Cruddas -BANNED FROM DRIVING AND FINED £300 FOR HAVING NO M.O.T. OR INSURANCE

Expenses Scandal Mark 2? New Labour Parasites Margaret Hodge and John Cruddas Suck Even More from the Taxpayer

Take a look at what they want to drug your kids with and its effects:

Vaccine Truth: Your Child, Your Choice

Hundreds of Articles Exposing the Lies of Vaccines by Dr Christina England

Dr. Andrew Wakefield reveals real story behind vaccines, autism and more

Fatal Auto-Immune Disorder Caused By Hepatitis B Vaccine

UK Drug Safety Agency Falsified Vaccine Safety Data For 6 Million – Millions of Children At Serious Risk

Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination

 

• Family would have to prove vaccination before handouts, says Cruddas
• Part of drive to link public goods to changing the behaviour of citizens
  
• But Labour quickly distanced itself from the idea of linking jabs to benefits

Parents should lose their child benefit if they refuse to immunise their children with the MMR jab, a senior Labour MP has suggested.

Families will have to prove their child’s vaccination records are up to date to qualify for handouts, said Jon Cruddas, who is leading the party’s policy review.

The MP for Dagenham & Rainham suggested the measure, which is already in place in Australia, could be a way to link behaviour with state benefits and services.

However, Labour rushed to dissociate itself from the idea last night, saying ‘it is not part of the policy review’.

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said: ‘There is no question of a Labour government ever taking child benefit away or punishing parents for choices they make on vaccinations.

‘I don’t know where that came from. It is not our policy. It is on the front of the newspapers but it is not true.

‘We would never say child benefit is conditional on taking a jab,’ he told ITV’s Daybreak.

The idea emerged after the uptake of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine has dropped to dangerously low levels in some areas.

The risks were underlined earlier this year when more than 1,000 people caught measles in Swansea. One victim, a man aged 25, died.

A senior party source said: ‘This is an example of the sort of measure which we want to see that ties public goods to how people behave as citizens.’

When he was still in power this summer, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that people who did not immunise their children would be denied some benefits to boost vaccination rates for diseases such as whooping cough and measles.

Exemptions would only be made on religious or medical grounds, he said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429738/Cut-benefits-parents-fail-children-MMR-jab-says-Labour-policy-chief-Jon-Cruddas.html#ixzz2fjwcT8xX

ARTICLE: As Cameron attacks ‘Bongo Bongo’ MEP… How £1billion of your cash is being used to help Nigeria join the space race

As Britain hands Nigeria more than £1billion in foreign aid, here at home ATOS force the disabled onto the dole and Bedroom Tax steals people’s home –all because the UK is in debt. Had enough? Or are you still going to vote for this monstrosity, Fools?

• Oil-rich country has accepted £300million in aid this year alone
• Plans for Nigerian astronauts to join missions within next two years
• But 70 per cent of the country live below the poverty line of £1.29 a day
• Row ignited by UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom’s ‘Bongo Bongo land’ comments

Nigeria is spending millions to put a man into space – as Britain hands it more than £1billion in foreign aid.

The oil-rich country, which has accepted £300million this year alone, has set in train ambitious plans to launch its own rockets.

And the first Nigerian astronauts are being trained to join Russian, Chinese or American missions within the next two years.

Last night critics asked why Britain was, in effect, subsidising a space programme for a nation where 70 per cent of people live below the poverty line.

This latest controversy came just two days after Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom ignited a fierce debate by saying it was folly to give billions in aid to ‘Bongo Bongo land’. Yesterday David Cameron said the remarks were offensive and accused Mr Bloom of being guilty of a ‘stop the world I want to get off’ approach to foreign aid. The £1.14billion Nigeria will receive over the five years of the Coalition is double the £500million set aside to prop up struggling accident and emergency departments at our own hospitals.
Backbench Tory MP Philip Davies said it was ‘totally unjustifiable and unaffordable’ for Britain to give this money to Nigeria, given the scale of its ‘grandiose’ space programme.

‘We cannot go around the world saying “don’t worry, we will feed your public for you while you waste your money on all sorts of other projects”,’ he said.

‘We have got to say to these countries “you have got to spend that money on your people where it’s most needed not on some grandiose space programme”. We are against welfare dependency at home but at the same time we are encouraging welfare dependency abroad.’

The row surrounding Mr Bloom flared when he insisted that sending aid to Africa was tantamount to treason.

He added: ‘How we can possibly be giving a billion pounds a month, when we’re in this sort of debt, to Bongo Bongo land is completely beyond me.’

He claimed foreign leaders frittered the money away on ‘Ray-Ban sunglasses, apartments in Paris and Ferraris’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2387338/As-Cameron-attacks-Bongo-Bongo-MEP–How-1billion-cash-used-help-Nigeria-join-space-race.html#ixzz2fAHj8ldC

ARTICLE: U.K. “Government” Refuses to Allow a Petition against White Genocide

This was recently emailed in to the site and I found it interesting so I re-publish it here:

I recently attempted to set up a white genocide petition on the UK Government’s website. Normally when a petition is rejected, they list the rejected petition and the reasons why it was rejected. However my petition was not listed as rejected and i never received any explanation as to why. So I decided to contact the Petition site for an explanation.

Here the email exchange I had with a House of Commons Assistant Secretary.

to me
Moderation decisions are taken in individual Government departments, and I was not involved in this decision. Having viewed the petition, I agree with the views of the moderators. We do not display e-petitions which are moderated as offensive, as made clear in the terms and conditions of the site.
Yours sincerely
Ben Sneddon
Assistant Private Secretary
Office of the Leader of the House of Commons
——————————————————–
to petitions
could you please explain to me how protesting the genocide of my people is OFFENSIVE?
——————————————————–
to me
We do not allow petitions which make accusations of criminality. As your petition accuses unspecified ‘anti-racists’ as genocide, this falls as a matter for the courts.
—————————-
to petitions
I see that this petition was accepted
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/44089
if i take out the accusation of unspecified individuals and replace it with the wording in the numbered list, that will be acceptable correct?
——————————————————-
to me
Moderators consider e-petitions based on the action the petition is calling for. In your rejected e-petition, the action you are calling for is for the Government to stop ‘non-white immigration’ and ‘forced assimilation’. Should you wish to resubmit your e-petition, the wording should be focused around this, rather than the accusations of genocide which are presented without evidence in the original petition.
——————————————————-
to petitions
This petition is making accusations of ongoing genocide, how is mine any different?
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/44355
——————————————————
to me
As I have said, I do not take the moderation decisions, these are taken in individual Government departments and so there is a degree of freedom in terms of what is accepted.

However, the focus is on the outcome of the petition. The use of terms such as genocide are emotive and controversial – if you wish to start a petition on the recognition of a genocide, you would be advised to state this as the purpose of the petition and provide evidence (we discourage the use of external links, but departments may choose to accept these). We would otherwise advise against making such claims

You may wish to contact the department to which you are submitting the petition for further advice, as my information is hypothetical. You can find departmental contact details either via their website or http://www.gov.uk

(2013) David Cameron, Nick Clegg, William Hague -ORDER DESTRUCTION OF HARD DRIVE TO HIDE DIRT SECRETS FROM PUBLIC

 

• PM asked Sir Jeremy Heywood to warn paper against publishing material
• GCHQ later went to Guardian’s office and helped staff smash hard drives
• White House say it is ‘difficult to imagine’ U.S. government taking that action
  
• It also emerged Mr Cameron knew in advance David Miranda would be held
  
• Home Secretary Theresa May said police acting in national security interests
• Rifkind says Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on ‘weak ground’
• ‘He did not dispute that he had no legal right to possess the files,’ he said
• David Miranda, who was carrying secret CIA files, was held for nine hours 
• Brazilian has said he is launching legal action against the Home Office
• Lord Falconer, who helped bring in Terrorism Act 2000, slams decision
• ‘I’m very clear that this does not apply to Mr Miranda,’ Labour peer said

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398521/Malcolm-Rifkind-NO-DOUBT-reports-using-Snowden-information-played-

(2013) New Labour Party: GUILTY OF TAX EVASION

Watch the videos:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10102190/Donor-John-Millss-gift-to-Labour-avoided-tax-bill-of-1.5m.html

Tax evasion is a crime that if committed by me or you would result in imprisonment for several years. But there are two laws in the country: one law for us –the mere mortals, the innocent funding our enemies– and one for them –the “elite”, the Enemies of the People, those who live in luxury due to the exploitation of the People. In light of this reality, why give your permission to this criminal, corrupt system by voting for it? It is illegitimate –do not afford it any notion of legitimacy by giving it your vote.   

The Labour Party has helped its biggest financial backer avoid tax worth up to £1.5 million on its largest donation so far this year.

John Mills gave the party shares in his shopping channel company, JML, valued at £1.65 million in January. In an interview with The Telegraph, Mr Mills said that the donation was made in shares rather than cash so the tax on the deal would be significantly reduced.

Describing the donation as “tax efficient”, he said the form of the donation was agreed with figures in Labour’s fund-raising team.

Mr Mills said that if he had given £1.65 million from his own income he would have had to pay nearly half of that sum to the taxman.

Asked why he made the donations in shares, Mr Mills said: “To be honest with you, it is the most tax efficient way of doing this.

“Because, otherwise, you get no tax relief on donations to political parties for understandable reasons.

“If you donate to a political party out of a tax paid income, up until April it was 50 per cent and now it is 45 [per cent].

“That means if it is £100,000, the Labour party gets £55,000 and the Government gets £45,000.”

Labour donor John Mills (JULIAN SIMMONDS)

Mr Mills, a former councillor in Camden, suggested that the idea of donating in shares came following discussions with the Labour Party.

He said: “It emerged … came out of a discussion I had with them about the best way of doing it.

“It is quite a good model [of donating]. Labour has got people who deal with compliance and the legal side of all this. They are very sensitive nowadays.”

Mr Mills’s donation, the biggest from an individual so far this year, is the only gift to a major political party to have been made in shares. Accountants said Mr Mills is likely to have avoided up to £1.5 million in tax on the value of the stock he gave to the party.

The news will embarrass Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, who has repeatedly criticised tax avoidance. He said only last month that it was “wrong” that Google had gone “to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes”.

ARTICLE: Tony Blair: Libya, Lockerbie, Arms and Betrayals

 

“The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.” (Samuel Adams, 1722-1803, letter 1775.)

This will surely have you falling down with surprise. According to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained by the (UK) Sunday Telegraph, the August 2009 release from Scotland’s Barlinnie jail of Libyan Abdelbaset al- Megrahi, accused of the bombing of  Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, hinged on an oil and arms deal, allegedly brokered by roving war monger (sorry, roving “Peace Ambassador”) Tony Blair.

At this point it should be said that anyone who has read John Ashton and Ian Ferguson’s meticulous “Cover up of Convenience” (i) on the Lockerbie tragedy could only regard Mr al-Meghrahi’s conviction as between very unsafe and very questionable.

The British Labour Party, which Blair headed for ten years, until 27th June 2007, have always insisted that the release had no connection with commercial deals. After leaving Downing Street, Blair visited Libya some six times.

On 8th June 2008, the then British Ambassador to Libya, Sir Vincent Fean, sent Tony Blair’s private office a thirteen hundred word briefing on the UK’s eagerness to do business with Libya, according to the Telegraph. (ii) Blair flew to Tripoli to meet Colonel Quaddafi, just two days later, June 10th. Quaddafi paid: Blair, always lavish with other’s money had requested, and was granted, the Colonel’s private jet for the journey.

Sir Vincent’s “key objective” was for: “Libya to invest its £80 billion sovereign wealth through the City of London”, according to the Telegraph, which also cites the Ambassador writing of the UK being : “privately critical of then President George Bush for ‘shooting the US in the foot’ by continuing to put a block on Libyan assets in America, in the process scuppering business deals.” Britain however, was voraciously scrambling to fill the fiscal gap.

Unlike the US and UK who abandon or drone to death their own citizens who are in trouble, or even accused of it, Libya’s Administration had stood by their man and seemed to be prepared to do even unpalatable deals to free him and had long been pressuring the UK to release al-Megrahi.

In May 2007, a month before he left Downing Street, Blair had made his second visit to Libya, meeting Colonel Quaddafi and his Prime Minister Al Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi in then beautiful and now near ruined city of Sirte.

Surely coincidentally, on this trip, a deal was seemingly thrashed out, including prisoner transfer, just before British Petrolium (BP) announced their approximate £454 million investment to prospect for £13billion worth of oil in Libya.

Also, states the Telegraph report: “At that meeting, according to Sir Vincent’s email, Mr Blair and Mr Al Baghdadi agreed that Libya would buy a missile defence system from MBDA – a weapons manufacturer part-owned by Britains’s  BAE Systems.” This seemed to (also) hinge on a Memorandum of Understanding for a Prisoner Transfer Agreement: “which the Libyans believed would pave the way for al-Megrahi’s release.” Various sources state that the arms deal was worth £400 million, and up to two thousand jobs in the UK. Sir Vincent referred to the arms deal as a “legacy issue.” Blair’s “legacy”, as ever, synonymous with destruction.

Ironically, it was Blair who credited himself with persuading Colonel Quaddafi to abandon and destroy his weapons programmes  after his visit to the country in March 2004 (placing that Judas kiss  the Colonel’s cheek) as a step to Libya returning to the fold of the duplicitous “international community.” With friends like Blair, enemies are a redundancy.

When Blair returned to Libya in June 2008, the Telegraph contends that the British Government, then under Gordon Brown, Blair’s former Chancellor of the Exchequer (who left the national coffers near empty) used the opportunity: “ to press the case for the arms deal to be sealed. At the time, Britain was on the brink of an economic and banking crisis – and Libya, though the Libyan Investment Authority – had billions of pounds in reserves.”

Saif al-Islam, Quaddafi’s son, expressed the concern over the arms deal being voiced from within the Libyan military, given their close ties to the “Russian defence equipment camp.”

An earlier discovery by the Sunday Telegraph shows, in letters and emails, that Blair held hitherto undisclosed talks with the Colonel in April 2009, four months before al-Megrahi’s release. (iii)

Again he was flown at the expense of the Colonel, in his private jet: “In both 2008 and 2009, documents show Mr Blair negotiated to fly to the Libyan capitol … in a jet provided by Quaddafi.” Blair’s Office denies the claims, saying they were transported in a Libyan government ‘plane.

By the time of the 2009 visit: “Libya was threatening to cut all business links if al-Megrahi stayed in a British jail.” Blair seemingly attempted to pour oil on troubled waters by bringing American billionaire, Tim Collins to that meeting to advise Quaddafi on building the beach resorts he was planning, on the Libyan coast.

Further adding to the murk, a spokesperson for Collins stated:“Tim was asked to go by Tony Blair in his position as a trustee of Mr Blair’s US faith foundation. Tim had no intention of doing any business with Quaddafi.”

However: “Sources in Libya said Quaddafi had discussed with Mr Collins opening beach resorts along the Libyan coast, but that Mr Collins had dismissed the idea because the Libyans would not sanction the sale of alcohol or gambling at the resorts.

Blair’s spokesperson said of the visit: “ … Tony Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the Government of Libya and he has no commercial relationship with any Libyan company or entity.” A Blair first, seemingly, given the impression that he never touches down anywhere without emerging with a lucrative contract or a large cheque.

However, Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya, is quoted as saying : “Mr Blair is clearly using his Downing Street contacts to further his business interests.”

In a further coincidence, the Prisoner Transfer agreement for Mr al-Megrahi was signed the day before Blair’s 2009 visit.

When al-Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer, was released in August 2009, the British media and politicians were outraged. Scotland had done a deal and was benefiting financially from Libya. The latest revelations prove Scotland did no financial deals. When Mr al-Megrahi failed to die, politicians and media were even more outraged. They were a shaming spectacle.

Mental mind set can be a huge force in prolonging life in even the most serious cancer patients. No doubt in al-Megrahi’s case, being back in a home and with a family he loved contributed to his extra time. He survived long enough to see his country destroyed by the devious forces the West embodies – and at which Blair excels.  Megrahi died in September 2012.

Incidentally, Ambassador Fean reportedly “expressed relief” at al-Megrahi’s release: “He noted that a refusal of Megrahi’s request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. ‘They could have cut us off at the knees.”

Quaddafi, however, never signed the arms deal.

Footnote: The 2004 visit by Blair was arranged by Saif al Islam, who Blair seemingly knew well and had allegedly even offered suggestions on his PhD thesis when Saif was studying at the London School of Economics.

In September last year Saif al-Islam’s lady friend of six years, appealed, passionately, to Blair to intervene to save the life of his now captured, maimed and death penalty-facing friend: “The two are old friends – it is time that Mr Blair returned some loyalty. Mr Blair is a man of God – as a Christian he has a moral duty to help a friend in need”, she has commented. (v)

Seemingly there has been no response from Blair’s office. Further, an extensive search for a comment on the appalling death of Colonel Quaddafi – his former host and private ‘plane provider – and the demise of  much of his family from this “Peace Envoy” and “man of God”, has come up with absolutely nothing.

To mangle a quote: Beware of British offering deals.

Read on:  http://www.globalresearch.ca/tony-blair-libya-lockerbie-arms-and-betrayals/5344774

ATICLE: Former head of MI6 threatens to expose Tony Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’

The truth will always out -eventually. Seems the regime (“government”) doesn’t have the control it would like on the secret services. Perhaps MI5 might like to start to question to whom its loyalties really lie (the innocent people or their aggressor, corrupt, plutocratic “government”).

A former head of MI6 has threatened to expose the secrets of the ‘dodgy dossier’ if he disagrees with the long-awaited findings of the Chilcot Inquiry into the UK’s role in the Iraq War.

Sir Richard Dearlove, 68, has spent the last year writing a detailed account of events leading up to the war, and had intended to only make his work available to historians after his death.

But now Sir Richard, who provided intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) that was apparently ‘sexed up’ by Tony Blair’s government, has revealed that he could go public after the Chilcot Inquiry publishes its findings.

Sir Richard is expected to be criticised by the inquiry’s chairman, Sir John Chilcot, over the accuracy of intelligence provided by MI6 agents inside Iraq, which was used in the so-called ‘dodgy dossier’.

Now the ex-MI6 boss, who is Master at Pembroke College, Cambridge University, has said: “What I have written (am writing) is a record of events surrounding the invasion of Iraq from my then professional perspective.

“My intention is that this should be a resource available to scholars, but after my decease (may be sooner depending on what Chilcot publishes)

“I have no intention, however, of violating my vows of official secrecy by publishing any memoir.”

Sources close to Sir Richard said that he insists Chilcot should recognise the role played by Tony Blair and the Prime Minister’s chief spokesman Alastair Campbell in informing media reports which suggested Saddam could use chemical weapons to target British troops based in Cyprus, a claim which led to Britain entering the war in Iraq.

Sir Richard is said to remain extremely unhappy that this piece of intelligence, which his agents stressed only referred to battlefield munitions which had a much shorter range, led to media reports that UK bases were under threat.

