Mills/Jowell - Several Strikes and Still Not Out

They say pride comes before a fall. International Lawyer and the subject of a lengthy International Italian investigation into money laundering, tax evasion and various other such corrupt concerns of the opulent few, David Mills, was immensely proud of many things.


Strike 1: Married to the Mob

One of the many things of which the husband of cabinet minister Tessa Jowell (PC) was immensely proud he outlined in a letter sent with an application to practise in the United Arab Emirates in November 2005. The application and letter were part of an attempt by Mills to reassure UAE financial authorities that there was no reason to worry about the lengthy and ongoing investigation into his dubious activities by Italian authorities:

"You will know that I'm married to a minister in the government of this country and that in itself has caused a great deal of unwelcome publicity about this case. But I also want you to know, I have a lot of support and sympathy from very many people in public life, from the prime minister down." - David Mills

The sympathy and support of Blair, who on Saturday admitted to Parky and the world that his mettle is as weak as his conscience by stating that God would pass final judgement on how great a terrorist he had been, not in the moment, or the years of moments that would follow his ongoing perpetration of terrorism, but rather some time after he had fully exploited the personal privilege, opportunity and decadence that comes with being one of the most accomplished terrorists the world has ever seen, racking up hundreds of thousands of deaths in just a few short years.

For a man of Mr Mill's constitution, the support and sympathy of someone like Blair and his band of merry folk is indeed an accolade and proof of the existence of honour amongst thieves, liars and murderers. It may be the type of honour that is an alien antithesis to any sort of honour that the 'decent, law abiding citizens' in Britain might recognise and for whom Tony Blair is the principal and most vocal propagandist so perhaps it should be of some concern that these are the same 'decent, law abiding citizens' whom Blair chooses not to surround himself with and whom he wouldn't recognise if they bit him on the nose. In light of this, one might then be inspired ask what sort of things Mr Mills was doing that would receive such support and sympathy from Blair.

In the absence of any specifics, we must assume the general ongoing support and sympathy for the activities of Mr Mills which would presumably apply to this sort of thing:

David Mills had helped put Silvio Berlusconi's Fininvest holding company, behind which lies a network of offshore companies 15 years earlier, Mills appointed Marcello Dell'Utri as a director for Publitalia International, a London-registered media advertising agency on the day of the company's incorporation in 1985.

The two men had roles in the company for a decade; Mr Mills was company secretary until 1997, and Mr Dell'Utri was a director until 1995. Mr Dell'Utri, known as Mr Berlusconi's braccio destra (right hand), was subsequently convicted of "mafia association", a crime which the court in Sicily ruled he had been committing throughout the time he was on the board, and for many years before.

Source: The Guardian

Perhaps, once, nobody would quite credit the PM with sympathy and support for the mafia-related dealings of the husband of one of his cabinet ministers at the time it was occuring, but there it is; husband of cabinet minister Tessa Jowell (PC, 'legalised gambling', alchohol and tobacco regulation, etc), tasked with obfuscating the nature and extent of the material interests and dealings of one Silvio Berlusconi, Italian PM, president of the Forza Italia 'centre-right' (read: neo-Fascist) party and the Italian Prime Minister who, at least as far back as 1985, was not far removed at all from the mafia. It goes on:

Italian prosecutors are reported to have discovered that Mr Mills was the administrator of a company registered in the Isle of Man that bought into the deal in the port of Salerno in 1992. The chief beneficiary, Diego Attanasio, was jailed for bribing officials to ensure the deal went through, and is now appealing against his sentence. This would mean, according to Mr Mills' current account of his affairs and according to Ms Jowell's statement last week to Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, that their London home was paid for, in part, by a convicted criminal.

Source: The Guardian

But then maybe that's how you get to be Prime Minister in Italy, the birthplace of Fascism. Berlusconi's involvement with the upper-echelons of the British state and ruling classes seem to extend rather further than merely allowing a few of them use of the villa in Tuscany. Let's hope nobody spots or mentions P2 links in the midst of the Mills, Jowell, Blair and Berlusconi mix as that might really stir things up a bit.


Strike 2: Married to the Minister

Despite his recent forced and faux separation from Tessa Jowell now that the merest hint of the level of international corruption may force at least a resignation or two and at most a revolution the likes of which this country has never seen, we must assume that the blighted Ms Jowell also had sympathy and support for Mills, firstly as his loyal and devoted wife and then as a loyal and devoted Blairite who announced that she would happily throw herself under a bus for her leader.

The Cabinet Office ministerial code of conduct states:

5.3 On appointment to each new office, Ministers are advised to provide their Permanent Secretary with a full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict.

The list should cover not only the Minister’s personal interests but those of a spouse or partner, of children who are minors, of trusts of which the Minister or a spouse or partner is a trustee or beneficiary, or of closely associated persons. The list should cover all kinds of interest including financial instruments and partnerships, financial interests such as unincorporated businesses and real estate, as well as relevant non-financial private interests such as links with outside organisations, and previous relevant employment.

This means that whatever way you dice, spin and re-constitute the increasingly long and convoluted Mills/Jowell story of mortgages, re-mortgages, rapid repayments and a rather long list of miscellaneous other international crimes anomalies (to use Blair's parlance in relation to other heinous crimes conducted by the international ruling 'elites'), the onus was always on Jowell as the minister with a code of conduct to follow, to abide by the code.

Under new 'anti-terror laws' if an ordinary member of the public is discovered to have committed the crime of being in possession of one thousand pounds in cash, the burden of proof is on the holder of the funds to explain how they came to be in possession of such a 'large' sum of cash. Elsewhere, above the law, the place where the real criminals operate unchecked, the issue of a wayward £350,000 from a dubious source is regarded as a trifling matter that, if it had been better managed, would have passed almost unnoticed.

If the code is of any indication at all of the standards to which ministers are expected to adhere, then Blair's continued support for Jowell - re-affirmed again today - falls short of both the code by which he charged them both with operating, and his own aspirations outlined in the foreword to the same code of conduct that Ms Jowell (PC) seems to have breached:

MINISTERIAL CODE

A Code of Ethics and Procedural Guidance for Ministers

Foreword by
The Prime Minister

In issuing this Code, I should like to confirm my strong personal commitment to the bond of trust between the British people and their Government. We are all here to serve and we must serve honestly and in the interests of those who gave us our positions of trust.

I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the Code. For the first time, the Code is split into two parts: a Ministerial Code of Ethics, and Procedural Guidance for Ministers. This takes account of a recommendation made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Ministers will find it a useful source of guidance and reference as they undertake their official duties in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.

I believe we should be absolutely clear about how Ministers should account, and be held to account, by Parliament and the public. The first section of the Code of Ethics sets out these responsibilities clearly, including Ministers’ responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I commend the Ministerial Code to all of my Ministerial colleagues.

TONY BLAIR
July 2005

Somewhere in line with the principles outlined in these guidelines, somehow, further inexplicabilities must also be explained:

Questions were also asked about the single mother living on a council estate in London's East End who is recorded as a director or company secretary of 19 companies which Mr Mills established on behalf of his Italian clients.

Source: The Guardian

Those working-class single mothers living on council estates, you really do have to keep your eye on them. Give them an inch. Comparatively speaking, working class council estate scumbags make the Mills, Jowell and Blair combo look like paragons of virtue.


Strike 3: Aeroplanes to Iran

Daughter: Mummy, mummy, can you get pregnant through anal sex?

Mother: Of course, dear, that's how lawyers are made.

Ministers have a code of conduct to follow, or breach, depending on your point of view. Lawyers on the other hand are generally known to follow much the same code of conduct the world over and it is this code of conduct that has landed the Mills-Jowell tag team in much the same water, of not entirely dissimilar elevated temperatures, on many occasions.

Another such occasion was in July 2002, when Mills wrote to then Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons (PC), whose portfolio includes the Middle East and international security, asking for help in securing a £125 million aircraft deal that contravened US law. Mills wanted to see if there was a way to break the law avoid the US trade sanctions that prohibited the sale of planes to Iran, presumably because there was lots of money involved rather than the mere kudos he might receive for finding an exploitable loophole in the sanctions.

