Gareth Williams: Was his death the ‘Perfect Crime’ ?


gareth cctv 9gareth cctv 6(Il elaborate on this post later with links and timeline, and motives… HINT… MI6 kept four memory sticks from London Police!)

gareth williams

-Gareth William (I believe) was poisoned by the CIA (A poison of the variety ‘amanita phalloides’ or a more potent high-tech equivalent from the ‘US Weaponisation of Micro-toxins’ program), whilst in the US meeting with NSA on 10th August.

-He was then, on his return to London, tailed 24/7 by their MI6 counterparts. Once the poison began to take effect, Gareth, spent £90 of medicine at Harrods.
gareth cctv 7gareth cctv 6gareth cctv 5gareth cctv 4gareth cctv 9gareth cctv 3

-On the night of 15th August, MI6 officers carefully entered his flat (MI6 safe house), knowing him to be either unconscious or dead, by carefully removing the door frame (as stated in the inquest).

The MI6 safehouse where the decomposing body of Mr Williams was found.
The MI6 safehouse where the decomposing body of Mr Williams was found.

-Mr Williams’ body (dead or unconscious) was then placed in a sports bag, padlocked from the outside, and placed in his bath, filled with a dilution of Sodium Hydroxide (rapidly increasing the decomposition process, and preventing a cause of death from being determined).

IT WAS A MESSAGE! (Mafia style)...
IT WAS A MESSAGE! (Mafia style)…

-The MI6 officers then placed misleading clues for police (women’s clothes etc), went through his computer, taking any vital information, and ‘dry cleaned’ the flat. Some speculate whether someone returned again to take a memory stick, and to whether they planned on returning at some stage to drain away the brown sludge that was then Gareth Williams.

The inside of MI6 Safe house, where the remains of Gareth Williams where found.
The inside of MI6 Safe house, where the remains of Gareth Williams where found.

-Superiors at Vauxhall House (SIS) did not inform the police for almost two weeks, although it is standard protocol to inform police of missing a employee after two days.

-London Met had already been briefed on the situation beforehand. Media where planted with ‘sex game’ stories, which is strangely very often the case in British Intel murders!

Exclusive: US blocks publication of Chilcot’s report on how Britain went to war with Iraq

No more evasion and prevarication – Britain’s elite must be held to account

The blocking of the Chilcot report underlines how the powerful shield their activities from the public
Tony Blair, Porter

Tony Blair giving evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry in January 2010. Photograph: PA

In The Gatekeepers, the documentary made about Israel’s internal intelligence, Shin Bet, one of the most striking interviews with six former leaders of the agency is with the charismatic Ami Ayalon, who later became a Labor member of the Knesset. Ayalon confessed that when he was small boy he thought of the state of Israel being guided by a kindly old man who lived in a room at the end of a corridor, dispensing wisdom and guidance to the country’s leaders.

When he grew up, he knew, of course, there was no such person, but as he rose to the top of the Israeli navy and later Shin Bet, he realised that there was no fount of wisdom or decency to be found at the top of the Israeli state either: just politicians and officials making questionable decisions on the hoof.

In Britain, you might say that at the end of the corridor we do have a little old lady, who has seen a thing or two in her 61-year reign and has much wisdom to offer prime ministers and senior politicians. Although her impact on policy and the standards of government is minuscule, she represents something or other that appears to be reassuring.

But what you realise when you approach Ayalon’s age and you have watched British politics for a long time is that life is mostly shoddy and discreditable at the top and that that characteristic is becoming more pronounced. There are decent people doing their level best, but there are also bad ones who erode the integrity and trust necessary for a democracy to work properly. One of those is Tony Blair, who took Britain to war on a lie and who is now believed by most to have misled parliament in order to help an American president who was bent on avenging 9/11 by invading the wrong country.

It is the greatest scandal of British public life in a generation, yet Blair and his allies, such as Jack Straw and Alastair Campbell, have never been properly held to account. More than a decade after we went to war, Sir John Chilcot’s report is stalled because Sir Jeremy Heywood, the current cabinet secretary, who was at Blair’s side as principle private secretary during the run-up to the invasion, is blocking crucial evidence to the inquiry.

It is an unbelievable state of affairs. As the former foreign secretary Lord Owen pointed out last week, you couldn’t have a more dubious arrangement. A man who was integral to the government that took us to war is now sitting on evidence of 200 relevant cabinet level discussions, 25 notes written by Blair to George Bush and records of 130 phone conversations between Blair, Bush and Gordon Brown. Heywood claims that he’s bound by the decision taken by his predecessor, Lord O’Donnell, to protect the confidentiality of Blair and Bush’s discussions. In effect, Heywood is claiming that he has no discretion and therefore his past as senior official in Blair’s Number 10 at the time has no relevance.

What is so dismal about this situation, quite apart from the naked self-interest that it represents, is that it underlines that while the British public is expected to put up with ever-increasing levels of intrusion by surveillance, in the name of transparency and security, those in power create for themselves an impregnable bunker where honour, accountability and public opinion count for nothing. They conceal their actions and shield themselves from entirely legitimate requests from an inquiry set up by the prime minister himself.

One wonders whether Chilcot was perhaps the ultimately cynical act? Could it be that Blair and the civil servants who oversaw the preparations for war always knew that the excuse of preserving the confidentiality of the prime minister’s conversations with Bush would stop Sir John’s committee getting at the truth of how we were taken to war on a handful of lies? Maybe they just hope to outlast Chilcot, prevaricating until the committee drop dead and everyone has forgotten the war.

Not only should Heywood be removed from anything to do with the decision of what Chilcot is allowed to see, but, as Lord Owen suggested on Newsnight, the conventions surrounding a prime minister’s dealings with a US president no longer apply: this is about the possibility that Tony Blair knowingly deceived parliament and dissembled to the nation in order to do George Bush’s bidding and preserve the special relationship. Allegations don’t come more serious than that. We should know what he said to Bush.

After Heywood’s behaviour in the Plebgate case, when he failed to investigate inconsistencies in the evidence that would have exonerated the former chief whip Andrew Mitchell, people could be forgiven for wondering about Number 10’s respect for the truth and simply what is right. Mitchell was very hard done by and Heywood was the man who could have prevented much of the shame that he endured. Maybe there are questions to be asked about the values of the cabinet secretary himself.

But in all this, there is a much bigger theme, which is seen in another sputtering inquiry into the behaviour of Blair-era politicians and officials – the Gibson inquiry into allegations that British intelligence agencies were complicit in the torture of terror suspects after 9/11 and that officials in the then foreign secretary Jack Straw’s office were aware. The inquiry’s investigations ended nearly two years ago and the report has been sat on by Number 10 for the past 14 months. After the NGOs and torture victims boycotted Sir Peter Gibson’s inquiry, because it lacked credibility, it probably won’t have the damning impact it should have when it is finally published this week.

As a result, Number 10 may get away without following up with examination of cases such as those of Abdel Hakim Belhaj, who was rendered with his wife for torture to Gaddafi’s Libya in an operation involving Sir Mark Allen of MI6 during Jack Straw’s time at the Foreign Office.

Scrape away at the interlocking scandals of the war on terror and the war in Iraq and you find a rot that has taken hold at the top of British state.

Whether the scandal is about the path to war, the torture of terror suspects or the exponential increase in surveillance, the common denominators are consistently the reverence for the special relationship and related issues about the powers and conduct of our intelligence services. These two have distorted the standards of public life for far too long. It is imperative that Sir John Chilcot is no longer obstructed and we get his full account of Blair’s war as soon as humanly possible.

Uprootedpalestinians's Blog


1 / 1
Tony Blair and George W. Bush at the former President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in 2002
Getty Images

Department of State’s objection to release of key evidence may prevent  inquiry’s conclusions from ever being published, except in heavily redacted form

Washington is playing the lead role in delaying the publication of the long-awaited report into how Britain went to  war with Iraq, The Independent has learnt.

Although the Cabinet Office has been under fire for stalling the progress of the four-year Iraq Inquiry by Sir John Chilcot, senior diplomatic sources in the US and Whitehall indicated that it is officials in the White House and the US Department of State who have refused to sanction any declassification of critical pre- and post-war communications between George W Bush and Tony Blair.

Without permission from the US government, David Cameron faces the politically embarrassing situation of having to…

View original post 913 more words

This is Britain

Steve Bell 12.11.13

It’s business that really rules us now

Lobbying is the least of it: corporate interests have captured the entire democratic process. No wonder so many have given up on politics
Tony Blair interview

It’s the reason for the collapse of democratic choice. It’s the source of our growing disillusionment with politics. It’s the great unmentionable. Corporate power. The media will scarcely whisper its name. It is howlingly absent from parliamentary debates. Until we name it and confront it, politics is a waste of time.

The political role of business corporations is generally interpreted as that of lobbyists, seeking to influence government policy. In reality they belong on the inside. They are part of the nexus of power that creates policy. They face no significant resistance, from either government or opposition, as their interests have now been woven into the fabric of all three main political parties in Britain.

