Marcia Kia Simpson-James.
A secret document released today by the ongoing Iraq Inquiry's chair, Sir John Chilcot, shows that early legal advice given to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was unequivocally definitive in saying that any proposed war in Iraq would be "Unlawful" on all grounds.
The basis of war, or more accurately "use of force" could only be based on three premises:
1. Self-defence
2. Exceptionally, the avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or
3. Authorisation by the UN Security Council.
The then, Attourney General, Lord Goldsmith, advised that:
"regime change may follow from a legitimate use of force but cannot of itself be justification for military action".
In plain language, to start a war on the basis of regime change would be illegal, and could not be justified simply for military reasons. A war in Iraq would be unlawful, and internationally unacceptable.
On the matter of "imminence" of an attack, one must remember the '45 minutes to attack' headlines all over the front pages of British newspapers. I remember women, pushing their young toddlers to nursery that morning, scared out of their minds that Britain would be covered in bombs in just 45 minutes. As these groups of mothers walked along discussing the papers, I heard a mother say, "...if they could kill all the children in 45 minutes...we need to do something to protect them and ourselves". The other mothers nodded in sincere aggreement. There was not one dissenter. Everyone was tense that day at receiving the bad news.
The reason I mention this, and the reason why this conversation is very important, is because the whole country seemed to be on 'red alert'.
So we come to the issue of self-defence and "imminence of attack".
Attorney General, Goldsmith advises that force may be used only if "there is an actual and imminent armed attack; use of force is necessary i.e. the only means of preventing an attack; the force used is proportionate".
None of these scenarios were ever the case here.
Goldsmithh goes further and says that "The development of WMD is not in itself sufficient to indicate such imminence". He also tells Blair that there are no grounds for "regarding an Iraq use of WMD as imminent".
In other words, there is no reason to assume that the Iraqis have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), much less have WMD's in "use". WMD's were also not a good enough excuse for the 'self-defence' "imminence" defence to start a war with Iraq. Goldsmith also appears to open up the notion that if the Iraqis had WMD's, they could not 'used' them anyway.
According to military personnel, WMD's cannot be launched 'quickly' and without the world knowing that they are being prepared for launch and attack.
There is some discussion about UN Security resolutions that relate to Kuwait. However, any retrospective or as Goldsmith puts it, "revival" of any of those resolutions as an excuse for war would fit into the "unlawful" camp, where the legality of any war is concerned.
Goldsmith's legal advice is that "A new UN Security Council resolution explicitly authorising the use of force under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter would plainly be the most secure, and preferred, legal basis for military action in the current situation".
Goldsmith discusses the issue of "a material breach of ceasefire conditions the authorisation to use force under resolution 687 revives". It is pointed out that the 'revival' of UN resolution 687 would be limited to only a very short period of time. The resolution was only to be achieved to arrive at a "ceasfire" and nothing else. It should be noted that when it was used in the Kuwait situation, it was controversial then.
The use of UN resolution 1205 during the Kuwait war, was acknowledged. 1205 was used in that case because of Iraq's "cessation of cooperation" with UNSCOM which constituted a "flagrant violation" of ceasefire conditions" and therefore grounds for use of force.
There then follows a discussion about advice Goldsmith received from his predecessors, "John Morris and Charles Falconer". They explicitly tell Goldsmith that there should be a breach of ceasfire conditions and that the Security Council should find those breaches so grave, as to be sufficient to "undermine the basis or effective operation of the ceasefire".
In regards to UN SC resolution 1205 (1998), it did not contain any explicit authority for use of force". The the 'revival' option in both instances di not apply.
The document makes references to "threats to peace...breach of the peace or act of aggression..." and the restoration of international peace and security. It was noted that the Security Council "remained seized of the matter..."
Goldsmith advises explicitly, that resolutions 687, and 1205 cannot legally be relied upon, since (at the time of writing), these resolutions were three years old, and in effect redundant. He then reiterates that the use of force would be "unlawful" without a new Security Council resolution.
Goldsmith talks about giving Iraq an "ultimatum", but says that this would not be a legal basis for any action where use of force is concerned.
Lord Goldsmith closes his letter, with mention of the use of the UK military capabilities (including soldiers lives), and says "we would therefore need to be satisfied in all cases as to the legality of the use of force".
He then copies his letter to the Foreign and Defence Secretaries.
So there we have it, clear evidence, the original legal advice was rigid in its clarity. The Iraq war would be illegal and "unlawful", if there was no new UN Security Council resolution to ensure that "use of force" (war) could be taken with the aggreement of the world.
Therefore, the public now has to ask how we are going to deal with those who were found to have duped the country, and lied to the military, in a bid to grow their personal bank-balances, and their status?
Lets see what Sir John Chilcot comes up with in his recommendations. If he does not hold with the public, if he does not chime with their increasing outrage, as the evidence is exposed. I dread to thing of the back-lash against him, and the whole inquiry team from the public.
Wednesday 30 June 2010
Tuesday 29 June 2010
Harassed Dark-skinned Black Councillor Convicted of 'Racially Aggravated Harassment' by racist Judge over Slavery project.
Marcia Kia Simpson-James.
Today we see yet more evidence, that proves that Britain is the most racist country in the world. A Black, Dark-Skinned Councillor, in Bristol was convicted of Racially Aggravated Harassment.
Apparently she had hurt the feelings of a 'sensitive' light-skinned asian woman.
The Asian, a fellow councillor on Bristol City Council, had the deciding vote, in deciding whether or not a project that dealt with the legacy of slavery would survive. She voted along party lines (she being a Conservative), and the funding for the Black project was pulled.
The Black, dark-skinned Councillor, Shirley Brown, a Lib Dem, found herself outnumbered as the sole Black councillor throughout the entire City of Bristol Council. As the full realisation of the situation hit her, she calmly told the full council chamber that she felt that the racist asian woman, would be considered a "coconut" by the Black and asian community.
The asian conservative woman, named Jay Jethwa, an immigrant, had willing joined with her all-white colleagues, to 'eliminate' the well-loved Black project. At the time, she was not at all upset, and the term is not particularly horrific. In fact, this kind of word usage is common parlance in various communities, and would be considered a slang term used to cut to the chase.
As mentioned above, light-skinned asian woman, 'an immigrant', was not upset and left the chamber afterwards without any incidence. However, some white council workers and her political colleagues, asked the council for the CCTV film, (Blacks-Under-Surveillance (BUS) stylee). It was only after several goes that they picked up on the 'term'.
It was only then, after a political nudge, that Ms Jay Jethwa, complained to the police. They then decided to charge Ms Brown with Racially Aggravated Harassment.
Let us examine the case. Ms Brown, was the only Black person in the room. She used the world "Coconut" , she left the council chamber without any further mention of the term or the fact that an almost all-white racist council had closed down one of the few remaining 'Black' projects in Bristol.
Some time down the line, she was confronted by racist police, preparing to charge her with racially aggravated harassment. These officers were backed by the proven racist Crown Prosecution Service. She went to court, and she was "convicted".
In other words, the name of the game was to discredit her. Making any words spoken by her null and void.
Now let us look at the history of that law. Do you remember , the racist SUS laws -police harassment; the Riots- complaints of 'aggravated police harassment; the Stephen Lawrence murder-police "aggravated" police neglect & sustained long-term police harassment of Black victims of crime; the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) - who never took any Black complaints seriously, and even helped 'convict' some of the Black victims of police brutality; police and court official corruption; police drug-dealing-pimping? etc, etc.
Well, if you do, you will remember that all these socio-political events revolved around miscreant police officers, and their high levels of misconduct being backed by the courts (Judges and Magistrates), and that racist law-making machine called Parliament.
Well, this is no history lesson, these things are alive and kicking, and being exploited by racist asians, muslims, mixed-racists, and even africans.
Back in the day, when "West Indians" were fighting against 'Teddy-boys", 'The NF", "The British Movement", "Combat 18", etc, the above mentioned groups of "Ethnics" called us "trouble-makers".
However, when a racist asians required "defending", they would rush into the Black community, and "bawl, holler and scream" for "West Indian" "Help". When the danger was gone, they would regress to their natural racist state, and they would treat every Black person who entered their shops as thieves and crooks.
Then the whole cyle would start again. You know the drill, panicky asian rushing into the "West Indian" community begging for our "protection" against racist whites, after incident, they went 'back to their normal'.
I am not aware of them complaining that Black people 'harassed' them. In fact, they 'racially and sexually harassed' Black "West Indian" people specifically of Jamaican background and descent.
Over time, I began to hear Black people describe asians as "Black". I would ask, 'How can an asian be Black?". The usual, lazy, and offensive response that came back was that "they were politically Black". Incredible! Unbelievable!
Ms Brown has lived to rue the day, Black people thought that they, and a proven racist asian community had anything in common outside of the curry house. The fact is, Black people are not asians, and asians are not Black, no matter which way you slice it!
Unfortunately, there are still too many Black people who swallowed that white-invented and promoted pill.
Now we find ourselves in the situation, where the racist white man, and their 'light-skinned' caucasoid brethren have practically eliminated full-Black people from the public space.
For example, I received a call from a white American colleague, who worked quite high up in the administration. He was traumatised. He asked me for some kind of explanation as to why, when such and such an official had arranged to meet some "Black" british officials, leaders, etc, he, and his colleagues were confronted with a room full of "asians". He went onto express his outrage at being "duped" by the british and shocked that there was "not even one Black person involved".
I told him the truth, which was that Britain is the most racist country in the world. My America friend's response to this news, was "Wow! They're that bad are they?" I said "Yes".
On the matter, of the courts being used as a political tool to 'eliminate' "Black" people from participating in public discourse, this is old news.
Its common sense isn't it. Get busy "convicting Blacks", and then they will not be able to get a job, "because they have a conviction"; they will not be able to run for political office, "because they have a conviction"; they will not get an 'Honour' "because they have a conviction", need I go on?
Shirley Brown, is a large dark-skinned woman, with an interest in her own Black culture, that's where she went wrong in Bristol. If she was an aunt Jemima-type, and "yes sarring" it out, she would have been one of their 'favourites'. She would have gone clear, as they say on the streets.
She commited the ultimate crime in racist britain, she was born dark-skinned, she's a woman, and she is largely into her culture and people. No judge in britain would NOT have convicted that woman for racially aggravated harassment.
Interestingly enough, this law has been aplied against Black people, (and especially Black women), for some time now. In ALL cases, these women, were the actual victims of the very crime they had been accused of.
Lets imagine it. After a meeting, whites are 'upset' that the 'uppity nigger bitch', "got the last word in". They are brewing, they are 'mad'...they can't let her get away with it. They collude, they plot, and eventually they telephone their judge 'mate' or even meet him at his house, and prepare him for 'the big one'. Judge, 'receives' said 'nigger bitch' in his court, and 'disposes of her' "like so...easy peasy..job done...another one bites the dust", she is officially "discredited".
The technique is so simple, so unaccountable, so smooth, it's almost embarrassing. This is almost like magic, "see, no hands". However, there are hands. There is police, CPS and judicial corruption written all over these cases, their fingerprints have been left all over the place.