On 9 January 2005, under the heading of “Minister's 'Advice' on Iran Jet Deal”, The Observer published details of how Jowell's husband had lobbied Symons (PC) about the potentially lucrative deal to provide Iran with several British Aerospace jets after he sat next to her at a dinner party. Mills wrote to Symons (PC), asking for help to push the £125 million aircraft deal with Iran through. At the time Jack Straw (PC) and Symons (PC) were adamant that Mills, husband of Jowell (PC), did not receive any special treatment. However, the letter from Symons, written on headed government notepaper, was leaked and suggests that this was not the case. Symons wrote:

'Dear David

Given the obvious political sensitivities you will need to tread very carefully with this one. This is a difficult time to be raising Iran policy in Washington. The advice I have been given, with which I am inclined to agree, is that our official support for you with the administration would raise the profile of the case and, by so doing, increase the chance of eliciting a negative response.'

Her advice to Mills:

'So you will need to think very carefully about a lobbying strategy calibrated to achieve the right result. I am pleased that Allan Flood [the British Aerospace director] will be in Washington next week and that he will be calling on the Embassy to discuss this further. They are best placed to advise on next steps.'

Symons Concluded:

'If after that meeting, you need further advice or help from me, please let me know.

Yours sincerely,
Liz.'

On the face of it, it would appear that Mills was looking for a way to make a quick buck by finding a legal way of breaking international law and selling a few aeroplanes to one of Bush's 'axis of evil' countries before the imminent invasion that will reduce the place to the same piles of rubble and levels of barbarity as Afghanistan and Iraq before it.


Miscellaneous other offences for consideration

Remember Bernie Eccleston?

"Unfortunately, one of New Labour’s ‘promises’ had been to ban tobacco advertising, including sports sponsorship. With Blair in 10 Downing Street, Ecclestone asked to see him. Twenty-four hours later the Prime Minister had sent a memorandum to the Secretary of State for Health, exempting Formula One from the sponsorship ban. It was left to the Health Minister, Tessa Jowell, to tell the world what a good idea this was.

Alas, it was discovered that Jowell’s partner, David Mills, had been, until just after the election, a director of the Benetton Formula One racing company and remained its legal adviser. The minister derided suggestions of a conflict of interest. Then it was discovered that Ecclestone had given £1 million to New Labour. For his part, Blair claimed that he had already alerted Sir Patrick Neill, Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as to the ‘question of ethics’ of accepting such a donation, long before the press had disclosed it.

In fact, the letter to Neill was sent after the press published it. The government had not only acted in the interests of a powerful businessman and against the interests of the electorate, but had lied about it. Blair subsequently apologised, but his apology was really for a failure of public relations. If the public are to be fooled, they should be fooled efficiently. Of course, the only difference between New Labour’s and the Tories’ sleaze was that the New Labour variation involved more money."

Source: John Pilger, THE MEDIA AGE

How about a bit of insider trading thrown in for good measure:

Mills dogged by claims of £68,000 pub profit, and mentioning wife in tax inquiry
John Hooper in Rome and Ian Cobain
Monday March 6, 2006

Ms Jowell, then public health minister, had played a major role in the decision not to outlaw smoking in pubs and other public places. This decision, announced in December 1998, was condemned by the British Medical Association. There is no evidence that Ms Jowell was aware of this investment or was influenced by her husband's shareholdings.

Source: The Guardian

As the ministerial guidelines state, at all times it was and is the duty of Ms Jowell, or any other minister, to be aware of any of their familial financial dealings where a potential conflict of interest might be construed to exist. More than once there has been some doubt as to how well Jowell followed the ministerial guidelines.


Battening down the hatches

On what might appear to be an unrelated note, pages 9 (news) and 36 (comment) of the The Independent On Sunday carried the rather understated announcement by Geoff Hoon (PC) of his plans to 'ban Lords from challenging controversial bills' on the basis that the Lords are, to some degree at least, negatively impacting the ability of a dictatorial state to do whatever it likes.

Harping back to Tony Blair's opening statement in the minister's code of conduct for a moment:

"We are all here to serve and we must serve honestly and in the interests of those who gave us our positions of trust."

In any thinking human being, this sort of statement would then beg a question or two about whose interests those who observe the code must serve honestly and who gave them their positions of trust. Which brings us nicely to why the letters 'PC' appear in brackets after the names of politicians in this article.

Tony Blair, Tessa Jowell, Baroness Symons, Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon are all current members Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council. All of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Counsellors are administered the following oath before they take office:

You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God.

Unsurprisingly, this archaic, anachronistic oath was a carefully guarded secret until recently. Indeed, one would think they could have hidden behind such nonsense only in the dark old days of King Egbert. But, no, it still continues to this very day.

Perhaps one of the reasons for not revealing the contents of such an oath might be that, if the 60 million or so residents of this country knew, realised and truly understood there is nothing more to the lives of state operatives than that of being a 'true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty', so help them god, then, perhaps, the material conditions of existence on pirate ship Britain would then exist for the mass consciousness shifts required to engender positive and progressive change in the public interests of many, over and above the private interests of the few.

Cheek by Jowell

CMS. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Culture, media and sport. And terrorist bombings of London, although quite whether attacks on London's commuters are classified as 'culture', 'media' or 'sport' is left as an avenue of further investigation for the reader.

U.K. Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and British Olympics Minister, Tessa Jowell, basked in much glory in the summer of last year for 'winning' the 2012 (ho ho ho) Olympic bid to great publicity on July 6th 2005.

Jowell's in the news again, Craig Murray does the rest:

Tessa Jowell tells us she did nothing wrong. She merely signed documents to remortgage her home. She strongly asserted today that this was “a very normal thing to do, and certainly not illegal.”

It is indeed not unusual to remortgage, though it was unusual that she remortgaged with an offshore bank. It is also unusual to remortgage for as much as £400,000. But it is very unusual indeed to remortgage for £400,000, then pay off the full loan, within a month, with spare cash.

What sort of people do such a thing? Well, money launderers. If you have £400,000 of cash not easily explained, you now have remortgage papers available to show where you got it.

Now, where did the money actually come from? Well, on two occasions, David Mills has said in writing that it came from Silvio Berlusconi. He said so in a signed confession to the Italian police, which he now says was extracted under duress. And he said so in a letter to his own accountant, where he explained that it was not in fact a bribe from Berlusconi for the evidence he had just given in an Italian court to keep Berlusconi out of jail. It was rather a personal gift. Mills now says that this second occasion when he wrote that the money came from Berlusconi was in fact a lie to protect another client. One can believe him or not – he is claiming to be a liar already. What we do know for certain is that, shortly after giving evidence on behalf of Berlusconi, evidence which Italian authorities now allege was perjured, David Mills received a lot of money from an Italian source, which he has difficulty accounting for and claims he needed to disguise. His wife then took out a mortgage for about the same sum, which they almost immediately then paid off again.

It stinks to heaven.

Mills is, beyond dispute, a confidante and adviser of the odious Berlusconi. Mills’ job as an international corporate lawyer is to help the cosmopolitan super rich move their money about and avoid tax, and to disguise their cash flows if necessary. Mills is a long term shyster whose activities and profession should appal Labour supporters. Everything Mills stands for is what Keir Hardie and Clement Atlee were against. So it should be of no surprise that he is close to Blair and a member of his personal circle. The day I decided Blair was calculating and self-seeking, rather than honest and misguided, was the day that Blair first chose to spend family holidays with the Berlusconis, at some of their palaces. But Blair’s friendship with the likes of Mills should have warned all of us sooner.

Now for something else you won’t find in the mainstream media. Mills was under long term surveillance by the Serious Fraud Office for numerous dubious financial transactions. Approximately nine years ago, his office was actually raided by the SFO. As the investigation drew to a close, New Labour came to power. An inside source tells me that SFO staff believed they had a good case, and wondered whether his friendship with the new Prime Minister Blair had any bearing on it not coming to court. A Sunday Times Insight investigation into Mills was spiked by the editors.