Most of the scandals that leave people in despair about politics arise from this source. On Monday, for instance, the Guardian revealed thatthe government’s subsidy system for gas-burning power stations is being designed by an executive from the Dublin-based company ESB International, who has been seconded into the Department of Energy. What does ESB do? Oh, it builds gas-burning power stations.

On the same day we learned that a government minister, Nick Boles, hasprivately assured the gambling company Ladbrokes that it needn’t worry about attempts by local authorities to stop the spread of betting shops. His new law will prevent councils from taking action.

Last week we discovered that G4S’s contract to run immigration removal centres will be expanded, even though all further business with the state was supposed to be frozen while allegations of fraud were investigated.

Every week we learn that systemic failures on the part of government contractors are no barrier to obtaining further work, that the promise of efficiency, improvements and value for money delivered by outsourcing and privatisation have failed to materialise.

The monitoring which was meant to keep these companies honest is haphazard, the penalties almost nonexistent, the rewards can be stupendous, dizzying, corrupting. Yet none of this deters the government. Since 2008, the outsourcing of public services has doubled, to £20bn. It is due to rise to £100bn by 2015.

This policy becomes explicable only when you recognise where power really lies. The role of the self-hating state is to deliver itself to big business. In doing so it creates a tollbooth economy: a system of corporate turnpikes, operated by companies with effective monopolies.

It’s hardly surprising that the lobbying bill – now stalled by the House of Lords – offered almost no checks on the power of corporate lobbyists, while hog-tying the charities who criticise them. But it’s not just that ministers are not discouraged from hobnobbing with corporate executives: they are now obliged to do so.

Thanks to an initiative by Lord Green, large companies have ministerial “buddies”, who have to meet them when the companies request it. There were 698 of these meetings during the first 18 months of the scheme, called by corporations these ministers are supposed be regulating. Lord Green, by the way, is currently a government trade minister. Before that he was chairman of HSBC, presiding over the bank while it laundered vast amounts of money stashed by Mexican drugs barons. Ministers, lobbyists – can you tell them apart?

That the words corporate power seldom feature in the corporate press is not altogether surprising. It’s more disturbing to see those parts of the media that are not owned by Rupert Murdoch or Lord Rothermere acting as if they are.

For example, for five days every week the BBC’s Today programmestarts with a business report in which only insiders are interviewed. They are treated with a deference otherwise reserved for God on Thought for the Day. There’s even a slot called Friday Boss, in which the programme’s usual rules of engagement are set aside and its reporters grovel before the corporate idol. Imagine the outcry if Today had a segment called Friday Trade Unionist or Friday Corporate Critic.

This, in my view, is a much graver breach of BBC guidelines than giving unchallenged airtime to one political party but not others, as the bosses are the people who possess real power – those, in other words, whom the BBC has the greatest duty to accost. Research conducted by the Cardiff school of journalism shows business representatives now receive 11% of airtime on the BBC’s 6 o’clock news (this has risen from 7% in 2007), while trade unionists receive 0.6% (which has fallen from 1.4%). Balance? Impartiality? The BBC puts a match to its principles every day.

And where, beyond the Green party, Plaid Cymru, a few ageing Labour backbenchers, is the political resistance? After the article I wrote last week, about the grave threat the transatlantic trade and investment partnership presents to parliamentary sovereignty and democratic choice, several correspondents asked me what response there has been from the Labour party. It’s easy to answer: nothing.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown purged the party of any residue of opposition to corporations and the people who run them. That’s what New Labour was all about. Now opposition MPs stare mutely as their powers are given away to a system of offshore arbitration panels run by corporate lawyers.

Since Blair, parliament operates much as Congress in the United States does: the lefthand glove puppet argues with the righthand glove puppet, but neither side will turn around to face the corporate capital that controls almost all our politics. This is why the assertion that parliamentary democracy has been reduced to a self-important farce has resonated so widely over the past fortnight.

So I don’t blame people for giving up on politics. I haven’t given up yet, but I find it ever harder to explain why. When a state-corporate nexus of power has bypassed democracy and made a mockery of the voting process, when an unreformed political funding system ensures that parties can be bought and sold, when politicians of the three main parties stand and watch as public services are divvied up by a grubby cabal of privateers, what is left of this system that inspires us to participate?

David Cameron: Britain needs a ‘culture change’ to get behind business

Prime Minister David Cameron delays Autumn Statement to visit China in a bid to boost British trade with the emerging superpower.

David Cameron has said that Britain needs “a fundamental culture change” to get behind business and enterprise.

In his annual speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet in the City, the Prime Minister said that he wants Britain to show an “entrepreneurial, buccaneering spirit” where people who take risks to make money are celebrated and admired.

The Treasury has announced that the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement will be delayed 24 hours to Thursday, December 5 – as revealed by The Telegraph on Saturday – because the Prime Minister will be visiting China in a bid to boost British trade with the emerging superpower.

A Treasury spokesman said: “The Prime Minister announced that he will lead a delegation to China in early December. As a result the Autumn Statement will now be made by the Chancellor on Thursday, December 5.”

Mr Cameron’s speech comes after a political row over energy prices and power companies that has led to warnings investors will be deterred from putting money into the sector.

The Coalition will “stick to the task” of reducing the deficit and balancing the budget, Mr Cameron said.

As well as discipline over the public finances, Mr Cameron said, the UK needs to do more to encourage companies to grow and prosper.

That growth depends not just on Government policy but one wider social attitudes towards commercial success, he said.

“We need a bigger and more prosperous private sector to generate wealth and pay for the public services we need. That means we need to support, reward and celebrate enterprise,” he said.

“That requires a fundamental culture change in our country. A culture that’s on the side of those who work hard, that values that typically British, entrepreneurial, buccaneering spirit, and that rewards people with the ambition to make things, sell things and create jobs for others up and down the country.”

Mr Cameron also disclosed his plans to lead foreign trade trips in the coming weeks. Later this week he will visit India and the Gulf, he said.

And after a diplomatic row over Mr Cameron’s meeting with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, the Chinese leadership has now agreed to let Mr Cameron visit Beijing next month.

“As China’s new leadership sets its direction for the next 10 years, as their country’s star continues to rise in the world, I will take senior British ministers – as well as business leaders from every sector large and small – to forge a relationship that will benefit both our countries and bring real rewards for our peoples,” Mr Cameron said.

He also announced the latest in a string of changes in British visa rules to make it easier for wealthy foreign investors to enter the UK.

From January, investors from the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar will be able to use a new electronic visa waiver system for short-term visits to the UK. The scheme will then be rolled out in Kuwait, Mr Cameron said.

“We want to do more to attract investors from the Gulf,” he said.

The change follows similar moves to speed the entry to the UK of wealthy people from China and India.

The visa system is being overhauled amid concern that domestic political rhetoric on immigration is harming Britain overseas by deterring would-be investors and students from seeking to come to the UK.

‘Truly shocking’ that the private-school educated and affluent middle class still run Britain, says Sir John Major

Former Prime Minister criticises the dominance of private-school educated elite in “upper echelons” of British public life

State school educated John Major with David Cameron, who went to Eton

State school educated John Major with David Cameron, who went to Eton Photo: Rex Features

The dominance of a private-school educated elite and well-heeled middle class in the “upper echelons” of public life in Britain is “truly shocking”, Sir John Major has said.

The former Conservative Prime Minister said he was appalled that “every single sphere of British influence” in society is dominated by men and women who went to private school or who are from the “affluent middle class”

More than half of the Cabinet, including David Cameron, the Prime Minister, George Osborne, the Chancellor, and Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, are thought to have gone to private school and are independently very wealthy.

In the speech to Tory party grassroots activists on Friday evening, Sir John – who went to a grammar school in south London and left with three O-Levels – said: “In every single sphere of British influence, the upper echelons of power in 2013 are held overwhelmingly by the privately educated or the affluent middle class. To me from my background, I find that truly shocking.”

Sir John blamed this “collapse in social mobility” on Labour, which despite Ed Miliband’s “absurd mantra to be the one-nation party they left a Victorian divide between stagnation and aspiration”.

But the comments will be seen as a challenge to the Eton-educated Mr Cameron who has faced repeated criticism for surrounding himself with advisers and ministers from a similar background and failing

In the speech to South Norfolk Conservative Association’s annual dinner on Friday evening, Sir John also said:

– the Government should help pensioners who have saved carefully for their retirement and are being punished by “cripplingly unfair” low interest rates

– the Bank of England ought to return interest rates to “normal levels, say three to five per cent”, so that society treats “the saver as fairly as it treats the debtor”.

– Tory party members were right to feel “unsettled” by the Coalition’s decision to legalise same sex marriage, but activists have to move with the times.

– the Conservative leadership should to pull their punches on the United Kingdom Independence Party, pointing out that “many of the Ukip supporters are patriotic Britons who fear their country is changing” and will come back to the Tory party.

Similar concerns about social mobility were voiced by Michael Gove, the Education secretary who went to state school, last year, but they will have extra resonance because of his role as a party grandee and former Tory Prime Minister.

Sir John said: “I remember enough of my past to be outraged on behalf of the people abandoned when social mobility is lost.”