So where do we go from here? If I was that way inclined, I be calling for a public Inquiry, but I hesitate, because anything that is less than statutory is a waste of time. Private prosecutions...lets see. UN report writing definitely!
What about the Slavery aspect to the Bristol case. Well, we did get a commemorative two pound coin in 2007 didn't we? So thats all right then!
Regardless of what has been agreed to at the UN, Europe and national level about the treatment of "descendants of slaves... and the slave trade", all we get are "convictions, convictions, convictions!".
So where do we go from here...where do you think? Upwards!
As for the 'discredited' judge, the system, and establishment, they are a joke! Do they really believe that the public are going to put up with this nonsense? Nearly everyone who has heard of the case are either seething with rage ( and want revenge), or are shocked to the point of laughing at the judge and the police.
If britain wants to regain any part of their international status on this matter, I suggest that they 'revisit' all the cases, of Black people framed and convicted using a law, that was frankly set up, to protect 'them' . Instead, this very law, is now regularly being used to prosecute the very said victims. Enough is Enough!
Today we see yet more evidence, that proves that Britain is the most racist country in the world. A Black, Dark-Skinned Councillor, in Bristol was convicted of Racially Aggravated Harassment.
Apparently she had hurt the feelings of a 'sensitive' light-skinned asian woman.
The Asian, a fellow councillor on Bristol City Council, had the deciding vote, in deciding whether or not a project that dealt with the legacy of slavery would survive. She voted along party lines (she being a Conservative), and the funding for the Black project was pulled.
The Black, dark-skinned Councillor, Shirley Brown, a Lib Dem, found herself outnumbered as the sole Black councillor throughout the entire City of Bristol Council. As the full realisation of the situation hit her, she calmly told the full council chamber that she felt that the racist asian woman, would be considered a "coconut" by the Black and asian community.
The asian conservative woman, named Jay Jethwa, an immigrant, had willing joined with her all-white colleagues, to 'eliminate' the well-loved Black project. At the time, she was not at all upset, and the term is not particularly horrific. In fact, this kind of word usage is common parlance in various communities, and would be considered a slang term used to cut to the chase.
As mentioned above, light-skinned asian woman, 'an immigrant', was not upset and left the chamber afterwards without any incidence. However, some white council workers and her political colleagues, asked the council for the CCTV film, (Blacks-Under-Surveillance (BUS) stylee). It was only after several goes that they picked up on the 'term'.
It was only then, after a political nudge, that Ms Jay Jethwa, complained to the police. They then decided to charge Ms Brown with Racially Aggravated Harassment.
Let us examine the case. Ms Brown, was the only Black person in the room. She used the world "Coconut" , she left the council chamber without any further mention of the term or the fact that an almost all-white racist council had closed down one of the few remaining 'Black' projects in Bristol.
Some time down the line, she was confronted by racist police, preparing to charge her with racially aggravated harassment. These officers were backed by the proven racist Crown Prosecution Service. She went to court, and she was "convicted".
In other words, the name of the game was to discredit her. Making any words spoken by her null and void.
Now let us look at the history of that law. Do you remember , the racist SUS laws -police harassment; the Riots- complaints of 'aggravated police harassment; the Stephen Lawrence murder-police "aggravated" police neglect & sustained long-term police harassment of Black victims of crime; the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) - who never took any Black complaints seriously, and even helped 'convict' some of the Black victims of police brutality; police and court official corruption; police drug-dealing-pimping? etc, etc.
Well, if you do, you will remember that all these socio-political events revolved around miscreant police officers, and their high levels of misconduct being backed by the courts (Judges and Magistrates), and that racist law-making machine called Parliament.
Well, this is no history lesson, these things are alive and kicking, and being exploited by racist asians, muslims, mixed-racists, and even africans.
Back in the day, when "West Indians" were fighting against 'Teddy-boys", 'The NF", "The British Movement", "Combat 18", etc, the above mentioned groups of "Ethnics" called us "trouble-makers".
However, when a racist asians required "defending", they would rush into the Black community, and "bawl, holler and scream" for "West Indian" "Help". When the danger was gone, they would regress to their natural racist state, and they would treat every Black person who entered their shops as thieves and crooks.
Then the whole cyle would start again. You know the drill, panicky asian rushing into the "West Indian" community begging for our "protection" against racist whites, after incident, they went 'back to their normal'.
I am not aware of them complaining that Black people 'harassed' them. In fact, they 'racially and sexually harassed' Black "West Indian" people specifically of Jamaican background and descent.
Over time, I began to hear Black people describe asians as "Black". I would ask, 'How can an asian be Black?". The usual, lazy, and offensive response that came back was that "they were politically Black". Incredible! Unbelievable!
Ms Brown has lived to rue the day, Black people thought that they, and a proven racist asian community had anything in common outside of the curry house. The fact is, Black people are not asians, and asians are not Black, no matter which way you slice it!
Unfortunately, there are still too many Black people who swallowed that white-invented and promoted pill.
Now we find ourselves in the situation, where the racist white man, and their 'light-skinned' caucasoid brethren have practically eliminated full-Black people from the public space.
For example, I received a call from a white American colleague, who worked quite high up in the administration. He was traumatised. He asked me for some kind of explanation as to why, when such and such an official had arranged to meet some "Black" british officials, leaders, etc, he, and his colleagues were confronted with a room full of "asians". He went onto express his outrage at being "duped" by the british and shocked that there was "not even one Black person involved".
I told him the truth, which was that Britain is the most racist country in the world. My America friend's response to this news, was "Wow! They're that bad are they?" I said "Yes".
On the matter, of the courts being used as a political tool to 'eliminate' "Black" people from participating in public discourse, this is old news.
Its common sense isn't it. Get busy "convicting Blacks", and then they will not be able to get a job, "because they have a conviction"; they will not be able to run for political office, "because they have a conviction"; they will not get an 'Honour' "because they have a conviction", need I go on?
Shirley Brown, is a large dark-skinned woman, with an interest in her own Black culture, that's where she went wrong in Bristol. If she was an aunt Jemima-type, and "yes sarring" it out, she would have been one of their 'favourites'. She would have gone clear, as they say on the streets.
She commited the ultimate crime in racist britain, she was born dark-skinned, she's a woman, and she is largely into her culture and people. No judge in britain would NOT have convicted that woman for racially aggravated harassment.
Interestingly enough, this law has been aplied against Black people, (and especially Black women), for some time now. In ALL cases, these women, were the actual victims of the very crime they had been accused of.
Lets imagine it. After a meeting, whites are 'upset' that the 'uppity nigger bitch', "got the last word in". They are brewing, they are 'mad'...they can't let her get away with it. They collude, they plot, and eventually they telephone their judge 'mate' or even meet him at his house, and prepare him for 'the big one'. Judge, 'receives' said 'nigger bitch' in his court, and 'disposes of her' "like so...easy peasy..job done...another one bites the dust", she is officially "discredited".
The technique is so simple, so unaccountable, so smooth, it's almost embarrassing. This is almost like magic, "see, no hands". However, there are hands. There is police, CPS and judicial corruption written all over these cases, their fingerprints have been left all over the place.
So where do we go from here? If I was that way inclined, I be calling for a public Inquiry, but I hesitate, because anything that is less than statutory is a waste of time. Private prosecutions...lets see. UN report writing definitely!
What about the Slavery aspect to the Bristol case. Well, we did get a commemorative two pound coin in 2007 didn't we? So thats all right then!
Regardless of what has been agreed to at the UN, Europe and national level about the treatment of "descendants of slaves... and the slave trade", all we get are "convictions, convictions, convictions!".
So where do we go from here...where do you think? Upwards!
As for the 'discredited' judge, the system, and establishment, they are a joke! Do they really believe that the public are going to put up with this nonsense? Nearly everyone who has heard of the case are either seething with rage ( and want revenge), or are shocked to the point of laughing at the judge and the police.
If britain wants to regain any part of their international status on this matter, I suggest that they 'revisit' all the cases, of Black people framed and convicted using a law, that was frankly set up, to protect 'them' . Instead, this very law, is now regularly being used to prosecute the very said victims. Enough is Enough!
Monday 28 June 2010
Should New David Kelly Inquest be Opened to Probe ‘Operation FreeMasons’ Death
Marcia Kia Simpson-James.
Seven years ago, David Kelly was ‘outed’ as a media source by the British government. He had apparently disagreed with the gist of a report that could bring the country to war.
He was a well respected and honoured scientist, who was a UN weapons and chemical expert. He had gone to Iraq many times and had inspected, with his team, many facilities in that country. He argued that he had not seen any evidence to confirm that there were “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD).
Despite this, he was vilified as “chaff” and a disgruntled ‘non-entity’ when he said that, what amounted to the ‘war’ file or ‘dossier’ had been “sexed-up”.
I remember that I wanted to go and see Dr Kelly give evidence at parliament, because I felt that there was something not-quite-right about the speed at which he had been summoned to give evidence.
The atmosphere seemed febrile and tense. I was curious why there appeared to be an attack on this publically unknown UN weapons expert. For basic reasons, (money), I was unable to personally attend David Kelly’s evidential session in Parliament, but I was able to watch the filmed session, very soon afterwards.
I was both shocked and horrified at the rough treatment he received at the hands of the Committee members (i.e. the MP’s). In particular, the MP who verbally laid into Dr Kelly, by calling him “chaff” was especially appalling. If I did not know better, I would have assumed that the whole committee had been primed to attack Dr Kelly. I also watched intently because I had been approached to give evidence on the controversial subject of racial discrimination against Black people in the UK, and had started to ‘feel’ the cold wind of an invisible ‘attack’ on my credibility. I was informed that all potential witnesses once identified were under the “protection of parliament”. I saw no evidence of “parliamentary protection” of witnesses.
As I watched Dr Kelly’s treatment, I thought to myself, “so this is how it works...if they don’t like being told ‘the facts’, they go into attack modality”.
Soon after this, we heard that Dr Kelly was dead. The public later had it explained to them that he had “been found in the woods” and had “committed suicide”. Oddly, Tony Blair had been telephoned, mid-flight, with the news.
I asked myself the question, what did David Kelly’s death have to do with the then prime minister, Tony Blair? What was his involvement? What was so urgent in this case, that there was a need to call the prime minister and tell him that a man publically described as “chaff” had killed himself. Who or more accurately, what government department had taken it upon themselves to deal with David Kelly? The public were and are still disturbed by this case.
Yesterday (Saturday 26 June 2010) two reporters claimed that there is new evidence had appeared that would warrant the reopening of the Kelly case. I am not surprised to hear this, since I attended a large part of the Hutton Inquiry, which was supposed to operate as a de facto inquest. During the Hutton process, we noted several ‘odd’ things about some of those that gave evidence. For example, the doctor who was sent to Kelly’s body seemed nonchalant about the apparent death scene and the tiny knife used.
I discussed the blood around Kelly, and on his clothing to some colleagues, and one amazingly suggested that “they wanted to look as if he were praying in the Muslim way...blood on the knees”.
The regulars at the Hutton Inquiry, were not odd-balls with some strange obsession with death, but sensible people, who, generally wanted answers to this strange death.