So these current peculiar financial dealings do not drop out of a clear blue sky. A lot of taxpayers’ money has been spent investigating Mills before. He is well dodgy.

What will it take for the eyes of the very many decent people still left in the Labour Party to be opened to the appalling people who now lead their party? How many of the current cabinet are not, themselves or their partners, personally millionaires? Blair has a £3 million house. Straw has a Cotswold mansion as one of his homes. We recall Blunkett’s dodgy directorships, and Mandelson’s loan from Robinson. Who do these people represent, except a self-serving, cosmopolitan elite? Is it any wonder they are so keen on privatising health and education, when they and all their friends can afford the best? And what does any of this have to do with the aims and origins of the Labour Party, or the hopes of those who elected them?

When you have sold your soul to Mammon, you end up doing things like launching illegal wars that kill over a hundred thousand and cost the taxpayer billions, but bring massive profits to your friends who own shares in oil companies or arms manufacturers. I have no doubt that some of those who have made a killing out of the Iraq War will have paid for Mills’ useful professional advice on offshore money transactions.

Mills and Blair will be close to those making a killing, but not those suffering the killing. It is hard to see that far from the marble terrace overlooking one of Mr Berlusconi’s private beaches.

Source: Craig Murray

Speaking of Mammon, as Craig was, here's Tessa in action on July 7th 2003:

Tessa Jowell and Ambassador William Farish

planting white roses in the 9/11 memorial
garden in Grosvenor Square on
July 7, 2003

Sick Canards & Cognitive Dissonance

Seeing as nobody else has seen fit to comment....

From: "Snowmail - Channel 4 News"
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 5:12 PM
Subject: Sick Canard

Sarah Smith here - to give an idea of what we have for you on 4 at 6.40pm

Sick Canard
============

Has bird flu flown one step nearer to us? Tests in France are very soon likely to confirm a dead duck there has the deadly H5N1 strain. It can't be long now before an infected bird hops across the Channel. So are we ready for it?

In France they brought even free range chickens indoors months ago. They are talking now about vaccinating the entire poultry population. While almost every dead bird is being tested. Experts here say we need to take better precautions. We can't stop the virus arriving here. We could try to prevent it form jumping from wild foul to the domestic flock by bringing them inside.

Some say it's time to do that right now before we get the virus. We are talking to the agriculture minister and asking why he has not ordered our birds indoors yet.

Bird Flu special reports:
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/birdflu.html

Sitting comfortably?

Definition 1: Sick

• Suffering from or affected with a physical illness; ailing.


• Of or for sick persons: sick wards.


• Nauseated.


• Mentally ill or disturbed.


• Unwholesome, morbid, or sadistic: a sick joke; a sick crime.


• Defective; unsound: a sick economy.


• Deeply distressed; upset: sick with worry.


• Disgusted; revolted.


• Weary; tired: sick of it all.


• Pining; longing: sick for his native land.


• In need of repairs: a sick ship.


• Constituting an unhealthy environment for those working or residing within: a sick office building.


• Unable to produce a profitable yield of crops: sick soil.

Definition 2: Canard

• An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.

The truth is out there, somewhere.

The Independent: The Subtle Art of Juxtaposition

'Truth only reveals itself when one gives up all preconceived ideas.'

- Shoseki

Full credit must go to those brave souls at The Independent who were responsible for a very important lesson in journalism and the subtle art of juxtaposition.

The Independent's front page of 15th February was emblazoned with the words The Great Deception followed by The politics of fear (or how Tony Blair misled us over the war on terror) across pages 2 and 3, which featured an edited extract taken from The Use and Abuse of Terror - The Construction of a False Narrative on the Domestic Terror Threat, published Wednesday by the Centre for Policy Studies. The paper dedicated its first three pages to the lying liars and their incessant lies in recent history including fake terror ricin, fake terror in Manchester and the ongoing politicisation of terror on the basis of lies.

Three whole pages about the politics of fear, fake terror and lies, with only fleeting reference to the devastating events in London on July 7th and yet the largest photo in the article - the one taking up half of page three in an article about fake terror - is a full-colour photograph of the back of the number 30 bus that exploded in Tavistock Square on July 7th 2005.

Subtle, but very clever indeed.

More on the Alex Cox forum and Peter Oborne presents 'Spinning Terror' on Channel 4, Monday 20th February.

Islam, Intelligence and Infiltration

"Whether the hunt for those behind the London bombers can prevail against [these] powerful political forces remains to be seen. Indeed it may depend on whether Scotland Yard, in its attempts to uncover the truth, can prevail over MI6, which is trying to cover its tracks and in practice has every opportunity to operate beyond the law under the cover of national security."

Source: MP Michael Meacher, The Guardian

Remember Abu Hamza, the former nightclub bouncer, who was sentenced last week to seven years in the midst of rather more overt propaganda than it seems most people noticed?

Yesterday's Observer carried the following story and introduction (complete with The Antagonist's emphasis on the key points):

Hamza set up terror camps with British ex-soldiers
US intelligence agencies reveal the jailed cleric's network of training facilities around UK
Jamie Doward and Diane Taylor
Sunday February 12, 2006
The Observer

Former British soldiers taught Abu Hamza's followers to use guns at a camp in Wales as part of an ad hoc terror training network set up by the jailed cleric, according to US intelligence agencies.

But the British security services were either unconcerned or ignorant about Hamza's activities, despite warnings that he was considered a risk from foreign governments and intelligence agencies as early as 1995.

Source: The Observer

Ex-British soldiers have been training up followers of Abu Hamza and we are all meant to believe that the British government was either 'ignorant' or 'unconcerned' that these ex-British soldiers - the Queen's finest white-water-rafters no doubt - were training the followers of someone who has for so long apparently been a thorn in the side of the state.

'Ignorant'? No chance. We're all under surveillance now.

'Unconcerned'? Of course, for it serves a very definite purpose to have an insignificant army of 'mad-mullah' followers, all trained to the highest standard by imperialism's ex-finest, in the event that one should ever need to create and assert the illusion, ad nauseam, that extremist Muslim terrorists have infiltrated quaint-old, rural-old, British country life.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people he didn't exist. Oh, the sweet power of propaganda marketing and spin.

The news that ex-British army soldiers are involved in training the followers of Abu Hamza broke on the day that we could all happily watch footage of more of the Queen's finest rounding up, kicking and beating the shit out of defenceless Iraqi children while others of the Queen's finest look on, film proceedings for posterity and shout in delight. Now that's what I call terrorism!

It's time to for everyone to wake up.

The utterly pathetic and totally shameful British press and media whose coverage of July 7th is an insult to the dead, the injured, their families and all the rest of us would perhaps be better employed not espousing the finer points of 'feminist pole dancing', but instead dedicating a little time to investigating the activities of a few more ex-British army, ex-British special forces and ex-British anti-terrorist operatives, some of whom have apparently now eschewed all that defence of the realm nonsense, 'converted' to Islam, grown suitably long beards and ingratiated themselves into otherwise tightly knit and entirely peaceful Muslim communities around the country.

Remember the Hamara Youth Access Project (HYAP), set-up with around a million pounds of government money and from which the mosque opposite warned Muslims to stay away?

Remember the Iqra bookshop set-up with monies from the HYAP and run by Mohammad Tafazal, along with ex-special forces, ex-anti-terrorist operative and white, British Islam-convert Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid?

Remember the Fiaz brothers, especially Naveed, the fellow HYAP pioneer who was originally suspected to be one of the suicide bombers on July 7th?

Remember the man labelled the 'Tartan Taliban', one James McClintock, a Scot and white, British Islam-convert widely known to have fought with the Mujahedeen, also known by his Islamic handle, Mohammed Yacoub?

Remember Samantha Lewthwaite, the white, British convert to Islam, who met Germaine Lindsay (himself a convert to Islam) on the Internet, married him just minutes after meeting him in October 2002, and whose father is an ex-military man who served in Northern Ireland?

Remember the MI6 plan to win over the hearts and minds of muslims by infiltrating their communities?