He continued: “Our education system should help children out of the circumstances in which they were born, not lock them into the circumstances in which they were born.

“We need them to fly as high as their luck, their ability and their sheer hard graft can actually take them. And it isn’t going to happen magically.”

Turning to the Conservatives’ prospects at the 2015 general election, Sir John said that if the party decided to “shrink into our comfort zone we will not win General Elections – the core vote cannot deliver a general election majority”.

Party members were right to feel “unsettled” by “bewildering” changes such as the Coalition’s decision to legalise same-sex marriage.

He said: “Social mores have moved on from the way in which we were brought up, with the values that we had. They have moved and changed.

“And that is why issues such as gay marriage have proved so toxic for the Conservative party.

“Because for many Conservatives, people who are conservative because their instinct is to conserve, to change slowly and only when you know it is certain for the better, that is classically Conservative.

“For people like that who form the bulk of our party and a great deal of our country too, these are difficult issues, these bewildering social changes and mostly it is my generation and older who are unsettled by these changes.

“We may be unsettled by them, but David Cameron and his colleagues have no choice but to deal with this new world. They cannot Canute-like order it to go away because it won’t.

Sir John, Prime Minister from 1990 to 1997, said internal criticism of the Government should be kept behind closed doors, even though it could be “productive”.

He said: “If members of our party wish to criticise the Government that it is fine. It is their right and it is often productive to do so.

“Government should have the benefit of alternative views, but let’s do it in private. Public criticism is destructive. Take it from me. Political parties who are divided and torn simply do not win general elections.

“Can we win this election? I am sure that we can but only if we pull together.”

Richard Bacon MP, who hosted the dinner, said: “It was a superb speech which drew attention to the huge damage done to social mobility especially by the last Labour Government.

“I think the Coalition is acutely aware of this problem and is taking steps to address it such as cutting tax for the low paid and the pupil premium but it is an enormous task.”

UK Government trying to hide evidence that would convict Blair on war crimes in regards to illegal invasion of Iraq

Uprootedpalestinians's Blog

Bid to keep No10 files secret halts Iraq report: Cabinet Secretary blocks  attempt to declassify 130 conversations between Blair, Bush and Brown

  • MPs last night voiced fears that the Chilcot  Inquiry may never conclude
  • The long-awaited report into how Britain went  to war in Iraq has been delayed indefinitely by a row over new transcripts of  conversations between Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and George W. Bush.

    Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot has  revealed that he has asked for ‘more than 130 records of conversations’ between  the three men to be declassified.

    His demands have been blocked by Cabinet  Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, Britain’s most senior civil servant.

    Long-awaited: Iraq inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot has revealed that his request for 'more than 130 records of conversations' between Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and George Bush to be released has been blockedLong-awaited: Iraq inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot has  revealed that his request for ‘more than 130 records of conversations’ between  Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and George Bush to be released has been  blocked

    In a letter released on the inquiry website,  Sir…

View original post 1,514 more words

Ripple Effect 7/7

For years I have kept clear of this subject.

My book Terror on the Tube about the London bombings gave a minimal role to Israeli agents, by way of manipulating the surveillance and security companies (ICTS, Verint Systems, etc), operating on the London Underground, that were clearly Israeli-owned.

It described Netenyahu’s apparent foreknowledge of the event, but drew no conclusions from it.

Mossad agent Admits

However things have now changed with a former Mossad agent more or less admitting, in a slip of the tongue, that they did it: while discussing an explosive maybe used in the London bombings, Juval Aviv says: “its easy to put a truck bomb as we did… as happened in London.” All comments below that video accepted that he had made an admission, of Mossad perpetrating the London Bombings.

Mr Aviv was the Mossad counter-terror agent described by George Jonas in his novel, Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team (1984) and the central character in the Spielberg film about this. He has a book, Staying Safe.

 Andrew MacGregor’s view

The Australian ex-policeman Andrew MacGregor had a clear intuition on these matters – but until now I’ve always refused to go along with his view. “You can’t prove It,” I would say. (I’ve posted up articles of his, here and here) This is what he wrote:

I would like to quote from Efraim Halevi, a former head of Mossad in an article that was printed in the Jerusalem Post on the 7th July 2005.  This article was headed, ‘Rules of conflict for a world war:’

“The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place yesterday on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope. They have come a long way since the two attacks of the year 1998 against the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam, and the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001.”

Like the rabbit that hops out of the top hat before the magician is ready for his stunt, the truth has been exposed.  This article was written prior to the actual bombing that took place in London, and thus, Efraim Halevi had to have been one of the planners for this ‘Terrorist’ event.

The Jerusalem Post describes Efraim Halevi as: “The writer, who heads the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is a former head of the Mossad. (© 1995-2005, The Jerusalem Post 07/07/05)”

In simple words, The London bombing was a ‘planned’ terrorist attack by a group of people including Efraim Halevi, of the ‘Centre for Strategic and Policy Studies’ at the ‘Hebrew University’ in Jerusalem.

Halevi’s article went up at 4 pm onto the Jerusalem Post website which is 2 pm in London. Strangely entitled, ‘Rules of Conflict for a World War’ it is a deeply meditated piece, and it knows far too much, eg that the explosions were simultaneous – a fact which only became evident some days later (Scotland Yard initially averred that the explosions had been 45 minutes apart). For some years I wrestled with the question, does that precognition of the event imply that ‘Israel did it’? Yes, I now believe there is no avoiding the logic.

Halevi’s article surely has to have been written well before July 7th. His phrase ‘… that took place yesterday’ shows it was written with the expectation of being put into a newspaper for the next day – that could not happen if it were being written to go up onto a website at once, no way! (Some web-versions of this very influential article have removed the word ‘yesterday.’)

And who are ‘they’, who Halevi says have ‘come a long way’? ‘They’ have to be the Mossad team (as Andrew MacGregor observes) – those two 1998 operations were the ones that successfully created the new demonised enemy image of Islam:

These two attacks were blamed on Osama bin Laden, who had previously been used by both the Americans and the British to wage war against the Russians in Afghanistan.  It was from these two attacks that Americans became to know Osama bin Laden as ‘public enemy No. 1.

That newly-demonised enemy image was then used successfully for the 9/11 event, so, Halevi saw these 1998 events as a beginning. He alluded admiringly to the ‘perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope’ – as if congratulating the Mossad team responsible. But how could he know that the event showed “careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution”? Monitoring the terror-event that morning, he would have seen the delayed trains Luton to King’s Cross causing the patsies to turn uptoo late at King’s cross which nearly wrecked the whole plan – how could they take the blame if they weren’t there?  His phrase ‘near-perfect’ implies that he knew what the plan was.

Halevi had recently joined the Advisory Board of the UK company Quest, described as ‘The professional Intelligence company’ and a “risk mitigation” organization. It specialised in ‘Technical surveillance operations, mobile, foot and static surveillance, close reconnaissance and covert and overt photography.’

Ephraim Halevi and Peter Power are two UK citizens who need to be questioned on oath over the crime of 7/7. Peter Power made some comment about his customer that day being an Israeli firm, and it may have been these clients who selected the three stations Power was using for his terror-drill – which so mysteriously synchronized with the actual events. Peter Power said on the afternoon of July 7th ‘We planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don’t want to reveal their name’ and then later on in this context he alluded to ‘Jewish businessmen.’

Those conducting this war, Halevi explained, had to be able to “carry the combat into whatever territory the perpetrators and their temporal and spiritual leaders are inhabiting” i.e. they have to be able to sneak into other countries, which the Mossad is able to do.

Netenyahu’s warning

For both 9/11 and 7/7, only Israeli intelligence appears as knowing when the event was going to happen.1 The CIA and FBI knew in a general sort of way that something was going to happen. US politicans had been warned to stay clear of the London Underground some months earlier,2 just as they had been warned to stay clear of American Airlines for a week or two prior to 9/11. Did British Intelligence know when the 7/7 event was going to happen? If so, there is absolutely no sign of it.

Although he later denied it, Benjamin Netenyahu made clear that he had had prior warning, while he was in his hotel in Russell Square, before proceeding on to the TASE conference at Liverpool Street where he was due to give a keynote speech. He wanted to draw attention to himself, as an egoistic character, and that announcement of foreknowledge achieved that, but at a cost of rather letting the cat out of the bag as regards who was planning the event.t100poll_netanyahu_benjamin

‘Within hours of the explosions, Israeli Army Radio was reporting that “Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.” This report, repeated by, added that “The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in the foreign minister Binyamin Netenyahu remaining in his hotel room…’ (Webster Tarpley, Synthetic Terror, Made in USA, p.461) Tarpley takes the mistaken view that Israel was a mere passive spectator. It was a damage limitation exercise, to account for Netenyahu’s foreknowledge – immediate Israeli news statements tried to pin ‘blame’ on Scotland Yard for telling Netenyahu in advance – which it absolutely denied – but why would it want to do that? It makes no sense. The
Israelis had foreknowledge.

Terror Planning in Israel

Quoting MacGregor again,

With Halevi we have ‘the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University’.  So what else comes from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem?  We get this!