However, he accepts that some of MI6’s information on the WMDs was inaccurate, the Mail on Sunday reported.

Mr Blair and Mr Campbell have repeatedly denied making misleading statements about WMD.

Last week it was revealed that Sir John had written to Prime Minister David Cameron informing him of his intention to write personally to those individuals he intends to criticise, with Tony Blair reported to be among those on Sir John’s list.

Sir Richard has taken a sabbatical from his duties at Cambridge University to research and write his record of events, and is expected to resume his Master’s role at the start of the new academic year.

A security source told The Mail on Sunday: “This is Sir Richard’s time-bomb. He wants to set the record straight and defend the integrity of MI6. And Sir Richard has taken a lot of personal criticism over MI6’s performance and his supposedly too-cosy relationship with Mr Blair.

“No Chief of MI6 has done anything like this before, but the events in question were unprecedented.

“If Chilcot doesn’t put the record straight, Sir Richard will strike back.”

Last night the committee’s chairman, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was appointed in 2010, offered Sir Richard his support, saying: “I have never heard of a former MI6 chief putting something out there in these terms but I would be interested in what Sir Richard has to say in response to the Chilcot Inquiry which is clearly going to have some meat in it.

“I know Sir Richard and worked with him in the Foreign Office many years ago. He is a very able man of the highest character and a man of his own opinions. We shall have to wait to see what he says.”

Last night, Alastair Campbell and the office for Tony Blair declined to comment on Sir Richard’s account.

ARTICLE: MoD accused of risking soldiers’ lives by silencing generals

Historian expresses fears after chapters by serving generals excised from book criticising operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A leading military historian has accused the Ministry of Defence of putting the lives of British soldiers at risk by stifling debate and preventing serving generals from publicly expressing their views on the conduct of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sir Hew Strachan, Chichele professor of the history of war at Oxford University, blames the decision to suppress their views on “official paranoia”. His outspoken comments appear in a series of essays, British Generals in Blair’s Wars, which contains devastating criticism from senior officers who have recently retired, but none from those still serving.

Debate and potential reform are therefore stifled at source “for fear of reputational damage and political controversy”, writes Strachan.

The book has fallen victim to “official paranoia”, he says referring to six chapters written by serving officers that were withdrawn on the orders of the MoD.

Strachan, an adviser to the chief of the defence staff, General Sir Nick Houghton, adds: “These fears put at risk lives in theatre. Like many armies in the past, the British army struggles to foster effective debate within a hierarchical command chain.”

The editors, including Strachan, make clear in their book – published by Ashgate more than a year late because of the need to find replacement authors – that the final decision to ban serving officers from contributing to it was taken by the defence secretary, Philip Hammond.

Generals prevented from publishing their views include Houghton, who took over as chief of the defence staff from Sir David Richards on Thursday, and Lt Gen Sir Richard Shirreff, Nato’s deputy supreme commander. Shirreff, a former commander of British troops in Basra, told the Chilcot inquiry that more than three years after the invasion of Iraq, the MoD was still incapable of delivering equipment badly needed by UK troops there.

The failure to provide troops with the resources they needed “beggars belief”, he said.

The opening salvo in British Generals in Blair’s Wars castigates the former Labour prime minister for not providing sufficient resources to those he sent to war. Jonathan Bailey, formerly responsible in the MoD for developing military doctrine, says Blair “does not appear to have thought through the consequences of his policies, committing the UK to prolonged conflicts intended to reorder other countries’ underlying cultures”.

The book exposes sharp disagreement between British commanders on the root causes of attacks on British troops in Basra. Jonathan Shaw, commander of British forces in south-east Iraq in 2007, came under fierce criticism for doing a deal with the Jaysh al-Mahdi, the militia led by the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and for taking the view that violence was more criminal than ideologically or politically inspired. “I judged Basra to be more like Palermo than Beirut,” he writes.

Richard Iron, an adviser to Iraqi army commanders in Basra, writes: “Nothing could be further from the truth: Jaysh al-Mahdi was an extremist movement that controlled Basra by force.” British intelligence analysts failed to appreciate the depths of “malign Iranian influence”, says Iron.

An underlying theme in the essays by former generals and senior British staff officers is the almost complete lack of preparedness and failure to provide enough resources, in terms of both money and men, in Iraq. The failures, the authors write, were not learned and were repeated in Afghanistan.

Iron says that five years after the invasion of Iraq, “there was still arrogance and hubris among the British. A sense of ‘we’re here to teach you so you’d better listen'”.

Britain’s failures led to bitter disputes behind the scene with US commanders, whose marines took over from the British in Basra, and, later, in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. Alexander Alderson, former special adviser to the head of the Afghan armed forces, says that in Iraq the different tactics and attitudes of the two countries came to the point “where the UK’s military credibility was in question”.

The book describes the growing frustration among military commanders about inter-departmental rows within Whitehall and inadequate co-operation with the Foreign Office and Department for International Development. The much-mooted “comprehensive” approach – co-operation on conflict prevention, peacemaking, and peacekeeping – has not materialised. Tim Cross, the senior British officer in the US-led post-invasion reconstruction office in Iraq, writes: “We do need to have a fairly radical shakeup, both in the [defence] ministry but also pan-government.”

Strachan told the Guardian: “The MoD has got to get real … Differences and debates need to be properly gone over. Otherwise we are none the wiser”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/19/mod-risking-soldiers-iraq-afghanistan-generals

Russia Accuses West Of Arming Mali “Al-Qaeda” Rebels

Western imperialism knows no bounds. The “British” government is a direct threat to your safety. The people that have, are, and will suffer because of the “British” government’s gun running and regime change will naturally seek revenge on the aggressor nation. The guilty politicians will not, of course, suffer the consequences. They never do. Only the British people will suffer as they did on 7/7.  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Revenge will one day be upon us.

Define irony? Here is one, or rather two, tries.

Back in the 1970s, it was none other than the US that armed the Taliban “freedom fighters” fighting against the USSR in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, only to see these same freedom fighters eventually and furiously turn against the same US that provided them with arms and money, with what ended up being very catastrophic consequences, culminating with September 11.

Fast forward some 30 or more years and it is again the US which, under the guise of dreams and hopes of democracy and the end of a “dictatorial reign of terror”, armed local insurgents in the Libyan war of “liberation” to overthrow the existing regime (and in the process liberate just a bit of Libya’s oil) – the same Libya where shortly thereafter these same insurgents rose against their former sponsor, and killed the US ambassador in what has now become an epic foreign policy Snafu.

But it doesn’t end there as according to Russia, it is the same US weapons that were provided to these Libyan “freedom fighters” that are now being used in what is rapidly becoming a war in Mali, involving not only assorted French regiments, but extensive US flip flops and boots on the ground.

Via Al Jazeera,

Russia said on Wednesday the rebels fighting French and African troops in Mali are the same fighters the West armed in the revolt that ousted Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

“Those whom the French and Africans are fighting now in Mali are the [same] people who overthrew the Gaddafi regime, those that our Western partners armed so that they would overthrow the Gaddafi regime,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a news conference.

“It’s important to lift one’s head a bit and look over the horizon, look at all those processes more widely, they are interconnected and carry very many threats,” Lavrov said, speaking of unrest across the Middle East that could play into the hands of militants.

“This will be a time bomb for decades ahead,” he said.

That is our definition of irony.

Hat tip:  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-23/russia-accuses-west-arming-mali-al-qaeda-rebels

Article: The Tony Blair Scandal

Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh Scotland on 6 May 1953, to Leo Blair and Hazel Corscadden. His paternal ancestors were the English actors Charles Parsons and Mary Augusta Ridgway Bridson, the latter of whom had some degree of aristocratic descent.

Blair’s father was illegitimate however and he was adopted as a baby by Glasgow shipyard worker James Blair and his wife. His mother Hazel Corscadden was of the daughter of George Corscadden, an Ulster-Scots butcher and Orangeman who moved to Glasgow in 1916 but returned to (and later died in) Ballyshannon in 1923.

Sarah Margaret Lipsett according to Edward MacLysaght, the origin of the name Lipsett in County Donegal derived from Ashkenazi Jewish settlers in the 18th century as an Anglicization of Lipsitz. This would make Tony Blair himself a Jew accord to the Halacha.

Tony was fined £50 for trying to solicit men in public toilets, something he had done since his cross dressing days at college, and he was later to steal Cherie from Derry Irving with whom he shared a flat.

Tony’s rise on the British political ladder was masterminded by Lord Levy, while Rothschild’s British representative Peter Mandelson was directly over him and masterminded the creation of the Zionist front org, “New labour” which really had just one purpose, to Bring the British army into war with Iraq for Israel’s benefit.

Tony Blair, voted the worst Prime Minister in living memory, worse than Thatcher who destroyed British Industry, worse that pedophile Edward Heath who took us into the EU after we fought W W II to stay out, worse than gay Gordon Brown who sold our gold reserves to Rothschild on the day the gold price was at its lowest ever, and even worse than Winston Churchill of whom his pal Aleister Crowley said was one criminal lunatic.

In 1999 an international investigation into child porn by Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Service codenamed Operation Ore, resulted in 7,250 suspects being identified in the United Kingdom alone. Some 1850 people were criminally charged in the case and there were 1451 convictions. Almost 500 people were interviewed “under caution” by police, meaning they were suspects. Some 900 individuals remain under investigation.

In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair’s government, allegedly Chris Smith, Peter Mandelson and Gay Gordon.

Carol Caplin was said to be the Mossad watcher inside number 10 and Rupert Murdoch and David Murphy-Fawks competed with GCHQ to tape his phone calls and his late night rows with Cherie.

Israel and New labour sabotaged efforts to pursue the Goldstone report on Israeli war crimes in Gaza, through the UN.

Blair also brokered another major deal with Israel for British Gas to secure contracts to exploit natural gas fields worth up to 6 billion dollars in the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip, in effect stolen from the Palestinians, Blair negotiated the deal directly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu In 2007, the United Nations Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People spent over $400,000 on three armoured cars for Blair against their will.

Blair has contrived to constantly undermine the British people by making almost one law change a day in the almost 10 years he was in office, making large sums for his wife’s Matrix Chambers law practise, he also sold out the poverty stricken besieged starving Palestinians and his paymasters in Tel Aviv rewarded him by making him Middle East envoy, Tony has been raking it in with his 30 pieces of silver like the true Judas he is.

Figures show that under the embargo to Iraq half a million children died, and now he wants to do the same to Iran, we won’t be fighting this war for you Tony, get your paymasters in Tel Aviv to fight their own wars, is it too much to ask that if you are British prime minister you put the British people first ?

Tony recently voted asshole of the year by the student’s mag ‘Rsouls’ and is currently being chased to appear at the international war crimes court in the Hague, Saddham Hussein was hung for things he had not done, fingers crossed Tony Blair hangs as well.

T Stokes London

Hat tip: http://thetruthnews.info/Tony_Blair_Scandal.html

VIDEO: detailed expose of Tory “murdering paedophile” Ted Heath

Make of this interview what you will, but what Shrimpton claims about former British PM and Savile pal, Ted Heath, is given in graphic detail, and clearly implicates more than one top ranking government official in murdering children – which was covered-up.

Hat tip: http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/01/19/shrimpton-ted-heath-murdering-pedo-david-kelly-robin-cook-and-diana-assasinated/

ARTICLE: Kazakhstan Dictator Admires “British” Dictator Chairman Cameron

For a closer analysis of Chairman Cameron in relation to this issue see the video below (18 minutes in):

President Nazarbayev said he had been watching Cameron and praised him for ‘the way he protects the interests of the British people all over the world’

he final day of David Cameron’s visit to central Asia was overshadowed by political embarrassment today after Kazakhstan’s hardline ruler said he would vote for the Prime Minister if he had the chance.

President Nursultan Nazarbayev said he had been watching Mr Cameron and publicly praised him for “the way he protects the interests of the British people all over the world”.

The controversial Kazakh leader, who recorded 95.5 per cent of the popular vote at his last election, added: “Personally, I would vote for him.” A visibly squirming Mr Cameron, who had spent much of the previous 24 hours with the President, replied: “That’s one [vote]; I just need another 20 million and I’m in business.”

The Prime Minister, who had proclaimed that the relationship between the two countries was moving “to the next level”, was also forced to apologise after it emerged that a Kazakh artist with no hands had been denied a UK visa because he had not provided fingerprints.

The unwelcome interventions dominated a press conference held in the presidential palace in Astana, to rubber-stamp a series of agreements on trade and a “strategic partnership” between the two countries. Mr Cameron, who had travelled to the oil-rich state with a delegation of British firms including BP, Shell and Rolls-Royce, said Kazakhstan was “a dynamic country that is poised to become a high income country by the end of this decade”.

The Prime Minister spent much of the previous 24 hours with the President, travelling in his private jet and drinking with him in an “Irish Bar” where Guinness sells for £11 a pint. He confirmed that he had raised the issue of human rights in Kazakhstan, including “credible allegations” that the Nazarbayev regime was guilty of torture and curbs on religious and press freedoms.

Read on:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/kazakhstan-dictator-heaps-praise-on-david-cameron-and-says-he-would-vote-for-him-8681102.html

(2011) New Labour’s Tony Blair -fined £500 for indecent conduct with a male in public toilets

This information is scattered all over the internet. War criminal Tony Blair has thus far not denied it. 

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (Tony Blair, former PM of the UK)

He was charged and appeared in court at Bow Street magistrates court for importunity in a public toilet with another male. He tried to get sexual favour from the other man, little did he know that the toilet was being watched by police. Blair was fined £500, and walked away with nobody knowing who he really was as he used his middle names to cover who he was. Charles Lynton is the name used, and his friends in court got him off with a fine, because he is one of them.

http://operationorethegambleconnection.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/anthony-charles-lynton-blairtony.html

(2013) New Labour Cllr. Eleanor Jackson –ANTI-ENGLISH Traitor

New Labour Cllr. Eleanor Jackson –Traitor

Don’t like and English flag flying in England? Then leave. We don’t need any more traitors.

Contrary to popular belief, the Crusades were not a campaign to spread faith by the sword, but a defense of Catholics and their holy places against Muslim aggression as well as an answer to a desperate plea from the Orthodox Church. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLVXRrzm0kc

The flag of St George will not be flying over Radstock any time soon after town councillors decided it was inappropriate.

The town council decided not to buy a St George’s flag after a discussion about repairs to the civic flagpole to ensure a Union Flag could be flown on Armistice Day.

Among the concerns expressed were the offence that could be taken by Muslims.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson (Lab, Radstock), a university lecturer and teacher, said its use during the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries could mean the English national flag could be seen by some as offensive.

She added: “My big problem is that it is offensive to some Muslims but even more so that it has been hijacked by the far right. My thoughts are we ought to drop it for 20 years.”

She suggested the Union flag was a more inclusive and suitable way of displaying national pride.

The council will also be flying the In Bloom flag at the Miners’ Memorial Garden to celebrate the town’s achievements in the gardening competition and the rainbow flag, the symbol of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride movement, at “appropriate” times of the year.

There are also plans for a flag to be designed specially for Radstock.

Town council chairwoman councillor Lesley Mansell said the main reasons for not buying the flag were practical ones: “We do not have a Union Jack and the discussion was mainly about purchasing one to fly mainly for Armistice Day.

“The list we saw at council included a number of other flags which councils are allowed to display which includes those for the patron saints for England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

“The council confirmed its original decision to purchase a Union Jack, to fly the In Bloom one and the rainbow flag at appropriate times. We are working on a new logo and when that is sorted we hope to have our own flag for Radstock.”

John Clements, vice-president of national patriotic group the Royal Society of St George, branded the decision “nonsense” and said “censoring” of the national flag played into the hands of the far right.

A spokeswoman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said it encouraged the flying of the St George’s flag.

She said: “St George needs to take his rightful place as a national symbol of inclusivity rather than a symbol of hatred. St George actually lived before the birth of Islam and should not be associated with any hatred of Muslims.”

In a further statement, the town council said reports that it had “banned” the flag were wide of the mark.

“Radstock Town Council is sorry about reports in the media and wishes to clarify that at no point has a decision been taken to lower the St George’s flag. At our April meeting, the council was informed that it does not have a Union Jack and a vote was taken and agreed by all to purchase one.

“The council did not vote to ban the St George’s flag nor any other flag.

“The decision taken was made in line with the resources and staffing that we have as a small town council.

“The mechanism on the flagpole is currently broken and we are seeking to have this repaired as soon as possible. The council is proud to fly the Union Jack as part of our heritage.”

Read more: http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Radstock-St-George-s-flag-dumped-avoid-offending/story-19003959-

(2012) New Labour M.P. John Cruddas -BANNED FROM DRIVING AND FINED £300 FOR HAVING NO M.O.T. OR INSURANCE

A senior Labour MP has been banned from driving for eight weeks after police stopped his car and found he had no insurance and an expired MOT certificate.

Jon Cruddas, 50, was driving a Land Rover Freelander near Hyde Park in central London on July 6 when he was pulled over by officers who noticed what appeared to be a defective brake light.

The MP for Dagenham and Rainham, who is chairing Labour’s policy review, was banned from driving for eight weeks for not having any insurance and fined £300 for an expired MOT.

Dressed in a dark suit and red tie, sheepish-looking Cruddas pleaded guilty to both charge when he appeared in the dock at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Friday.

Daniel Irving, prosecuting, said: “At 9am on July 6, police saw a grey Land Rover Freelander with a brake light that wasn’t aligned.

“Checks revealed a test certificate had expired in June and no insurance was held. Land Rover had sent a letter saying the insurance expired some ten days before the event.

“When he was pulled over, he said ‘sorry I don’t have insurance'”.

The court heard that Cruddas already had six points on his license for speeding, so a further six points would have meant a compulsory driving ban.

Mark McDonald, mitigating for the MP, said Cruddas put paying for everything on a “to-do” list, but simply forgot about it.

He added: “He thought he had two weeks to pay and simply didn’t read the letter properly. He wrongly assumed and didn’t check and didn’t read the letter basically.

ARTICLE: Why The Paedophile Politicians & Royal Family Want To Silence The Alternative Media

Whilst Friday the 21st of December 2012 may not have seen the end of the world, it is fair to say that the date came as a disaster for an awful lot of paedophiles. This disaster came about after I received an Email which contained a link to a child porn website.

The author of the Email – who out of fear of reprisals wishes to remain anonymous – was sickened, not only by the fact that the vile site existed; but also by the fact that it was easily accessible via Twitter – A sentiment that I was in total agreement with.

According to my source, he found it necessary to Email me only after first contacting the Daily Mirror Newspaper about the sicko website. During the course of reading the Email, I learned that this Child porn website has a foothold in the UK, USA, Brazil, and Germany.