No, of course you don't remember any of these things, because all of these things have been confined to the same July 7th memory hole as the driver of a second affected Piccadilly line train.

Here's a snippet from a letter about the infiltration of Islam plans which perhaps reveals the real reasons behind why the British media refuse to investigate ex-army, ex-special forces and ex-anti-terrorist operatives that crop up the minute you start researching the alleged suicide bombers on July 7th:

"Dealing with Islamist extremism, the messages are more complex, the constituencies we would aim at are more difficult to identify, and greater damage could be done to the overall effort if links back to UK or US sources were revealed."

William Ehrman
Director General (Defence & Intelligence), FCO

All of which goes to prove that you can be known as Abdullah, or Mohammed, but a new name, a new beard and a lot of government funding does not a true or convincing Muslim make, especially if you're not of ethnic origin.

Propaganda: It's only subliminal if you don't notice it

It was always going to be fairly unlikely that The Antagonist would let the seven month anniversary of the horrific events in London on the seventh day of the seventh month of 2005 (curiously, in numerology terms, also a seven (5 + 2 = 7)) pass without comment, but it very nearly happened. Only very nearly though, for seven months ago today was July 7th 2005, 7/7, the day when seven (7) explosions on London's transport system were reported and in which 52 (seven) were killed and 700 (seven) were injured, and understanding precisely what happened that day is becoming increasingly more important.

In the run up to the seven month anniversary of these events a number of seemingly unrelated but rather interesting things have happened.

First up there's the re-publication by an organ (the same organ that refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus H. Christ in April 2003) in Denmark (staunch U.S. supporters in Iraq) of some 'cartoons' that have, somewhat unsurprisingly given their content, upset the Muslim world for the various implicit suggestions contained there-in about the nature and essence of Islam. 'Re-publication', of course, being the operative word as the 'cartoons' were first published last September but nobody much saw fit to care back then.

The touchpaper was lit, all that was left to do was stand back and watch, even in London.

Notice the interesting backdrop to the 'protest'. Below is the same young man before he entered stage left, complete with much the same 'protest' backdrop.

Turns out this is none other than Omar Khayam, 22, of Bedford and he's a convicted crack dealer who was jailed in 2002 and released on licence last year, giving him plenty of time to rehearse his suicide bomber role as shown above and having served half his sentence. Khyam was allowed to stand behind the police van in full apparel, waiting for his cue, and then carry out his 'protest' with the protection of a police van behind him. At no stage in proceedings did the police interfere with his 'protest' and, just as quickly as he appeared, Omar Khyam has been removed from circulation slung back in jail to finish his sentence, but not before being allowed to publicly refuse to apologise and then publicly apologise for his actions.

Seven months on from seven-seven and Abu Hamza Al Masri is convicted of incitment to racial hatred and given a seven (yes, that number again) year term shortly after the BNP's Nick Griffin isn't convicted for anything at all and a hardcore bunch of around 20 Al Guraba 'hardcore' Islamic fundamentalists waving the same bunch of placards appear to have turned up for several days of 'protests' in London from which real Muslims have actively walked away.

Getting the picture yet?

But that's not all. The cream of the crop must be this little gem, aired by the BBC as part of last night's Newsnight coverage of the republication of the 'cartoons', the backlash against them and the bizarre appearance of the only Islamic-fundamentalist convicted of crack-dealing that The Antagonist has ever heard of.

The images below are exactly as captured from the Newsnight report last night which includes subtitles to ensure everyone gets the full six-sense propaganda experience. The voice-over rolls with: "Despite placards threatening death to those who oppose their views, when the driver of a van stopped to angrily criticise the demonstrators, a policeman took a hardline stance. "

The first words of the policeman to white-van man as the camera makes its way to the scene are, "Listen to me, listen to me. They have a right to protest, you let them do it...."

The rest of the dialog beggars belief.

Blairwatch Interviewed on Democracy Now!

Remember how Primate Bush told UK President Blair he wanted to Bomb Al Jazeera in Qatar? Well, that particular office of Al Jazeera didn't get bombed like the office in Baghdad did and now Daniel Mason, one of the Blairwatch coordinators of the bloggger campaign to publish the Al Jazeera Memo, should it ever materialise, is out in Doha, Qatar for a conference on Media and Power, Freedom of Expression and Political Manipulation.

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now caught up with Daniel at the conference and asked him to explain the intricacies of the story so far. From the Democracy Now web site:

"We broadcast from the headquarters of Arabic TV network Al Jazeera in Doha, Qatar - the place President Bush allegedly told Tony Blair he wanted to bomb. The report came out last November in Britain’s Daily Mirror, citing a secret British memo revealing that Bush told Blair in April 2004 of his desire to bomb the news outlet. Bloggers have pledged to publish the memo if it is leaked.

We speak with British blogger Daniel Mason, who has been tracking the story of the Downing Street Memo. [includes rush transcript]"

Watch/listen to the full interview with Daniel Mason of Blairwatch here.

A Lawless World of Lawless Terrorist Lawmakers

We know Primate George Bush was ready to follow father George's footsteps into Iraq before the 2000 U.S. election was rigged for Primate Jnr to win it. We also know that Primate Bush absolved himself of responsibility for any of his actions because, as well as his black-gold oil addiction, he's also got a serious Gerin Oil addiction meaning he has not one but two monkeys on his back and at least as many masters to serve.

In a meeting which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003, Number 1 Terrorist in Chief, Primate Bush, and Number 2 Terrorist in Chief, UK President Tony Blair, discussed how to invade Iraq irrespective of whether or not there was a valid reason for so doing and how to make it look good from a PR point of view.

How were they going to do this? Using just a hint of good-old Operation Northwoods style tactics to spin reasons from out of nowhere:

President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

Source: Channel 4 News

Details of the conversation are contained in a new version of the book 'Lawless World' written by British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC. The book also contains Blair's sycophantic propitiative assurances to the world's number one terrorist:

Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam", but that "a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs."

Source: Channel 4 News

That was in relation to Iraq and that was three years ago. No qualms, no justifications and no case at all for waging their illegal war other than the serving the masters of the monkeys on the Primate's back.

The guns and compasses are now set for Iran and we have it confirmed once again that the planet's two Terrorists in Chief were going to send British and American families to their deaths in a mission to kill between 30,000 to 100,000 Iraqi people, whether or not there was any legitimate reason for so doing.

For those that have been following the deliberate confusion by Western powers of the terms 'nuclear power' and 'nukiller weapons', Energy Bulletin explains in no uncertain terms why Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and anyone else who dares to abandon the might of the invented worth of the dollar, is always going to be next on the list for a bit of fundamentalist Christian terrorism 'freedom and democracy' until something changes very dramatically:

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
by Krassimir Petrov

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether.

If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

· The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.

· The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.

· The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro – the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.

· The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.

Source: Energy Bulletin

Three years on from the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and all that's changed is the last letter in the name of the target.

Will we ever learn?

de Menezes Murder: IPCC report leaks more evidence of a cover up

Three arrests already in connection with the August 2005 leaks from the IPCC investigation into the Mossad-style execution of innocent Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes. The most recent arrest was that of an ITN journalist and news producer on suspicion of theft. Ironic perhaps that the story hailed as one of the biggest scoops in the history of British television news, entered by ITV for the Royal Television Society awards, should result in the arrest of three people involved with making it happen.

Eleven days ago, the report from the IPCC investigation into the killing was issued to a select few people. Yesterday, some aspects of the report gained slightly wider recognition with leaked information providing yet more damning evidence of a cover-up, the scale of which appears to be much more elaborate than before.

Recall the original IPCC leak in which the officer in charge of watching the block of flats, apparently for Hussain Osman / Hamdi Isaac, was 'relieving himself' at the time de Menezes exited the flats and that no positive identification was made at that time. The officer recommended someone else check out the man in question and de Menezes was then followed on his journey to Stockwell tube station.

The leaked report seems to suggest that not only did someone check out de Menezes but that de Menezes was positively identified as Hussain Osman, the bomber with no bomb from the previous day, July 21st.