In 2005, the Nobel Prize in Economic Science was awarded to Israeli mathematician and game theory specialist Robert J. Aumann, co-founder of the Center for Rationality at Hebrew University. This site explains the situation as such: ‘Israeli strategists rely on game theory models to ensure the intended response to staged provocations and manipulated crises. The waging of war “by way of deception” is now a mathematical discipline.’ This site also explains how Israel uses this developed strategy as:  Such “probabilistic” war planning enables Tel Aviv to deploy serial provocations and well-timed crises as a force multiplier to project Israeli influence worldwide.3

What we should consider here is if there is any possible link between Halevi’s “The Centre for Strategic and Policy Studies” at the Hebrew University” and Robert J. Aumann’s “Center for Rationality at Hebrew University”.  Efraim Halevi’s statement of, “There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution” certainly suggests there is a connection between these two bodies and the series of ‘Terrorist’ attacks from 1998 up to the 7th July 2005, and most probably after.

So what we actually have from Efraim Halevi is a statement that demonstrates the actual hierarchy of the planners of such ‘terrorist’ attacks as 911.  The highest tiers of these players are the Zionists who control their various fields, such as media, military, government bureaucracies, and of course the politicians.  The second tier consists of the various politicians and other ‘leaders’ who have accepted their bribes and must now dance to the Zionists tune.  The third tier consists of the various bureaucratic and military chiefs who are embedded within these plots

These two Hebrew University departments, the Centre for Strategic and Policy Studies (Halevi) and the Centre for Rationality (Aumann) co-plot the terror events.

Game Theory

I believe that there should be consideration of Aumann’s theories being used in 911 at the Hebrew University: along with Halevi, that would have provided a good planning group for that event.  It was Halevi’s comments about the ‘planners’ coming a long way from the earlier bombings that gives us that clue, and I think that Aumann’s involvement would have been vital for those events, which is why he was given the ‘Nobel Prize’.

Let’s quote from an article in the prestigious US Foreign Policy journal by Jeff Gates clearly explaining how game theory has been developed and used in Aumann’s Centre of Rationality (where ‘the mark’ signifies the target of the attack):

With a well-modeled provocation, the anticipated reaction can even become a powerful weapon in the Israeli arsenal.

For instance, a skilled game theorist could foresee that, in response to a 9/11-type mass murder, “the mark” (the U.S.) would deploy its military to avenge that attack. With phony intelligence fixed around a preset goal, a game theory algorithm could anticipate that those forces might well be redirected to invade Iraq—not to avenge 9/11 but to pursue the expansionist goals of Greater Israel…To displace facts with credible fiction requires a period of “preparing the minds” so that the mark will believe a pre-staged storyline.

Israeli game theorists operate not from the Center for Morality or the Center for Justice but from the Center for Rationality. As modeled by Zionist war planners, game theory is devoid of all values except one: the ability to anticipate—within an acceptable range of probabilities—how “the mark” will react when provoked.

Brilliant stuff – worth Robert Aumann’s Nobel Prize, indeed.


  1. for a detailed account of how Israel had a major hand in planning, arranging and perpetrating the 9/11 event, see my ‘9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s Role’
  2. Since about November 2004, the US FBI, but not other US agencies, has been refusing to use the London Underground’ – Webster Tarpley, Synthetic Terror Made in the USA, p.462. I.e. the FBI had little or no idea when it was going to happen.
  3. See Andrew MacGregor’s discussion of an article reviewing the London bombings written by Aumann:

Nafeez Ahmed’s The London Bombings (2006) argues that the Israeli government warned London of the attacks ‘a couple of days’ previous, as stated by the US intel company Stratfor, and that ‘multiple Israeli sources have independently corroborated reports that Scotland Yard gave the first warning to Mossad minutes before the attacks.’ (p.134-5) I’m here reversing his argument, as Scotland Yard denied having had any such foreknowledge. The sources for the foreknowledge story appear Israeli.

Official Narrative


The MI5 codename for ‘its London Bombings’ is ‘Stepford’.
1. The government rejected any inquiry.
They destroyed evidence.
The bombed vehicles were immediately disposed of  – without any photographs or documentation of the damage.
There were no autopsies of the dead, and no records collected of the survivors’ injuries for forensic purposes.

MI5′s “Stepford Four” Operation By Karin Brothers

Gaza. Who is usually to blame for all the terror – the militaries of Israel the USA and Europe.

2. The explosives experts confirmed that the 7/7 London bombs involved an unusual variant of the military plastic explosive C4 at all four bomb sites.

The remains of timing devices were also found at the subway blast sites, which meant that the bombers did not have to be onsite.

Bruce Lait

3. Bruce Lait, who was injured on 7/7, said of the hole in the floor of the tube carriage:

“The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train.

“They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don’t remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag,” he said.

Bruce Lait – I don’t remember anybody being …

US soldier torturing a child. Afghanistan was peaceful and liberal before the USA put the extremists into power.

4. The police quickly came up with the names of the 7/7 London bombers, who were most likely ‘patsies’ or ‘double agents’.

The police claimed that all were ‘clean skins’, unknown to the police.

Mohammad Sidique Khan, suspected of working for MI5/MI6. His mother had met the Queen.

Nicholas Sarkozy then pointed out that Khan and Tanweer were very well known to the security services.

Khan’s body was not found at the Edgware Road site where he was supposed to have died.

Tanweer, suspected of working for MI5/MI6

Tanweer’s ID was not only found at Aldgate station, but also on the bus, which exploded almost an hour after he was supposed to have died.


On July 12th, police did not appear to have any bombers’ bodies to do DNA testing on.

Jamaican-born Germaine Lindsay, married to Samantha Lewthwaite who is suspected of being an agent of MI5/MI6.

The police said that all the bombers looked Pakistani.

But Lindsay is Black-Jamaican.

The police provided Lindsay’s wife Samantha Lewthwaite with ‘protection.’

5. The police claimed to have found home made explosives linked to the bombings.

Yet, the explosives experts had confirmed that the bombs involved an unusual variant of the military plastic explosive C4 at all four bomb sites.

Girls in Afghanistan in the 1960s, before the CIA started building up the extremist Moslems. Photo from O’Bannon article 

6. Police claimed that they had both CCTV footage as well as eyewitness confirmation that the accused caught either the 7:40 a.m. or 7:48 a.m. train from Luton to London’s King’s Cross on the morning of July 7th.

The UK government was eventually forced to admit that these trains did not actually run on that particular morning.

The police refused to show any footage that showed any of the alleged bombers in London that day.

London Bomb.

7. When Hasib Hussain was named as the bus bomber, witnesses came forward with descriptions: Hussain was either clean shaven or had stubble; he had a huge bag or a small bag; he was wearing a dark suit or a flashy top; he was either fidgeting with his bag or something exploded when he sat down.

The bus should have had four CCTV cameras operating; police claimed that they had no footage from any of them, so there was no proof that Hussain had been on the bus and there was no indication of what had caused the explosion.

Continued here: MI5′s “Stepford Four” Operation By Karin Brothers

The evidence suggests that it is the security services who carry out the acts of terrorism, who manipulate the Moslems and who run the pedophile rings.



I visited my MP, Gavin Barwell (Con., Croydon Central), more than a year ago to raise the following questions. Having discussed various highly dubious and damaging-if-false assertions that are allowed to persist unchallenged in the public domain, I left him the document below with a request that he get back to me with whatever answers to the seven questions he could unearth. 
He said he would look into the issues but has (unsurprisingly) failed to respond.
Nonetheless, it is surely a worthwhile exercise to make our representatives aware of the astonishing anomalies associate with the official 7/7 narrative.
Please read the following and continue to circulate these details, which conflict severely with the official narrative of the day. Please copy, print and post (or email) to your local M.P. and demand answers.
The ‘London Bombings’ and the lies we have been told about 7/7 must never be allowed to disappear from public consciousness. If the state believes it can safely lie to us about such matters, it will believe it can get away with absolutely anything.
Three Holes in the Floor of the Edgware Road CarriageEvidence was given by different witnesses, including the train driver (Ray Whitehead), that clearly describe three large separate holes in front of two different sets of doors in the Edgware Road carriage. People fell into all three holes. Two emerged from the holes . One died in the third hole. The original report on the Edgware Road explosion (from mark Honigsbaum of the Guardian who was on the train) had the train lifting off the tracks and being derailed (i.e. bomb(s) underneath the train). The driver described all the access panels in the floor of the first coach (the bomb(s) killed people in the second carriage) being ‘flipped open’ from underneath.
References to evidence: Ray Whitehead (Nov 16 pm, 58:9-15) Daniel Belsden (Nov 11 am, 9:13-22) David Matthews (Nov 17, am, 105:21-106:18) John McDonald  (Nov 9, 42:18 – 44:11). Find all here at
In what way is any of this compatible with a single suicide ‘suicide bomber’ carrying a rucksack full of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide?
Body Count reveals no BombersThe First Official Body Count on Two of the Trains was One Body ShortAt the 7/7/ Inquest in November 2010 Dr. Morgan Costello gave evidence that he was asked to attend two scenes, Edgware Road and Aldgate, for the ‘purposes of certifying the extinction of life’. He counted six bodies at Edgware Road and seven bodies at Aldgate and declared these as ‘life extinct’. The enormous anomaly, that passed completely unreported in the press, was that the numbers should have been seven and eight if we count the bodies of the bombers. No similar count seems to have been carried out on the other (Russell Square ) train but we do know a little about the behaviour of the Russell Square bomber, Germaine Lindsay, before his demise.