We saw many many unredacted documents that were incredibly detailed and caused many more questions to be asked. There was one occasion where it was suggested that the civil service had a sinister ‘arm’, where smearing was regularly used as a tool to discredit individuals.
I heard how “people could be described as mad or Walter Mitty characters”, if they had ‘challenged’ received policy in the civil service. I also heard that civil servant’s homes could be ‘visited’ by “unknown superiors” at ‘any time’. These “unknown” persons came bearing gifts. Apparently, the favourite ‘gift’ was a bunch of ‘yellow freesias’. Some former civil servants said they feared ‘the visit’. The implication being that there was MI5 or MI6 involvement.
Other ‘odd’ days, were when Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair gave evidence. I was able to get in to see Campbell, who seemed strangely distant, but arrogantly confident.
However, I was blocked from entry, when Tony Blair came to give evidence. I joined the public cue. In a sinister move, I was left out of the court despite everybody else being let in. I was left standing outside the court, in the yard, outside the court entrance. There was an elderly couple behind me, who were so quietly incensed at my clearly being ‘targeted’, that they commented on the fact that suddenly, when I was at the head of the cue, the “court was full”. They asked me what kind of journalism did I do? I replied ‘investigative’. They nodded their heads to each other in acknowledgement. They then encouraged by by saying, “you must be doing something right...they’ve locked you out...keep the good work going”.
It was only when we saw a helicopter above our heads, and cars steaming away from the court, that I was tersely informed by a court official “you can go in the court now”. The elderly couple and I were forced to stand quietly outside the High Court for the full session of Tony Blair’s evidence. I noted my treatment. As people started to pour out of the court-house, we heard people generally describe Tony Blair, as “sweating” and “not genuine and evasive”. Some also saliently expressed the view that “he did it!”
Now we discover that Lord Hutton has thrown a heavy veil a secrecy over some pertinent documents, using a section of the data protection act. Lord Hutton, (who was personally appointed by Tony Blair) has ordered an extraordinary secrecy order which means that medical records, post-mortem reports and pictures of doctor Kelly’s injuries cannot be seen for 70 years.
This has been objected to by a group which includes MPs, and top medical and forensic specialists. They want this information opened up for public scrutiny. They suggest, that in their expert opinion, David Kelly could not have died from the injuries claimed in the conclusions of Hutton Report. They successfully accessed Kelly’s death certificate.
Meanwhile, the journalists who have turned up new evidence, also concur with this view, and tell us that the wording of Dr Kelly’s death certificate indicate that he did not die where he was found. There is also the presence of an anonymous letter which threatened Dr Kelly’s colleagues, warning them not to attend his funeral. Also contained within the letter is the claim that police and others, visited/’raided’ Dr Kelly’s home before he was found dead, and ripped the wallpaper from the walls of several rooms.
Had Dr Kelly’s, and his home been under surveillance, and had his home been loaded with bugs, that, now he was dead, had to be ‘swept’ out of his house?
There was also the claim that a van was driven to the Kelly home, with a “large long aerial sticking from the top”. Mrs Kelly and her family had been told to leave their home, and stand in the garden. Was this the communications vehicle used to communicate and update Tony Blair with development of events?
Was this the van used to speak to Tony Blair whilst he was flying to a meeting in Japan?
The death certificate says that Dr Kelly was ‘found dead at Harrowdown Hill, Longworth, Oxon’ on the 18 July 2003. The place of death is not exactly identified. The question is why not?
This question only adds to the public’s view that there is some secret ‘hit-squad’ out there, that ‘takes out’ and ‘eliminates’ perceived ‘enemies of the state’. They are even more worried, that if there is a secret ‘hit-squad’, who controls and commands them? The public cannot ignore the fact that Tony Blair was personally telephoned, whilst on a plane, possibly by this frighteningly sinister and secret element of the state.
The question of exactly where David Kelly died, is very important, because, there is an automatic legal requirement for an inquest, where there is a death that involves violence, is unexpected or is unusual. There was no inquest here.
The “hit-squad” theory begins to hold more power in the public mind, when also takes into consideration, the fact that despite a heat-seeking helicopter flying over David Kelly’s home, and the woods in which he was eventually found, it did not pick up on the presence of his body, which must have still been warm. How could that have happened?
It is argued that Tony Blair, as Prime Minister, was the “Commander” who, at arms-length, in effect ordered a “hit” on David Kelly. The argument continues that since the influential Dr Kelly could have stymied and eventually frustrated Tony Blair’s call for war against Iraq, he was then considered Tony Blair’s personal enemy, and therefore, fortuitously and by extension, became “an enemy of the state”.
Just briefly, going back to a secret “hit Squad”. There must have been secret files of dossiers written about Dr Kelly. If they intelligence within those files, were wrong or outright lies.
Let us hypothesise that said dossier held mis-information (or smears) within it. Smears, (defamations) that was so damning against Dr Kelly, that this secret “hit squad” were automatically ‘activated’ and motivated to kill him on “grounds national security”.
This hypothesis, emits strong element of truth, when we remember that Alistair Campbell chaired a meeting with Department of Defence Chiefs of Staff, and senior Security & Intelligence personnel, where he commanded them to “beef-up” the ‘war dossier’, for “presentational purposes”. It should be noted that the Intelligence side, included, Sir John Scarlett, who Campbell, some years later, described as “a good mate”.
Did these arrangements mean that if and when questions were asked, he (Campbell) and Tony Blair could point to the final ‘war dossier’ and look the public square in the eye and claim that the war was “Justified”?
The public want to know, what was Sir John Scarlett’s personal input throughout the whole process? Was he personally in charge of this secret “hit squad”, if it exists? Who was involved in ordering the escalation of the campaign of ill-treatment against David Kelly at his Whitehall workspace – his desk was cleared of all his belongings, his computer was removed and he was left with only a telephone on his desk, until, even that was taken away.
And what about the then Met Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair (now Lord Blair)? He and Chief Inspector (now Superintendent) Alan Young, of the Thames Valley police were never questioned by the Hutton Inquiry. Why not? One would have assumed that they were crucial to events at Dr Kelly’s home, and to finding out where exactly he died.
So, let us examine Sir Ian Blair for a moment. He once headed something called the CIB, (Complaints Investigations Bureau), and CIBIC (Complaints Investigations Bureau Intelligence Cell). During his time there, the ‘Untouchable’ Ian Blair, as assistant chief constable, at Thames Valley police, had had many serious complaints of corruption against him and his team. It was claimed among other things, that he corruptly “leant on witnesses”causing them to perjure themselves in court. Although the complaints were “corroborated”, the complaints were not ‘upheld’. The complainants complained of a “cover-up”, but nothing was ever done by Scotland Yard to follow up verifications that complaints of corruption had been “corroborated”. In plain language, nothing was done to stop the now highly rewarded ‘Lord’ Blair.
On the matter of why a statutory inquest was not held, an Inquest was indeed opened by Oxfordshire Coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, on 21 July 2003. However it was adjourned and closed indefinitely, by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer (him of the dodgy ‘dome’). This had never been done before in English Legal history for a single individual. No public explanation was ever given as to why an ‘Inquiry’ was set up for this single case.
Charles Falconer, had been personally appointed by Tony Blair, and was his former ‘flatmate’ (the suggestion in the press generally being that he was one of Tony Blair’s homosexual lovers alongside former Prime Minister Gordon Brown).
Despite public outcry, Falconer decided to usurp a legally-binding public inquest, and insert the Hutton ‘Inquiry’. Attempts were made to reassure the public that the Irish Lord Hutton’s non-legally-binding ‘Inquiry’ would be just as good as a rigourous coroner’s Inquest. This assertion turned out not to be true.
Things took an even stranger twist, when it was discovered, that a completed death certificate had been produced on 14th August 2003 saying that Dr Kelly’s cause of death was a “Haemorrhage” and that an inquest had taken place on the 14th August 2003.
Since the Hutton Inquiry did not start until the 1 August and did not end until 24th September 2003. This was a highly irregular and astounding move. No death certificate had ever been issued in this way, in the middle of what should have been a coroner’s inquest, in the whole of English legal history. Not only that, but clearly an inquest had never taken place. So the death certificate was doubly misleading. So on what evidence was the death certificate registered and which named medical practitioners certified it?
One also has to ask other additional questions. Was Lord Hutton notified that the death certificate was registered, and if so, when?
Why and when was the death certificate allowed to be registered before the conclusion of the inquiry? Where was David Kelly’s death certificate registered? And was his wife and family informed?
Was the Hutton Inquiry a fait accompli, a foregone conclusion, a display put on simply for public consumption and deception?
To compound the horrific effects of this sick farce, Hutton did not have the same legal powers as a coroner.
In any event, it turned out that Judge Lord Hutton, could not call a jury; summons witnesses; hear evidence under oath or interrogate witnesses in the same way as a coroner. Therefore, if witnesses attended his ‘Inquiry’, it was only as a favour and out of the ‘goodness of their hearts’, not as a legal duty and obligation.
The public and the press felt cheated, and described his ‘Inquiry’ as a “cover-up” and “a whitewash”.
Therefore, key witnesses could reassure themselves that in giving ‘evidence’, even if they were lying, or found to be lying, they could not legally ‘perjure’ themselves, and therefore could not be prosecuted, or otherwise legally punished in retrospect.
In Tony Blair’s case, he walked away from being the responsible Prime Minister, to being a multi-millionaire pound ‘international’ adviser and public speaker. He even attempted to become the first President of Europe (he was unsuccessful).
However, when he stepped down as Prime Minister on the 27th June 2007, he ironically confirmed as the Envoy for “the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers” – comprised of the UN, EU, Russia and the US.
Included in his duties, within his ‘mandate’, he was to “focus on building Palestinian institutions, promoting the rule of law, mobilising international support for the peace process and encouraging economic growth”. Interestingly enough, his remit includes “liaising with other countries, donors and agencies...”
It seems that Mr Blair has taken his remit very personally, and used his role to enrich himself, through his secret business arrangements, which include the Windrush Development Partnership.
He has also financially benefitted from various ‘wars’ (including ‘war on drugs’) in which he was directly involved. Countries such as Sierre Leone, Liberia, Rwanda, Israel, Iraq, a few of the Afghanistan have seen Tony Blair being paid vast sums for his disputed ‘advisory’ skills. He has also been financially rewarded by questionable and even tyrannical leaders, who are not averse to practicing torture on their citizens, political dissidents or political rivals.
Meanwhile, in the period between his resignation in 2007 and now, the Ministry of Justice, has sat tight on documents which would throw light on the case. An MP has applied for the information under the Freedom of Information Act. However, the request was refused under section 41, of the act. This section of the Freedom of Information Act, is known as an ‘absolute exemption’, where there is no chance of challenging the decision.
The Ministry of Justice is therefore under no obligation to reveal the information, and has indicated that it will not do so.
In regards to the activities of cabinet ministers, who were close to the ‘Iraq War’ scene at the time, former Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, should bear some scrutiny.
Geoff Hoon, who later became the Leader of the House of Commons, was apparently red-hot with anger, when Tony Blair sacked him from that job. It is said he wrote a resignation letter, and intended to make a speech about “the Kelly affair”. He was said to have told his friends that the combination of the letter and the speech “could trigger the instant downfall of the Prime Minister” (Tony Blair).