No doubt an easy mistake to make as these pictures of de Menezes and Osman clearly show:


The leak reveals that crude attempts were apparently made by Special Branch to fake the log of events at a debriefing session held later that day. The aim of the tampering was to make it look as though no positive identification of De Menezes had been made. Perhaps this was done once the error had been realised, or perhaps it was done precisely according to plan. Either way, removing the notion of a positive identication of the suspect - presumably determined by a member of one of the surveillance teams - would have the desired effect of shifting blame for the murder to those who would appear to have murdered someone who had not been identified as being a threat, and/or those responsible for operating the shoot to kill policy.

Some revelation indeed.

Alex Pereira, the cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes said, "Yet again, we the family have to rely on the Press as we have been treated as if we do not matter by the police. They never tell us anything. We have not been allowed to look at the IPCC report. I am not at all surprised by these revelations in the report. We have known all along that the police were lying."

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair, who only last week created yet another stir for no discernible reason at all by expressing his wonderment at why anyone might care about the kidnap and murder of two young girls, claimed that he didn't know the wrong man had been shot on July 22nd until 24 hours after the event. This is despite having attempted to delay the start of the IPCC inquiry with a letter to the Home Office that was curiously dated July 21st, the day before de Menezes was shot, the day of the 'attack on London' when the 'bombers' carried no bombs.



Through his quick thinking and actions Ian Blair managed to delay the start of the IPCC investigation into the murder of an innocent man until some six days after de Menezes was executed. In this time the IPCC's access to crucial evidence such as CCTV, event logs, radio communications recordings and eye witnesses, such as they may all have been, was prevented.

The de Menezes family is demanding to see a copy of the full IPCC report and that the report be made public. There are also renewed calls for a public inquiry into the killing as the latest leaked information hints at quite why there might be a vested interest in ensuring that little else from this report makes it into the public domain.

The initial doubts over the usefulness of an IPCC inquiry haven't gone away and the latest revelations show, yet again, quite why an independent public inquiry into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes is absolutely essential if any justice is to be had for the innocent man who was killed in increasingly suspicious circumstances by persons hitherto unknown.

As time goes on a clearer picture of what happened that day is building up and as the power battles continue, the question must be asked about the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes: Who is framing who?

Syphilitic Viral Marketing

Syphilitic Viral Marketing: Just like ordinary viral marketing, only this time you know you're really being fucked.

In the event of a major terrorist attack on a day like July 7th - for arguments sake, let's call it 7/7 - when the battle to beat down stories of independently verified facts about train times, train numbers, the movements of the alleged perpetrators, non-existent drivers of non-existent trains - you know, all the sort of niggly little details that matter quite a lot to an investigation into such an incident - what would YOU do to reclaim lost territory in the information battle for hearts and minds?

When all versions of the loosely tied-together 'official' story all fall apart from the very beginning of the narrative and when this information is out there, in the public consciousness, solidifying and polarising opinion and gaining greater and greater support from public figures that include film writers and directors, whistleblowers and those few high profile individuals that have the balls to tackle such things, what else is left in the great war of information suppression?

How would YOU go about increasing the noise surrounding an incident on the day of July 7th to drown out anything that vaguely resembles a signal?

Don something that resembles a thinking cap for a few moments, remember that 7/7 is the event that you now wish to bury in a dirge of unrelated drivel, shit and nonsense and see what clever little ruses you come up with.

If you're extremely wily indeed, one of those ruses might just involve a syphilitic viral marketing technique that revolves around making a whole series of normally quite sensible people waste valuable moments of their existences writing and publishing seven list of seven things that nobody - other than themselves - could ever really care about, before 'tagging' a bunch of other people and making them repeat the same arduous and pointless process.

Seven lists of seven things. 7 lists of 7. 7/7. Ad nauseam.

From here-on in, all references to the events of July 7th, 2005 will be referred to as such, or in the abbreviated forms 'July 7th' or '7th July'.

Not Dead Yet!

It's been a little quiet on the posting front here since London 7/7 : The Information & The Event Horizon but rather a lot has being going on in various other places.

Normal service is now being resumed here at Anything that defies my sense of reason.... and those interested in what has been going on during the periods of blog silence should check out the Forum of the Antagonised.

For those that can't be bothered, here's a quick update....

On Christmas Day, cult writer and director Alex Cox [he of BBC Moviedrome fame, the director of Sid and Nancy, Death & The Compass and the writer and director of Repo Man] wrote an entry on his blog entitled '7/7 - OUR 9/11?' in which he discussed various perspectives on the horrific events in London on July 7th.

The article followed Alex's reviews of three books on the subject of 9/11 and information from a leaflet collected at a peace march in London in September 2005. The article makes reference to a number of sources of information on the subject of July 7th including none other than The Antagonist's very own musings on the subject.

The article resulted in a discussion on the Alex Cox forum about the very many inconsistencies in what is generally held to be the official narrative of events on July 7th. Such was the response that Alex Cox was once again moved to write about the subject of July 7th, replacing the article he originally had planned for his blog with an article about 7/7 - THE MOVIE.

In it he writes:

Who cares? some may ask. Why bother with this stuff when we could be blogging about our favourite movie, or our next trip to Sundance? Because this stuff is much more important. The right wing (which includes New Labour and the US Democrats, in case you've just woken from a long, long sleep) is hell-bent on depriving us of what civil liberties we have. In the US, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus no longer exist. Blair, Clarke, and their clones in the Tory and Lib Dem parties all seek to ape the New American Totalitarian Way. Bearded pundits such as Timothy Garton Ash (who the fuck is this guy? Why do we have to read his pompous drivel in The Guardian?) say it's now necessary to sacrifice freedom for security.

The Antagonist heartily recommends readers to read both the Alex Cox articles: 7/7 OUR 9/11 and 7/7 - THE MOVIE and the discussions taking place on the Alex Cox Forum.

And, as if being written about by a cult/writer and director wasn't enough (and appearing on Big Brother's radar), hot on the heels of those articles comes a second confirmation from Transport For London that the Piccadilly Line train affected in the incidents on July 7th was in fact train 331, not train 311 as was originally reported.

The driver of train 311 who spent 40 minutes with his train and passengers in almost total darkness tending to the injured in the aftermath of what happened on his train and of whom the Metropolitan Police had no record after interviewing him for three hours, has apparently been acknowledged as being involved in the incidents and is now on the way to receiving compensation for his horrific experience.

However, this leaves the small issue of train 331, the train that Transport for London issued as the corrected number of the affected Piccadilly Line train on July 7th.

In a response to an email by an independent public researcher seeking to clarify precisely which Piccadilly Line train was involved on July 7th, Tranport for London gave the following response:

Our ref: 1084546

17/Jan/2006

Thanks for your further email.

As stated in my previous email, the Piccadilly train involved on 7 July was the westbound train no 331. The initial reports that we received immediately at the time were incorrect and have now been subsequently updated.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us. Please get in touch if I can be of any further help.

Yours sincerely

Fola Olafare
Customer Service Centre

The 311/331 July 7th Piccadilly Line train saga continues.

London 7/7: the Information & the Event Horizon

The event horizon is the boundary of a black hole, the gravity field of a black hole where space-time is so bent that nothing can escape it. Once inside an event horizon the gravitational attraction of the singularity, the black hole, is so strong only that which can generate the required escape velocity, a speed greater than the speed of light, can ever escape, including light itself.

After becoming enveloped by the event horizon, not even the emissions that traced an object's existence will escape the black hole. No record, no information, nothing other than memory of the object remains.

Today is the sixth day of '06 and it is six months to the day since the day before the seventh day of the seventh month of '05, the day the bombs came to London. Upon closer inspection July 7th appears to be some sort of event horizon for information about the day, behind which there exists a big, black hole sucking up space and time and, more importantly, information about what happened.

More and more information is disappearing ever more rapidly into the place where space, time and information are so bent that unless a few more minds start travelling a little quicker than 'drip, drip, drip', nothing and no-one will ever escape the intense gravitational attraction of the singularity ever again and nothing and no-one will be left to prove that anything had previously existed in the first place.