Are not these two body counts extraordinarily powerful evidence that there were no suicide bombers on the Aldgate and Edgware Road two trains?
Evidence presented to the Inquest did claim that Tanweer and Khan were blown into a large number different pieces by their bombs……but how would this be consistent with the fact that almost all the other serious injuries in those coaches were lower limb injuries to feet and legs?

The Explosives

Here is a timeline for the 7/7 explosives narrative as it developed:

The first analysis came from a genuine expert. This is surely the most reliable commentary on the nature of the bombs that went off that morning. The problem is that it would have been all-but-impossible for four young men from Leeds to get their hands on such materials.

On 12 July 2005, Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, chief of French anti-terrorism Coordination Unit who was in London assisting Scotland Yard with its investigation, confirmed to The Times that,‘The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying….the material used were not homemade but sophisticated military explosives …’ (Nafeez Ahmed The London Bombs, p.24)

On 13th July it was stated that these were of ‘C4’ explosive….London explosives have military origin – [Science Daily. LONDON, July 13 (UPI)]: Forensic scientists told the newspaper the construction of the four devices detonated in London was very technically advanced, and unlike any instructions that can be found on the Internet.’

From The Independent on July 14th: ‘A bath filled with explosives has been found at a house in Leeds that was the “operational base” for the London suicide bombers
17th July 2005 The Observer: ‘22 lbs TATP in the bath.’

The TATP story survived but faded away in 2007 then, when the 7/7 Kingston trial came along in the summer of 2008 all trace of the TATP story had gone.

Now the explosives were made of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide. The idea of the four heating up Hydrogen Peroxide in their kitchen to the point where it would make an explosive mix with black pepper is simply laughable. How could they test that their ‘bombs’ were going to go off. Were they going to go lurching across the country with this kind of bomb sloshing about in their rucksacks. Has anybody ever made a bomb out of this mixture? If such a bomb did explode could it possibly have caused the devastation created on 7/7?

There is much written online that mocks these materials as potential tools of mass destruction. Do we not require a Public Inquiry on this issue alone. The changing storyline above surely makes no sense at all.

How would four inexperienced Muslims have known how to reduce the hydrogen peroxide to the right concentrations safely?
Why was no chemical analysis of the blast burns inside the carriages carried out? 
….more seriously
Why No Post-Mortems?Another astonishing fact that emerged during the 2010-11 7/7 Inquest was that no post mortems were carried out on the bodies of the victims. A very great deal about the nature of and distance from the explosions could have been discovered from such examinations. The effects of different explosives on flesh are well-known. Such post-mortems would have provided some definitive information that would have at least ruled out some possible explosives from consideration as the source material of the blasts. What could possibly explain such an oversight other than the desire to avoid creating conflicts with a fabricated narrative.
 Why were there no post-mortems on any of the victims? (definitive information about the explosives could have been gained from such investigations)

Why Suicide?

Moving on to another very obvious (but irresolvable) question: why would terrorists who wished to wreak havoc and punish British people for the UK’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan choose to blow themselves up along with their victims? These were very crowded trains. They could have set a timed detonator and quietly slipped off the trains a stop or two early, leaving their bags on the floor amongst the feet of dozens of incurious passengers. Where would have been the risk in that? Surely such activists would better serve their cause by continuing and not terminating their mission?

Another obvious question:
Why, in the most CCTV-rich environment on earth, is there so little footage of the four available? Why is it that the few pictures that are available mostly contain no other identifiable persons that could confirm the accuracy and veracity of these pictures? Surely it should have been possible to construct a water-tight case against the four from the CCTV alone?


There were four uncannily accurate drills (or rehearsals) carried out before the 7/7 bombings:
1) The BBC Panorama ‘management exercise’ programme of May 2004 during which a panel of ‘managers’, including Peter Power (see below) and Michael Portillo, discussed how they would deal with a terror attack on London that revealed itself to them through mock news reports as the show progressed. The scenario they had to deal with turned out to be one overground and 3 underground explosions taking place over a short space of time during the morning rush hour.

2) The contemporaneous 7/7 drill: on 7/7 itself Peter Power conducted a terror drill that shadowed the cataclysm as it happened – over the same three tube stations at more or less the same time. On the afternoon of 7/7 he was interviewed on Radio 5’s ‘Drivetime’ programme:
POWER: …at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!

3) Atlantic Blue: held over 5-8 April, 2005. All echelons of government participated in this large terror-drill. The Independent reported after July 7th that “By an extraordinary coincidence, all the experts who formulate such plans are together in a meeting at the headquarters of the London Ambulance Service – and they are discussing an exercise they ran three months ago that involved simulating four terrorist bombs going off at once across London.”

4) Operation Hanover: London’s police hold a little-known yearly terror-drill. On 2005 it just happened to be held on 1-2 July. Its game-plan was threefold: three ‘simultaneous’ bomb attacks on three underground stations. The police have been reticent about discussing this astounding precursor event, mere days before 7/7. They only revealed it in 2009.

What is the probability that practice drills should be going on in exactly the same stations at exactly the same time as surprise terrorist attacks occur?

Veteran’s Day Requires a Rethink

Banker Bozo.jpg(Poppies represent sleep and delusion.)

If central bankers start all the wars,
for profit and to degrade humanity
to advance the NWO,
re veterans heroes –
or mercenaries & dupes?

My annual Remembrance Day piece —
Wars are the closest thing to hell on earth. Of course, they are devised by satanists. Why do we accept them as natural and inevitable when they are not? Why do we perpetuate the myth that veterans were “defending our freedom?”

By Henry Makow Ph,D.When the United States and England loaned Mexico money in 1903 using its customs revenue as collateral, Illuminati banker Jacob Schiff cabled his English counterpart, Ernest Cassel:

“If they don’t pay, who will collect the customs?”

Cassel replied:

“Your marines and ours.”   (The Life of Otto Kahn, p. 22)

Marine General Smedley Butler (1881-1940) confirmed that he was “a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.”

In War is a Racket (1935) he wrote: “I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.”

Flash forward to 2011 when NATO fomented and led a “revolution” in Libya, one of only four countries that didn’t have a Rothschild central bank. Now Libya does.

They don’t call it imperialism anymore. They call it “Our mission in Libya.” Soldiers aren’t mercenaries; they are “missionaries.”


All wars are organized by the Illuminati bankers to collect or incur debt, plunder or profit, and advance their program for “world government” tyranny. They appeal to our patriotism to sucker us in. We are told we are fighting to “preserve freedom” when the opposite is actually the case.

wpoppy.jpg(White Poppy – stop legitimizing war.)

So how should we regard veterans? Certainly a few are heroes, but usually in a bogus cause.

I think we have to regard them as dupes and mercenaries. We have all been duped for a very long time. That gives Veteran’s Day a tinge of cynicism and pathos.


On Nov. 11, we are mostly commemorating World War Two. While we were losing fathers and sons, Allied and Nazi central bankers were huddled together in Basel at the Bank of International Settlements mainly financing the Nazis.

The BIS handed over to the Nazis the national treasure of Czechoslovakia, Holland and Belgium to ensure the war could go on. This gold, worth $378 million at the time, was the basis of loans to the Nazis and was never returned.

The BIS accepted and stored Nazi plunder — art, diamonds and precious metals including dental gold and wedding rings from concentration camp inmates.

The US Federal Reserve, the Banks of England, France, Italy, Japan and the Reichsbank were all members of the BIS. The Nazi Reichsbank had most seats but the BIS President was a Rockefeller factotum Thomas H. McKittrick (1889-1970). (Significantly he has no Wikipedia entry.)


mckittrick,jpg.jpg(Thomas McKittrick, left)

Questioned by a US Treasury Dept official in March 1945, McKittrick  said that the war had been a charade all along, with Germany taking the fall.

Asked why the BIS worked with the Nazis, he replied, “In the complicated German financial setup, certain men who have their central bankers’ point of view, are in very strategic positions and can influence the conduct of the German government…”

Then he spelled it out, albeit in an euphemism. The war’s purpose was to reposition Germany for the banker New World Order:

“McKittrick went on to say that there was a little group of financiers who had felt from the beginning that Germany would lose the war; that after defeat they might emerge to shape Germany’s destiny. That they would “maintain their contacts and trust with other important banking elements so that they would be in a stronger position in the postwar world to negotiate loans for the reconstruction of Germany.”

This quotation is from Charles Higham’s mind blowing book, Trading With the Enemy, 1983, p. 37.

Who’s Who of corporations controlled by these bankers had factories in occupied Europe that underpinned the Nazi war effort and profited handsomely.