As Geoff Hoon gave evidence to the Hutton inquiry, this throws up a myiad of questions. What did Geoff Hoon know and not say that could have explained what happened to David Kelly?
There must have been an element of guilt on Hoon’s part, because he visited Dr Kelly’s widow, soon after his death to ‘apologise’ personally. Hoon, when asked, has never denied he has more to say on the matter. If this is the case, then it is an absolute imperative to reopen the Coroner’s inquest.
At this stage, with the new coalition government, the only people with the power to order the reopening of the coroner’s inquest, and overturning the 70-year gagging order laid down by Lord Hutton, is the new Attorney General, Dominic Grieve and the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke.
Dr Kelly was recognised as one of the world’s most eminent experts in WMD and biological and chemical weapons, and yet he was disparagingly called a “Walter Mitty character” by several government ministers, (including Margaret Hodge) at the time. He was also called a “middle-ranking” official of no consequence. How wrong they were.
Baring in mind that Kelly turned out to be right in his assessment that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, it is in all our interests, for those who can, to order the reopening of his coroner’s inquest.
Not just for him, but for all those without a voice who may have been subjected to the same processes as Dr Kelly.
He so happened to be a decorated official, who had the highest security clearance. But what about those (extra) ‘ordinary’ folk, who were subjected to the same processes as Kelly? Should the public be fearful that if they unwittingly ‘cross’ the government, they too will be eliminated?
As a final thought, Dr Kelly was aware of Project Coast - a South African post-apartheid, research project aimed at producing biological and chemical weapons aimed at destroying the Black community and leaving the whites intact. Was there any possibility that, however vicariously, Dr Kelly could have exposed UK and US involvement in such illegal and heinous human experiments?
Were these experiments being ‘played out’ on British streets, in British hospitals, police stations and prison, in the same way that they were in America? Would Britain have it first American style “Angola prison” peopled with over 95% Black prisoners?
The British state, through their police military forces, now have the vast majority of Black individual DNA on their national databases. Did Kelly’s death have anything to do with him being aware of how the “Black Final solution” would be played out?
Dr Kelly’s connection in the shadowy world of doctors who willingly participated in ‘race-hate’ genetic/genome research had a far and wide reach. Would it have been the case, that in explaining to the public why there was no possibility that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, he would have let slip, this even more sinister crime of aggression plotted to go global by a grand ‘Masons’ plan?
Who knows, but I feel these are pertinent questions which need to be asked. I suspect that ‘Operation’ Free ‘Mason’, has a far-wider range and scope than we all expected. Who knows where this could lead? A coroner’s inquest today, A Truth Commission tomorrow?
Seven years ago, David Kelly was ‘outed’ as a media source by the British government. He had apparently disagreed with the gist of a report that could bring the country to war.
He was a well respected and honoured scientist, who was a UN weapons and chemical expert. He had gone to Iraq many times and had inspected, with his team, many facilities in that country. He argued that he had not seen any evidence to confirm that there were “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD).
Despite this, he was vilified as “chaff” and a disgruntled ‘non-entity’ when he said that, what amounted to the ‘war’ file or ‘dossier’ had been “sexed-up”.
I remember that I wanted to go and see Dr Kelly give evidence at parliament, because I felt that there was something not-quite-right about the speed at which he had been summoned to give evidence.
The atmosphere seemed febrile and tense. I was curious why there appeared to be an attack on this publically unknown UN weapons expert. For basic reasons, (money), I was unable to personally attend David Kelly’s evidential session in Parliament, but I was able to watch the filmed session, very soon afterwards.
I was both shocked and horrified at the rough treatment he received at the hands of the Committee members (i.e. the MP’s). In particular, the MP who verbally laid into Dr Kelly, by calling him “chaff” was especially appalling. If I did not know better, I would have assumed that the whole committee had been primed to attack Dr Kelly. I also watched intently because I had been approached to give evidence on the controversial subject of racial discrimination against Black people in the UK, and had started to ‘feel’ the cold wind of an invisible ‘attack’ on my credibility. I was informed that all potential witnesses once identified were under the “protection of parliament”. I saw no evidence of “parliamentary protection” of witnesses.
As I watched Dr Kelly’s treatment, I thought to myself, “so this is how it works...if they don’t like being told ‘the facts’, they go into attack modality”.
Soon after this, we heard that Dr Kelly was dead. The public later had it explained to them that he had “been found in the woods” and had “committed suicide”. Oddly, Tony Blair had been telephoned, mid-flight, with the news.
I asked myself the question, what did David Kelly’s death have to do with the then prime minister, Tony Blair? What was his involvement? What was so urgent in this case, that there was a need to call the prime minister and tell him that a man publically described as “chaff” had killed himself. Who or more accurately, what government department had taken it upon themselves to deal with David Kelly? The public were and are still disturbed by this case.
Yesterday (Saturday 26 June 2010) two reporters claimed that there is new evidence had appeared that would warrant the reopening of the Kelly case. I am not surprised to hear this, since I attended a large part of the Hutton Inquiry, which was supposed to operate as a de facto inquest. During the Hutton process, we noted several ‘odd’ things about some of those that gave evidence. For example, the doctor who was sent to Kelly’s body seemed nonchalant about the apparent death scene and the tiny knife used.
I discussed the blood around Kelly, and on his clothing to some colleagues, and one amazingly suggested that “they wanted to look as if he were praying in the Muslim way...blood on the knees”.
The regulars at the Hutton Inquiry, were not odd-balls with some strange obsession with death, but sensible people, who, generally wanted answers to this strange death.
We saw many many unredacted documents that were incredibly detailed and caused many more questions to be asked. There was one occasion where it was suggested that the civil service had a sinister ‘arm’, where smearing was regularly used as a tool to discredit individuals.
I heard how “people could be described as mad or Walter Mitty characters”, if they had ‘challenged’ received policy in the civil service. I also heard that civil servant’s homes could be ‘visited’ by “unknown superiors” at ‘any time’. These “unknown” persons came bearing gifts. Apparently, the favourite ‘gift’ was a bunch of ‘yellow freesias’. Some former civil servants said they feared ‘the visit’. The implication being that there was MI5 or MI6 involvement.
Other ‘odd’ days, were when Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair gave evidence. I was able to get in to see Campbell, who seemed strangely distant, but arrogantly confident.
However, I was blocked from entry, when Tony Blair came to give evidence. I joined the public cue. In a sinister move, I was left out of the court despite everybody else being let in. I was left standing outside the court, in the yard, outside the court entrance. There was an elderly couple behind me, who were so quietly incensed at my clearly being ‘targeted’, that they commented on the fact that suddenly, when I was at the head of the cue, the “court was full”. They asked me what kind of journalism did I do? I replied ‘investigative’. They nodded their heads to each other in acknowledgement. They then encouraged by by saying, “you must be doing something right...they’ve locked you out...keep the good work going”.
It was only when we saw a helicopter above our heads, and cars steaming away from the court, that I was tersely informed by a court official “you can go in the court now”. The elderly couple and I were forced to stand quietly outside the High Court for the full session of Tony Blair’s evidence. I noted my treatment. As people started to pour out of the court-house, we heard people generally describe Tony Blair, as “sweating” and “not genuine and evasive”. Some also saliently expressed the view that “he did it!”
Now we discover that Lord Hutton has thrown a heavy veil a secrecy over some pertinent documents, using a section of the data protection act. Lord Hutton, (who was personally appointed by Tony Blair) has ordered an extraordinary secrecy order which means that medical records, post-mortem reports and pictures of doctor Kelly’s injuries cannot be seen for 70 years.
This has been objected to by a group which includes MPs, and top medical and forensic specialists. They want this information opened up for public scrutiny. They suggest, that in their expert opinion, David Kelly could not have died from the injuries claimed in the conclusions of Hutton Report. They successfully accessed Kelly’s death certificate.
Meanwhile, the journalists who have turned up new evidence, also concur with this view, and tell us that the wording of Dr Kelly’s death certificate indicate that he did not die where he was found. There is also the presence of an anonymous letter which threatened Dr Kelly’s colleagues, warning them not to attend his funeral. Also contained within the letter is the claim that police and others, visited/’raided’ Dr Kelly’s home before he was found dead, and ripped the wallpaper from the walls of several rooms.
Had Dr Kelly’s, and his home been under surveillance, and had his home been loaded with bugs, that, now he was dead, had to be ‘swept’ out of his house?
There was also the claim that a van was driven to the Kelly home, with a “large long aerial sticking from the top”. Mrs Kelly and her family had been told to leave their home, and stand in the garden. Was this the communications vehicle used to communicate and update Tony Blair with development of events?
Was this the van used to speak to Tony Blair whilst he was flying to a meeting in Japan?
The death certificate says that Dr Kelly was ‘found dead at Harrowdown Hill, Longworth, Oxon’ on the 18 July 2003. The place of death is not exactly identified. The question is why not?
This question only adds to the public’s view that there is some secret ‘hit-squad’ out there, that ‘takes out’ and ‘eliminates’ perceived ‘enemies of the state’. They are even more worried, that if there is a secret ‘hit-squad’, who controls and commands them? The public cannot ignore the fact that Tony Blair was personally telephoned, whilst on a plane, possibly by this frighteningly sinister and secret element of the state.
The question of exactly where David Kelly died, is very important, because, there is an automatic legal requirement for an inquest, where there is a death that involves violence, is unexpected or is unusual. There was no inquest here.
The “hit-squad” theory begins to hold more power in the public mind, when also takes into consideration, the fact that despite a heat-seeking helicopter flying over David Kelly’s home, and the woods in which he was eventually found, it did not pick up on the presence of his body, which must have still been warm. How could that have happened?
It is argued that Tony Blair, as Prime Minister, was the “Commander” who, at arms-length, in effect ordered a “hit” on David Kelly. The argument continues that since the influential Dr Kelly could have stymied and eventually frustrated Tony Blair’s call for war against Iraq, he was then considered Tony Blair’s personal enemy, and therefore, fortuitously and by extension, became “an enemy of the state”.
Just briefly, going back to a secret “hit Squad”. There must have been secret files of dossiers written about Dr Kelly. If they intelligence within those files, were wrong or outright lies.
Let us hypothesise that said dossier held mis-information (or smears) within it. Smears, (defamations) that was so damning against Dr Kelly, that this secret “hit squad” were automatically ‘activated’ and motivated to kill him on “grounds national security”.
This hypothesis, emits strong element of truth, when we remember that Alistair Campbell chaired a meeting with Department of Defence Chiefs of Staff, and senior Security & Intelligence personnel, where he commanded them to “beef-up” the ‘war dossier’, for “presentational purposes”. It should be noted that the Intelligence side, included, Sir John Scarlett, who Campbell, some years later, described as “a good mate”.
Did these arrangements mean that if and when questions were asked, he (Campbell) and Tony Blair could point to the final ‘war dossier’ and look the public square in the eye and claim that the war was “Justified”?
The public want to know, what was Sir John Scarlett’s personal input throughout the whole process? Was he personally in charge of this secret “hit squad”, if it exists? Who was involved in ordering the escalation of the campaign of ill-treatment against David Kelly at his Whitehall workspace – his desk was cleared of all his belongings, his computer was removed and he was left with only a telephone on his desk, until, even that was taken away.