However, the fact that my Source first chose to contact the Daily Mirror, turns out to be quite fucking ironic as you shall see, if you take the time to finish reading this report. So, just for the record, the following is a cut and paste of what my Source told me about that contact with the newspaper:

I contacted the mirror to see if they were interested in busting a paedo net, they were then said i should contact the old bill, im not keen on that as from what i see they all swim in the same sludge. Anyway the (sic) took my phone number have a chat with lawyers (sic) and get back to me. Im not holding my breath.

Funnily enough – That is to say it would be if it wasn’t so fucking serious – I am also in contact with someone who is due to give a statement to detectives… Don’t fucking start again. I take your point but that is still their job description… from Operation Pallial, the police investigation into the historic child abuse that took place in children’s homes such as the Bryn Estyn. Here is what he told me in one of his communications:

I am about to make a statement to Operation Pallial, they have cancelled twice so who knows eh? Obviously I will not be giving the Police the full story as they are as crooked as the rest, especially the lot here in North Wales eh?

Notice the similarities between the two messages? Course, the fact that these two sources of information have no faith in the Old Bill comes as no surprise to me what so ever. The Police top brass are just as involved in this cess pit of paedophilia as the Government and Royal family are. However, I digress.

The website in question, had a layout similar to that of the social network website, Tumblr and appeared to consist of photos showing naked girls whom I would estimate as being between the ages of 11 – 15. Even more disturbing, was the fact that approximately half the photos I saw were of a professional standard and taken in studio like settings. From that website, I was then able to access links to other paedophile sites.

One of these websites had abhorrent, professionally taken photos of young girls and boys whom I would estimate as being between the age of 5-7. All the children appeared to be in various states of undress and all were photographed in provocative poses (legs splayed etc).

Unsure of where best to report these websites, I passed the information onto Chris Wittwer whose website http://chris-ukorg.org/ specialises in exposing paedophiles. Chris in turn reported the sites to the Police Paedophile Unit and the Internet Watch Foundation – http://www.iwf.org.uk/

However, when both failed to respond – the police obviously being far to busy investigating a jape that led to a suicide as well as whitewashing Operation Yewtree – Chris engaged the services of a group of ‘Hackers’, who were able to gain access into the sites data and users personal information. That info was then passed on to the police.

Here is what Chris Wittwer said about the Hackers on his Facebook page:

Well done to the lads who hacked and destroyed hundreds of child abuse websites & twitter accounts this weekend. It was a education watching you all locking in and destroying them !!! Lots of intelligence gained and arrests to follow soon.

All in all then, a good weekends work. Makes you wonder why the Cunt Cameron wants to silence us here in the AM, doesn’t it? Never the less, the closing down of these horrific websites has been reported by one newspaper in the MSM. And that newspaper was… The fucking Daily Mirror. You really couldn’t make this shit up, don’t cha know.

I would like to think that the above good news goes some way to reassuring all those who send me information, that I do take everything that I am sent seriously and act on it accordingly. However, I do have to check that the information you send me is accurate – which obviously takes time. This has resulted in some senders believing that I am not interested in using their information. I can assure those who do think that to be the case, that nothing could be further from the truth. Keep the information coming, no matter how trivial you think it may be.

I would also like you all to be aware that over the festive period, this website will be moving from the http://www.ccs-rochford.co.uk domain to its own – http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk. I am told that this necessary transferring of domains may lead to some minor disruption, and as such I apologise in advance if anyone has trouble accessing the site. Fortunately the transfer should take no more than a day or two.

However, by liking my FB page, which you can do via the ‘home page’ on this site, and/or following me on Twitter @chrisspivey3, you will still be able to get all the latest news.

Finally, before you read the afore mentioned article from the Daily Mirror, I will just take this opportunity to wish all my readers a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Let 2013 be the year that we put the Great back in Britain. Lets go to fuckin’ war.

Much love,

Chris

Hat tip:  http://www.ccs-rochford.co.uk/spivey/?p=8077

(2012) Conservative M.P. David Cameron -GUN-RUNNING

In light of the pan-Middle Eastern conflicts currently ongoing at the behest of the West and its private army, the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation (N.A.T.O.), it is disingenuous to claim that Cameron is promoting British defence firms. Who, during conflict, “promotes defence firms”? 

This is nothing short of gun-running.

Cameron’s previous crimes especially:

Blast from the Past: Prime Minster David Cameron -TERRORIST APOLOGIST

 

David Cameron has insisted he made “no apology” for flying to the Gulf to bang the drum for British defence firms despite the poor human rights record in the region.

The Prime Minister faced heavy criticism for his three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates last week, which was partly aimed at clinching orders for Typhoon jets.

Amnesty International accused him of a “deeply-disturbing trade-off” between trade and strategic interests and the promotion of human rights.

But delivering the annual Mansion House speech, Mr Cameron retorted: “We must support all sectors of the economy where we have a comparative advantage – and that includes defence.”

He said he understood why some critics were “a bit squeamish” about defence deals, but he insisted Britain had the most rigorous arms export licensing regime in the world.

He added: “Every country in the world has a right to self-defence. And you cannot expect every country to be self-sufficient in providing the tanks, ships and planes needed.

“So when Britain has a very strong defence industry, with 300,000 jobs depending on it, it’s right we should be at forefront of this market, supporting British jobs and British allies.”

He said 300,000 jobs depended on the Typhoon contracts, which are worth around £6bn.

In the speech, regarded as the Prime Minister’s main foreign affairs address of the year, he argued that Britain had to fight vigorously for a share of trade in rapidly-growing export markets.

Since coming to office, he has led trade missions to Africa, Indonesia, China, India, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Japan and Malaysia.

“I know there are some people who say that’s not real foreign policy. Or worse still, it’s just globetrotting. But I say there is a global race out there to win jobs for Britain and I believe in leading from the front. So I make no apology for linking Britain to the fastest growing parts of the world.”

He announced the appointment of trade envoys to promote British businesses in Mexico, South Africa, Morocco, Indonesia, Kuwait, Vietnam, Algeria and Kazakhstan.

He also mounted a strong defence of the City of London against critics whom he accused of wanting to “trash” the banks.

He pointed out that the financial services sector contributes one-eighth of Britain’s tax  revenue and underpins jobs for two million people.

“Yes, some utterly terrible mistakes were made and they need to be addressed properly so they can never happen again.

“But those who think the answer is just to trash the banks, would end up trashing Britain,” Mr Cameron said.

“I say – recognise the enormous strength and potential of our financial sector, regulate it properly and get behind it.”

Read on:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-makes-no-apology-for-controversial-visit-to-the-gulf-to-promote-british-defence-firms-8307188.html

ARTICLE: Gatekeepers Attempt to Erase Pedophilia: BBC and Gov’t Operatives Still Hoping To Stop Hemorrhaging of Public Confidence

Nicholas Myra
21st Century Wire
Guest Columnist

A disturbing shift has occurred over the weekend in Britain.

A very noticeable pressure has been building against Britain’s elite establishment composed of politicians, highly paid media executives and celebrities, over the ugly issue of pedophilia and child abuse – a crime which has, for generations, been allowed to be carried out in secret.

Since Friday’s assessment of David Cameron’s most embarrassing TV challenge by seemingly harmless personality Philip Schofield, the whole national conversation is now being engineered by Downing Street and top media executives, to rotate away from Jimmy Savile and MP Tom Watson’s call for a rooting out of organized pedophilia in government – and over to protecting the allegedly fragilereputations of hereditary elites like Lord McAlpine, who according to major newspaper editors and TV pundits, have suddenly become victims of a ‘witch-hunt’ for paedophiles.

Lord McApline: “I never abused children’.

Following a rather obvious, internally staged damage control event, where the embattled BBC Director General George Entwistle went on BBC Breakfast Show and the Radio Four Live programs to fall on his sword for ‘bad journalism’ over last week’s Newsnight set-up – Entwistle resigns. Now the government are crying witch-hunt. It’s an attempt to apply a new spin to the old spin, where the public are now expected to feel sorry for Lord McAlpine and any other ‘proper person’ like him, for being accused of child abuse, or pedophilia.

This is the latest effort by Downing Street spin doctors and certain media executives and hired writers, to shut down any serious debate on paedophiles in power, and close the doors on any more fruitful external or internal investigations.

They really hope to end it here with Jimmy Savile and Sir Peter Morrison, and maybe throw in the clown Gary Glitter for good measure.

Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. Why? Because when it comes to its children, parents nationwide will not accept the standard government cover-up inquiry and perverting the course of justice. The nation will not let go of this issue, because it’s out there, and because 9 out of 10 plebs agree that pedophiles should be eradicated from all public institutions.

Up until this week, the major media gatekeepers were locked into a spiraling narrative which they could not escape because the implications towards the people involved threatened to entire power structure – because they are very afraid about what people will find out. In their dark world of cloak and dagger, the most coveted prize of all is dirt. It’s the most valuable form of currency behind the scenes. Newspaper editors, executives, TV producers, police, MI5, lawyers, MPs, Ministers and gangsters are constantly trafficking in information about each other in order to gain an advantage. In this black market of classified information, reports of pedophilia, child abuse – and also homosexuality, are as good as gold.

The key word here is classified.

Gatekeepers and Consensus Makers

David Aaronovitch published his column in the Times on  Thurs Nov 8, 2012, entitled, ‘Beware of a modern Salem over child abuse’. This was 24 hours before another intellectual giant, Prime Minister David Cameron went on national TV and cried ‘witch-hunt’when ambushed by housewife pin-up Schofield. Predictably,Aaronvitch has led the charge calling for the sacking of Philip Schofield on LBC Radio. Aaronovitch also stating on air that some of the allegations against Jimmy Savile “may not be true”, quite a shocking sympathetic stance regarding the nation’s worse-ever child abuser. Pretty shocking.

Aaronovitch’s ‘witch-hunt’ is a rather hysterical claim. Yet, it’s hard to believe that the great and the good would be crying scared so much to scream “witch-hunt!”, but there you have it. If this scandal wasn’t so serious, I’d be laughing right about now.

On its surface, the new witch-hunt talking point sounds like a desperate establishment meme, from an elite criminal ring who are now in such a panic as to try and equate the very serious and documented problem of organized paedophilia operating through positions of power, in government, the media, the police – and the judiciary, with a sensational event which happened in colonial Massachusetts. No, we have stacks of forensic evidence, and police reports that prove that, unlike witches in Salem, paedophiles in British institutions do actually exist.

Rather ironically, the cause of that old Salem witch hunt was guilty men in power trying to cover-up and silence anyone who dared speak of their heinous crimes.

Paedophiles and sexual deviants in positions of power – is a reality, not a ‘conspiracy theory’, as the Times writer Aaronovitch hoped to define it, by denying it exists. Documents in the Belgium child rape and murder case pointed at the involvement of both Belgium AND Dutch politicians, judiciary and police – all taking part in the Mark Dutroux child abuse scandal, but writers like Aaronovitch will tell you that it’s just another ‘conspiracy theory’. The UK’s police and security services do have reams of evidence, but unfortunately for us the public, most of these crimes are sealed by government D Notices, while the rest are buried through internal institutional investigations.

It was also more than a little disturbing to watch how Aaronovitch is said to have spoken to “a Senior BBC journalist”, whom he claims, like Aaronovitch, was “deeply skeptical” about child abuse victim Steve Messham’s testimony. Notice how David Aaronovitch doesn’t name the journalist, but is clearly using his column to draft a conviction – for all we know, David Aaronovitch could just be making things up to spread false information – just like those pesky internet blogs he says he loathes. Anyhow, I think it’s pretty darn safe to say here that the last person I would call on would be aBBC journalist for a second opinion when it comes to child abuse cases (I cough here).

So here we have it, a senior Times columnist who appears to be using his column in a national daily newspaper to deliver his own verdict in the North Wales Child Home scandal by trying to convince the public that victim Messham’s testimony was “shaky”. If I didn’t know better, I’d say he has an ulterior motive, maybe ‘moonlighting’ as they say, but it’s really so hard to tell these days who’s who in the world of big money media.

Aaronovitch: Drafted in again to protect the establishment line.

I suppose that Aaronovitch might also be a little upset to know that fixer Sir Jimmy Savile was also acting as a go-between for Israel and Britain.

What was Jimmy up to in Israel? I can tell you this much – it’s no secret in Whitehall. That’s not a conspiracy theory by the way, and as upset as some folks might be about it, you can’t rewrite history.

Moreover, writer David Aaronovitch also made a highly questionable, and arguably insensitive, if not bizarrely inappropriate statement in the same article:

“The unattractive (because complicating) truth is that sometimes people do lie about being abused. Sometimes it’s for money, sometimes for attention, sometimes because that’s what they infer their listeners want to hear.  Or fantasy has become solidified as fact, the dream as daylight.”

Pretty shocking stuff. Aaronovitch’s statement about victims ‘fantasizing’ about their abusers, is designed to support his rather disingenuous ‘witch-hunt’ thesis, when it appears a paragraph before his own self-styled verdict on Steve Messham’s ‘shaky’ testimony, and this type of statement in the face of what is clearly a national institutional problem almost looks again like Aaronovitch has been put up to help steer public opinion completely away from a problem. His statement is Salem in reverse. Shame on you David.

Aaronovitch has a history of making some rather ridiculous statements, and then cleverly covering their own tracks.Whether defending the mythology of WMD’s in Iraq (after his pro-war campaigning for Gulf War II, he tries to cover his tracks in 2004 saying, “From the outset of the Iraq debate I was a WMD agnostic”), or defending Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, Aaronovitch has a pretty shameless record as an establishment gatekeeper, whilst touting some sort of Marxistpedigree. As a former Observer columnist, he is the classic example of a 20th century media-annointed, intelligentsia gatekeeper who typically writes a column per week, appears on the odd panel, looks to be busy by writing a few mediocre history books debunking ‘conspiracy theories’ – and somehow gets paid handsomely for it. His job it seems, is to put his own memes out there into the public conversation in order to get people thinking along received establishment wisdom. The irony here is, when it comes to opinion forming, when it’s all said and done, more people will have read our article here on this website than David Aaronovitch’s piece for the Times – thanks to Rupert Murdoch’s subscription firewall at theTimes.co.uk.

Tories in Arms

Mellor: Here’s one guy who shouldn’t be calling anyone ‘weird’.

The great thing about a Tory is, they will come out to defend their own, even if it’s a bit off key. Another much celebrated (although slightly odd) Tory politician turned media intelligentsia figure,David Mellor, has also come out this weekend in support of pal Lord McAlpine to help discredit Steve Messham by labeling the abuse victim a “weirdo”. Here Mellor is joining the fight to protect the elite, but his motives are obvious. Tim Loughton, a Conservative MP has rightly pointed out that victims could now fear being “taken out to dry” by the media if they name any public figures as paedophiles – something I’m sure the Tory government would hate to have happen now.

The latest rewriting of history is underway with North Wales Child Homes latest ‘photo swap’– enter stage left, ‘Jimmy’ McAlpine,because it doesn’t take a Times reader to figure out that Steve Messham would have looked at images of McAlpine prior to yesterday, “Oops, we made a mistake”. He’s either been threatened or bribed, or both. Would this have been done if McAlpine was not guilty?

This latest establishment stunt is designed to stop the momentum of the revelations about elite involvement in Savile’s activities, and to discredit information on the internet about elites involvement paedophilia.

So Aaronovitch and Mellor’s gatekeeping on the issue of institutional pedophilia in Britain is just one example of how members of the media regularly conform, and in some cases, streamline, to Whitehall’s desired talking points on any major issue involving national security – and make no mistake here, paedophiles in government is a national security issue, just ask the Russians and the Israelis. The media, for the most part, also did this before and during, the war with Iraq. The same thing is happening with this paedophile scandal, and it should sicken the public. It’s a vile exhibition of symbiotic members of the establishment covering each others asses – figuratively, and literally.

Savile: A friend if the elite, protected by the police, the royals and media.

So Pope Entwistle has resigned (aka sacked). Big deal. A new Pope will replace him. No matter how many Director Generals they sack, no matter how many Tory heads cry “mistaken identity!”, the fact is that Sir Jimmy Savile was not working alone and the BBC are beyond guilty with their shameful cover-up. The BBC are officially a damaged brand.

Jeremy Paxman is said to be upset over Entwistle’s departure, and will probably resign next.

Could it be that the system is so corrupt it cannot be trusted to investigate itself?

I would sincerely hope that the public will be the judge of that one – and not highly paid media gatekeepers and secretive politicians.

Investigations – as well as debates on child abuse, need to be opened up, not closed down. Those who are trying to shut either of these down, are very probably covering for the guilty in power.

More and more revelations will be forthcoming. The gilded age of paedophiles could soon be over, because no matter how hard they  try, they cannot rewrite history now.

Gatekeepers Attempt to Erase Paedophilia: BBC and Gov’t Operatives Still Hoping To Stop Hemorrhaging of Public Confidence

ARTICLE: The Trouble with BBC ‘Children in Need’ Ambassador Max Clifford and Tory MP Alan Clark

Nicholas Myra
21st Century Wire

You’d better believe that Max Clifford has a lot of skeletons in his filing cabinet.

If you have enough money, you too can have your skeletons filed away in these rather seedy archives.

In the leaked video that has since gone viral, allegedly filmed before last year, the camera man managed to loosen up Clifford enough to spill a large can of beans. In the video, the legendary PR Guru to the stars and elites let slip that he had successfully hid away the sins of one Tory MP, and ‘diarist’, Alan Clark.

Tory MP Alan Clark

Alan Clark’s noted adulterous affair with Valerie Harkess, the wife of a South African judge, and her two daughters Josephine and Alison, for their tale of the seduction of all three by Clark (to whom he referred collectively as “the coven”) made the Harkesses ‘a lot of money’ according to Clifford.  The affair became public knowledge in 1992 after Clark left the House of Commons, and later took its place between the covers of a few best selling seedy novels. Both sides had profited from the affair, but according the Clifford in the video below, it seemed that MP Alan Clark had to bury a rather inconvenient detail which would have landed him in a criminal court.

Here are two excerpts from the video which was released by super blog site Guido Fawkes:

“He enjoyed it that whole thing, Alan Clark loved the whole thing…  they(the Harkesses) made a lot of money out of it, he used them, so they wanted to make money out of it, and had a … so they did, he(Alan Clark) enjoyed it and sold a lot of books.”

“The only slightly serious side of it was that he(Alan Clark) actually interfered with those girls from the age of 14…”

He seems to be referring to the crime of paedophilia there…

If this was indeed the case, then Clark would have also profited from it. Fancy that.

Watch the video here:

The next line is the real killer though, and one which we should all stop, pause, and consider properly – particularly during the current paedophile upheaval which the BBC and the current government are so anxious to draw a line under. Following the fake duel between the BBC’s Newsnight and much maligned Lord McAlpine, the establishment was hoping that no more high-ranking figures or MP’s would be fingered for paedophilia or child abuse.

This much is certain – the elite power brokers want their public nightmare to end with Savile. 