Ford, General Motors, Standard Oil and ITT provided the Nazis with essential trucks, airplane engines, materiel and technology, often giving the Nazis preference during shortages.  In a telling example, the Allies bombed a ball bearing plant in Germany only to have the stock replaced by a factory in Pennsylvania (via Sweden.)

Higham refers to these bankers as “the fraternity.” They are the Illuminati.

An earlier set of bankers masterminded World War One and  how they kept it going. But I think you get the picture. All wars are really waged by the Luciferian central bankers against humanity, i.e “the goyim.”

In 1916, almost 1.2 million British, French and German soldiers died or were maimed in the Battle of the Somme alone. They were the cream of their generation.

By participating in any war, we are accomplices in our own destruction.

The military is catching on too. A recent poll found that only 34 percent of U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military believed that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were worth fighting. US soldiers now generally say they are fighting “for their buddies” not for their country.

kiss.jpg(left.  Henry Kissinger said, “Military men are “dumb, stupid animals to be used.”)

CONCLUSIONWe cannot honor veterans without recognizing that, like us, they have been duped. Otherwise, we perpetuate the sinister power which holds us prisoner.

Ultimately, the New World Order is about replacing the rule of God with the rule of Lucifer. That’s why “God” has become a dirty word. War is the principal means by which Lucifer’s disciples, the Cabalist (satanist) central bankers, “change the world.”

They have erected a police state behind the facade of freedom. We don’t know this because our leaders in government, education and media are witting or unwitting participants. Treason to God and country is a prerequisite for success in many fields.

If honoring veterans means perpetuating a suicidal cycle of endless war, we must stop. Better to honor the dead by abolishing wars. We can do this by nationalizing private central banks, and making the bankers answer for their crimes.

Related — Occult Resonances of Poppy Day –   Poppies = sleep inducers   (Thanks Bill)

White Poppy Campaigners Think Remembrance Day Celebrates War

The English Gentry

The Necrophilist

by 5ocietyx


In the book, The Age of Scandal by T.H. White a whole chapter was devoted to Richmond resident and gentleman of high society George Selwyn entitled ‘The Necrophilist’. He gained his nick-name due to his macabre fascination with death, torture and execution. Although he spent 44 years in the House of Commons he never made a speech.

Nick Selwyn, in a talk to the Richmond Local History Society in 2009 had this to say

He enjoyed his frequent visits to the Tyburn Gallows near the spot where Marble Arch is today and according to Horace Walpole witnessed the executions at Tower Hill of the great highland Jacobite Earls after Bonnie Prince Charlie’s failed invasion of England in 1745. Lord Holland on his deathbed told the servant “The next time Selwyn calls, show him up: if I am alive I will be pleased to see him, and if I am dead he will be pleased to see me!” George  often attended the infamous Hell-Fire club at Medmenham Abbey near Henley- on-Thames, where the more depraved members of society indulged inSatanic rituals and Witchcraft

The full story of George Selwyn really merits a separate treatment of its own, so I will conclude with a reference to his close and life-long friendships with two important Richmond residents, namely  William Douglas, Earl of March, the  4th  Duke of Queensberry  one of the richest and  most debauched men in England and Horace Walpole. The Duke owned an imposing mansion overlooking the Thames, on the spot where the Queensberry mansions block of flats is today along Friars Lane, just off the Green. He enjoyed the nickname Old Q as this letter was prominently displayed on the doors of his carriage

According to Wikipedia

He was known for his fascination with the macabre and other forms of sexual eccentricity.

According to Rogues Gallery Online

There are unsavory rumours about his visits to undertakers and what he gets up to with the bodies but nothing has been proved.

Sound familiar?




William “Kitty” Courtenay (1768 – 1835) was the 9th Earl of Devon.

As a youth, Kitty was regarded by contemporaries as being the most beautiful boy in England.


At the age of ten, Kitty began a gay relationship with 19-year-old William Beckford, the owner of a sugar plantation.

Beckford was believed to have conducted a simultaneous affair with his cousin Peter’s wife Louisa Pitt (c.1755–1791).


When Kitty reached the age of 18, Beckford fell out with Kitty and “horsewhipped him”.

Beckford had discovered letters written by Kitty to another lover.
In the 18th century, bisexual behaviour among the elite was reportedly the norm and did not cause any problems so long as there was no publicity.

But Kitty’s uncle went with the story to the newspapers.

Kitty “was forced to live abroad, and lived in the United States where he owned a property on the Hudson River in New York, and later in Paris”.

Beckford, who had married Lady Margaret Gordon, a daughter of the fourth Earl of Aboyne, moved to the continent of Europe “in the company of his long-suffering wife (who died in childbirth aged 24)” .


“By the time Beckford died at the venerable age of 84, he had built the loftiest domestic residence in the world, had assembled a virtual harem of boys, and had his own militia to protect his Fonthill estate of 6,000 acres.”


Kitty Marie Fischer (1741 – 1767), an attractive teenager, was “introduced to London high life” by the top people who had sex with her.

When the bisexual Giacomo Casanova visited London in 1763, he met Kitty.
He noted that Kitty “had on diamonds worth five hundred thousand francs.
“Goudar told me that if I liked I might have her then and there for ten guineas.”
In Kitty’s day, prostitution was one of London’s main industries.

Une Femme qui pisse

In 1766, Kitty married John Norris, son of the M.P. for Rye and grandson of Admiral Sir John Norris.
Kitty died only four months after her marriage.

King James I was the typical monarch and had various young lads as male lovers.

These included:

Esmé Stuart, Earl of Lennox

George Gordon, sixth Earl of Huntley

Alexander Lindsay, Lord Spynie

Francis Stewart Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell

George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham

James Hay, 1st Earl of Carlisle

Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset

“Carr was a handsome Scots lad who came to England in 1603 to run beside the royal coach as a page-boy… 
“Carr was appointed Gentleman of the Bedchamber.”

King James I and VI.

“Every day some aspiring Lord – notably Sir William Manson – would hire a troup of handsome young ragamuffin boys, scrub their faces clean with curdled milk, curl their hair, powder them and perfume them, dress them in silk and lace, and lead them in dainty procession around the throne in order to seduce the King’s favour.” 


Lord Laidlaw is a top Scottish Conservative.According to The News Of The World, 27 April 2008, Lord Laidlaw “regularly flies hookers out to Monte Carlo for cocaine-fuelled bondage romps”.

Reportedly there have been “all-night orgies of spanking, bondage and lesbian lust”.

Reportedly a male gigolo joined Laidlaw “in Monte Carlo’s luxurious Hermitage Hotel for an anything-goes night of shame”.

Reportedly, Laidlaw “liked to watch the male model, called Ben.”

According to the News Of The World, one of the Madams that Laidlaw does business with is called Sara.

She helps run London escort agency Role Models.”Sara has a string of international models plus well-known British actresses and TV presenters on her books, secretly working as part-time escorts,” writes The News Of The World.”

Sara said Laidlaw “liked her to send a selection of men over to see him”.

Laidlaw was one of the donors to the Conservative Party who were questioned by police investigating ‘cash for peerages” claims.

Reportedly, Laidlaw and wife Christine have a £4 million vineyard near St Tropez, a £3million apartment in Monte Carlo, a £10 million estate near Cape Town, South Africa, a £2million home in London’s Eaton Square, a Scottish mansion called The Royal Palace, and a £14million stately home in Hampshire.

Lord Sewal (above) is linked to the Dunblane school shootings.

establishmentwatch.wordpress – dunblane

The UK’s House of Lords is associated with men who wear bras, heroin smugglers and child abusers.

Some lords like porn.Parliament computers made 250000 attempts to ‘access pornography’ at Palace of Westminster.

Famous Lords who have been linked to ‘scandals’ include Lord McAlpine, Lord Janner, Lord Brittan, Lord Boothby, Lord Robertson, Lord Tonypandy aka George Thomas, Lord Browne, Lord Kenyon, Lord Mountbatten, Lord Mandelson, Lord Michael Havers, Lord Bramall, Lord Astor, Lord Alfred Douglas and Lord Rosebery.


And, “we can’t forget Lord Lambton, Lord Jellicoe and Lord Arthur Somerset.”


Lord Alexander Victor Montagu (above), the late Earl of Sandwich, regularly had sex with his son Robert Montagu and with around 20 other young kids.

The sexual abuse of Robert Montagu began at the age of seven.

Robert Montagu has written about his experience in a memoir entitled A Humour Of Love, to be published by Quartet on 2 September 2014.



Lord Kagan (above) claimed to have had 40 mistresses by the age of 60.The seven deadliest sinners in the House of Lords.

He was on friendly terms with the station chief of the Russian KGB.

After being questioned by the police about tax and currency offences he eventually ‘fled’ to Israel.

Lord Aberdeen wrote an account of his experiences in the brothels of Beirut, London and Paris.

“The Good Whore Guide”

At Mme Jannette’s in Beirut, Lord Aberdeen met Olga, “the sort of attractive girl you could meet at a point-to-point in Gloucestershire”.

At Mrs Fetherstonehaugh’s in Knightsbridge, one Coldstream Guards officer allegedly discovered that “the girl assigned to him was his own sister”.