And what about the then Met Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair (now Lord Blair)? He and Chief Inspector (now Superintendent) Alan Young, of the Thames Valley police were never questioned by the Hutton Inquiry. Why not? One would have assumed that they were crucial to events at Dr Kelly’s home, and to finding out where exactly he died.
So, let us examine Sir Ian Blair for a moment. He once headed something called the CIB, (Complaints Investigations Bureau), and CIBIC (Complaints Investigations Bureau Intelligence Cell). During his time there, the ‘Untouchable’ Ian Blair, as assistant chief constable, at Thames Valley police, had had many serious complaints of corruption against him and his team. It was claimed among other things, that he corruptly “leant on witnesses”causing them to perjure themselves in court. Although the complaints were “corroborated”, the complaints were not ‘upheld’. The complainants complained of a “cover-up”, but nothing was ever done by Scotland Yard to follow up verifications that complaints of corruption had been “corroborated”. In plain language, nothing was done to stop the now highly rewarded ‘Lord’ Blair.
On the matter of why a statutory inquest was not held, an Inquest was indeed opened by Oxfordshire Coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, on 21 July 2003. However it was adjourned and closed indefinitely, by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer (him of the dodgy ‘dome’). This had never been done before in English Legal history for a single individual. No public explanation was ever given as to why an ‘Inquiry’ was set up for this single case.
Charles Falconer, had been personally appointed by Tony Blair, and was his former ‘flatmate’ (the suggestion in the press generally being that he was one of Tony Blair’s homosexual lovers alongside former Prime Minister Gordon Brown).
Despite public outcry, Falconer decided to usurp a legally-binding public inquest, and insert the Hutton ‘Inquiry’. Attempts were made to reassure the public that the Irish Lord Hutton’s non-legally-binding ‘Inquiry’ would be just as good as a rigourous coroner’s Inquest. This assertion turned out not to be true.
Things took an even stranger twist, when it was discovered, that a completed death certificate had been produced on 14th August 2003 saying that Dr Kelly’s cause of death was a “Haemorrhage” and that an inquest had taken place on the 14th August 2003.
Since the Hutton Inquiry did not start until the 1 August and did not end until 24th September 2003. This was a highly irregular and astounding move. No death certificate had ever been issued in this way, in the middle of what should have been a coroner’s inquest, in the whole of English legal history. Not only that, but clearly an inquest had never taken place. So the death certificate was doubly misleading. So on what evidence was the death certificate registered and which named medical practitioners certified it?
One also has to ask other additional questions. Was Lord Hutton notified that the death certificate was registered, and if so, when?
Why and when was the death certificate allowed to be registered before the conclusion of the inquiry? Where was David Kelly’s death certificate registered? And was his wife and family informed?
Was the Hutton Inquiry a fait accompli, a foregone conclusion, a display put on simply for public consumption and deception?
To compound the horrific effects of this sick farce, Hutton did not have the same legal powers as a coroner.
In any event, it turned out that Judge Lord Hutton, could not call a jury; summons witnesses; hear evidence under oath or interrogate witnesses in the same way as a coroner. Therefore, if witnesses attended his ‘Inquiry’, it was only as a favour and out of the ‘goodness of their hearts’, not as a legal duty and obligation.
The public and the press felt cheated, and described his ‘Inquiry’ as a “cover-up” and “a whitewash”.
Therefore, key witnesses could reassure themselves that in giving ‘evidence’, even if they were lying, or found to be lying, they could not legally ‘perjure’ themselves, and therefore could not be prosecuted, or otherwise legally punished in retrospect.
In Tony Blair’s case, he walked away from being the responsible Prime Minister, to being a multi-millionaire pound ‘international’ adviser and public speaker. He even attempted to become the first President of Europe (he was unsuccessful).
However, when he stepped down as Prime Minister on the 27th June 2007, he ironically confirmed as the Envoy for “the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers” – comprised of the UN, EU, Russia and the US.
Included in his duties, within his ‘mandate’, he was to “focus on building Palestinian institutions, promoting the rule of law, mobilising international support for the peace process and encouraging economic growth”. Interestingly enough, his remit includes “liaising with other countries, donors and agencies...”
It seems that Mr Blair has taken his remit very personally, and used his role to enrich himself, through his secret business arrangements, which include the Windrush Development Partnership.
He has also financially benefitted from various ‘wars’ (including ‘war on drugs’) in which he was directly involved. Countries such as Sierre Leone, Liberia, Rwanda, Israel, Iraq, a few of the Afghanistan have seen Tony Blair being paid vast sums for his disputed ‘advisory’ skills. He has also been financially rewarded by questionable and even tyrannical leaders, who are not averse to practicing torture on their citizens, political dissidents or political rivals.
Meanwhile, in the period between his resignation in 2007 and now, the Ministry of Justice, has sat tight on documents which would throw light on the case. An MP has applied for the information under the Freedom of Information Act. However, the request was refused under section 41, of the act. This section of the Freedom of Information Act, is known as an ‘absolute exemption’, where there is no chance of challenging the decision.
The Ministry of Justice is therefore under no obligation to reveal the information, and has indicated that it will not do so.
In regards to the activities of cabinet ministers, who were close to the ‘Iraq War’ scene at the time, former Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, should bear some scrutiny.
Geoff Hoon, who later became the Leader of the House of Commons, was apparently red-hot with anger, when Tony Blair sacked him from that job. It is said he wrote a resignation letter, and intended to make a speech about “the Kelly affair”. He was said to have told his friends that the combination of the letter and the speech “could trigger the instant downfall of the Prime Minister” (Tony Blair).
As Geoff Hoon gave evidence to the Hutton inquiry, this throws up a myiad of questions. What did Geoff Hoon know and not say that could have explained what happened to David Kelly?
There must have been an element of guilt on Hoon’s part, because he visited Dr Kelly’s widow, soon after his death to ‘apologise’ personally. Hoon, when asked, has never denied he has more to say on the matter. If this is the case, then it is an absolute imperative to reopen the Coroner’s inquest.
At this stage, with the new coalition government, the only people with the power to order the reopening of the coroner’s inquest, and overturning the 70-year gagging order laid down by Lord Hutton, is the new Attorney General, Dominic Grieve and the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke.
Dr Kelly was recognised as one of the world’s most eminent experts in WMD and biological and chemical weapons, and yet he was disparagingly called a “Walter Mitty character” by several government ministers, (including Margaret Hodge) at the time. He was also called a “middle-ranking” official of no consequence. How wrong they were.
Baring in mind that Kelly turned out to be right in his assessment that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, it is in all our interests, for those who can, to order the reopening of his coroner’s inquest.
Not just for him, but for all those without a voice who may have been subjected to the same processes as Dr Kelly.
He so happened to be a decorated official, who had the highest security clearance. But what about those (extra) ‘ordinary’ folk, who were subjected to the same processes as Kelly? Should the public be fearful that if they unwittingly ‘cross’ the government, they too will be eliminated?
As a final thought, Dr Kelly was aware of Project Coast - a South African post-apartheid, research project aimed at producing biological and chemical weapons aimed at destroying the Black community and leaving the whites intact. Was there any possibility that, however vicariously, Dr Kelly could have exposed UK and US involvement in such illegal and heinous human experiments?
Were these experiments being ‘played out’ on British streets, in British hospitals, police stations and prison, in the same way that they were in America? Would Britain have it first American style “Angola prison” peopled with over 95% Black prisoners?
The British state, through their police military forces, now have the vast majority of Black individual DNA on their national databases. Did Kelly’s death have anything to do with him being aware of how the “Black Final solution” would be played out?
Dr Kelly’s connection in the shadowy world of doctors who willingly participated in ‘race-hate’ genetic/genome research had a far and wide reach. Would it have been the case, that in explaining to the public why there was no possibility that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, he would have let slip, this even more sinister crime of aggression plotted to go global by a grand ‘Masons’ plan?
Who knows, but I feel these are pertinent questions which need to be asked. I suspect that ‘Operation’ Free ‘Mason’, has a far-wider range and scope than we all expected. Who knows where this could lead? A coroner’s inquest today, A Truth Commission tomorrow?
Friday 25 June 2010
Prince Charles proven to interfer in other peoples' business - Candy Brothers win Chelsea Barracks Qatari architectural case for breach of contract
Marcia Kia Simpson-James.
Today, we hear that the Candy Brothers, who had been partners in the Chelsea Barracks Development, had been thwarted in their work, by the strong and incessant interference of the Prince of Wales.
Prince Charles, has developed a mean reputation for interferring in politics, and over-stepping the mark. Many claim that they have recieved letters with his boad, Black ink "spiders" handwriting. For years, many government ministers, civil servants and even members of the public have complained that Prince Charles has a serious lack of judgement, to the point of being a nuisance.
Words mentioned where Prince Charles is concerned are "intimidating", "interferring" and "a self-serving nuisance".
Prince Charles, as heir to the throne has a particular role, which does not include running the government. However, in his fragile mind, it appears he is convinced he does.
So at last, we find some people with enough balls and guts to take on the monster. The Candy brothers have won their case for breach of contract, on the basis of the accumulation of evidence. Evidence which included several personal letters from Prince Charles to members of the Qatari royal, pleading with them to 'save' London from the long-term effects of "Brutalist achitecture".
I have see, the proposed design, and "Brutalist", is not the style of architecture that was being proposed. So one can only come to the conclusion, that Prince Charles's meant his words to have the effect of a command.
Like poor Mrs Duffy and her being called "that woman" and "bigot", the words wer pronounced to have a particular effect. namely an attack, and even elimination of the person, or in the Candy Brothers case, their business.
Once Prince Charles had said or written the words, it was guaranteed that the deal was dead a buried. Prince Charles is an arrogant unfeeling man. when he pronounced and wrote the words, he dis not give a backwards glance at the damage and havoc he had left in his wake. The expense, damage, hurt and suffering he contributed to was not his concern.
He was so happy that his wish was "their command". This is both a irresponsible and irrational attitude to have towards others. Furthermore, this could be contrued as a dangerous attitude, to the point, of him having to be 'neutralised' and 'contained' in the name of public safety.
Its now time to do an audit of project, communities and government policies Prince Charles has "interferred" or "intervened" with.
The mind boggles to think of the amount of international projects, national programmes, etc, Prince Charles and his ilk have destroyed, on some unthoughtout whim.
It seems to me that a seem of the most senior civil servants need to be put together to form a permanent bulwark against this unaccountable prince. I take it as read, that there are many in Whitehall running with sweat, at the idea of the numbers of other people, who would win legal cases if they chose to take certain associates of Prince Charles to court.
We might even see Prince Charles put in the dock, and become accountable for the first time in his tired and empty life.
We are glad that the Candy brothers have won, and hope that this will be a warning shot across the boughs of Prince Charles, that will help him see the error of his ways and buck up his ideas and inappropriate and even illegal behaviour.
Today, we hear that the Candy Brothers, who had been partners in the Chelsea Barracks Development, had been thwarted in their work, by the strong and incessant interference of the Prince of Wales.