Casually referring to the volumes of dirt he has tucked away for a rainy day, Max Clifford ignominiously boasts here:

“I’ve got all the evidence, I’m the one who’s hidden it from the world, I know where everything is…”

If this video is genuine and what it appears to be, then Clifford could eventually become a key figure at the centre of this issue.

The Independent had published a story on this incident entitled,Publicist Max Clifford Denies Covering Up Conservative MP Alan Clark’s Underage Sex Scandal, but then quickly removed it from their website. This is not surprising because Max still wields incredible power on Fleet Street. The full text of their article can be found here, explaining:

“The former government minister Alan Clark had sex with children, according to the publicity agent Max Clifford. In a secretly filmed, three-minute interview posted on the internet last night, the publicist said that the Tory MP and diarist had “interfered” with two 14-year-old girls. But he added, during a discussion of his success in suppressing scandals, that the story had never come out.

Last night Mr Clifford, who was unaware his comments were being recorded, strenuously denied that he had told the girls’ family to stay quiet about the allegations.”

Max: Keeps ugly secrets safe.

Max Clifford keeps things tidy for the elite, and the dirt he collects keeps him safe from reprisals. It’s a high stakes game, and he is undoubtedly one of the best ever to play it. He knows where the bodies are buried, so to speak. Sure, it would be career suicide for his PR business, but if he chose to, he could certainly help towards gaining justice for many sexually abused children. In the end, that’s up to Max Clifford, but because of the nature of his work and the confidentiality which is the currency of his profession – any disclosure on crimes in high places is unlikely to happen.

One might ask here, where does Clifford stand morally, or legally for that matter, if he is holding back information about known paedophiles, particularly those in government? Does he have the same sort of protection from disclosure as say, a doctor, or Catholic priest? He has not committing any offense as such, but it’s worth asking here, does he have a duty to report a child abuse case? Critics might charge here, and rightly so, that Clifford is somehow putting his own wealth above the safety of children. If it’s a paedophile in government, then it could be viewed as a national security issue because that public official could be blackmailed by a foreign interest.

It would be interesting to know if Sir Jimmy Savile was a past client of Clifford’s, or of another firm.

An intriguing question now is: how many more MPs, celebrities and various oligarchs (these are the only people who can afford to retain the services of a high flyer like Max Clifford) have had their sins washed away by Clifford, or other PR firms like his?

Since the Savile scandal broke, guess who have been getting flooded with phone calls from ‘frightened’ celebrities who are afraid of being implicated, for unknown offenses and associations with Savile, including – paedophilia. A recent article describes the phenomenon:

Dozens of big name stars from the 1960s and 70s have contacted Max Clifford “frightened to death” they will become implicated in the widening Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal, the PR guru has claimed.

He said the stars, some of whom are still big names today, were worried because at their peak they had lived a hedonistic lifestyle where young girls threw themselves at them but they “never asked for anybody’s birth certificate”.

Most celebrities and TV people will use the ‘rock n roll’ get out clause, claiming that children were “throwing themselves at me”, and this tends to work in Britain where morals are now subject to the laws of relativity. But after Savile, the rock star excuse doesn’t hold as much credence. They are all genuinely scared, feeling guilty, because they know they got away with it back them because the system covered for them, but that system is crumbling – that’s why they’re calling Max – to preserve their media value. More girth for Max Clifford’s expanding filing cabinet? More girth in fees too.

This couldn’t come at a worse time, as Max Clifford has recently been appointed as the PR Ambassador to the BBC charity, Children In Need. Is a man who makes his living running cover for the rich and powerful the right man to steer a children’s charity?

You cannot ignore the spooky echoes of old Esther Rantzen and pal Jimmy Savile and their Child Line panto.

Without a doubt, there is a lot to speculate on – is this yet another example where the activities of paedophiles in high places strangely link with these “children’s charities” in Britain?

This comment below is from the forum at Mumsnet:

Above text states:

“Paul Roffey (child protection expert) said that pop stars used their position to manipulate young women to carry out acts which were as illegal then as they are now. Clifford also says he has also been contacted by women claiming ‘all kinds of things’, some of whom want to make money out of the abuse scandal. He actually says that he doubts that 50% of what they have told him is true! And Yet he believes his famous friends who come to him because they are worried about associations with JS and child abuse. He defends clients such as OJ Simpson, Mohamed Al Fayed, David Copperfield, Kerry Katona, Simon Cowell, Shilpa Shetty, the five men who were suspected of killing Stephen Lawrence, Gillian McKeith and Shrien Dewani, the man accused of orchestrating the murder of his wife, Anni in S Africa. I rest my case. MC is, in fact, the perfect, living embodiment of contemporary hypocrisy. God Help us!!”

You can try and spin it all you want, but an older folks having sex with a child is morally, and legally wrong.

Let’s be honest with ourselves on this issue – paedophillia seems to be acceptable with certain privileged people in power.

Therein lies the BIG problem we are facing as a society.

ARTICLE: David Cameron just doesn’t get it – the police and judiciary are part of UK abuse problem

Full public inquiry and special commission must happen now

Peter Sterry 21st Century Wire

As the rippling waves emanating from the cesspool that is Sir Jimmy Savile’s legacy break on the shores of the British establishment, it is becoming increasingly clear how the establishment is attempting once again to protect its own.

In response both to Tom Watson’s questioning in the House of Commons – and the fabulous impromptu exposure by Philip Schofield (an event surely set to become legendary in television history) British Prime Minister David Cameron’s singular response is that anyone with any evidence should go to the Police, regardless of how powerful the accused may be. Is Cameron aware that multiple victims in the North Wales inquiry names the same high ranking Tory politician, and in at least one case, the police deemed their testimony as “fantasy”? For a Prime Minister, it is a breathtakingly, though probably deliberately naive approach. It feels like a government’s greasy denial that paedophiles are operating in positions of power. North Wales abuse victim Steve Messham testified that his life was threatened by his abuser, which is a common intimidation tactic seen in many abuse cases. Death threats change the playing field considerably.

Cameron: confused, or just waiting to pass the buck on?

So where exactly is David Cameron suggesting survivors take their evidence ? The serving police officers referred to by some of those abuse at the hellish Bryn Estin in North Wales? Or is the Prime Minister proposing just walking in to your local cop shop ( if you can still find one of course, given the aggressive programme of police station closure now being implemented by Cameron’s government) and saying “Hey! I was raped by ********* twenty years ago”?

Sensitive matters such as child rape require sensitive solutions. Cameron’s response is not only inadequate, it is simultaneously ignorant, insulting and ludicrous. Lest anyone has missed it, serving police officers and members of the judiciary are among those named by Bryn Estyn victims. It is increasingly clear that the original inquiry was a cover-up, and let us not forget the Masonic connection.

The Waterhouse Tribunal set the tone for its approach to freemasonry right from day one.

In the very first session the barrister for one of the groups of former residents of care homes made an application about masonry. The barrister, Nick Booth, asked that “the Tribunal should keep a register of the masonic membership amongst its staff, the members, its representatives and witnesses who appear before it”. He explained: “The duty of loyalty to a brother mason and his duty of impartiality if he is involved in the administration of justice is not a new one and it’s one that’s very much in the public eye, particularly at the moment.”

“The Tribunal will be aware of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee which is investigating the issue,” he added. “Sir, I stress, if I have not stressed it before, that I am not making any suggestion of disreputable conduct, merely to put the matter beyond the reach of any possible public comment which might undermine the public confidence in the Inquiry.”

Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who chaired the Tribunal, felt that the application was a slur on the integrity of the Tribunal’s staff.

The chairman of the Tribunal, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, and the two other members of the Tribunal, retired for a brief adjournment.

“It will not surprise you that the application is refused,” said Sir Ronald on their return. “As far as the staff are concerned,” Sir Ronald said, “in so far as the application carries any reflection upon the integrity of the staff of the Tribunal it’s repudiated, wholly unwarranted; there is no evidence whatsoever to support any suggestion that they have not acted with complete integrity… ”

“The members of the Tribunal are in this position: the Tribunal was set up by Parliament and the members of it were appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales and the [criticism of the composition] should be addressed through the proper channels.”

He said that the Tribunal’s own Counsel, Gerard Elias QC, was appointed by the Attorney General. “Any criticism … should be addressed through the usual Parliamentary channels,” he suggested.

Gerard Elias said nothing during Booth’s application and he remained silent after Sir Ronald had made the Tribunal’s ruling.

Gerard Elias QC. Leading counsel to Tribunal kept silent on discussion about a register of freemasons. He himself is a freemason…

Yet both Sir Ronald and Gerard Elias knew something that journalists reporting on the Tribunal would have wanted to know.

Gerard Elias is a mason. He’s a member of perhaps the most powerful masonic lodge in Wales, Dinas Llandaf. The lodge, which meets in Cardiff, is made up mainly of legal professionals and members of the Conservative party, although there are members from other political groups. This in and of itself is not a problem, but there is a problem if fellow members have an oath of loyalty to each other which supersedes their oath to uphold law and conduct due diligence in any proper investigation into organised crime.

British ‘Justice’ done in the dark

Imagine a mafia trial where the prosecution and the defense had members of the mafia embedded in key positions. What would be the chances of full disclosure?

We have to ask ourselves, is it possible to have an investigation free from private allegiances stemming from Masonic interference? The British people will demand both a full public enquiry  into the extent of child abuse , rape and murder in Britain both past and present, and a new independent Police investigation with a remit to arrest and prosecute, headed by officers prepared to DECLARE PUBLICLY that they are members of any secret society.

David Cameron can do this now, and retain some personal integrity, or wait until his hand is forced, and retain none.

ARTICLE: Was Guy Fawkes the Last Honest Man to Pass through Westminster?

Hat tip: http://www.westernspring.co.uk/was-guy-fawkes-the-last-good-man-to-pass-through-westminster/

Imagine a government that would deliberately take millions away from the budget meant to educate its own nation’s children, while at the time use billions to send foreign aid to other nations who don’t need it?

That would be nothing less than treason. You cannot imagine any sane government doing such a thing. Think of, for example, China, or Japan, deliberately depriving its own people of an education while giving money to Korea? It just wouldn’t happen, because the Chinese and the Japanese would—rightly—regard that as nothing less than treason.

Of course, you guessed it: Britain’s House of Treason down by the banks of the old river, has done precisely that—and no-one seems to know or care.

The Tory-Lib-Dem-Labour party—because they are just all the same party—is busy with much-vaunted “budget cuts” to “save the economy” (after they and their big business bank cronies screwed it over in the first place) and one of the first cuts to be announced was in the education arena.

Any parent with university-age going children is well aware that uni fees have now rocketed from a manageable amount just two or three years ago, to an impossible £9,000 per year—and that is just for the tutoring fees, never mind books, resources, living allowances, residence and so on.

Even those students “lucky” enough to get loans, start off their working lives with tens of thousands of pounds of debt—an impossible burden which—even more importantly—makes starting a family next to impossible.

The nuts and bolts of the process are as follows: England’s university budgets were cut by £449 million in 2010, with similar cuts being added each following year. This means that over £1.3 billion has been cut in the last three years, and there is no end yet in sight. By the end of 2014, the total uni education budget cut will be cut by nearly £4 billion.

In practical terms, this means that the universities have had at least 6,000 fewer places each academic year.

In addition, research funding has been frozen and the uni buildings budget cut by 15 percent.

At the same time, the Government has announced that taxpayers will hand over £50.8 billion in foreign aid to the Third World by 2014. This translates to 61 percent of the total “spending review” cuts announced by the Government.

According to a press release issued by the Department for International Development (DFID), the total foreign aid budget will reach the targeted 0.7 percent of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2013.

This would mean a yearly spend of £12.6 billion, the DFID said.

This increased spending, the DFID said, is “in line with the UK’s international commitments to help those living in extreme poverty in our world. Over the course of the Spending Review period, the Department for International Development will increase resource spending by 35 percent in real terms, and increase capital spending by 20 percent in real terms.”

This means that the foreign aid budget was £8.4 billion in 2010, £8.7 billion in 2011, £9.1 billion in 2012, and will be £12.0 billion in 2013, and £12.6 billion in 2014—totalling £50.8 billion by the end of 2014.

So there you have it: cut the education budget by £4 billion, but boost the foreign aid budget by £50 billion.

Who would dare call it treason?  I for one, and I am increasingly becoming convinced that the last honest man to pass through the halls of Westminster was indeed Guy Fawkes.

(2012) Conservative Party -B.B.C. CLAIMS TOP TORY IS A PAEDOPHILE BUT PROTECTS HIS NAME

A closer look at the B.B.C. in relation to protecting paedophiles and its desire to sexualise children. Should wise parents still now trust the B.B.C.?:

BBC sex education video ‘is like porn’: MP criticises explicit material and use of naked men in film for nine-year-old pupils

Children are also shown animated cartoon couple making love

Video includes information on ‘wet dreams’ and masturbation

MP wants cinema-style ratings on sex education films for teachers

Hat tip:  http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/11/03/pedo-politician-newsnight-claims-former-top-tory-was-child-sex-pervert/#comment-22777

By James Lyons

The BBC’s Newsnight claimed last night that a former top Tory from the Thatcher government was a child sex pervert.

The programme alleged he was involved in the “systematic abuse” of young boys at North Wales care homes in the 70s and 80s.

But the man, said to have links to Downing Street, was not identified “because there is simply not enough evidence to name names”.

And yesterday insiders warned that the man at the centre of the claims  denies any wrongdoing and is threatening to sue.

One of the alleged victims has called for an inquiry – and says he wants a meeting with the Prime Minister.

Steven Messham, who claims he was abused as a boy, said: “David Cameron has made a sweeping statement that abused people need to be believed.

“We haven’t been believed. We’ve been swept under the carpet. It’s time for a full investigation.”

Earlier yesterday TV journalist Iain Overton revealed on Twitter: “If all goes well we’ve got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile.”

It prompted an internet frenzy of speculation about the identity of the alleged pervert.

Channel 4’s Michael Crick, who used to work on Newsnight, also took to Twitter to claim he had spoken to the man involved, who had not been contacted by the BBC.

He tweeted: “Senior political figure due to be accused tonight by BBC of being paedophile denies allegations + tells me he’ll issue writ agst BBC.”

(…)Up to 650 children in 40 care homes were sexually, physically and emotionally abused over 20 years.

Mr Richards also linked a second leading Tory grandee – now dead – to the scandals at two homes near Wrexham.

Mr Richards – who helped establish the inquiry that unearthed the scale of the abuse – said bluntly: “What I do know is that Morrison was a ­paedophile. And I know that because of the North Wales child abuse scandal.”…

ARTICLE: What did Hague know? Former Minister says Thatcher aide was paedophile who preyed on boys’ home

Hat tip:  http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/10/29/what-did-hague-know-former-minister-says-thatcher-aide-was-paedophile-who-preyed-on-boys-home/

• An ex-Tory minister has claimed Sir Peter Morrison was implicated in the child abuse scandal that engulfed children’s homes in North Wales
• An inquiry discovered up to 650 children in 40 homes were sexually, physically and emotionally in the 1970s and ’80s
• Rod Richards, a former Tory MP, said he had seen evidence linking the former aide to Baroness Thatcher to the scandal

By Glen Owen

A former Tory Minister last night made incendiary claims that one of Margaret Thatcher’s closest aides was implicated in one of the most harrowing child abuse scandals of recent times.

William Hague: what do he know, and when did he know it?

Rod Richards, a former Conservative MP and ex-leader of the Welsh Tories, made the shocking allegation that he had seen evidence linking Sir Peter Morrison to the North Wales children’s homes case, in which up to 650 children in 40 homes were sexually, physically and emotionally abused over 20 years.

Mr Richards also linked a second leading Tory grandee – now dead – to the scandals at homes including Bryn Estyn and Bryn Alyn Hall, both near Wrexham.

He said official documents had identified the pair as frequent, unexplained visitors to the care homes.

Mr Richards – who helped establish the inquiry that unearthed the scale of the abuse – said bluntly: ‘What I do know is that Morrison was a paedophile. And the reason I know that is because of the North Wales child abuse scandal.’

He added that William Hague, who was Welsh Secretary at the time of the inquiry, ‘should have seen the evidence about Morrison’.

Morrison was Lady Thatcher’s parliamentary private secretary and deputy chairman of the Conservative Party.

The claims prompted Labour MPs to call for the files to be reopened to ensure that there had not been an ‘establishment cover-up’.

Mr Hague called the inquiry into the scandal in 1996 after care homes boss John Allen was convicted of child abuse. It concluded that a  paedophile ring around Cheshire and Wrexham had caused ‘appalling suffering’ to children in care in the Seventies and Eighties.

Mr Richards said he received detailed briefings about the case while junior Welsh Office Minister for health and social services.

He said: ‘It fell to me to decide  initially whether to hold a public inquiry. So I saw all the documentation and the files. Morrison was linked. His name stood out on the notes to me because he had been an MP. He and [the other man] were named as visitors to the homes.’

Mr Richards could not offer anything to substantiate his claims against Morrison, who died in 1995 at the age of 51. But he said that as the MP for Chester, he would have no obvious reason to visit care homes in other MPs’ constituencies.

The claims have emerged amid growing public revulsion over the institutional failures revealed by  the Jimmy Savile scandal. Savile was a regular guest of Lady  Thatcher’s at Chequers.

Mr Richards added that he was frustrated that the £13 million, three-year inquiry headed by Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC had not uncovered any evidence to link Morrison to the  abuse. He said: ‘It would seem that there are some parallels with Savile in that Morrison got in under the radar, and his activities did not appear in the final report’.

However, he said that as Welsh Secretary, Mr Hague ‘should have seen the evidence about Morrison’ in the preliminary files.

 

ARTICLE: The Tory Party Paedophile Cover-up

Of course, it’s not just the Tories: the whole tripartite hydra is at it. 

Paedophilia (page 1):http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/

Paedophilia (page 2): http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/page/2/

POLICE probing an underage sex ring at the heart of Maggie Thatcher’s government were warned: “Stop investigating if you want to keep your jobs.”

Officers in London were ­ inquiring into allegations made by a teenage rent boy that a Cabinet minister had been abusing him.

The youth claimed to be one of a number of boys regularly having sex with rich and powerful men in the 1980s – some of whom would fly to the illegal orgies from Europe.

As well as the Cabinet minister – who is still alive – he pointed the finger at judges, European bigwigs and senior civil servants.

He told his story to detectives, who are understood to have received other allegations against the minister.

But a former detective who worked on the case revealed they were ­suddenly told to halt the probe.

The furious ex-policeman said: “It wasn’t that we ran out of leads but it reached a point where a warning to stop came.

“It was a case of ‘get rid of everything, never say a word to anyone’. It was made very clear to me that to ­continue asking questions would ­jeopardise my career.”

There is no suggestion that Mrs Thatcher – who is now 87 and suffering from dementia – knew about the ­investigation or the fact it was stopped.

As Britain’s first female PM, she held power from 1979 until 1990.

The accused top Tory was never arrested and no one was ever charged over the rent-boy ring.