The seven deadliest sinners in the House of Lords.

Lord Bristol (John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol – above) descended into drug addiction.

“He offered an American male stripper $6,000 for a sexual liaison, but in the event he had been too debilitated by drugs to go through with it.”The seven deadliest sinners in the House of Lords.

The 3rd Earl of Bristol had sex with a dozen Portuguese nuns.

Lord Tony Moynihan (above) was a brothel-keeper and drug-smuggler.

By 1970 he faced 57 charges.

“I knew of my impending arrest 48 hours in advance,” he said.

“I’d been approached by a CID man who told me that for £50,000 the case against me would be dropped. Because I believe in God and England I told him to get stuffed.”

In 1968 he married a Filipino and ran a chain of brothels in Manila.

In 1980, an Australian Royal Commission linked him to the import of heroin from Manila.

He was befriended by the UK police and by the American Drugs Enforcement Agency who used him to put a drugs dealer called Howard Marks out of business.

Moynihan then continued to make money from his brothels.

Birr Castle.The Earls of Rosse have links to the Hellfire Club.According to Brian Clarke:

Birr Castle is the home of the 7th Earl of Rosse, who is Lord Snowden’s stepbrother.

(Lord Snowden is Princess Margaret’s estranged husband)The castle was built in the 1600’s and the 1st Earl of Rosse, Richard Parsons was one of the founder members of Irelands aristocratic Satanic cult, The Hellfire Club…

The Rocket Man Jack Parsons, related to the Birr family, was an associate of Aleister Crowley…

Jack Parsons and the Fall Of Babalon


Lord Milo Douglas (1975-2009), second in line to the title of Marquess of Queensberry, died suddenly at the age of 34.

Milo’s sister Carrie Carey married two of Osama Bin Laden’s brothers – Salem Bin Laden, and after Salem died in an air crash in 1988, Khaled bin Laden.


Colin Christopher Paget Tennant, 3rd Baron Glenconner (1926- 1910) left his fortune to Kent Adonai, his beloved West Indian manservant.(Glenconner fortune left to servant)Lord Glenconner owned Mustique.

“Rumours leaked out of decadent revels on the three-and-a-half-mile-square jewel of the archipelago of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

“Boys wearing little except coconut oil were said to have entertained guests at one party.”

(Mysterious Mustique.)

GlenconnerPeople with villas on Mustique have included Bill Gates, Prince William, Princess Margaret and Mick Jagger.

Visitors to Mustique have included Michael Douglas, David Bowie, Prince Andrew, Viscount Linley, the Earl of Lichfield, Jemima Khan, various Guinnesses, John Cleese and Sir David Frost.”

Henry Tennant, left, who died from AIDS

On Mustique, “one underworld character – the late John Bindon – was said to have entertained the delighted Princess Margaret with his particular party trick, which consisted of balancing an empty upside-down beer mug on a certain part of his anatomy.”
(Lord Glenconner dies …)
Lord Glenconner eventually sold his home on Mustique, the Great House, to Christina Onassis’s third husband, former KGB agent Sergei Kauzov.
Charles Tennant, who died from hepatitis

Glenconner had an unusual necklace.”Human bone set by Bond Street jeweller Bulgari.”(Lord Glenconner.)

In 1996, Lord Glenconner’s eldest son Charlie, died from hepatitis, after a long heroin addiction.

In 1990, Lord Glenconner’s second son Henry, who married but later revealed he was gay, died of an Aids-related illness.

In 1987, Lord Glenconner’s youngest son Christopher was in a coma for 100 days following a motor-­bike accident in Belize.

(Lord Glenconner: – Glenconner family firm, C Tennant & Sons, was once the largest chemical company in the world and the forerunner of ICI.

Lord Vivian and Mavis WheelerLord Anthony Vivian, in 1954, was shot and wounded by Mavis Wheeler, the former wife of Sir Mortimer Wheeler and the former mistress of Augustus John.Not long before being shot he had been arrested for being ‘drunk and indecent’ at South Eaton Place.

The seven deadliest sinners in the House of Lords.

Rudolf HessThe 8th Duke of Buccleuch and Prince George, Duke of Kent, were allegedly involved in a plot with Rudolf Hess and MI6.

In 1941 there was a large ‘peace party’ in Britain which included the Duke of Buccleuch, members of the security services and members of the Royal Family.

Some members of the ‘peace party’ admired the Nazis.

Hess flew to Scotland in 1941 reportedly with Hitler’s blessing.

Hess was to meet with a faction of British royalty and the aristocracy who wanted to arrange peace between Britain and Nazi Germany.

Hess is reported to have landed at the Duke of Hamilton’s home at Dungavel House.

14th Duke of Hamilton

According to one account, ‘two Czech Hurricane pilots who intercepted a lone Messerschmitt heading towards the’Firth of Clyde on the evening of May 10 were told not to attack it…

‘A member of the Womens Auxiliary air Force, stationed that night at Dungavel House, remembers the landing lights on the Duke’s private airstrip being on, shortly before Hess’s plane crashed, despite blackout regulations.’

The Duke of Kent was said to have been at Dungavel, waiting for Hess. The Duke of Kent was involved in a motoring accident with a coal lorry the next morning not far from Dungavel House. His passenger was the Duke of Buccleuch, ‘well known for his anti-war, pro-German sentiments prior to 1939’.

Churchill and his faction got to Hess first when his plane landed and locked him up, even though Hess had been guaranteed safe passage by King George VI.

It is possible that the Duke of Kent rescued Hess and tried to fly to Sweden to continue secret peace negotiations.

The Duke’s plane crashed approximately two miles from where Hess was kept on the shores of Loch More.

Hess may have died in the plane crash. The plane crash may not have been accidental.

The Duke of Buccleuch was put under virtual “house arrest” for the remainder of the war.

Clive Prince writes: ‘Churchill was in a very, very insecure position politically in May 1941. In fact, three days before Hess arrived, there had been a vote of no-confidence in Churchill.

He didn’t have the support of the aristocracy or the support of MI6 and the King. But the Hess affair basically gave Churchill the opportunity to blackmail his opponents who were involved with the Hess flight into supporting him…

“We’re certain that MI6 was totally involved in the Hess affair – they weren’t luring him over: they were inviting him over. This was because MI6 were supportive of the idea of ending the War with Germany.”

eyespymagHess / cpmac
Wilde and Lord Alfred DouglasViscount Drumlanrig reportedly had a gay affair with the Prime Minister, the Earl of Rosebery.

The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde, by Neil McKenna, suggests that Rosebery had a relationship for over two years with Viscount Drumlanrig, the older brother of Oscar Wilde’s lover, Lord Alfred Douglas.

McKenna says “Oscar was sacrificed to save Rosebery and the Liberals.”

Treaty of Union

James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry was very influential in bringing about the Treaty of Union in 1707.The same evening the 2nd Duke was signing the Act of Union, his son,the Earl of Drumlanrig, is said to have roasted a servant boy on a spit in an oven in the kitchens of his house in Edinburgh.


Here we see Lieutenant Edwin Bramall receiving his MC from Field Marshal Montgomery in 1945.

Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery (above) had “romantic friendships with young boys” including the 12-year-old Swiss lad Lucien Trueb.The third sex that sustained the Empire – Telegraph
Admiral of the Fleet Louis Mountbatten (above) liked boys in their early teens.

Field Marshal Edwin Bramall served on Lord Mountbatten’s staff in 1963. [7]

Field Marshal William Slim (above), the former Governor General of Australia, reportedly molested young boys.

Fairbridge Farm School, Australia
Field Marshal Viscount William Slim reportedly molested young boys as they sat in his Rolls-Royce.

Reportedly Slim molested boys at the Fairbridge Farm School, in Australia.

In testimony to Australia’s royal commission into child abuse, one former victim, Bob Stevens, says Viscount Slim arrived at the school and ‘the next minute we were sitting on his knee and he’s got his hands up our trousers’.

65 ‘victims of abuse’ have taken action against Fairbridge Farm School, of which Viscount Slim was patron.

Britain’s ‘finest WWII general’ accused of child sex abuse in Australia – Telegraph

Field Marshal Horatio Kitchener (above) was reportedly a pedophile.Kitchener

Field Marshal Douglas Haig (above), who was reportedly gay, liked to have young lads around him.


The UK monarchy is ‘totally discredited’ by its New Year Honours?

The Queen is giving honours to:

1. Sir David Manning, who arranged the secret deal that got the UK into the Iraq war.

2. Fiona Woolf who was in charge of the child abuse ‘cover-up’, until it was discovered that she was a friend of Leon Brittan.

3. Cressida Dick, the policewoman in charge when the innocent Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead in a ‘false flag’ operation.

4. Dave Ward and Patrick Hallgate, two executives of the disastrously managed Network Rail.

5. Esther Rantzen, the friend of Jimmy Savile.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.

Children are currently being groomed in “every town” in Britain, according to a charity, Against Child Sexual Exploitation (Pace).

Child grooming occurs ‘in every town’, charity says.