Prince Charles, has developed a mean reputation for interferring in politics, and over-stepping the mark. Many claim that they have recieved letters with his boad, Black ink "spiders" handwriting. For years, many government ministers, civil servants and even members of the public have complained that Prince Charles has a serious lack of judgement, to the point of being a nuisance.
Words mentioned where Prince Charles is concerned are "intimidating", "interferring" and "a self-serving nuisance".
Prince Charles, as heir to the throne has a particular role, which does not include running the government. However, in his fragile mind, it appears he is convinced he does.
So at last, we find some people with enough balls and guts to take on the monster. The Candy brothers have won their case for breach of contract, on the basis of the accumulation of evidence. Evidence which included several personal letters from Prince Charles to members of the Qatari royal, pleading with them to 'save' London from the long-term effects of "Brutalist achitecture".
I have see, the proposed design, and "Brutalist", is not the style of architecture that was being proposed. So one can only come to the conclusion, that Prince Charles's meant his words to have the effect of a command.
Like poor Mrs Duffy and her being called "that woman" and "bigot", the words wer pronounced to have a particular effect. namely an attack, and even elimination of the person, or in the Candy Brothers case, their business.
Once Prince Charles had said or written the words, it was guaranteed that the deal was dead a buried. Prince Charles is an arrogant unfeeling man. when he pronounced and wrote the words, he dis not give a backwards glance at the damage and havoc he had left in his wake. The expense, damage, hurt and suffering he contributed to was not his concern.
He was so happy that his wish was "their command". This is both a irresponsible and irrational attitude to have towards others. Furthermore, this could be contrued as a dangerous attitude, to the point, of him having to be 'neutralised' and 'contained' in the name of public safety.
Its now time to do an audit of project, communities and government policies Prince Charles has "interferred" or "intervened" with.
The mind boggles to think of the amount of international projects, national programmes, etc, Prince Charles and his ilk have destroyed, on some unthoughtout whim.
It seems to me that a seem of the most senior civil servants need to be put together to form a permanent bulwark against this unaccountable prince. I take it as read, that there are many in Whitehall running with sweat, at the idea of the numbers of other people, who would win legal cases if they chose to take certain associates of Prince Charles to court.
We might even see Prince Charles put in the dock, and become accountable for the first time in his tired and empty life.
We are glad that the Candy brothers have won, and hope that this will be a warning shot across the boughs of Prince Charles, that will help him see the error of his ways and buck up his ideas and inappropriate and even illegal behaviour.
Wednesday 23 June 2010
Brian Paddick former Police Commander for Brixon ignored 'Black police deaths' whilst pushing 'Homosexual' political agenda with gay lover of Chris Huhne.
Marcia Kia Simpson-James.
Some years ago I was asked to attend and report on a meeting being held in Brixton Town Hall. When I arrived I noted that the Town Hall's assembly room was rammed to the rafters full of what seemed to me, exclusively white faces.
I decided to sit at the back of the room so that I could get a good view of events. When I enquired of my neighbour what the gist of the meeting was about I was told in a slightly clandestine and reverential way that it was about "Brian Paddick".
It had just come out in the press that he was moving on up to a more senior post at Scotland. Apparently, this meeting had been pulled together, in a bid to ask him to reconsider and remain in the borough of Lambeth.
As I looked around, I noted one face, that I recognised as lesbian Angela Mason, Head of Labour's Equality Unit. Stood quite close to her was another short-haired, tall, , leather jacket, boffer-boot-wearing woman.
That woman turned out to be Carina Trimingham, the manish lesbian lover of Lib Dem Chris Huhne, present Energy and Climate Change Secretary of the British coalition government.
Angela Mason was staring staggers at me, and there was a distinct air of intimidation and threat. On stage, we had "Leroy" the politically correct Black policeman; Lee Jasper, the confused and capricious mixed-racist who operated as the quasi eyes and ears for the racist London Mayor, Ken Livingstone; and some other non-entity, who's name escapes me.
Suddenly the meeting began and there begun copious weeping and wailing, as everyone started to shout for Brian Paddick, and asked that he not leave "The Gays". I turned to my other neighbour, and asked what the meeting was about. this time the answer was more forthcoming.
"Its about us wanting Brian to stay in Brixton...we want him to refuse his promotion and stay here with us....this is a gay meeting for our rights".
Everybody started to collectively rise to their feet, as the tension and anticipation of 'Brian's' arrival built up. Then Lee Jasper, rose to his feet, gave a rousing introduction to Paddick, and 'the stat' then arrived on the stage, where he sat down beside Lee Jasper, and the others.
I noted that there were roughly three Black guys prowling through the crowd. There were wearing the standard uniform, of the old-time Black panthers. The black polo-neck, the leather jacket, the intimidating facial expression.
As my eyes followed them around the assembly hall, I noted that as everybody was commanded to sit down, 5 Black women 'spinkled' through the crowd of hundreds, came into view.
The crowd was being brought to a state of ecstacy, as one speaker after another spoke the praises of Brian Paddick as Borough commander for Lambeth. Suddely, one of the Black women sat towards the front of the crowd, stood up and started to speak. I noted that she was being barracked and shouted down, by the baying crowd.
She determinedly started to raise her voice so that she could be heard above the now increasing din. She told the entire assembly hall, that her son had been killed in Brixton police station some weeks before, and that she believed that it was murder under the most suspicious circumstances. She was loundly heckled, and one of the Black 'bouncers' rushed up to her, and shouting directly in her ear, but loud enough for all of us to hear, he said, "shut up you Black bitch...sit down and shut up now or I'll puch your lights out".
I was shocked. the all-white crowd, were loving it. I noted that Angela Mason, and Carina Trimingham seemed to be 'directing' the whole show. They had wide grins across their faces, and Angela Mason evenually broke into a laugh.
By this time, another Black mother stood, up, and shouted at the top of her voice, that she was also a mother, and her son too had been murdered in Brixton police station, where the police apparently went around killing Black people with complete impunity. She said that she could not sleep at night as a result of the loss and no sense of justice. She explained that she absolutely disrespected Brian Paddick, and that he was the officer, who had overseen a "Bloodbath" of Black deaths in the Borough.
This brave woman's words, seemed to help to animate the remainding Black women in the room,. who also stood up, and shouted that they were also mothers of son's who had either been killed in Brixton police station, or (in one instance), her son had been walking from waork one evening, and had been deliberately run over by a police car. The police officers then reversed the car, and ran over the young man's legs breaking bones and crushing muscle and sinew.
This last mother, informed us that her son was now permanently crippled and, was borderline paralysed and confined to a wheelchair. The surgeon had wanted to amputate both his legs, but she begged the doctor not to do so and begged him to save her son's legs. She told us that asked, "that his legs be rescued...even if they do not work...at least he can stil feel like a man!" The doctor explained to her, that it would "almost be a miracle to save his legs", but he committed to attempt to do so.
According to this mother, the surgeon had done a brilliant job, and had successfully saved her sons legs. She said she thanked god that he had. She explained that her son was now chronically depressed, and that she had had two heart attacks, and two operations. She opened the front of her blouse, to exposed a large scar, that ran from the botton of her throat, almost to her belly-button. I was appalled to see the behaviour of these 'gays'. They showed no mercy in their arrogance towards these women. The physical attack. began.
At this the mass crowd descended on these women, like locusts. The attack was frenzied. There were hundred closing in on these women.
They were shouting "this is a meeting for homosexuals...we are not interested in how many Blacks we have killed...get out of here before we kill you!" The women, who were separated and scattered, bravely attempted to fight off these homosexual animals. Angela Mason and 'Miss' Trimingham were laughing like drains.
Evetually, Lee Jasper got to his feet and, shouting into the microphone told everyone to "sit down". Brioan Paddick did and said nothing.
I noted that Angela Mason, called to the crowd, and like magic, the crowd dispersed and moved back towards their seats. I was appalled. I later discovered that there was a 'gay' and 'african' in Brixton, with one thing they had in common was the need for absolute power and control.
After the meeting I managed to speak to these five mothers, and their stories up close and personal were even more harrowing than what we had all heard in the Hall. These woman, believed that it was a travesty of justice that the incompetent and 'neglectful' Paddick, had been given the job of commander simpy because he was gay, and now that he had enough "kills" under his belt, he was now being promoted by 'Sir' Ian Blair to Scotland Yard. They were all sickened by the idea.
So, here we are, June 2010. Now we discover that the hardcore, cropped-haired lesbian, that same one who promoted the killing and attacking of Black people, that one who used to creep around Brixton, 'observing' Black people on a regular basis whilst waiting to see her 'exotic Maori' lesbian lover (now an executive director in Lambeth), is that very same one, who has run off with the UK's coalition government's Energy and Climate Change Secretary.
This woman lived the life of a Lesbian morning noon and night. She was the type of lesbian, who did not like Black people, because they were "Christians" and had a natural inclination to accept the word of God and not accept the word of man, that being 'Gay' was 'right'
Homosexual Paddick, apparently had such a deep hatred of Black people, or anyone that they suspected of not being flag-waving "Homosexuals", that he had a secret unit within Brixton police station, that were on standby to "attack andf kill" Black people. I supposed Ms Trimingham run Paddick PR campaign, when information about "Black deaths in custody" started to leak.
The fact that Chris Huhne and Carina Trimingham and Brian Paddick have 'hooked up' is not surprising, since they are all prepared to do anything in the name of self-promotion. it is immaterial, the damage, the numbers killed, the amount of harm, as long as they can have their 'gay' orgies, 'bisexual fun' and 'twisted power', all's fine in the garden. Only in this garden, there are a number of dead bodies buried. If you don't belive me, ask those five Black mothers of those 5 dead or maimed Black sons. If you don't believe them then ask Carina "Death's in Custody" Trimingham for her views on the subject.
Some years ago I was asked to attend and report on a meeting being held in Brixton Town Hall. When I arrived I noted that the Town Hall's assembly room was rammed to the rafters full of what seemed to me, exclusively white faces.
I decided to sit at the back of the room so that I could get a good view of events. When I enquired of my neighbour what the gist of the meeting was about I was told in a slightly clandestine and reverential way that it was about "Brian Paddick".
It had just come out in the press that he was moving on up to a more senior post at Scotland. Apparently, this meeting had been pulled together, in a bid to ask him to reconsider and remain in the borough of Lambeth.
As I looked around, I noted one face, that I recognised as lesbian Angela Mason, Head of Labour's Equality Unit. Stood quite close to her was another short-haired, tall, , leather jacket, boffer-boot-wearing woman.
That woman turned out to be Carina Trimingham, the manish lesbian lover of Lib Dem Chris Huhne, present Energy and Climate Change Secretary of the British coalition government.
Angela Mason was staring staggers at me, and there was a distinct air of intimidation and threat. On stage, we had "Leroy" the politically correct Black policeman; Lee Jasper, the confused and capricious mixed-racist who operated as the quasi eyes and ears for the racist London Mayor, Ken Livingstone; and some other non-entity, who's name escapes me.
Suddenly the meeting began and there begun copious weeping and wailing, as everyone started to shout for Brian Paddick, and asked that he not leave "The Gays". I turned to my other neighbour, and asked what the meeting was about. this time the answer was more forthcoming.