Since the July 7th event horizon countless documentaries have been made, stories have been written, public inquiries have been refused by the government -twice - and while much is known about the aftermath, little is known about what actually happened.

And then something which defies your sense of reason happens....

If you were to find out that the driver of Piccadilly Line train 311 on July 7th - the originally reported blast train - was refused compensation after spending 40 minutes in almost total darkness tending to the injured because, according to the Metropolitan Police, "We have no knowledge of this person having been involved in this incident and therefore will not be processing his claim further", would it concern you?

If you then found out the driver of train 311 had also been interviewed by Metropolitan Police for around three hours, along with his Train Operator passenger in the cab that morning, and still the Metropolitan Police have “no knowledge of this person having been involved in this incident”, would it concern you then?

On July 9th, Transport For London reported the following blast timings and locations:

Explosions were as follows (in succession):

• Circle line train number 204 heading eastbound from Liverpool Street station to Aldgate station.
• Circle line train number 216 travelling westbound heading from Edgware Road station to Paddington station.
• Piccadilly line train number 311 travelling from King's Cross St Pancras to Russell Square southbound.

Source: Transport For London

Note the number of the Piccadilly Line train, 311.

This was later changed to Piccadilly Line train 331, which was confirmed by Transport For London's customer services after an email from an independent researcher:

19/Nov/2005

Thank you for your email dated 5 November.

I can confirm that the Piccadilly train involved on 7 July was the westbound train no 331. The initial reports that we received immediately at the time were incorrect and we updated our records accordingly as soon as we were advised.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us. Please let me know if you have any further queries or if you need any help in the future.

Yours sincerely

Fola Olafare
Customer Service Centre

Transport for London made a mistake in reporting that Piccadilly Line train 311 was involved in the events of July 7th, corrected the original announcement and then confirmed that it was Piccadilly Line train 331 on which the carnage occurred.

Granting TFL the benefit of the doubt, let's say that they made a mistake and it was indeed train 331 involved in the blasts. So far, so good, train 331 it is.

Except, in the last few days, comments were left on a July 7th related blog by a Train Operator who travelled in the cab along with the driver of Piccadilly Line train number 311 - the original train that was 'corrected' to train 331 – which seemed to indicate that train 311 had indeed been involved in the events of July 7th. The comments by the T/Op passenger have since been removed from the blog on which they were posted and are reproduced here for the information they contain about what happened that day:

Not wishing to denigrate any of the actions of police on the day, not ONE WORD has been said about the driver of Train 311, Tom *****.

I joined Tom's train at Kings Cross, travelling in the cab with him on my way to work as a fellow driver, based at Acton Town. I took the first couple of batches of walking wounded to Russell Square and was probably the first member of staff to meet any colleague at the station.

Tom stayed behind in the first car, doing what we as drivers are paid to do, looking after his train and his passengers on it. He helped some by applying tourniquets and reassuring others. He saw things that even trained police officers found themselves unable to cope with, but most importantly had to face it on his own before help arrived probably 40 minutes later, a scene of utter devastation in almost total darkness.

He has never been mentioned or praised, he has remained dignified and quiet, and has never returned to drive a train.

Recently he applied for some compensation through his union. The response from the Met Police was "We have no knowledge of this person having been involved in this incident and therefore will not be processing his claim further."

Rather odd because Tom and I were interviewed by police for around three hours after the incident.

The press coverage of the other 'heroes' has left him feeling completely empty and devalued. Pity when the the reaction of Police and certain members of station staff are lauded he has been completely forgotten.

Ray Wright,
Train Operator
Acton Town Depot

With these comments it now appears we have a non-existent train - the original Piccadilly Line train, train 311 – which, unsurprisingly for a non-existent train, also has a non-existent driver of whom the Metropolitan Police have no record and who cannot claim any compensation after spending forty minutes in almost total darkness attending to the injured in the aftermath of what happened on his train.

No conspiracy, no speculation, no hypothesis, just a train and a driver – Piccadilly Line train 311, the originally reported train - that, as far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned, do not exist in Sir Ian Blair's 'largest criminal inquiry in English history'.

Uzbekistan, Torture, Craig Murray & the Lying Liars' Lies

The lying liars who lie and lie and lie, who cannot do anything other than lie, who have been proven time and time again to have lied again and again and again, who know they lie, who know we know they lie, who know we know they know we know they know they're lying and who still continue to lie, are, perhaps unsurprisingly, lying again.

The lying liars who cannot do anything other than lie to the people they reportedly serve said they do not practice, or tolerate, the practice of torture. The lying liars who cannot do anything other than lie have, once again, lied.

This time it's about suspect British intelligence resulting from Uzbek torture and, once more, the growing force to be reckoned with that is the word of mouth of the blog world has leapt to the defence of truth with a call to publish the documents that reveal the truth and again expose the lying liars for what they are.

Leninology sums the whole thing up nicely:

So, the Foreign Office does not want anyone to understand that it has taken decisions, in collaboration with MI6, to continue to use information obtained by the use of torture despite the fact that it is, as Craig Murray points out "highly coloured material which exaggerates the threat" or, more prosaically, "dross". At the very least, that serves as yet another introduction to the morally bankrupt universe of the British State.

Readers are advised to consider for themselves how the final sentence of the Leninology quote would read if it were to begin with the words, "At the very most....".

Those resourceful folk over at Blairwatch have, once again, put together all the information you need to know that fills in the background about the ongoing lies in relation to torture that the lying liars who cannot do anything other than lie have told. From the Blairwatch summary:

Background:
The UK government has been quick to deny that we practice, or tolerate the practice of Torture. So it is perhaps not suprising that they are determined that you should not see the following documents:

http://users.pandora.be/quarsan/craig/telegrams.pdf
http://users.pandora.be/quarsan/craig/npaper.jpg

Craig Murray was the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, until his complaints and protest at the use of intelligence gained by torture got too much for Jack Straw and the Foreign Office, who set about attempting to unsuccessfully smear him, and to successfully remove him from office.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3750370.stm
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2005/04/timeline_of_cra.html

The Foreign Office has had the draft of Craig's book for clearance for over 3 months now, and they are doing everything they can to try and prevent him from publishing his side of the story. Their latest attempt to cover their own backs was to inform him, the night before Christmas Eve, that these two documents cannot be published, and that he was to return or destroy all copies immediately.

What are these documents?
The first document is a series of Telegrams that Craig sent to the Foreign Office, outlining his growing concern and disgust at our use of intelligence passed to the UK by the Uzbek security services.

The second document is a copy of legal advice the Foreign Office sought, to see if they were operating within the Law in accepting torture intelligence, and according to Michael Wood the FCO legal adviser; it is fine, as long as it is not used as evidence.

Craig Murray himself wrote:

I am in discussion with the FCO over what I am and am not allowed to publish in my book. The FCO is seeking to gut the book of all evidence of complicity with the Uzbek regime.

With Bliar cornered on extraordinary rendition, they are particularly anxious to suppress all evidence of our complicity in obtaining intelligence from Uzbek torture.

In particular, they have demanded I do not publish the attached documents, and that I hand over all copies of them.

The obvious answer to this is to post these documents as widely on the web as possible. This is also potentially very valuable in establishing that I am not attempting to make money from these documents - you don't have to buy my book to see them, they are freely available. If you buy the book, you are only paying for the added value of my thoughts.

This will only work if we can get the [documents] very widely posted, including on sites in the US and elsewhere outside the UK … there is a chance that those who … post this stuff will get threatened under the Official Secrets Act.

In March 2003 I was summoned back to London from Tashkent specifically for a meeting at which I was told to stop protesting. I was told specifically that it was perfectly legal for us to obtain and to use intelligence from the Uzbek torture chambers.

After this meeting Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's legal adviser, wrote to confirm this position. This minute from Michael Wood is perhaps the most important document that has become public about extraordinary rendition. It is irrefutable evidence of the government's use of torture material, and that I was attempting to stop it. It is no wonder that the government is trying to suppress this.