The vulnerable teen who spoke to ­detectives vanished just weeks after blowing the whistle.

The dropped probe was carried out by the Metropolitan Police – the same force now investigating six decades of abuse by telly star Jimmy Savile. It ­discovered high-profile men were ­paying the boys to attend sex parties at “millionaire properties” in London and the Home Counties.

A “network” of boys, including ­runaways, were used – many of whom were said to have been recruited around the then notorious rent-boy haunt of Leicester Square.

Some of the VIPs were said to have flown in via RAF Northolt on the outskirts of London.

One boy told police wealthy men from Belgium attended the parties, which were described as “high class” and featured top-notch food and booze.

The detective said the whistleblower was petrified about the repercussions.

He said: “The boys had been trapped in a cycle and were scared stiff about what might happen if they were found to have spoken.” The married Cabinet minister the boy named held a series of high-level posts in government.

A Whitehall security source said he received extra vetting from MI5 prior to taking up high office after rumours about his private life.

“The security services looked at him with special care,” the source said. “When you are nominated for a key Cabinet post it doesn’t matter what background you are from, you have to be vetted.

“Any weaknesses have to be disclosed to the Cabinet Secretary and Prime Minister

“But suspicions are not evidence. He’s a clever man – he would have ­dismissed it with a laugh.

“Mrs Thatcher may have suspected he was bisexual but that’s not a crime.”

Police sources in the minister’s home region said there are other unsubstantiated allegations that he was once found trying to abuse the son of a friend.

Last week Labour MP Tom Watson said he had been told of evidence ­linking another child sex ring to ­Parliament and Downing Street.

He said case files from 20 years ago involving convicted paedophile Peter Righton contained evidence of links to Number 10.

He said there was “clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring”, ­adding: “One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former Prime Minister, who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad.”

Mr Watson said the leads were not followed up. And he said he had been contacted by someone who claimed the police “held a vast quantity of ­material suggesting Jimmy Savile was a ­predatory paedophile”.

Last week it emerged at least seven police investigations into Savile while he was alive did not result in charges.

Scotland Yard, now probing the claims of up to 300 victims, investigated the TV presenter in the 1980s over claims he attacked a girl in a caravan at BBC Television Centre in London.

Last week we asked Scotland Yard about the dropped investigation into the Cabinet minister in the 1980s at the time of going to press they had not ­responded.

A spokeswoman confirmed it was aware of Tom Watson’s claims.

Read on: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/279380/TORY-PAEDO-COVER-UP/

(2012) Conservative M.P. Ken Clarke -“GROPED MY PENIS WITH HIS HAND…[THINKING] I WAS FIFTEEN AT THE TIME”

Once again it is left to the alternative media –the splendid U.K. Column which once again uncovers more paedophilia– to lift the lid on the many paedophiles in office, in the State, and in the Establishment. Why, exactly, aren’t the B.B.C. covering this issue? Have they something to hide?

The B.B.C. is channel that most children watch. Perhaps wise parents ought now to re-think allowing their children to do so.   

The full expose can be viewed in the video below. 

It seems nowadays that everyone in the public eye is attempting to suppress the press and media. It seems that the rich and powerful are quick to take drastic legal actions when stories in the press don’t suit their public image. From sports personalities, celebrities and actors to politician’s indiscretions.

From ‘super-dupa’ court injunctions which prevent you from even thinking about telling someone’s story. To famous and influential people and their representatives making dodgy deals with the media, arranging not to run certain stories about their indiscretions in return for juicer ones about someone else. Jimmy Savile apparently called newspapers up directly and told them that he wouldn’t raise money for a particular charity if they ran allegations of paedophilia about him.

Ben Fellows

So I published a story with a headline that ran ‘I RAN THE GAUNTLET OF PEDOPHILES IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY’, SAYS FORMER CHILD ACTOR’. In the article I mention that during my time working on the ‘Cash For Questions’ story for The Cook Report, Ken Clarke groped my penis with his hand whilst in a political lobbyist’s office. Now, he thought I was fifteen years old at the time. It was an unpleasant incident for me which lasted no more than a few seconds. After the incident I told a number of The Cook Report staff about the groping and we left it at that, as they would have to discuss whether or not they could even include the footage in the programme.

So when the publisher of 21st Century Wire received an email from the Cabinet Office yesterday evening – let’s say that I for one wasn’t surprised. The email protested Kenneth Clarke’s innocence so vehemently that it was even denying things that Ken Clarke had never been accused of – at least not by me.

Kathryn Laing, Special Advisor to Kenneth Clarke in the Cabinet Office said :

Please Could you remove the comments about Ken Clarke from the following posts on your website : HYPERLINK http://21stcenturywire.com/ and HYPERLINKhttp://21stcenturywire.com/2012/10/11/i-ran-the-gauntlet-of-pedophiles-in-the-entertainment-industry-says-former-child-actor/

Kathryn goes onto say …

The comments are a complete fabrication and highly defamatory. Mr Clarke has never been involved in any incidents of this kind. He was not involved in Cash for Questions – at the time he was a Minister and therefore could not ask questions. He is firmly heterosexual. Like most parliamentarians he vaguely knew Ian Greer but had no dealings with him. The most charitable interpretation is that it is a case of mistaken identity

She finishes off with a standard legal threat against the 21st Century Wire :

If the comments are not removed Mr Clarke will need to consider legal action

Ken Clarke

For the record – my allegation is that Ken Clarke touched my penis over my trousers when he had been told I was fifteen years old. I was actually nearer eighteen but was playing the part of a fifteen year old for The Cook Report. Incidentally Kathryn on Ken’s behalf states that Kenneth wasn’t involved in “Cash for Questions”. Well I never said he was or that he had ‘dealings’ with Ian Greer.

I have no idea why he was in Greer’s office. I was just a kid delivering a “dirty deal” message to Ian Greer for the TV programme. That’s it. The point is that Ken Clarke was in Ian Greer’s office and that’s when I met him. I’ve also never questioned his sexuality or his friendship with Ian Greer or lack thereof. Of course Ken is clearly getting a little desperate and his advisors don’t seem to be able to come up with an adequate plan to deal with the situation. So they are trying to say that I couldn’t recognise him or that it wasn’t him – a case of mistaken identity? Please, I know what Ken Clarke looks like and Ian Greer even introduced him as Ken Clarke.

This series of articles began as a story about child abuse and paedophilia in the wider entrainment industry and not just the BBC. However, having been interviewed by The Times journalist Jack Malvern, a senior features writer, only to have the story dropped by the Murdoch’s because I’d named someone who is fronting their Christmas schedule this year. Just to remind you that the Newsnight programme was pulled for exactly the same reasons by the BBC.

Now, we’re moving into the centre of government, exposing a cabinet minister for groping what he thought was a fifteen year old boy’s genitals. To discovering that politicians think that if they write a letter asking for the news to be changed that editors and publishers will actually do it. This of course proves without a shadow of a doubt that we no longer have a free press. If indeed that’s what editors and publishers do on receiving one of these emails from the Cabinet Office.

Ministers affecting or even attempting to affect the news is a very dangerous place to be. When you allow anyone to suppress, edit or spike a news story you turn from being a democracy into a dictatorship. It really is that simple. The question is where does it end? One day it might be suppressing an incident of groping a teenager … tomorrow it could be suppressing the reason why we are going to a war.

The press’ job in a democracy is to question and bring to task people who are attempting to pervert our society.

I think John F Kennedy said it best when he said :

No official of my administration, whether his rank his high or low, civilian or military should interpret my words here tonight as a reason to censor the news to stifle dissent to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and public the facts they deserve to know

Is Ken Clarke really threatening our democracy by sending this email asking for a publisher to censor himself? Probably not. But we are certainly going down a very slippery slope.

Ben Fellows

Hat tip:  http://www.maxfarquar.com/2012/10/ben-fellows-kenneth-clarke/comment-page-2/#comments

.

Links :

I Ran The Gauntlet Of Paedophiles In The Entertainment Industry

Murdoch Newspaper Does A BBC To Protect Paedophiles

I’ve Named Names But They’ve Buried My Story

Sex Abuse Rife At BBC Says Ben Fellows

ARTICLE AND QUESTION FOR YOU: You thought the whole ‘EUSSR’ thing was over the top? Have a look at this poster

A “EUROPE4ALL”? Where then is the swastika? Keen observers will also note that the Hammer and Sickle appears the most times on this poster. 

Question: Why is it illegal to fly the Nazi swastika flag but is more than acceptable to fly the flag of the Soviet Union, the Hammer and Sickle?

Answers below, please.

Take a close look at this promotional poster. Notice anything? Alongside the symbols of Christianity, Judaism, Jainism and so on is one of the wickedest emblems humanity has conceived: the hammer and sickle.

For three generations, the badge of the Soviet revolution meant poverty, slavery, torture and death. It adorned the caps of the chekas who came in the night. It opened and closed the propaganda films which hid the famines. It advertised the people’s courts where victims of purges and show-trials were condemned. It fluttered over the re-education camps and the gulags. For hundreds of millions of Europeans, it was a symbol of foreign occupation. Hungary, Lithuania and Moldova have banned its use, and various  former communist countries want it to be treated in the same way as Nazi insignia.

Yet here it sits on a poster in the European Commission, advertising the moral deafness of its author (I hope that’s what it is, rather than lingering nostalgia). The Bolshevist sigil celebrates the ideology which, in strict numerical terms, must be reckoned the most murderous ever devised by our species. That it can be passed unremarked day after day in the corridors of Brussels is nauseating.

By Daniel Hannan M.E.P.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100185609/you-thought-the-whole-eussr-thing-was-over-the-top-have-a-look-at-this-poster/

(2012) New Labour M.P. (Malevolent Parasite) Steals from the Taxpayer then Cowardly Cancels Her Surgery

“PARASITE: (Chambers English Dictionary) A creature which obtains food and physical protection from a host which never benefits from its presence.”

Rioradan is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group Evidence (para. 6)

After the Expenses Scandal of 2009 on would have thought that the People would have recognised their enemies and not again given their permission (vote) for said enemies to continue. But no –and so the people of Halifax of voted for this parasite, and the general public who voted for the tri-partite hydra, deserve everything they get.

How much more of this are YOU willing to take?

Halifax MP Linda Riordan is renting out her second home to a fellow Labour MP while claiming thousands in expenses to rent a third property herself.

Mrs Riordan is thought to getting £19,000 a year from the controversial practice.

It is technically permitted under MP guidelines but Mrs Riordan has come under fire from from critics.

She rents out her £400,000 London flat to MP Iain McKenzie.

Mr McKenzie pays her £1,560 a month in rent – £18,720 a year – which he claims back from the taxpayer.

At the same time, Mrs Riordan claims £1,473 a month – £17,676 a year – from the taxpayer for renting a seperate flat in London for herself.

She also has a home in Northowram which she has owned outright for more than 20 years.

Mrs Riordan was due to hold one of her regular surgeries at Halifax Town Hall this afternoon but it has been cancelled.

Read on:  http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/local/updated-halifax-mp-pockets-thousands-from-renting-taxpayer-funded-second-home-to-another-mp-linda-riordan-cancels-her-surgery-this-afternoon-1-5042858?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

ARTICLE / VIDEO: Expenses scandal: MPs block details of new expenses

The Speaker of the House of Commons is attempting to block the publication of MPs’ expenses that are believed to show that some rent their taxpayer-funded homes to each other.

John Bercow has written to the expenses regulator warning him not to disclose official documents that show the identities of MPs’ landlords for “security” reasons.

Publication of the names, which was supposed to take place today, would expose the extent to which MPs are exploiting a loophole in the rules that allows politicians to rent their homes to one another. The loophole means that MPs can still effectively build up property nest eggs at taxpayers’ expense, despite official attempts to stop the practice following the expenses scandal.

Sources at the expenses regulator confirmed that “some MPs” were engaged in the practice.

In a letter released last night, it emerged that Mr Bercow had written to the regulator claiming that publication of details of MPs’ landlords jeopardised their security and had led to “grave concerns” in the House of Commons.

“The processing of the data … could involve causing unwarranted damage and distress,” the Speaker wrote in the letter to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). “I should be grateful if you and your colleagues would reconsider such a plan.”

Read on:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9615992/Expenses-scandal-MPs-block-details-of-new-expenses.html

ALAS! The British Army Finally Recognises its True Enemy in Parliament as 400 Soldiers Descend on Westminster

 

 

• Serving soldiers will join march despite being threatened with court martial
• First time soldiers have demonstrated on streets of London since 1649

More than 400 serving and retired troops will this week descend on Parliament to  confront David Cameron in a  protest unprecedented in the  history of the British Army.

Officers and soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers will mount the Army’s first picket of the Palace of Westminster on Thursday after the Government axed its second battalion.

Despite being threatened with court martial, serving soldiers are due to join their retired colleagues on the march, which coincides with a Parliamentary debate about defence cuts.

The Army forbids their participation in any anti-Government demonstration.

It is the first time soldiers have demonstrated on the streets of London since the Bishopsgate Mutiny of 1649, when 300 members of the New Model Army launched a protest against Oliver Cromwell’s order that they be sent to Ireland.

It is also the first time the British Army has taken to the streets in protest since it was formed in 1707.

The Fusiliers claim Mr Cameron forced through the disbandment of 2RRF to save the Royal Regiment of Scotland  because he feared cutting soldiers north of the border would boost nationalists in an independence referendum due in 2014.

Captain Joe Eastwood, a former Regimental Sergeant Major of the Fusiliers, said: ‘There is a lot of anger because we know the Government did a deal to save the Jocks and to cut 2RRF.

‘I am sure that serving soldiers will join us on the protest, but given the risks to their careers, the arrangements for their participation are under the radar.

‘The MoD is threatening to use Section 69 of the 1955 Army Act. Pressure is being applied, with courts martial promised for  those who defy orders. So some arrangements must remain cloak-and-dagger.’

During Thursday’s protest, the Fusiliers, led by retired Colonel Brian Gorski, will march through Whitehall wearing their black berets, and red and white hackles. As they pass the Cenotaph, they will salute fallen comrades before  proceeding to Downing Street where petitions against 2RRF’s disbandment will be handed in.

Afterwards, they will watch a debate on the cuts from the Commons public gallery. A motion opposing the scrapping of 2RRF– so far signed by 30 MPs – has been brought by Tory John Baron, an ex-Fusiliers officer.

Colonel Gorski said: ‘The Army marching on Parliament is unique. The MoD is making enquiries and it may well have people out monitoring the march.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217318/Soldiers-risk-court-martial-march-Houses-Parliament-Cromwell-More-400-troops-protest-axeing-Fusiliers.html#ixzz29UgSK4VQ

MUST-SEE VIDEOS: Jimmy Savile Paedophile? What about the Paedophilia, Child Abuse, and Child Kidnapping by the State and Government?

ABOVE: A young lady by the name of Hollie Greig has key evidence against leading figures in the British Establishment.

The Establishment wants to separate mother and daughter by putting daughter into “care” so it will shut her up. Then the evidence against the paedophiles in the Establishment is silenced.

A gagging order of 70 years has been put on the evidence found by U.S police in Operation Ore. They unearthed evidence of 350-400 paedophiles at high levels of British society.

The Establishment and Social Services are actively involved in child trafficking.

(13 mins in) “Sarah Tether [Lib Dem] minister for Families and Children won’t reply to [simple questions] nor answer Freedom of Information requests…because the British government is stealing, abusing, and trafficking children”.

Neutrality is complicity.

(13 mins,17 secs in) “…politicians condone [child abuse] by the fact they will not take action.”

“Every MP has been informed about [child abuse]”

(13 mins, 19 secs) “David Cameron condones the abuse of children because he has done nothing.”

(13 mins, 20 secs) “[Ed] Miliband is the same” and “Clegg has got a big foot in the camp becase…Sarah Tether [fellow Liberal] is now covering up the trafficking of children through this system”.

All this and much, much more.

ABOVE: Today’s [Thursday 11th October, 2012] UK Column Live features a hard hitting interview with Bill Maloney, long time campaigner on childrens issues, and owner of Pie’n’Mash films. Bill discusses Jimmy Savile’s links to Broadmore and Peter Sutcliffe one day before the mainstream media – coincidence?

___________________________________________________________________

Further reading:

At a Glance: A Snippet of the Many Paedophiles and Perverts in Power

Blast from the Past: Are Paedophiles Running Tony Blair’s War Machine?

Link to all recorded entries on this site of paedophilia 

ARTICLE: We are on the Road to Serfdom

The final paragraph is most worthy of your attention. 

Authored by Detlev Schlichter; originally posted at DetlevSchlichter.com,

We are now five years into the Great Fiat Money Endgame and our freedom is increasingly under attack from the state, liberty’s eternal enemy. It is true that by any realistic measure most states today are heading for bankruptcy. But it would be wrong to assume that ‘austerity’ policies must now lead to a diminishing of government influence and a shrinking of state power. The opposite is true: the state asserts itself more forcefully in the economy, and the political class feels licensed by the crisis to abandon whatever restraint it may have adhered to in the past. Ever more prices in financial markets are manipulated by the central banks, either directly or indirectly; and through legislation, regulation, and taxation the state takes more control of the employment of scarce means. An anti-wealth rhetoric is seeping back into political discourse everywhere and is setting the stage for more confiscation of wealth and income in the future.

War is the health of the state, and so is financial crisis, ironically even a crisis in government finances. As the democratic masses sense that their living standards are threatened, they authorize their governments to do “whatever it takes” to arrest the collapse, prop up asset prices, and to enforce some form of stability. The state is a gigantic hammer, and at times of uncertainty the public wants nothing more than seeing everything nailed to the floor. Saving the status quo and spreading the pain are the dominant political postulates today, and they will shape policy for years to come.

Unlimited fiat money is a political tool

A free society requires hard and apolitical money. But the reality today is that money is merely a political tool. Central banks around the world are getting ever bolder in using it to rig markets and manipulate asset prices. The results are evident: equities are trading not far from historic highs, the bonds of reckless and clueless governments are trading at record low interest rates, and corporate debt is priced for perfection. While in the real economy the risks remain palpable and the financial sector on life support from the central banks, my friends in money management tell me that the biggest risk they have faced of late was the risk of not being bullish enough and missing the rallies. Welcome to Planet QE.

I wish my friends luck but I am concerned about the consequences. With free and unlimited fiat money at the core of the financial industry, mis-allocations of capital will not diminish but increase. The damage done to the economy will be spectacular in the final assessment. There is no natural end to QE. Once it has propped up markets it has to be continued ad infinitum to keep ‘prices’ where the authorities want them. None of this is a one-off or temporary. It is a new form of finance socialism. It will not end through the political process but via complete currency collapse.

Not the buying and selling by the public on free and uninhibited markets, but monetary authorities – central bank bureaucrats – now determine where asset prices should be, which banks survive, how fast they grow and who they lend to, and what the shape of the yield curve should be. We are witnessing the destruction of financial markets and indeed of capitalism itself.