"Its about us wanting Brian to stay in Brixton...we want him to refuse his promotion and stay here with us....this is a gay meeting for our rights".
Everybody started to collectively rise to their feet, as the tension and anticipation of 'Brian's' arrival built up. Then Lee Jasper, rose to his feet, gave a rousing introduction to Paddick, and 'the stat' then arrived on the stage, where he sat down beside Lee Jasper, and the others.
I noted that there were roughly three Black guys prowling through the crowd. There were wearing the standard uniform, of the old-time Black panthers. The black polo-neck, the leather jacket, the intimidating facial expression.
As my eyes followed them around the assembly hall, I noted that as everybody was commanded to sit down, 5 Black women 'spinkled' through the crowd of hundreds, came into view.
The crowd was being brought to a state of ecstacy, as one speaker after another spoke the praises of Brian Paddick as Borough commander for Lambeth. Suddely, one of the Black women sat towards the front of the crowd, stood up and started to speak. I noted that she was being barracked and shouted down, by the baying crowd.
She determinedly started to raise her voice so that she could be heard above the now increasing din. She told the entire assembly hall, that her son had been killed in Brixton police station some weeks before, and that she believed that it was murder under the most suspicious circumstances. She was loundly heckled, and one of the Black 'bouncers' rushed up to her, and shouting directly in her ear, but loud enough for all of us to hear, he said, "shut up you Black bitch...sit down and shut up now or I'll puch your lights out".
I was shocked. the all-white crowd, were loving it. I noted that Angela Mason, and Carina Trimingham seemed to be 'directing' the whole show. They had wide grins across their faces, and Angela Mason evenually broke into a laugh.
By this time, another Black mother stood, up, and shouted at the top of her voice, that she was also a mother, and her son too had been murdered in Brixton police station, where the police apparently went around killing Black people with complete impunity. She said that she could not sleep at night as a result of the loss and no sense of justice. She explained that she absolutely disrespected Brian Paddick, and that he was the officer, who had overseen a "Bloodbath" of Black deaths in the Borough.
This brave woman's words, seemed to help to animate the remainding Black women in the room,. who also stood up, and shouted that they were also mothers of son's who had either been killed in Brixton police station, or (in one instance), her son had been walking from waork one evening, and had been deliberately run over by a police car. The police officers then reversed the car, and ran over the young man's legs breaking bones and crushing muscle and sinew.
This last mother, informed us that her son was now permanently crippled and, was borderline paralysed and confined to a wheelchair. The surgeon had wanted to amputate both his legs, but she begged the doctor not to do so and begged him to save her son's legs. She told us that asked, "that his legs be rescued...even if they do not work...at least he can stil feel like a man!" The doctor explained to her, that it would "almost be a miracle to save his legs", but he committed to attempt to do so.
According to this mother, the surgeon had done a brilliant job, and had successfully saved her sons legs. She said she thanked god that he had. She explained that her son was now chronically depressed, and that she had had two heart attacks, and two operations. She opened the front of her blouse, to exposed a large scar, that ran from the botton of her throat, almost to her belly-button. I was appalled to see the behaviour of these 'gays'. They showed no mercy in their arrogance towards these women. The physical attack. began.
At this the mass crowd descended on these women, like locusts. The attack was frenzied. There were hundred closing in on these women.
They were shouting "this is a meeting for homosexuals...we are not interested in how many Blacks we have killed...get out of here before we kill you!" The women, who were separated and scattered, bravely attempted to fight off these homosexual animals. Angela Mason and 'Miss' Trimingham were laughing like drains.
Evetually, Lee Jasper got to his feet and, shouting into the microphone told everyone to "sit down". Brioan Paddick did and said nothing.
I noted that Angela Mason, called to the crowd, and like magic, the crowd dispersed and moved back towards their seats. I was appalled. I later discovered that there was a 'gay' and 'african' in Brixton, with one thing they had in common was the need for absolute power and control.
After the meeting I managed to speak to these five mothers, and their stories up close and personal were even more harrowing than what we had all heard in the Hall. These woman, believed that it was a travesty of justice that the incompetent and 'neglectful' Paddick, had been given the job of commander simpy because he was gay, and now that he had enough "kills" under his belt, he was now being promoted by 'Sir' Ian Blair to Scotland Yard. They were all sickened by the idea.
So, here we are, June 2010. Now we discover that the hardcore, cropped-haired lesbian, that same one who promoted the killing and attacking of Black people, that one who used to creep around Brixton, 'observing' Black people on a regular basis whilst waiting to see her 'exotic Maori' lesbian lover (now an executive director in Lambeth), is that very same one, who has run off with the UK's coalition government's Energy and Climate Change Secretary.
This woman lived the life of a Lesbian morning noon and night. She was the type of lesbian, who did not like Black people, because they were "Christians" and had a natural inclination to accept the word of God and not accept the word of man, that being 'Gay' was 'right'
Homosexual Paddick, apparently had such a deep hatred of Black people, or anyone that they suspected of not being flag-waving "Homosexuals", that he had a secret unit within Brixton police station, that were on standby to "attack andf kill" Black people. I supposed Ms Trimingham run Paddick PR campaign, when information about "Black deaths in custody" started to leak.
The fact that Chris Huhne and Carina Trimingham and Brian Paddick have 'hooked up' is not surprising, since they are all prepared to do anything in the name of self-promotion. it is immaterial, the damage, the numbers killed, the amount of harm, as long as they can have their 'gay' orgies, 'bisexual fun' and 'twisted power', all's fine in the garden. Only in this garden, there are a number of dead bodies buried. If you don't belive me, ask those five Black mothers of those 5 dead or maimed Black sons. If you don't believe them then ask Carina "Death's in Custody" Trimingham for her views on the subject.
Monday 21 June 2010
'Honyepot' Chris Huhne leaves Director General wife and 5 kids for 'transsexual' lesbian mistress
Marcia Kia Simpson-James.
Energy and Climate Change Secretaty of state, Chris Huhne, has shocked his Director General wife by declaring that he is leaving her and their 5 children for his lesbian mistress.
Yesterday (Sunday 20 June 2010) Mr Huhne made a public statement, saying "I am having a relationship with Mr Carina Trimingham and leaving my wife".
According to sources, the energy minister's wife, Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), Director General, Vicky Pryce, is devastated at the news.
She only found out that her husband was having a two year sexual relationship with the Electoral Reform Society's Campaigns Director Carina Trimingham, in the newspapers. Ms Trimingham, who was considered to be a committed lesbian, was seen several times entering many of Mr Huhne's 7 homes scattered across london and in his constituency. The question is, how did Mr Huhne's reputedly highly intelligent wife not pick up on the fact that she was in effect sharing her home and bed, not only with her husband, but with his not-so fancy piece.
According the the BIS government website, Vicky Pryce, is a visiting professor at the CASS Business School, and the City University, whilst simultaneuosly being a council member of Kent University, and yet she could not tell that her husband was screwing out on her with a kept woman.
We can only speculate and imagine that Chris Huhne worked 'shifts', to manage these two working woman in the same conjugal bed. We can only pray that his wife knows a good dental hygienist after all that 'sucking up' she must have been doing.
On a more political note, the worrying thing about this scenario is the fact that the government is turning a blind eye.
Apparently, David Cameron's high command knew about the affair for many months, and yet they not only condoned it, but covered it up.
So what does that say about the attitude of the British political class towards women? It says that women are only playthings and clothes horses of a set of sick men, who treat women as no more than sexual commodities. Their imperative is to obey men! So there we have it, Chris Huhne refuses to resign.
So I wonder what will happen when it comes out in the wash that Chris Huhne is a well-known anti-Black racist? We'll see.
In all truth, if Chris Huhne, his Lesbian lover, and his Director General wife had any shame, they would all resign, immediately and get lost.
However, I somehow, I feel that Nick Clegg has a vested interest in this case, since he may have sent the alluring sexual "Honeypot" Huhne, into the situation. The purpose, to assure that Nick Clegg's longed-for electoral reforms, would be supported by the Electoral Reform Society. Less messy.
What better than to send in your most 'persuasive' man, to do the job? Why hesitate in sending in the man who has a proven record in these things. That's how he got his present wife, wasn't it? Vicky Pryce was married to a 'Mr Pryce' when Huhne bedded her, and secreted her away into one of his lovenests. So what's new? Why teach an old dog new tricks?
The only difference now, compared to then, is that we are 25 years on, and 'Chris' is leaving his 5 "picanninies" with their single mother. Pity he left her for a man!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, David Cameron must be thinking that this is timid stuff compared to his criminal Bullingdon Club antics. Child sacrifices, Black gardens and all that what!
Energy and Climate Change Secretaty of state, Chris Huhne, has shocked his Director General wife by declaring that he is leaving her and their 5 children for his lesbian mistress.
Yesterday (Sunday 20 June 2010) Mr Huhne made a public statement, saying "I am having a relationship with Mr Carina Trimingham and leaving my wife".
According to sources, the energy minister's wife, Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), Director General, Vicky Pryce, is devastated at the news.
She only found out that her husband was having a two year sexual relationship with the Electoral Reform Society's Campaigns Director Carina Trimingham, in the newspapers. Ms Trimingham, who was considered to be a committed lesbian, was seen several times entering many of Mr Huhne's 7 homes scattered across london and in his constituency. The question is, how did Mr Huhne's reputedly highly intelligent wife not pick up on the fact that she was in effect sharing her home and bed, not only with her husband, but with his not-so fancy piece.
According the the BIS government website, Vicky Pryce, is a visiting professor at the CASS Business School, and the City University, whilst simultaneuosly being a council member of Kent University, and yet she could not tell that her husband was screwing out on her with a kept woman.
We can only speculate and imagine that Chris Huhne worked 'shifts', to manage these two working woman in the same conjugal bed. We can only pray that his wife knows a good dental hygienist after all that 'sucking up' she must have been doing.
On a more political note, the worrying thing about this scenario is the fact that the government is turning a blind eye.
Apparently, David Cameron's high command knew about the affair for many months, and yet they not only condoned it, but covered it up.
So what does that say about the attitude of the British political class towards women? It says that women are only playthings and clothes horses of a set of sick men, who treat women as no more than sexual commodities. Their imperative is to obey men! So there we have it, Chris Huhne refuses to resign.
So I wonder what will happen when it comes out in the wash that Chris Huhne is a well-known anti-Black racist? We'll see.
In all truth, if Chris Huhne, his Lesbian lover, and his Director General wife had any shame, they would all resign, immediately and get lost.
However, I somehow, I feel that Nick Clegg has a vested interest in this case, since he may have sent the alluring sexual "Honeypot" Huhne, into the situation. The purpose, to assure that Nick Clegg's longed-for electoral reforms, would be supported by the Electoral Reform Society. Less messy.
What better than to send in your most 'persuasive' man, to do the job? Why hesitate in sending in the man who has a proven record in these things. That's how he got his present wife, wasn't it? Vicky Pryce was married to a 'Mr Pryce' when Huhne bedded her, and secreted her away into one of his lovenests. So what's new? Why teach an old dog new tricks?