Craig

Blairwatch have also archived a selection of spin and lies on the use of torture from the lying liars who cannot do anything other than lie in a vain bid to save themselves here, here, here and here. Also courtesy of Blairwatch, you can again listen to Jack Straw and Tony Blair lie and lie and lie to try and save themselves deny what you read in these secret but truthful documents: Straw lies and Blair lies.

Craig's own post on the subject can be found here.


The Documents

In the event that the lying liars who cannot do anything other than lie might allow the people they are alleged to serve to see any of the documents that expose the lying liars who cannot do anything other than lie, ever, for the lying liars that they are and have always been, one of the documents would look a little like this:

From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor
Date: 13 March 2003
CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD

Linda Duffield

UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig had said that his understanding was that it was also an offence under the UN Convention on Torture to receive or possess information under torture. I said that I did not believe that this was the case, but undertook to re-read the Convention.

2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect. The nearest thing is article 15 which provides:

"Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made."

3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK law any statement established to have been made as a result of torture would not be admissible as evidence.

[signed]

M C Wood
Legal Adviser

In the event that the lying liars who cannot do anything other than lie might allow the people they are alleged to serve to see any of the documents that expose the lying liars who cannot do anything other than lie, ever, for the lying liars that they are and have always been, another of the documents would look a little like this:

Letter #1
Confidential
FM Tashkent
TO FCO, Cabinet Office, DFID, MODUK, OSCE Posts, Security Council Posts

16 September 02

SUBJECT: US/Uzbekistan: Promoting Terrorism

SUMMARY
US plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerous policy: increasing repression combined with poverty will promote Islamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynical policy.

DETAIL
The Economist of 7 September states: "Uzbekistan, in particular, has jailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, an excellent way of converting their families and friends to extremism." The Economist also spoke of "the growing despotism of Mr Karimov" and judged that "the past year has seen a further deterioration of an already grim human rights record". I agree.

Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners are currently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with no representation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currently considering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured to death in jail apparently with boiling water. Two leading dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were two weeks ago committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are being drugged, for demonstrating on human rights. Opposition political parties remain banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave the pretext to crack down still harder on dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism.

Yet on 8 September the US State Department certified that Uzbekistan was improving in both human rights and democracy, thus fulfilling a constitutional requirement and allowing the continuing disbursement of $140 million of US aid to Uzbekistan this year. Human Rights Watch immediately published a commendably sober and balanced rebuttal of the State Department claim. Again we are back in the area of the US accepting sham reform [a reference to my previous telegram on the economy]. In August media censorship was abolished, and theoretically there are independent media outlets, but in practice there is absolutely no criticism of President Karimov or the central government inany Uzbek media. State Department call this self-censorship: I am not sure thatis a fair way to describe an unwillingness to experience the brutal methods of thesecurity services.

Similarly, following US pressure when Karimov visited Washington, a human rights NGO has been permitted to register. This is an advance, but they have little impact given that no media are prepared to cover any of their activities or carry any of their statements.

The final improvement State quote is that in one case of murder of a prisoner the police involved have been prosecuted. That is an improvement, but again related to the Karimov visit and does not appear to presage a general change of policy. On the latest cases of torture deaths the Uzbeks have given the OSCE an incredible explanation, given the nature of the injuries, that the victims died in a fight between prisoners.

But allowing a single NGO, a token prosecution of police officers and a fake press freedom cannot possibly outweigh the huge scale of detentions, the torture and the secret executions. President Karimov has admitted to 100 executions a year but human rights groups believe there are more. Added to this, all opposition parties remain banned (the President got a 98% vote) and the Internet is strictly controlled. All Internet providers must go through a single government server and access is barred to many sites including all dissident and opposition sites and much international media (including, ironically, waronterrorism.com). This is in essence still a totalitarian state: there is far less freedom than still prevails, for example, in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. A Movement for Democratic Change or any judicial independence would be impossible here.

Karimov is a dictator who is committed to neither political nor economic reform. The purpose of his regime is not the development of his country but the diversion of economic rent to his oligarchic supporters through government controls. As a senior Uzbek academic told me privately, there is more repression here now than in Brezhnev's time. The US are trying to prop up Karimov economically and to justify this support they need to claim that a process of economic and political reform is underway. That they do so claim is either cynicism or self-delusion. This policy is doomed to failure. Karimov is driving this resource-rich country towards economic ruin like an Abacha. And the policy of increasing repression aimed indiscriminately at pious Muslims, combined with a deepening poverty, is the most certain way to ensure continuing support for the Islamic Movement ofUzbekistan. They have certainly been decimated and disorganised in Afghanistan, and Karimov's repression may keep the lid on for years – but pressure is building and could ultimately explode.

I quite understand the interest of the US in strategic airbases and why they back Karimov, but I believe US policy is misconceived. In the short term it may help fight terrorism but in the medium term it will promote it, as the Economist points out. And it can never be right to lower our standards on human rights. There is a complex situation in Central Asia and it is wrong to look at it only through a prism picked up on September 12. Worst of all is what appears to be the philosophy underlying the current US view of Uzbekistan: that September 11 divided the World into two camps in the "War against Terrorism" and that Karimov is on "our"side.

If Karimov is on "our" side, then this war cannot be simply between the forces of good and evil. It must be about more complex things, like securing the long-term US military presence in Uzbekistan. I silently wept at the 11 September commemoration here. The right words on New York have all been said. But last week was also another anniversary – the US-led overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. The subsequent dictatorship killed, dare I say it, rather more people than died on September 11. Should we not remember then also, and learn from that too? I fear that we are heading down the same path of US-sponsored dictatorship here. It is ironic that the beneficiary is perhaps the most unreformed of the World's old communist leaders.

We need to think much more deeply about Central Asia. It is easy to place Uzbekistan in the "too difficult" tray and let the US run with it, but I think they are running in the wrong direction. We should tell them of the dangers we see. Our policy is theoretically one of engagement, but in practice this has not meant much. Engagement makes sense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mute collaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctive position on democracy and human rights, and press for a realistic view to be taken in theIMF. We should continue to resist pressures to start a bilateral DFID programme, unless channelled non-governmentally, and not restore ECGD cover despite the constant lobbying. We should not invite Karimov to the UK. We should step upour public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values, including more resources from the British Council. We should increase support to human rights activists,and strive for contact with non-official Islamic groups. Above all we need to care about the 22 million Uzbek people, suffering frompoverty and lack of freedom. They are not just pawns in the new Great Game.

MURRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #2
Confidential
Fm Tashkent
To FCO

18 March 2003

SUBJECT: US FOREIGN POLICY

SUMMARY
1. As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan the US pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.

DETAIL
2. Last year the US gave half a billion dollars in aid to Uzbekistan, about a quarter of it military aid. Bush and Powell repeatedly hail Karimov as a friend and ally. Yet this regime has at least seven thousand prisoners of conscience; it is a one party state without freedom of speech, without freedom of media, without freedom of movement, without freedom of assembly, without freedom of religion. It practices, systematically, the most hideous tortures on thousands. Most of thepopulation live in conditions precisely analogous with medieval serfdom.

3. Uzbekistan's geo-strategic position is crucial. It has half the population of the whole of Central Asia. It alone borders all the other states in a region which is important to future Western oil and gas supplies. It is the regional military power. That is why the US is here, and here to stay. Contractors at the US military bases are extending the design life of the buildings from ten to twenty five years.

4. Democracy and human rights are, despite their protestations to the contrary,in practice a long way down the US agenda here. Aid this year will be slightly less, but there is no intention to introduce any meaningful conditionality. Nobody can believe this level of aid – more than US aid to all of West Africa – is related to comparative developmental need as opposed to political support for Karimov. While the US makes token and low-level references to human rights to appeasedomestic opinion, they view Karimov's vicious regime as a bastion againstfundamentalism. He – and they – are in fact creating fundamentalism. When the US gives this much support to a regime that tortures people to death for having a beard or praying five times a day, is it any surprise that Muslims come to hatethe West?

5. I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdraw a motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling at the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy to find that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am saddened when the US constantly quote fake improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship and Internet freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see these are quoted in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again I understand at American urging).