While in the monetary sphere the role of the state is increasing rapidly it is certainly not diminishing in the sphere of fiscal policy. Under the misleading banner of ‘austerity’ states are not rolling back government but simply changing the sources of state funding. Seeing what has happened in Ireland and Portugal, and what is now happening in Spain and in particular Greece, many governments want to reduce their dependence on the bond market. They realize that once the bond market loses confidence in the solvency of any state the game is up and insolvency quickly becomes a reality. But the states that attempt to reduce deficits do not usually reduce spending but raise revenues through higher taxes.

Sources of state funding

When states fund high degrees of spending by borrowing they tap into the pool of society’s savings, crowd out private competitors, and thus deprive the private sector of resources. In the private sector, savings would have to be employed as productive capital to be able repay the savers who provided these resources in the first place at some point in the future. By contrast, governments mainly consume the resources they obtain through borrowing in the present period. They do not invest them in productive activities that generate new income streams for society. Via deficit-spending, governments channel savings mainly back into consumption. Government bonds are not backed by productive capital but simply by the state’s future expropriation of wealth-holders and income-earners. Government deficits and government debt are always highly destructive for a society. They are truly anti-social. Those who invest in government debt are not funding future-oriented investment but present-day state consumption. They expect to get repaid from future taxes on productive enterprise without ever having invested in productive enterprise themselves. They do not support capitalist production but simply acquire shares in the state’s privilege of taxation.

Reducing deficits is thus to be encouraged at all times, and the Keynesian nonsense that deficit-spending enhances society’s productiveness is to be rejected entirely. However, most states are not aiming to reduce deficits by cutting back on spending, and those that do, do so only marginally. They mainly replace borrowing with taxes. This means the state no longer takes the detour via the bond market but confiscates directly and instantly what it needs to sustain its outsized spending. In any case, the states’ heavy control over a large chunk of society’s scarce means is not reduced. It is evident that this strategy too obstructs the efficient and productive use of resources. It is a disincentive for investment and the build-up of a productive capital stock. It is a killer of growth and prosperity.

47 percent, then 52 percent, then 90 percent…

Why do states not cut spending? – I would suggest three answers: first, it is not in the interest of politicians and bureaucrats to reduce spending as spending is the prime source of their power and prestige. Second, there is still a pathetic belief in the Keynesian myth that government spending ‘reboots’ the economy. But the third is maybe the most important one: in all advanced welfare democracies large sections of the public have come to rely on the state, and in our mass democracies it now means political suicide to try and roll back the state.

Mitt Romney’s comment that 47% of Americans would not appreciate his message of cutting taxes and vote for him because they do not pay taxes and instead rely on government handouts, may not have been politically astute and tactically clever but there was a lot of truth in it.

In Britain, more than 50 percent of households are now net receivers of state transfers, up 10 percent from a decade ago. In Scotland it is allegedly a staggering 90 percent of households. Large sections of British society have become wards of the state.

Against this backdrop state spending is more likely to grow than shrink. This will mean higher taxes, more central bank intervention (debt monetization, ‘quantitative easing’), more regulatory intervention to force institutional investors into the government bond market, and ultimately capital controls.

Eat the Rich!

In order to legitimize the further confiscation of private income and private wealth to fund ongoing state expenditure, the need for a new political narrative arose. This narrative claims that the problem with government finances is not out-of-control spending but the lack of solidarity by the rich, wealthy and most productive, who do not contribute ‘their fair share’.

An Eat-the-Rich rhetoric is discernible everywhere, and it is getting louder. In Britain, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg wants to introduce a special ‘mansion tax’ on high-end private property. This is being rejected by the Tories but, according to opinion polls, supported by a majority of Brits. (I wager a guess that it is popular in Scotland.) In Germany, Angela Merkel’s challenger for the chancellorship, Peer Steinbrueck, wants to raise capital gains taxes if elected. In Switzerland of all places, a conservative (!) politician recently proposed that extra taxes should be levied on wealthy pensioners so that they make their ‘fair’ contribution to the public weal.

France on an economic suicide mission

The above trends are all nicely epitomized by developments in France. In 2012, President Hollande has not reduced state spending at all but raised taxes. For 2013 he proposed an ‘austerity’ budget that would cut the deficit by €30 billion, of which €10 billion would come from spending cuts and €20 billion would be generated in extra income through higher taxes on corporations and on high income earners. The top tax rate will rise from 41% to 45%, and those that earn more than €1 million a year will be subject to a new 75% marginal tax rate. With all these market-crippling measures France will still run a budget deficit and will have to borrow more from the bond market to fund its outsized state spending programs, which still account for 56% of registered GDP.

If you ask me, the market is not bearish enough on France. This version of socialism will not work, just as no other version of socialism has ever worked. But when it fails, it will be blamed on ‘austerity’ and the euro, not on socialism.

As usual, the international commentariat does not ‘get it’. Political analysts are profoundly uninterested in the difference between reducing spending and increasing taxes, it is all just ‘austerity’ to them, and, to make it worse, allegedly enforced by the Germans. The Daily Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard labels ‘austerity’ ‘1930s policies imposed by Germany’, which is of dubious historical and economic accuracy but suitable, I guess, to make a political point.

Most commentators are all too happy to cite the alleged negative effect of ‘austerity’ on GDP, ignoring that in a heavily state-run economy like France’s, official GDP says as little about the public’s material wellbeing as does a rallying equity market in an economy fuelled by unlimited QE. If the government spent money on hiring people to sweep the streets with toothbrushes this, too, would boost GDP and could thus be labelled economic progress.

At this point it may be worth adding that despite all the talk of ‘austerity’ many governments are still spending and borrowing like never before, first and foremost, the United States, which is running the largest civil government mankind has ever seen. For 5 consecutive years annual deficits have been way in excess of $1,000 billion, which means the US government borrows an additional $4 billion on every day the markets are open. The US is running budget deficits to the tune of 8-10% per annum to allegedly boost growth by a meagre 2% at best.

Regulation and more regulation

Fiscal and monetary actions by states will increasingly be flanked by aggressive regulatory and legislative intervention in markets. Governments are controlling the big pools of savings via their regulatory powers over banks, insurance companies and pension funds. Existing regulations already force all these entities into heavy allocations of government bonds. This will continue going forward and intensify. The states must ensure that they continue to have access to cheap funding.

Not only do I expect regulation that ties institutional investors to the government bond market to continue, I think it will be made ever more difficult for the individual to ‘opt out’ of these schemes, i.e. to arrange his financial affairs outside the heavily state-regulated banking, insurance, and pension fund industry. The astutely spread myth that the financial crisis resulted from ‘unregulated markets’ rather than constant expansion of state fiat money and artificially cheap credit from state central banks, has opened the door for more aggressive regulatory interference in markets.

The War on Offshore

Part and parcel of this trend is the War on Offshore, epitomized by new and tough double-taxation treaties between the UK and Switzerland and Germany and Switzerland. You are naïve if you think that attacks on Swiss banking and on other ‘offshore’ banking destinations are only aimed at tax-dodgers.  An important side effect of these campaigns is this: it gets ever more cumbersome for citizens from these countries to conduct their private banking business in Switzerland and other countries, and ever more expensive and risky for Swiss and other banks to service these clients. For those of us who are tax-honest but prefer to have our assets diversified politically, and who are attracted to certain banking and legal traditions and a deeper commitment to private property rights in places such as Switzerland, banking away from our home country gets more difficult. This is intentional I believe.

The United States of America have taken this strategy to its logical extreme. The concept of global taxation for all Americans, regardless where they live, coupled with aggressive litigation and threat of reprisal against foreign financial institutions that may – deliberately or inadvertently – assist Americans in lowering their tax burden, have made it very expensive and even risky for many banks to deal with American citizens, or even with holders of US green cards or holders of US social security numbers. Americans will find it difficult to open bank accounts in certain countries. This is certainly the case for Switzerland but a friend of mine even struggled obtaining full banking services in Singapore. I know of private banks in the UK that have terminated banking relationships with US citizens, even when they were longstanding clients. All of this is going to get worse next year when FATCA becomes effective – the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, by which the entire global financial system will become the extended arm of the US Internal Revenue System. US citizens are subject to de facto capital controls. I believe this is only a precursor to real capital controls being implemented in the not too distant future.

When Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote that “none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free” he anticipated the modern USA.

And to round it all off, there is the War on Cash. In many European countries there are now legal limits for cash transactions, and Italy is considering restrictions for daily cash withdrawals. Again, the official explanation is to fight tax evasion but surely these restrictions will come in handy when the state-sponsored and highly geared banking sector in Europe wobbles again, and depositors try to pull out their money.

“I’ve seen the future, and it will be…”

So here is the future as I see it: central banks are now committed to printing unlimited amounts of fiat money to artificially prop up various asset prices forever and maintain illusions of stability. Governments will use their legislative and regulatory power to make sure that your bank, your insurance company and your pension fund keep funding the state, and will make it difficult for you to disengage from these institutions. Taxes will rise on trend, and it will be more and more difficult to keep your savings in cash or move them abroad.

Now you may not consider yourself to be rich. You may not own or live in a house that Nick Clegg would consider a ‘mansion’. You may not want to ever bank in Switzerland or hold assets abroad. You may only have a small pension fund and not care much how many government bonds it holds. You may even be one those people who regularly stand in front of me in the line at Starbucks and pay for their semi-skinned, decaf latte with their credit or debit card, so you may not care about restrictions on using cash. But if you care about living in a free society you should be concerned. And I sure believe you should care about living in a functioning market economy.

This will end badly.

 

Hat tip: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-11/we-are-road-serfdom

(2012) Sacked New Labour Parasites Plan to Return and Suck More Blood from the Taxpayer

The Standard have an interesting scoop this afternoon: a number of shamed expenses-hungry Labour MPs who lost their jobs at the last election are apparently planning comebacks in 2015. Guido is generously offering to run their campaigns free of charge:

• Dawn Butler – Dawn has lived in Brent all her life so she knows the issues that matter to you first hand. In fact, she’s such a dedicated Londoner that she claimed nearly £40,000 of your money for a second home, despite living within ten miles of Westminster! In her spare time Dawn likes to enjoy her “whirlpool” bath paid for by, you guessed it, the taxpayer (allegedly). Vote Dawn – no expense spared for a better Brent!

• Shahid Malik – They say there’s no rest for the wicked, but don’t tell that to Shahid. After a long day helping constituents the Dewsbury through-and-through Labour stalwart likes nothing more than to relax in his massage armchair. You’ve already shown your appreciation, you paid for it! Don’t sit around – vote for Shahid!

• Parmjit Dhanda – George Osborne certainly doesn’t have the experience to get us out of this economic mess, but Parmjit does. He’s a money expert, reportedly managing to get away with sneaking an extra £2,000 in mortgage payments by blaming it on“accounting adjustments”. If that’s the sort of financial nous you think we need in government – vote Dhanda!

Hat tip:  http://order-order.com/page/10/

Read on:  http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/expenses-row-ministers-plan-comebacks-for-2015-election-8192496.html

(2012) VIDEO: New Labour M.P. Jack Straw -FACING LEGAL ACTION OVER TORTURE

The lengthy rap sheet of Jack Straw and his family: http://eotp.org/?s=jack+straw&x=0&y=0

A Libyan military commander is taking legal action against Jack Straw, to find out if the ex-foreign secretary signed papers allowing his rendition.

Abdel Hakim Belhadj claims CIA agents took him from Thailand to Gaddafi-led Libya, via UK-controlled Diego Garcia.

His lawyers have served papers on Mr Straw after the Sunday Times reported claims that he allowed this to happen.

UK ministers have denied any complicity in rendition or torture and Mr Straw did not comment further.

He said he could not do so because of the ongoing police investigation into the UK’s alleged role in illegal rendition.

Earlier this month, the BBC revealed that the UK government had approved the rendition of Mr Belhadj and his wife – Fatima Bouchar – to Col Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, though it was unclear at what level.

On 15 April, the Sunday Times published an article, which quoted sources as alleging Mr Straw had personally authorised Mr Belhadj’s rendition to Libya.

On Tuesday, Mr Belhadj’s lawyers – Leigh Day & Co – served papers on Mr Straw, referencing the article and seeking his response to allegations that he was complicit in torture and misfeasance in public office.

The civil action is against Mr Straw personally – Mr Belhadj’s lawyers believe it is the first time legal action of this kind has been taken against a former foreign secretary.

Mr Belhadj and his wife allege Mr Straw was complicit in the “torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, batteries and assaults” which they say were perpetrated on them by Thai and US agents, as well as the Libyan authorities.

They are seeking damages from Mr Straw for the trauma involved.

Read on:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17746561

‘Politicians keep British soldiers in Afghanistan as human shields for their reputations’ -SAYS PAUL FLYNN M.P.

 

Question of the day: Why don’t we see essential ground-breaking news like this from Western mainstream media? Why do we have to look to Russia to lift the lid on the crooks in office? 

This interview MUST be viewed.

British MP Paul Flynn, who was suspended from the House of Commons for voicing his opposition to the war in Afghanistan, told RT there is absolutely no reason to keep UK soldiers in the warzone any longer, other than to save ministers’ reputations.

A British Labour Party politician, Flynn was recently suspended from the House of Commons after he accused ministers of lying over military policy in Afghanistan. Below is an extract from his speech:

“The role of our brave soldiers at the moment is to act as human shields for ministers’ reputations. The danger to our soldiers is being prolonged by those on that bench who have the power to stop it. Other countries have removed their soldiers from this dangerous area where they’re not doing what we are doing, which is arming and training our future enemy. Isn’t this very similar to the end of the First World War, when it was said the politicians lied and soldiers died and the reality was as it is now – that our brave soldier lions are being led by ministerial donkeys!”

Speaking with RT, Paul Flynn has said that politicians have been making the wrong decisions concerning the Afghan war for many years. What’s more, the current war has not changed things in Afghanistan. It even made them worse, while Britain has wasted lives and huge sums of money – and continues to do so.

RT: Paul Flynn, after that you were disciplined by the speaker and barred from parliament for five days. Presumably, you knew that would happen, but you thought it was worth it.

Paul Flynn: Oh, it’s very well worthwhile. It’s a very rare event and the result is being that my words have been seen almost all over the world. There’s been an extraordinary effect. And I believe this may well be a turning point in public opinion. I believe 80 per cent of public opinion would like to see [the] boys home by Christmas, and the government have their heads in the sands, and they are ignoring it.

RT: You’ve been a long-standing critic of the war in Afghanistan. So what brought on this specific outburst?

PF: This one was about the futility of the deaths in the last few days and the utter imbecile lying ministers who come before us and made idiotic excuses for continuing the war. There is only one reason why the war is continuing and that is to protect the reputations of politicians. Our soldiers are there as human shields for ministers’ reputations. What they are trying to do is to keep the war going on to the best moment that would reflect on the reputations of politicians.

Absolutely no reasons why we shouldn’t bring our troops home now. The only reason is that we are tied in with the politics of the United States. We are an independent state. We have to remind us of that. We can take our own decisions and what we are going to see in the future is deepening the trouble. There will be more slaughter. Because of this whole of these fictitious aims of the war we seem to collapse. And what’s happening now there is no possibility that we can train the Afghan people and army and their police that will fight their own people that will kill brother-Afghans, for what? For a corrupt election-rigging depraved president or to defend the interest of a foreign country? It can’t happen.

RT: You say that ministers are keeping soldiers in Afghanistan to protect their own reputation. But how does the death of more soldiers protect anyone’s reputation?

PF: The official attitude is we must protect our reputations against our previous mistakes and in the war so that history will judge the politicians made the right decisions. In fact, we’ve been making the wrong decisions for many years.

RT:You maintain that what Britain is doing is arming and training its future enemies. And I suppose there is a historical precedent for that.       

PF: There is a very powerful precedent that the Americans trained and armed the Mujahideen. And the Mujahideen are the worst government that Afghanistan has had in a hundred years. And the Taliban were a great reforming improvement in a Mujahideen. But we’ve done this in the past and we are going to do it again. There is no way that a Taliban army or police are going to risk their lives, kill their brother-Afghans in the service of a foreign country when we’ve gone over the service of a corrupt president. They are going back to their tribal loyalties, the Uzbeks and the Pashtuns will be divided as they always have been divided. And the likelihood is that there will be disorder when we leave.  We went there, civil war was going on, and the country was bitterly divided. After we’ve left, a few years, the situation will be very similar. There’ll be more civil war and the likely future rulers will be the Taliban.

RT:What lessons, then, should have been learnt from both Britain’s own colonial past and the Soviet Union’s experience in Afghanistan?  

PF: In 2001 in Strasbourg a very ebullient member of the Duma tapped me on the back and said: “You British have gone into Afghanistan and you captured it in a few days. I’m saying that we Russians did that. And we were there for 10 years. We killed a million Afghans, we spent billions of rubles. And we lost 16,000 of our own soldiers. And when we came out, we left a puppet government there, but there were 300,000 Mujahideen in the hills who eventually took over.” And he said to me: “It will happen to you.” And he was absolutely precisely right.

We deluded ourselves. We told ourselves fairy stories about what was going to happen. But we could change things and we couldn’t. There was a benign cause that the Russians would have been taken up in Afghanistan of taking people at a bottom life, giving them a chance to improve materially. I mean, nothing really happened in the end. And we went in, we were going to get rid of the drugs trade, we were ending corruption, we were going to give women a better deal. And nothing has changed.

The corruption is exactly the same, possibly worse. Drugs’ trade is… 90 per cent of the drugs in Britain come from Afghanistan, Tony Blair told the House. 90 per cent! Twelve years later 90 per cent of the drugs still come from Afghanistan. There is a difference. There is more of them now and they are cheaper on the streets. And more people corrupted.

In 2001 Afghanistan was the second-worst place in the world for a woman to live. Now it’s the second-worst place in the world of a woman to live. But the objectives of the war were hopeless, were utopian. And we’ve wasted lives and huge sums of money and we’ll end up in two or three years’ time with a situation just as bad as the one that was there before we invaded.

RT: Let’s talk a bit about the logistics and message that pulling out now would send. What about the soldiers who are serving in Afghanistan at the moment, those, who’ve already served and the families of the soldiers who’ve died. Wouldn’t pulling out now send the message that everything they’ve done has been essentially for nothing?

PF: It’s certainly a tragedy that those families must go through this trauma, have realized that this was a war in which nothing has been achieved. But certainly they have to face that eventually. What would be immoral and cruel is to tell other people the same lies and that more lives should be lost. In order to comfort the bereaved or to comfort politicians that they made the right decisions, at the moment now there’s no conceivable reason why we shouldn’t start telling the truth to people and say that there isn’t this mythical threat of terrorism in Britain that we somehow are ending by being in Afghanistan. If we say to the Taliban “Why are you killing our soldiers?” would they say “When we’ve killed all your soldiers, we are coming over to Newport and to Cardiff and London and we’re going to blow up your streets?” They’ve got no interest in that.