The only difference now, compared to then, is that we are 25 years on, and 'Chris' is leaving his 5 "picanninies" with their single mother. Pity he left her for a man!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, David Cameron must be thinking that this is timid stuff compared to his criminal Bullingdon Club antics. Child sacrifices, Black gardens and all that what!
Thursday 17 June 2010
Where is the Black Reparations and Repatriation envoy for the UK's "West Indian" Diaspora Community?
Marcia Kia Simpson-James.
Yesterday the British government declared the appointment of Sir Andrew Burns, as its first Post-Holocaust envoy.
This is all well and good, but where is the sensible Black person to be appointed as the UK's Black Reparations and Repatriation envoy for those of us who are the descendants of all those who are still suffering under the stigma of racism, the slave trade and post-slavery?
The British government are quite happy to ignore present-day "West Indian" victims of genocide and crimes of aggression on British soil, whilst promoting those who support white supremcy such as the semites. This gesture politics of denying the very existance of the worst crime against humanity in history, is indicative of the attitude of the British government and establishment - They are racists!
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (FCO), must now make it an imperative to introduce a similar role for a Black Slavery Legacy and Reparations Envoy, immediately. If not they will find themselves facing charges of "proven" governmental and state racism and their Queen will have to face her accusers in court as their the Head of State.
Yesterday the British government declared the appointment of Sir Andrew Burns, as its first Post-Holocaust envoy.
This is all well and good, but where is the sensible Black person to be appointed as the UK's Black Reparations and Repatriation envoy for those of us who are the descendants of all those who are still suffering under the stigma of racism, the slave trade and post-slavery?
The British government are quite happy to ignore present-day "West Indian" victims of genocide and crimes of aggression on British soil, whilst promoting those who support white supremcy such as the semites. This gesture politics of denying the very existance of the worst crime against humanity in history, is indicative of the attitude of the British government and establishment - They are racists!
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (FCO), must now make it an imperative to introduce a similar role for a Black Slavery Legacy and Reparations Envoy, immediately. If not they will find themselves facing charges of "proven" governmental and state racism and their Queen will have to face her accusers in court as their the Head of State.
Monday 14 June 2010
Mixed messages from Obama and 'Black' politicians in parliament
Marcia Kia Simpson-James.
It has been discovered that depending on whom he speaks to mixed-raced US President Barack Obama is known as 'Barry Soetoro'.
Apparently this is a usual ploy used the president, who has gone through several 'changes' himself to gain his spot as the top dog in America.
When "Barry" wanted to gain favour with Black Americans, he decided that he would play on his black roots, and used his "African" name, 'Barack Hussein', however, when he was with his nice white friends, he conveniently called himself "Barry".
These action would almost be risible if they were not so serious and an indicator of the character at hand. Not only that, but British mixed-racist 'politicians' have taken up the habit. Take, Chuka Uummuna also known as 'Chuk Harrison'.
The problem locally based individuals are displaced and replaced by racist individuals, who have no more connection with the locality, (in this case brixton) than a hole in the wall.
Not only that but the political corruption included the kidnapping, smearing, and illegal detention of local residents in an attempt to get them out of the way. These are criminal acts actively supported by the British police and chief executive and directors the local authority.
East London MP Steven Tim was stabbed some weeks ago. The public have never been told why? Whether this Muslim woman, is a madwoman or not, I think that it is the duty of the authorities to tell the public the score.
If this woman had a legitimate political concern, that may have concerned her safetly, and her concerns were ignored, then we need to know.
Whichever way one looks at this, there is clear evidence that plenty of Black and disadvantaged whites have been illegally detained, disappeared, held without charge, etc, with their political removal in mind.
'Chuk' and 'Barry' dos not have to fear, there isplenty of time for them to explain themselves in due course, including in a court.
It has been discovered that depending on whom he speaks to mixed-raced US President Barack Obama is known as 'Barry Soetoro'.
Apparently this is a usual ploy used the president, who has gone through several 'changes' himself to gain his spot as the top dog in America.
When "Barry" wanted to gain favour with Black Americans, he decided that he would play on his black roots, and used his "African" name, 'Barack Hussein', however, when he was with his nice white friends, he conveniently called himself "Barry".
These action would almost be risible if they were not so serious and an indicator of the character at hand. Not only that, but British mixed-racist 'politicians' have taken up the habit. Take, Chuka Uummuna also known as 'Chuk Harrison'.
The problem locally based individuals are displaced and replaced by racist individuals, who have no more connection with the locality, (in this case brixton) than a hole in the wall.
Not only that but the political corruption included the kidnapping, smearing, and illegal detention of local residents in an attempt to get them out of the way. These are criminal acts actively supported by the British police and chief executive and directors the local authority.
East London MP Steven Tim was stabbed some weeks ago. The public have never been told why? Whether this Muslim woman, is a madwoman or not, I think that it is the duty of the authorities to tell the public the score.
If this woman had a legitimate political concern, that may have concerned her safetly, and her concerns were ignored, then we need to know.
Whichever way one looks at this, there is clear evidence that plenty of Black and disadvantaged whites have been illegally detained, disappeared, held without charge, etc, with their political removal in mind.
'Chuk' and 'Barry' dos not have to fear, there isplenty of time for them to explain themselves in due course, including in a court.
Lobbyist rule parliament OK - whilst public effectively banned.
Marcia Kia Simpson-James.
There has been serious concerns that lobbyists rule parliament and government ministers. Sharp practices, such as legislation being written and pushed through parliament by large companies represented by lobby firms are the usual form of business.
The very physical fabric of parliament tells every member of the public that they are not the employers of MP's but "Strangers". In both public galleries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, are large sign informing us that we are "Strangers", and that it is "Out of Order" even to speak.
Taking notes is banned, "silence" is the order of the day.
As a member of the public, try to get your MP to come and talt to you in the lobby. I wish you luck if you are not some harmless old woman who has been invited to parliament to look at the building. Any Constitutent who has anything serious to discuss is actively discouraged from communicating with their MP.
Public Political participation is a no-no, and tracking legislation by a constitutent is unheard of. This coalition government is no better than any other formulation. Its politics as usual. All one needs, is a big expense account, a big lobby firm to 'lock' into a select committee member, a government minister or even a senior civil servant and Bobs your uncle.
Despite the practice being banned, the hiring of PR companies to advance and distribute government propaganda is a regular event. For example, Labour government minister, Ruth Kelly, contracted LLM Communications to push the Labour parties vision for social housing under a campaign called 'More and Better Homes'. LLM was set up by Labour supporter Jon Mendelsohn and think-tank Compass's head, Neil Lawson. The Department for Communities and Local Government gave LLM £40,000 .
Jon Mendelsohn later became Gordon Brown's Chief election fundraiser.
in 2010 the British government spent nearly £2 billion on consultants, who were of questionable value. In other words the UK government was run to a great extent by government bought 'consultants'. It cannot be a coincidence that many of these 'management consultants' are wives, husbands, friends, former work colleagues, former lovers, even rent boys and mistresses of these politicians.
Unwritten constitutions and secret gentlemen's agreements are no longer acceptable. Accountability is now required reading. My question to Cameron's government is "What happened to £2 billion pounds of public monies?" Lobby be damned!
There has been serious concerns that lobbyists rule parliament and government ministers. Sharp practices, such as legislation being written and pushed through parliament by large companies represented by lobby firms are the usual form of business.
The very physical fabric of parliament tells every member of the public that they are not the employers of MP's but "Strangers". In both public galleries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, are large sign informing us that we are "Strangers", and that it is "Out of Order" even to speak.
Taking notes is banned, "silence" is the order of the day.
As a member of the public, try to get your MP to come and talt to you in the lobby. I wish you luck if you are not some harmless old woman who has been invited to parliament to look at the building. Any Constitutent who has anything serious to discuss is actively discouraged from communicating with their MP.
Public Political participation is a no-no, and tracking legislation by a constitutent is unheard of. This coalition government is no better than any other formulation. Its politics as usual. All one needs, is a big expense account, a big lobby firm to 'lock' into a select committee member, a government minister or even a senior civil servant and Bobs your uncle.
Despite the practice being banned, the hiring of PR companies to advance and distribute government propaganda is a regular event. For example, Labour government minister, Ruth Kelly, contracted LLM Communications to push the Labour parties vision for social housing under a campaign called 'More and Better Homes'. LLM was set up by Labour supporter Jon Mendelsohn and think-tank Compass's head, Neil Lawson. The Department for Communities and Local Government gave LLM £40,000 .
Jon Mendelsohn later became Gordon Brown's Chief election fundraiser.
in 2010 the British government spent nearly £2 billion on consultants, who were of questionable value. In other words the UK government was run to a great extent by government bought 'consultants'. It cannot be a coincidence that many of these 'management consultants' are wives, husbands, friends, former work colleagues, former lovers, even rent boys and mistresses of these politicians.
Unwritten constitutions and secret gentlemen's agreements are no longer acceptable. Accountability is now required reading. My question to Cameron's government is "What happened to £2 billion pounds of public monies?" Lobby be damned!
Parliament Terrorises man out of IPSA Expenses job.
Yesterday (Sunday 13 June 2010) it came out in the wash, that Britain's MP's are no more than glorified thugs wearing suits.
After Parliaments expenses scandal, a new expenses system was installed called IPSA. This was supposed to reassure the public that the new parliament was to start with a clean slate.
However, it appears that even this new set of parliamentarians are 'naturally' corrupted. Apparently, IPSA staff have been threatened with assault and attacks, that were so serious that legal action was threatened against certain culprits.
Now it turns out that one of the most senior IPSA Chiefs has been forced out of his job for his "own health and sanity".
One has to ask the question, what kind of characters have the public voted for to represent them both as constituents and possibly as government ministers?
We have heard for years, that it is "normal" for parliamentary staff and even MP's to verbally and physically attack members of the public with impunity.
We have noted that complaints are only now being taken seriously, when senior IPSA staff have been 'run out of town' for 'interfering' in the comfortable financial traditions of that place.
It seems to me, that it may be time for one or two constitutents to start sharpening up their 'recall' loins to show these MPs who is boss.
As they say, you can take the man out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the man. Or put another way by Charles I, you can make anyone a peer, but you can't man them a gentleman.
After Parliaments expenses scandal, a new expenses system was installed called IPSA. This was supposed to reassure the public that the new parliament was to start with a clean slate.
However, it appears that even this new set of parliamentarians are 'naturally' corrupted. Apparently, IPSA staff have been threatened with assault and attacks, that were so serious that legal action was threatened against certain culprits.
Now it turns out that one of the most senior IPSA Chiefs has been forced out of his job for his "own health and sanity".
One has to ask the question, what kind of characters have the public voted for to represent them both as constituents and possibly as government ministers?
We have heard for years, that it is "normal" for parliamentary staff and even MP's to verbally and physically attack members of the public with impunity.
We have noted that complaints are only now being taken seriously, when senior IPSA staff have been 'run out of town' for 'interfering' in the comfortable financial traditions of that place.
It seems to me, that it may be time for one or two constitutents to start sharpening up their 'recall' loins to show these MPs who is boss.
As they say, you can take the man out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the man. Or put another way by Charles I, you can make anyone a peer, but you can't man them a gentleman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)