6. From Tashkent it is difficult to agree that we and the US are activated by shared values. Here we have a brutal US sponsored dictatorship reminiscent of Central and South American policy under previous US Republican administrations. I watched George Bush talk today of Iraq and "dismantling the apparatus of terror… removing the torture chambers and the rape rooms". Yet when it comes to the Karimov regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated as peccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed in international fora. Double standards? Yes.

7. I hope that once the present crisis is over we will make plain to the US, at senior level, our serious concern over their policy in Uzbekistan.

MURRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter #3

CONFIDENTIAL

FM TASHKENT
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELNO 63
OF 220939 JULY 04
INFO IMMEDIATE DFID, ISLAMIC POSTS, MOD, OSCE POSTS UKDEL EBRD LONDON, UKMIS GENEVA, UKMIS MEW YORK

SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

SUMMARY
1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.

2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.

3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.

DETAIL
4. In the period December 2002 to March 2003 I raised several times the issue of intelligence material from the Uzbek security services which was obtained under torture and passed to us via the CIA. I queried the legality, efficacy and moralityof the practice.

5. I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture. He said the only legal limitation on its use was that it could not be used in legal proceedings, under Article 15 of the UN Convention on Torture.

6. On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood.

7. Sir Michael Jay's circular of 26 May stated that there was a reporting obligation on us to report torture by allies (and I have been instructed to refer to Uzbekistan as such in the context of the war on terror). You, Sir, have made a number of striking, and I believe heartfelt, condemnations of torture in the last few weeks. I had in the light of this decided to return to this question and to highlight an apparent contradiction in our policy. I had intimated as much to the Head of Eastern Department.

8. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear that without informing me of the meeting, or since informing me of the result of the meeting, a meeting was convened in the FCO at the level of Heads of Department and above, precisely to consider the question of the receipt of Uzbek intelligence material obtained under torture. As the office knew, I was in London at the time and perfectly able to attend the meeting. I still have only gleaned that it happened.

9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual who is tortured. Indeed this is true – the material is marked with a euphemism such as "From detainee debriefing." The argument runs that if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.

10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry, nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised thequestion with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt as to the fact.

11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention;

"The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."While this article forbids extradition or deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present question also.

12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless – we are selling our soulsfor dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.

14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable. Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area of intelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that they can get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, but that they have a particular yen for highly coloured material which exaggerates the threat. That is precisely what the Uzbeks give them. Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me and certainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this assessment.

15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family's links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.

16. I have been considering Michael Wood's legal view, which he kindly gave in writing. I cannot understand why Michael concentrated only on Article 15 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use of material obtained under torture as evidence in proceedings, but it does not state that this is the sole exclusion of the use of such material.

17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks of complicity intorture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to be at least arguable as complicity. It does not appear that being in a different country to the actual torture would preclude complicity. I talked this over in a hypothetical sense with my old friend Prof Francois Hampson, I believe an acknowledged World authority on the Convention, who said that the complicity argument and the spirit of the Convention would be likely to be winning points. I should be grateful to hear Michael's views on this.

18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt, but being a tone or two removes does not make us blameless. There are other factors. Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention for the coalition to deport detainees back here from Baghram, but it has been done. That seems plainly complicit.

19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire and increasing poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning young people here towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thus creating this threat, and perceived US support for Karimov strengthens anti-Western feeling. SIS ought to establish a presence here, but not as partners of the Uzbek Security Services, whose sheer brutality puts them beyond the pale.

MURRAY

Independent Television Rolling News RIP

Farewell ITV News Channel, thou who didst break the story of how overseers most regal didst execute the moor:

The ITV News Channel is to close down in the New Year after months of speculation about its future.

The service, which launched in 2000 as the ITN News Channel, has struggled for viewers against competition from BBC News 24 and Sky News.

Source: A Devastated BBC

Leaving just news from the government and news from the myopic Murdoch media empire. Oh, and the News of the Americas.

It's not dark yet, but it's getting there.

Zeitgeist (or, 'Does anyone give a shit about anything any more?')

It's not paranoia if....

.... they're really out to get you.

A few weeks ago all but two of The Antagonist's Haloscan comments, most of which were reactionary comments left on the July 7th liveblog entry, disappeared by virtue of nothing. Then, yesterday, the server on which The Forum of the Antagonised was recently set-up and which contained a July 7th investigation forum into which a few good people have put some considerable time and effort, went offline and has stayed offline for considerably longer than your average unscheduled maintenance period.

The latter of these is apparently the result of a temperamental server that hasn't come back to life yet. Maybe such things could have been known about a server named 'S13', maybe not.

The former, however, is still unexplained.

Fuckers.

Omnia mutantur; nihil interit.

London 7/7: Clarke says No Public Inquiry

Tony Blair, the lying mass-murderer who should be tried for ongoing crimes against humanity both abroad and in this country, denied the British people a public inquiry just three days after 7 July.

It was ordinary members of the British public who died in the attacks and the state's continued refusal to hold a public inquiry is entirely against the public interest. If you are a member of the British public, that means Clarke's statement is against your own personal best interest and you have every right to be angry.

If you were directly affected and suffered any injury or distress as a result of the attacks you have every right to be asbsolutely livid, no matter what your assigned 7/7 counsellor tells you about what you think you might have seen, heard or experienced that day.


The Slow Creep of Consciousness

The British people aren't stupid. At least not as stupid as the British government likes to think they are.

The British people aren't stupid and nor are the survivors, their familes and friends, or the families and friends of those who died or were otherwise directly affected by the events of 7 July. Those members of the blue-light services who have been silenced by their 'superiors' and who still fear disciplinary action - and perhaps worse - if they dare to speak about what happened aren't stupid either. Scared, perhaps, but definitely not stupid.

The British people know the government has for some time been unceremoniously hacking away at the civil liberties of 100% of the British population with laws drawn up by those who seek only to preserve their artificially maintained positions of power, wealth and authority at any cost to the public. They know also that the government has lied many times before.

On two separate occasions the state has denied repeated calls for a public inquiry and on two separate occasions the British people have been fobbed off by the same whiter-than-white government that told us Iraq was 45 minutes away from destroying us all.

Neither the British people, the survivors and the families and friends of those affected by 7/7, or those blue-light workers with stories to tell are going away any time soon and nor will the demands for an inquiry into 7/7.

If the state won't conduct a public inquiry, then the British people are left with no option but to conduct a people's inquiry.


The Call for a 7 July Truth Commission

The British government doesn't want an inquiry. They have stated that quite categorically. Twice.

Why might this be? Cui bono? The dead? The injured? Or those who fear the truth?

Truth is a wonderful thing and will stand the most rigorous of questioning. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that those who call for questions not to be asked, especially into such horrific events, might have something to hide.

Stand up Tony Blair. Stand up Charles Clarke. Stand up also Sir Ian Blair who called for questions not to be asked in relation to the cold-blooded execution of Jean Charles de Menezes that can only have been intended as a warning to us all that the state will happilly execute us - and lie about the reasons for so doing - even if we're innocent.

With the government's confirmation that there will be no public inquiry into 7 July comes the overpowering message to the British people, clearer than ever before - if you want any sort of inquiry, any semblance of truth and, ultimately, any justice for what happened in London on 7 July, you're going to have to do it yourself.

Furthermore, the long history of public inquiry whitewashes and the precious few facts that exist about the train times on 7 July are both sufficient cause to suggest that, even if a government sponsored public inquiry were to be held, nothing but a full and public people's inquiry is going to establish anything close to the truth about what happened the day the bombs came to London.

Even former government intelligence officer, Lt. Col. Crispin Black agrees.

In his book entitled '7-7 The London Bombs - What went wrong?' he wrote:

"We need an official inquiry - now. Not a whitewash inquiry like Lord Hutton's. Or a punch-pulling inquiry like Lord Butler's. But an inquiry run by plain Mr or Mrs somebody."

The Antagonist is a plain old Mr or Mrs somebody and fully supports Lt. Col Crispin Black's call for an official, non-punch-pulling inquiry. So should we all.

If you not you, who? If not now, when?