The reason the Taliban are killing British soldiers is because we are the foreigners, we are the infidels. And we occupy, by force of arms, their country. It’s their sacred religious duty to kill us. If we are not there, they don’t kill us. It’s a fairly simple argument to understand.

RT:So what you are saying is that pulling out of Afghanistan right now wouldn’t affect the security situation in the rest of the world?

PF: No, not in the slightest. There are security threats. They come from Pakistan. They come from Yemen. They come from Somalia. They come from Bradford. We had an attack by Al-Qaeda that was from English people brought up in England.

RT: Is it not the better to have the US as friends rather than enemies? What kind of message would leaving now send to America which at the moment is supposedly a trusted friend and ally?

PF: We have a claim that we are an independent country and we spend billions on an independent nuclear weapon. We should be independent as far as Afghanistan is concerned. We’ve already seen countries that we greatly respect and admire assembling themselves pulling out of the conflict. Quite rightly, honorably they’ve given huge contributions in blood and treasure. We should take our own decision. We know that at least 80 per cent of the population is saying: “For Goodness sake, bring our boys home by Christmas!”

RT:Paul Flynn, thank you.

PF: My pleasure.

 

Hat tip:  http://rt.com/news/war-afghanistan-flynn-opposition-740/

PARASITE: Cabinet Secretary’s limo clocks up £1,500 a month

David Cameron may have taken a dim view of public official ‘swaning around in chauffeur-driven cars,’ but Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, claimed £23,457 for use of his official car over a 15-month period.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, must have breathed a sigh of relief when it was announced last week that he would not have to investigate Andrew Mitchell’s contretemps with the police officers in Downing Street. For all the Chief Whip’s failings, his use of a bicycle has saved the taxpayer a small fortune over the years.

Sir Jeremy, by contrast, has managed to run up a five figure expenses claim paying for his own official car. Figures in Mandrake’s possession show that he claimed £23,457 in business car expenses for the most recent 15 months for which figures are available. This amounts to an average £1,563 a month.

The fifteen months of car expense claims made by Sir Jeremy cover the period January 1 2011 until March 31 2012. In the three months to March 31 this year, Sir Jeremy’s “use of taxi/official car” costs is reported at £2,474. In addition to paying for his own official car on his expenses as a “benefit in kind,” Sir Jeremy has also met the cost of “shared official cars” which amounts to £4,834 of the five figure expense. The civil servant, who raised eyebrows in June when he told an Institute for Government conference that the country should brace itself for a further eight years of spending cuts, began claiming expenses for the use of his official car before the Coalition Government was formed. The perk forms part of his pay package at the Cabinet Office, which amounted to as much as £204,500 last year, including a bonus of up to £20,000. Disclosure of the expenses claims made by senior officials are part of the transparency drive that the Prime Minister championed.

Before coming to power, David Cameron said that he took a dim view of politicians who ran up big bills for official cars. “If there is something that really annoys people, it’s seeing politicians swanning around in chauffeur-driven cars like they’re the Royal Family,” he said.

A spokesman for Sir Jeremy Heywood tells Mandrake: “The Cabinet Secretary has access to a Government car so that he can start working before he reaches the office and continue working once he has left.

Read on:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/9575983/Cabinet-Secretarys-limo-clocks-up-1500-a-month.html#

(2012) New Labour’s Keith Vaz & Wife -POLICE TO INVESTIGATE THEIR ACCOUNTS

Keith Vaz’s wife, who works under her maiden name of Maria Fernandes, is the principal of the law firm Fernandes Vaz, which was established in 1995.

Despite the name, the practice has no connection to the home affairs committee chairman.

Ms Fernandes, 53, has specialised exclusively in immigration and nationality law for more than 20 years.

A former barrister, she began her career in immigration in 1986, working for the UK Immigration Advisory Service, before moving to the City where she spent eight years in corporate immigration law.

On her company’s website, she writes that she has “developed a particular following of restaurateurs with whom she has worked for several years to provide recognition of the shortage of skilled staff in this industry”.

Earlier this summer, Mr Vaz held a party at the Red Fort in Soho, which was attended by Tony Blair and Theresa May, the Home Secretary.

Mrs Vaz has previously advised a company in which the owner of the Red Fort is a shareholder.

She is now a part-time judge with the Mental Health Review Tribunal. The couple, who live in Stanmore, north London, have two children, Luke and Anjali.

In 2008, she accompanied Liam Byrne, the then immigration minister, on a trade trip to India. She serves on several panels established by the Home Office and Foreign Office.

She is linked to the Scotland Yard inquiry into Mr Vaz, as production orders were also sought for her bank accounts.

Read on:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9577967/Met-applied-for-orders-to-view-accounts-held-by-MPs-wife.html

Chris Bryant, Labour M.P., says Parliamentary Watering-Hole ‘Virtually A Gay Bar Now’

 

Parliament’s biggest bar is “virtually a gay bar now”, an MP has claimed.

Chris Bryant, Labour MP for Rhonda and shadow immigration minister told MPs during a debate on diversity that parliament had so many gay and lesbian members now that his husband worried about him going drinking there.

“Indeed, sometimes when you go into the Strangers Bar you feel as though you are in Rupert Street [in Soho]. It is virtually a gay bar now, and my husband sometimes worries about whether I should be allowed in there any more.”

Strangers, which only MPs and their guests can go to, overlooks the House of Commons terrace and the Thames.

While Bryant praised the increasing number of gay MPs he also noted that the number were not yet representative of the general population.

“It is a matter of great sadness to me that there are still only two out lesbians in Parliament… I pay tribute to those who have come out”.

It’s not the first time Bryant, an ex-vicar, has spoken out against prejudice.

He recently told MPs that the hymn Jerusalem should not be “reserved for homosexuals”, warning straight couples increasingly found clergy were not allowing it to be sung at weddings “because it is not a hymn addressed to god”.

“In the interests of equality, the same should apply to heterosexual couples getting married in civil venues.

“It seems odd to say you can’t have Jerusalem for a straight wedding yet you can have it at the same place for a gay wedding.”

Read on:  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/13/chris-bryant-labour-mp-parliament-gay-bar_n_1203761.html?ref=uk-politics

Article: New Labour M.P. Chris Bryant -CALLS FOR MORE CHEAP LABOUR TO CURRY FAVOUR WITH HIS CAPITALIST MASTERS

 

Chris Bryant’s previous:

New Labour M.P. Chris Bryant -ADVERTISES HIMSELF ON THE WEB FOR HOMOSEXUAL SEX

(2011) Agent for New Labour’s Chris Bryant M.P. Stephen Carnell -JAILED FOR SERIOUS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

LABOUR’s immigration spokesman yesterday dismissed claims that Britain was overcrowded.

Shadow immigration minister Chris Bryant claimed the aid Governmentattempts to curb the number of foreigners moving here were “ludicrous”.

His comments are at odds with official projections that show the country’s population will surge from 62.3 million last year to 70 million by 2027.

Two-thirds of the rise will result from immigration with the rest due to rising birth rates and increased life expectancy.

The latest immigration statistics also show that half a million immigrants arrived in Britain last year – more than 1,300 a day.

Speaking during a debate on immigration at a fringe event at the Labour Party conference in Manchester, Mr Bryant said: “There is another argument which people worry about and it is that this country is too full.

It is astonishing that a shadow minister of immigration should have so little grasp of the facts

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of think-tank MigrationWatch UK

“I don’t subscribe to that view, I find that an odd argument. It is certainly true that Britain has an economy that is far too dependent on London and the South-east and I would like us to change that.”

He agreed that Labour had got “some things wrong” about immigration in the past but hit out at the Coalition’s attempts to tackle the issue.

He said: “There are some silly things they have done, they have set themselves a ludicrous net-migration target and they have done some silly things around university’s and so on.”

The Government has argued that Labour’s previous open-door policy on immigration has forced it to crackdown on numbers arriving in the country.

David Cameron has vowed to cut net-migration – the number of those arriving minus the number of those leaving
– to the tens of thousands by the end of this parliament.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of think-tank MigrationWatch UK, said: “It is astonishing that a shadow minister of immigration should have so little grasp of the facts.

“Labour’s failure to address the immigration issue is the reason that 3.5 million immigrants arrived on their watch. It seems that they have learned nothing.”

MigrationWatch says net immigration needs to fall from its current level of 216,000 to around 40,000 a year to stop the population reaching 70 million.

Nearly 80 per cent of people in England think the country is overcrowded, a survey found earlier this year.

Read on:  http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/349492

NFU VIDEO TRIBUTE: Sacked on a Tuesday, knighted on a Wednesday- all part of life’s rich tapestry for SE Cambs MP Jim Paice

IT was billed on the Conservative Home website as “some final bits of news” but for Ely MP Jim Paice it was a case of balancing bad news – his sacking- with good news- his knighthood.

 

IT was billed on the Conservative Home website as “some final bits of news” but for Ely MP Jim Paice it was a case of balancing bad news – his sacking- with good news- his knighthood.

Prime Minister David Cameron let slip through his official Downing Street spokesman the Queen had been recommended to knight the outgoing farms minister

Mr Paice was one of a handful ministers sacked in the re shuffle who can look forward to a knighthood as part compensation for loss of office and part reward for services to the Conservative Party and to the country.

Technically, of course, ministers resign rather than get fired but as farmers’ leader Peter Kendall remarked to a Farmers Guardian journalist: “You couldn’t bullshit Jim Paice. He knew enough about farming and he could see through it so he brought some real credibility to the job.”

Jim Paice MP, left, with licensee Mark Daniels at the Tharp Arms at Chippenham, near Newmarket

One farmer remarked on an industry web forum that he “found it astonishing not only that a senior minister can be given this sort of news via a phone call, but also when he is on official business at what is the premier livestock event in the UK.”

Mr Paice got a phone call from Prime Minister David Cameron whilst he was visiting a trade fair in Birmingham.

The 63 year-old MP and one of the oldest members of Cameron’s Government, is to be replaced by Lib Dem David Heath, the MP for Somerton and Frome.

Mr Paice has been MP for SE Cambs since 1987 and has been the farms minister for two years. He recently said he had hoped to continue in the role to see through issues such as the badger cull to alleviate TB and to create better conditions for farmers.

MP Jim Paice at home in Cambridgshire

Ironically Mr Paice has just completed delicate negotiations to secure a voluntary code of conduct for the dairy industry.

In a statement, Mr Paice said: “Obviously I am disappointed at losing my position as Minister of Agriculture and Food, it was a job close to heart and throughout nearly two-and-a-half years I tried hard to help the industry to adapt to change and for the food industry to play its part in economic recovery.

“After 23 years continuous service on the Conservative front bench both in government and in opposition it will be a great change to move to backbenches. “Nevertheless I am privileged to have been able to serve and I shall now devote my time to my constituency and with my family.

“As I have said repeatedly to farmers change should be seen as an opportunity – that applies to me now!”

Mr Paice is married to Ava and has two grown-up sons.

On his website he says in what little spare time he has he enjoys tending his small herd of Highland Cattle and various country pursuits.

In 1997 and after the General Election he was appointed Opposition Spokesman on Agriculture and has remained on the front bench ever since. Following the 2001 General Election, he was appointed Shadow Minister for Police. Then in September 2004 he was promoted to Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs – a position he retained until the General Election in 2010.

In the General Election in 2010 he was re-elected for a sixth term as MP for South East Cambridgeshire. Following the announcement of the formation of the Coalition Government in May 2010, the Prime Minister appointed him as Minister of State for Agriculture and Food.

“His brief includes farming, food, animal health, and forestry and keeps him very busy,” says a shortly to be amended footnote to his website.

Read on:  http://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/nfu_video_tribute_sacked_on_a_tuesday_knighted_on_a_wednesday_all_part_of_life_s_rich_tapestry_for_se_cambs_mp_jim_paice_1_1504959

In Full: Police Log Detailing M.P. Andrew Mitchell’s Contempt for the Police

Here The Daily Telegraph publishes in full the 442-word police log of the incident in which the Conservative Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell abused police officers.

Whilst on duty at *** tonight (Wed 19th Sept) on a 1400-2200 hrs between the hours of 1800-2000 I had to deal with a man claiming to be the chief whip and who I later confirmed to be such and a Mr Andrew MITCHELL.

Mr Mitchell was speaking to PC ******** demanding exit through the main vehicle gate into Whitehall. PC ******** explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was for pedal cycles to use the side pedestrian exit. Mr MITCHELL refused, stating he was the chief whip and he always used the main gates.

I explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was to use the side pedestrian gates and that I was happy to open those for him, but that no officer present would be opening the main gates as this was the policy we were directed to follow.

Mr MITCHELL refused. Repeatedly reiterating he was the chief whip. My exact explanation to Mr MITCHELL was “I am more than happy to open the side pedestrian gate for you Sir, but it is policy that we are not to allow cycles through the main vehicle entrance”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9564006/In-full-Police-log-detailing-Andrew-Mitchells-pleb-rant.html

(2012) Conservative M.P. Andrew Mitchell -SHOWS THE POLICE WHAT HE REALLY THINKS OF THEM WITH A FOUL-MOUTHED TIRADE

Perhaps now the police are beginning to get an insight into the contempt in which they are held by politicians. Let’s hope the police will in the future not be so ready to defend politicians who are the enemy of each and every one of us. 

Andrew Mitchell’s previous form:  (2010) Conservative M.P. Andrew Mitchell -MILLIONAIRE PARASITE CHARGES TAXPAYER 13p FOR TIPEX

Foul mouthed Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell has been forced to apologise after a shocking tirade in which he is said to have branded police “f*****g plebs”.

After armed police guarding Downing Street wouldn’t let him leave on his bike using the main gates – due to security reasons – off flew Mitchell into his expletive littered rant.

“Best you learn your your f*****g place. You don’t run this f*****g government.

“You’re f*****g plebs.”

A witness to the incident reported that Mitchell also labelled the police as “morons”.

Tactless multi-millionaire Mitchell is said to have received a stern talking to from David Cameron for the embarrassing incident, which comes just days after two police officers were murdered in Manchester.

Said Mitchell: “I was told I was not allowed to leave that way. While I do not accept I used the words that have been reported, I accept I did not treat the police with the respect they deserve.

“I have seen the supervising sergeant and apologised, and will also apologise to the police officer involved.”

Calls for Mitchell’s resignation have already begun.

“So I think Mr Mitchell needs to address his position and resign as soon as possible. Someone who holds such high office, and who apparently holds the police in such contempt, is not deserving of such high office and he should resign.” said John Tully, Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation.

Where he goes or not, Mr Mitchell’s opinion is something for the police, and every other ‘pleb’ who happens not to be a cabinet minister and a multi-millionaire, to remember.

“You’re just f*****g plebs, you best learn your f*****g place, you don’t run this f*****g government.”

Tells you a lot about his attitude towards us mere mortals, namely the electorate.

Hat tip:  http://www.britainfirst.org/news/chief-whip-andrew-mitchell-in-foul-mouthed-tirade-at-police/

(2012) Conservative M.P. Tim Yeo -CONFLICT OF INTEREST

With the government today endorsing Tim Yeo’s Thick of It-styleplaygrounds for wind farms policy, an old but nonetheless increasingly apt quote from the Energy and Climate change select committee chair has been doing the rounds:

“What we have to do is work harder to find places where wind farms are acceptable but also, secondly, as this is what we’re not yet doing, be more creative about sharing some of the benefits directly with those local communities. Frankly, we need to be prepared to bribe them.”

Guido doubts Yeo would still be so open about his creative methods afterrecent events…

Hat tip:  http://order-order.com/page/3/

Expenses Scandal Mark 2? New Labour Parasites Margaret Hodge and John Cruddas Suck Even More from the Taxpayer

   

 

 

The MP for Barking defended her expenses claims today after figures showed they exceeded the average in the House of Commons.

Margaret Hodge spent £151,279, up from £128,646 last year, compared to around £137,000 on average in Westminster.

The Labour MP chairs the Commons public accounts committee, which scrutinises government expenditure.

She said: “We do need resources to support our work – my office receives more than 100 letters and emails a week from people who need my help.

“The vast majority of my money goes on employing the staff I need to provide a good service.

“MPs are funded by the taxpayer and we have a duty to use that money responsibly – particularly at a time when our constituents are having to be careful with every penny they spend.

“People should feel they get value for money out of us. I work as hard as possible to make sure that people in the borough feel they get value from the work I do.”

Figures published by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority yesterday showed the 650 MPs in Westminster had collectively claimed £89.4million or £137,538 per parliamentarian in 2011/12.

Meanwhile Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP Dagenham & Rainham, claimed £125,134 compared to about £104,370 last year.

Mr Cruddas said his claims had increased after moving from an office in Church Elm Lane, Dagenham, to a more prominent location in New Road.

He said: “People want to know where money goes. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has a good system.

“The expenses relate to running a large office in Dagenham, dealing with local residents’ concerns.

“We are based on New Road and rent is about £12,000 a year and the rest of the expenses cover postage, phones, stationary etc.”

Read on:  http://www.bdpost.co.uk/news/mp_for_barking_claimed_more_than_commons_average_1_1509308

ARTICLE: Desmond Tutu quits summit with Tony Blair over invasion of Iraq

 

Nobel peace winner says he won’t share platform with ‘morally indefensible’ former PM

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has pulled out of an international summit because he doesn’t want to share a platform with the “morally indefensible” Tony Blair, it emerged yesterday.

The retired archbishop, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his campaigning against apartheid, said that he had withdrawn from the event because he believed the former Prime Minister had supported the invasion of Iraq “on the basis of unproven allegations of the existence of weapons of mass destruction.”

In a statement, Archbishop Tutu’s office added: “The Discovery Invest Summit has leadership as its theme. Morality and leadership are indivisible. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the Archbishop to share a platform with Mr Blair.”

A spokesman added that it was not a snap decision, saying that the Archbishop “thinks and prays and then acts”. He added: “That’s how he’s always done things, including during the struggles.”

Mr Blair and Archbishop Tutu, alongside the chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov, were due to appear at the leadership summit in Johannesburg later this week. The Muslim political party Al Jama-ah has already said that it will attempt to arrest Mr Blair when he arrives in Johannesburg for “crimes against humanity”.

Mr Blair’s office said he regretted the decision. In a statement, it said: “Tony Blair is sorry that the Archbishop has decided to pull out now from an event that has been fixed for months and where he and the Archbishop were never actually sharing a platform.

“As far as Iraq is concerned they have always disagreed about removing Saddam by force – such disagreement is part of a healthy democracy.

“As for the morality of that decision, we have recently had both the memorial of the Halabja massacre where thousands of people were murdered in one day by Saddam’s use of chemical weapons, and that of the Iran-Iraq war where casualties numbered up to a million, including many killed by chemical weapons. So these decisions are never easy morally or politically”.

Archbishop Tutu has long been a critic of Mr Blair’s stance on Iraq – even before the invasion.

In 2003 the archbishop said Mr Blair’s support for the Bush administration was “mind-boggling”. “I have a great deal of time for your Prime Minister, but I’m shocked to see a powerful country use its power frequently, unilaterally,” he said.

After the invasion he called on Mr Blair to apologise for an error of judgement on Iraq. “How wonderful if politicians could bring themselves to admit they are only fallible human creatures and not God and thus by definition can make mistakes,” he said. “Unfortunately, they seem to think that such an admission is a sign of weakness. Weak and insecure people hardly ever say sorry.

“President Bush and Prime Minister Blair would recover considerable credibility and respect if they were able to say: ‘Yes, we made a mistake’.”

Read on:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/desmond-tutu-quits-summit-with-tony-blair-over-invasion-of-iraq-8084805.html

The REAL migrant scandal? Politicians still pretend we control our borders – when the truth is Brussels won’t let us

Yesterday, yet again, we saw headline news being made by a shocking  tale of incompetence and mismanagement by the UK Border Agency, the body set up in 2008 to control immigration to this country.

The backlog of cases piled up in the agency’s labyrinthine system, we are told, amounts to 276,000, equivalent to the population of Newcastle. Most of the migrants are here illegally and should have been sent home years ago.

They include 150,000 foreign workers and students still in Britain even though they were refused extensions to their visas; 101,000 untraced ‘asylum seekers’ left over from when 450,000 ‘forgotten files’ were discovered in 2005; and 3,900 foreign offenders released by the courts to protect their human rights.

Shambles: The UK Border Agency was established in 2008 to control immigration to this country

Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, calls the Border Agency ‘a Bermuda triangle’ for immigrants who find it easy enough to get into Britain from anywhere in the world, but then vanish off the radar because there is no way of tracing them, let alone deporting them because they entered illegally or have broken our laws.

Scandals surrounding our immigration policy are so commonplace that we all accept it is completely out  of control.

MPs like Mr Vaz — whose committee is so exasperated it is now reporting on the Border Agency’s performance every three months — regularly jump up and down asking for something to be done.

But even though it is officially predicted that within eight years Britain’s population will have increased by another five million, nothing ever happens.

Keith Vaz has called the Border Agency ‘a Bermuda triangle’ for immigrants

Home Secretaries from Labour’s John Reid and Charles Clarke to the Coalition’s Theresa May have faced a torrent of criticism — to which they reply with limp bureaucratic statements, promising action.

But things just go from bad to worse.

Behind this dismal picture, however, lies a much bigger story and one we are simply not being told about. The reason why our immigration policy is in such a shambles is that we do not have any control over it.

The real explanation for almost everything we find so horrifying about this mess is that virtually every aspect of our policy is no longer decided here in Britain at all, but is dictated by a morass of international rules and, above all, by those emanating from the EU.

We are familiar with the fact that, since ten more countries joined the EU in 2004, including Poland and those of formerly Communist eastern Europe, we have had to admit anyone from the 28 countries of the EU, giving them the right to live and work here and to enjoy a wide range of benefits such as our NHS and schools.

But if you examine the section of the EU’s ‘Europa’ website headed ‘Free movement of persons, asylum and immigration’, you will see three pages of headings covering every  conceivable aspect of immigration policy, from visa rules to our duties to asylum seekers.

As these headings make clear, the rules, many based on UN and other international agreements, cover not just the way we must treat EU citizens but how we deal with immigrants from the rest of the world.

The scandal of this is twofold. It is not just that successive governments have handed over to the EU the power to dictate every aspect of who we must admit to live and work in Britain, it is also the extent to which politicians such as Mrs May will not honestly and openly admit this.

Ministers and MPs continue to pretend that we at least have some control over immigration by what they slyly call ‘non-EU citizens’.

Benefits: Since ten more countries joined the European Union in 2004, we have had to admit anyone from the 28 countries of the EU – giving them the right to work and live

But the truth is that we have signed up to a vast system of international rules about how we must treat migrants, no matter where they come from — which mean that our politicians and officials, like those of the UK Border Agency, no longer have any choice but to obey them.

The reason why the Border Agency is faced with this horrifying backlog of cases involving immigrants, most of whom should no longer be here, is that in everything it does the agency tries to follow more zealously than any other country in Europe the procedures of the system we signed up to, a system so tortuously complex that it is unworkable.

And on top of this we have all the absurdities piled on us by the Human Rights Act, which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights, into British law.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177974/The-REAL-migrant-scandal-Politicians-pretend-control-borders–truth-Brussels-wont-let-us.html#ixzz23e5vggpv

ARTICLE: The Government’s War on the British Army: Five Army battalions Set to be axed

Five infantry battalions are expected to be axed and other units merged or turned into reservists in the biggest overhaul of the Army in more than a century, under plans due to be announced.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond will set out how the regular Army will be cut from 102,000 troops to 82,000 by the end of the decade – its lowest level since the Napoleonic Wars.

The plan – known as Army 2020 – is expected to see it split into two, with a reaction force, ready to respond to emergencies around the globe, and an adaptable force capable of carrying out a range of tasks and commitments.

Mr Hammond has said the changes – drawn up by Lieutenant General Nick Carter – will provide the basis of a smaller, more flexible and agile Army into the future. But the prospect of losing historic units has been the cause of intense anguish within the service.

The Daily Telegraph disclosed this week that one officer, Brigadier David Paterson of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, had written to the head of the Army expressing his bitter disappointment at plans to axe one of its two battalions. In his letter to General Sir Peter Wall, Chief of the General Staff, Brig Paterson said the proposal “cannot be presented as the best or most sensible military option”.

Other units under threat are reported to include the Yorkshire Regiment, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Royal Welsh and the Mercian Regiment.

Mr Hammond, who will set out details of the proposals in a statement to the House of Commons, has acknowledged that they have involved some “difficult” decisions. But he said that cuts could not be avoided, with the demands for strict financial discipline under the Government’s 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review.

Under the plans, reductions in regular Army strength would be offset by increases in part-time reservists, with the Territorial Army doubling in numbers from 15,000 to 30,000.

Colonel Bob Stewart, a Conservative MP and former commanding officer with the Cheshire Regiment who sits on the defence select committee, said cutting troops was not the right way forward but the Government had been left with no option.

Asked if the Defence Secretary was putting the nation at risk, he told BBC Breakfast: “Every defence secretary has to balance exactly what the risk is. We just don’t know what the risk is. If you reduce the numbers available you have less options, you have less flexibility, you have less power, that’s a fact.”

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/five-army-battalions-set-to-be-axed-16181260.html#ixzz20mm40GM0

ARTICLE: Assassinating a Prime Minister’s Reputation: Ten Ways to Blackmail Tony Blair

Like John F. Kennedy thirty-seven years earlier, Tony Blair came to power with a clean-cut, charismatic image that promised ‘safe’ change, more social justice, and a strong head on his shoulders. But also like JFK, the youthful leader of ‘New’ Labour had more than a few skeletons trailing behind him. True or not, they remain the subject of intense gossip – and a number of incontrovertible facts – to this day.

They cover not only his early years as a barrister and MP, but also key moments when he was at the height of his power and reputation as an international statesman and warlord.

The wayward lawyer

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair married Cherie Booth on 29th March 1980. Just four years out of University, Blair was trying to establish himself as a barrister – but not with much success.

“He wasn’t very good” says a retired commercial lawyer who hired him at the time through Derry Irvine’s Chambers. “Frankly he didn’t listen to the brief, and he caved in to the Judge…to the fury of my clients. So I fired him. I told Derry, ‘Don’t ever send that twat to me again'”.

The solicitor was appalled at the ease with which Blair betrayed his clients “for a quiet life”. Betrayal (as we shall see) is an amoral spine running through Teflon Tony’s life-story.

We interviewed the lawyer at some length. “When I watched him give in to the EU about the eight billion quid” he said, “I thought of that day in Court”.

Close friends of the Blairs agree that Tony was a washout as a barrister….and that Cherie was without doubt the superstar. But in turn, while specialising in wealthy and commercial clients, for a young man supposedly interested in left-wing ideas Blair defended some odd people.

Read on:  http://www.notbornyesterday.org/brownblairsucc2.htm

The many posts on this site regading this war-criminal, Tony Blair:  http://eotp.org/?s=tony+blair&x=0&y=0

(2011) Agent for New Labour’s Chris Bryant M.P. Stephen Carnell -JAILED FOR SERIOUS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Agent of Labour MP Chris Bryant is jailed for collecting 12,000 pictures of ‘the most serious child pornography police have seen’

Stephen Carnell was chairman of governors at a primary school in Mr Bryant’s constituency

Five laptops contained images of sadism, bestiality and child porn

He was also swapping images with other paedophiles

The agent of Labour MP Chris Bryant has been imprisoned after he was caught with a huge stash of ‘the most serious child pornography police have ever seen’.

Stephen Carnell, who was a chairman on a primary school board of governors in Mr Bryant’s south Wales constituency, was sentenced to three years in jail.

The 58-year-old was found with 12,130 pornographic images, as well as material showing sadism and bestiality, Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court was told.

A spokesman for Chris Bryant, above, said that any comment would come from Welsh Labour, who said: ‘Steve Carnell was expelled from the Labour Party immediately following his conviction’

When police visited his home, Carnell let them in, saying: ‘The child pornography is on my laptops. I’ve been stupid.’

Police saw the disturbing images on five laptops and storage equipment at his home, said David Pugh, prosecuting.

Mr Pugh said: ‘He was also distributing the images through internet file-sharing to swap with other paedophiles.’

The prosecutor said many of the images were of the most serious category, level four and five, showing ‘sexual activity with children, sadism and bestiality’.

He said Carnell had admitted to being ‘sexually interested in both male and female images on his computer’.

But he added: ‘Carnell denied being sexually attracted to children in real life.’

The election agent admitted a total of 47 charges, consisting of 35 counts of making indecent images, seven counts of possessing and four counts of distributing indecent photographs of children between May 2003 and March 2011.

There were 12,130 images and 453 films of paedophilia – showing the abuse of babies as young as 12 months as well as boys and girls up to the age of 11.

Stephen Jury, defending, said Carnell had a ‘good character’ and had been a ‘hard-working man’ for 39 years.

This is not a victimless crime – small children are subjected to the most appalling abuse for these photos and videos to be made. Anyone who is twisted enough to take part in this activity is going to be severely dealt with. This has been one of the largest number of images and movies I’ve ever had to deal with.

– JUDGE JOHN CURRAN

He said: ‘He has operated at a high professional level but he has lost his employment.

‘From the time he was arrested, he has co-operated and done what he can to assist police.

‘He appreciates the need to join a sex offenders’ treatment programme.’

A reference was handed to Judge John Curran but the author was not identified.

Judge Curran said: ‘This is not a victimless crime – small children are subjected to the most appalling abuse for these photos and videos to be made.

‘Anyone who is twisted enough to take part in this activity is going to be severely dealt with especially as there is an element of distribution.

‘This has been one of the largest number of images and movies I’ve ever had to deal with.’

Carnell was ordered to register as a sex offender for life and banned from ever working with children.

A spokesman for Mr Bryant said that any comment would come from Welsh Labour, who said: ‘Steve Carnell was expelled from the Labour Party immediately following his conviction.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064281/Agent-Labour-MP-Chris-Bryant-jailed-collecting-12-000-pictures-child-pornography-police-seen.html#ixzz1efZHU9rJ

(2010) New Labour Vote Rigging Again? Time to call in the British Army to Referee?

Vote rigging, electoral fraud, gerrymandering… call it what you will. Its perverse crime is the same what ever its moniker. It is a direct attack not only on the People but on everything we hold dear. It is a complete betrayal of trust and a devious, callous act that equates to tyranny. Welcome to fascist Britain, People.

This not an isolated incident. See here for much more evidence.

It has now come the time to ask: are we playing a game where the opposition is cheating? Evidently, and frighteningly so, the proof suggests we are. What now, then? Do we stop playing the game called “democracy” and let the opposition not only win but also rub our noses in their victory? Do we continue playing, foolishly expecting the opposition to suddenly be fair and play by the rules?

This is a tough decision because this game called “democracy” is not simply a game to pass the time: this game is a game of life –OUR LIFE.

With that in mind we the People need to call upon a referee. We need a body to oversee elections and ensure the rules are adhered to and fair play is thus maintained. We the People need the British Army to monitor elections. Please vote on this proposition and pass it all to all your contacts:

In light of the weighty evidence confirming vote-rigging by the old-gang parties, should the British Army be called upon to monitor elections? http://polldaddy.com/community/poll/1837752/?view=results

Commission says unusually high number of last minute postal vote applications were made during byelection last year.

The Labour party has been warned by the Electoral Commission over its handling of postal vote applications after it investigated alleged irregularities in last year’s Glasgow North East byelection.

The commission said an unusually high number of last minute postal vote applications were made in Glasgow North East, with 1,800 forms submitted less than three days before the registration deadline – more than a quarter of the total number received.

A spot check of 300 of those forms by the returning officer’s staff found that in at least 100 cases these applications had been dated more than a week and in some cases over a month earlier.

Nearly half of the last-minute registrations came from Labour supporters, sparking allegations from the Scottish National party – first reported by The Guardian – that Labour had been deliberately hoarding postal votes to help its campaign.

In the event, Labour won by a landslide 8,111 votes, securing a 60% share of the vote and demolishing SNP hopes of a second victory in Labour’s Glasgow heartland.

The commission said Labour “did not comply” with a code of conduct that requires political parties to hand in every postal vote application within two days of receiving them, and had been asked to honour those rules in future.

Read on

(2007) New Labour M.P. Harriet Harman Harman -in dock for failing to pay speed fine

Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman has been summonsed to appear in court on Tuesday for failing to pay a speeding fine, it has been revealed.

Ms Harman, who until recently was Solicitor General and is a lawyer by profession, failed to pay the fine on time after she was charged by Suffolk Police.

The case will be dealt with on Tuesday by Ipswich magistrates who could impose an additional fine for not meeting the deadline.

Read more

(2009) New Labour HATE CRIMINAL Harriet Harman(person) -accused of crashing car while on mobile phone

Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader, is being investigated by police over allegations she left the scene of an accident after hitting a parked car while talking on her mobile phone.

According to witnesses, Miss Harman, who is Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for Women and Equality, stopped initially but then drove off without giving her insurance or registration details. The offence carries a possible sentence of six months in prison.

However aides said she “strongly refutes” the allegations, but added that she was “co-operating fully” with the police.

Read on

New Labour M.P. Chris Bryant -ADVERTISES HIMSELF ON THE WEB FOR HOMOSEXUAL SEX

Labour MP (Rhonda Valley, Wales) Chris Bryant poses in his pants on the Internet to advertise himself for casual homosexual sex encounters. Describes himself as “Horny as buggery” and says, “I’d love a good long f**k”. http://tinyurl.com/2hu7qt

New Labour Cllr. Ian Sharman -GUILTY OF STEALING FROM A CHARITY

Labour Councillor (Stoke/Staffordshire) and later Chairman of Heywood and Middleton Labour Party Ian Sharman –Convicted and jailed for 4 months in 1993 for stealing money from a charity. He received another 18-month prison sentence in 2002 after being convicted on 17 counts of theft, fraud, and furnishing false information. http://tinyurl.com/ypz7j9

(2004) New Labour Treasurer Paul Murphy –CONVICTED OF EMBEZZLEMENT

Labour Party Treasurer (Scarborough and Whitby) Paul Murphy –Convicted of embezzlement in 2004, and jailed for 6 months, after stealing more than £9000 from the party’s accounts to pay for mortgage repayments and a holiday in Jamaica.

New Labour Cllr. Ataur Rahman –suspended pending police investigation

Labour Councillor (Tower Hamlets/London) Ataur Rahman was suspended by the council in 2004 following a police investigation into fraud at the local St Dunstan’s Bangladeshi Community Resource Centre, where Councillor Rahman was the Finance Officer. http://tinyurl.com/3ccfx5

New Labour Cllr. Tony Giles –stole £18,000 of public money

Labour Councillor (Merton/London) Tony Giles was convicted and jailed for 10 months in 2005 for stealing £18,000 of public money –money which had been intended for the upkeep, cleaning and maintenance of his own neighbourhood on the West Barnes Lane housing estate, before being embezzled by the Labour crook. http://tinyurl.com/3cns49

New Labour Cllr. Miranda Grell -MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE

A Labour councillor has been charged in connection with alleged misconduct during last year’s local election. Miranda Grell, 28, who represents Leyton ward, today was charged with four counts of making false statements contrary to Section 106 (1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. http://tinyurl.com/374tfl

Lib-Lab-Con Parasites want to keep their Expenses Secret

 

The gang of Labour/LibDem/Tory crooks who make up the Tweedledee Tweeledum parties in parliament are desperately trying to prevent the publication of figures showing how much taxpayers’ money they have spent on themselves by way of furnishings for second houses.

Taxpayers have already been charged one million pounds for the staff working at Westminster to prepare the expense receipts for publication, but the MPs now look certain to change the law so that the details will not be published at all.

According to one source, Westminster is rife with speculation that several MPs would have been so embarrassed by publication of their receipts that they would have been forced to leave parliament.

Commons authorities began to edit MPs’ receipts for publication after MPs lost a battle in the High Court to prevent publication. Speaker Michael Martin spent around £150,000 of public money unsuccessfully fighting the case.

Commons leader Harriet Harman has revealed that the Government intends to change the law to exempt MPs from freedom of information laws.

The proposals are backdated to 2005, so would nullify rulings that the public has a right to know exactly how MPs are spending allowances for second homes.

Instead, individual MPs’ expenses are merely to be split into more categories than before when published.

The announcement that parliament wants to defy the High Court and block publication of receipts for MPs’ expenses was buried on the day news was dominated by Government statements on Heathrow and Equitable Life.

The extraordinary move is in direct response to a High Court judgment upholding an Information Tribunal ruling that receipt-by-receipt breakdowns for how public money is spent by MPs must be published.

MPs’ expenses and allowances last year cost taxpayers £87 million. Their claims are on top of their £63,291 salary.

Information campaigner Heather Brooke, who battled for years to have the receipts released, said the developments showed a “new level of arrogance. Just when you thought MPs had understood the need to regain public trust they do something like this,” she said. “It is what you would expect from a banana republic.”

In a separate development, it emerged that despite promises of an end to the Westminster gravy train, MPs will still be free to use taxpayers’ cash for extravagant items to furnish and upgrade second homes.

Under revised expenses rules MPs will still be entitled to pick items from the so-called “John Lewis list”, the informal guidelines on how much can be spent on home furnishings.

As now, they will be able to charge for white goods, sofas, chairs, tables, beds, cutlery and crockery, security fittings, cleaners and decoration to kit out their second homes.

Mortgage interest payments or rent for the additional residences will also be met by the taxpayer as will utility bills and council tax payments. Receipts will not need to be submitted for any items under £25.

There will also be flat-rate ’subsistence’ payments of £25 per day when a “member spends a night away from his or her main home on Parliamentary business.”