The UN Security Council has failed to adopt the resolution calling for the creation of a Palestinian state and an end to Israeli occupation.

The CIA-Mossad-controlled Australia and the veto power the USA voted against the move.The CIA-Mossad-controlled  UK, Lithuania, Nigeria, Korea and Rwanda abstained.

How It All Began

It was in the attic of an old English farmhouse, on a lovely autumn evening in September 1984, that this book had its beginnings. Two years earlier Caroline Kennedy, doing some research for a television film, had arrived at this same house to interview the owner, Pelham Pound. As they talked she found out he was an old friend of her late brother-in-law, Dominick Elwes.

Dominick Elwes and Tessa Kennedy (the author's sister)

Later in the day the discussion turned to Elwes’s friendship with Dr Stephen Ward, the society osteopath, who had committed suicide at the height of the Profumo scandal in 1963. Elwes, her host said, had stood bail for Stephen Ward, had worked with him on a proposed television programme about his life and had produced a film entitled, The Christine Keeler Story. In a trunk in his attic, Pound explained, he had tape recordings and scripts that Elwes had given him years ago. Would she be interested in taking a look some time? Caroline Kennedy was intrigued. Like nearly everyone else she remembered the Profumo scandal but only faintly remembered Ward.

So, on her return visit that autumn evening, after riffling through the contents of the trunk, she returned home with a box full of old letters, voluminous pages of handwritten and typed filmscript and reels of tape. She immediately transferred the tapes on to cassettes and, through the scratchy quality of the 1960s’ recordings, emerged Ward’s compelling voice:

Stephen Ward and Pelham Pound

“This whole business developed so gradually that the increasing horror of my situation did not become apparent to me for some time. Everyone is lying to grind his own axe. Every witness who does not give the answer the police want is tampered with. Every person who goes abroad has fled. Every person who speaks for me does so from fear. Every motive I had is twisted. All I have left between me and my destruction is a handful of firm friends, the integrity of the judge and the 12 men on the jury. God alone knows what will happen. I know that one day the truth will eventually come out. And the truth is very simple: I loved people – of all types    – and I don’t think that there are very many people the worse for having known me. This is the whole story.”

Caroline Kennedy listened to Ward with absolute fascination. ‘Only a week earlier I’d heard Lord Denning on TV saying that Ward was “the most evil man” he had ever met. Ward hardly sounded like an evil man to me. He was rational, intelligent, persuasive. I knew as little about Ward as the next person but I began to wonder. Had we got him wrong? I decided to try to find out.’ In many ways it was an ideal time to take another look at Ward and the Profumo affair. Enough time had passed for the passions and divisions it had aroused to quieten. Many of those involved were still alive and perhaps ready now to reveal matters that at the time had been concealed.

Lord Denning who called Stephen Ward "the most evil man I have ever met."

Until I joined her in the spring of I985, Caroline Kennedy had worked alone, becoming more and more involved in Ward’s life, often travelling hundreds of miles in a day in the hope of finding one elusive fragment, or to check one significant anecdote. But the information she had gathered about Ward’s relationship with the British Security Service, M15, made her realise that she would need the help of someone more experienced in this field. My one doubt about the project – that it would be unfair to turn the spotlight on Profumo yet again – yielded to her argument that the story would concentrate on Ward, not Profumo.

We were determined to write the definitive book on the subject and our quest for the truth took us all over Britain, to Europe and to the United States. In the end, the raw research broke down into four major areas: Ward’s own tape-recorded words; interviews with some 80 of his friends and enemies; a folio of FBI documents obtained under the American Freedom of Information Act; and our own interpretation and analysis of all this new information.

Ward’s tape recordings were more extensive than we at first realised. In them he spoke frankly of his early life, his first sexual experiences, his student days in the United States, his wartime service in Britain and India, his early struggles in a London just coming out of its post-war gloom, his ambition, and his steady climb to success both as an osteopath and as an artist. We get his story of his recruitment into M15, his version of his relationship with Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies and his account of his close friendship with Lord Astor. Finally we hear Ward’s devastatingly accurate assessment of why he was framed.

Christine Keeler modelling.

The interviews proved the most difficult part of the research. At first those people who had known Ward were wary. We had to assure them that we had no preconceived view and were determined to produce a rounded picture of an obviously very complex character. Slowly doors opened. In the end we knew the versions of every major participant in the drama who is still alive (except Profumo). Many had never spoken before.

Ward’s friends and enemies, the latter including Lord Denning and Michael Eddowes, Ward’s legal team, FBI informers, the CIA officer in charge of the case in London, nearly every member of the Astor family, Douglas Fairbanks Jnr, various MPs involved in the affair, and, most important, those members of the police team handling the Ward case, agreed to tell their stories. Most spoke directly to us. One or two, for personal reasons, preferred to talk through intermediaries.

Two policemen in particular, conscience-stricken over what had happened, spoke for the first time on record of what the police were told to do, how they did it, and how they felt when Ward killed himself. M15 officers, now retired, revealed exactly how the service recruited Ward, what it wanted him to do, how he did it, and how it was decided to dump him when the service’s links with him threatened to become too embarrassing. One officer says that M15 should have revealed Ward’s role – ‘if we had he might be alive today’ – but it was decided to cover up.

Douglas Fairbanks Jr

An American who had close links at that time with the United States Embassy held back a vital piece of information from us until he had read the first draft of the manuscript. Then he gave evidence that the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, had been told of Profumo’s involvement with Christine Keeler two months before Profumo made his statement to the House of Commons denying any impropriety. This gave the political part of the affair an entirely new significance.

It will be impossible for anyone ever to duplicate this research because several of the major characters have since died, and others, for various reasons, have retreated into silence again. Sir David Tudor-Price, who as a junior barrister was the defence number two in the Ward trial, braved the Lord Chancellor’s ire by agreeing to an on-the-record interview in which he was highly critical of the way the legal establishment had handled the case. He died suddenly only a few months after his elevation to the High Court.

William "Bill" Astor and his bride model Bronwen Pugh

Although we knew that we risked an action against us for contempt of court, we were able to locate and interview one of the Ward jurors who told us, on the promise of anonymity, what had gone on in the jury room. He revealed why the jury had decided to convict Ward, even though the jurors were very impressed by him. We found and interviewed a senior civil servant who attended a meeting of Ward’s friends at which it was decided that no one would give evidence on Ward’s behalf. We persuaded Astor’s brother, David, to tell us why Astor himself had decided to abandon Ward.

Because a lot of people were now prepared to talk, we were able to identify some of those participants who had mysteriously escaped publicity at the trial. Mandy Rice-Davies’s lover, the ‘Indian doctor’, who was not even called as a witness, turns out to have been Dr Emil Savundra, later to be notorious because of the Fire Auto and Marine insurance case which cost Britain’s motorists hundreds of thousands of pounds. Christine’s lover, ‘Charles’, also avoided the spotlight because Christine swore on oath that she could not remember his surname. We discovered that he was the millionaire businessman Charles Clore.

Mandy Rice-Davies

The role of Dr Teddy Sugden, the well-known society abortionist of the period, took some unravelling but we eventually established his relationship with Christine Keeler and Stephen Ward. The part that the famous Murray’s Club, with its beautiful ‘showgirls’, played in the affair puzzled us until some of the club’s former employees and some of its distinguished former members explained it all.

After many hours in the FBI library in Washington, we finally obtained an FBI secret file. This consisted of about 800 heavily censored pages headed ‘Profumo-Keeler, Russian Intelligence’ and, later, ‘Operation Bowtie’. This material enabled us to learn the reason for the panic in the United States over the Profumo affair, to explain why the head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, was so obsessed with it, and why the Kennedy family, particularly Attorney-General Robert Kennedy, was so worried.

President John F Kennedy with J.Edgar Hoover (head of the FBI) and Attorney General Robert Kennedy

New information about the way Ward’s trial was conducted and new interpretation of the part played by Lord Justice Parker and the Court of Criminal Appeal made it crystal clear that the British legal establishment did everything in its power to make certain that Ward would be convicted. This is a serious charge to make, so to give it weight we interviewed some of the leading jurists of the period who gave us, for the first time, their opinion of what was done to Ward. One, a High Court Judge, was unable to talk about the case, even so many years later, without bitterness and anger, while Lord Goodman had no hesitation in describing Ward as ‘the historic victim of an historic injustice’, likening him to ‘a British Dreyfus’.

When we got down to interpreting the research material, the motives of the major characters began to emerge with frightening clarity. We learnt why Labour MP George Wigg was out to get Profumo; why John Lewis, another Labour MP, was determined to ruin Ward; why the police set out to frame Lucky Gordon; why Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies told the stories they did; and why the legal establishment put its weight behind the move to send Ward away for a long time.

Capt. Yevgeny "Eugene" Ivanov, Asst. Naval Attache at the Russian Embassy in London.

We were able to see what part Ward and the Russian GRU officer, Yevgeny “Eugene” Ivanov, played during the Cuban missile crisis when the super powers took the world to the brink of atomic war. What at the time was considered to be one of Ward’s fantasies turned out to have been true. This added a whole new dimension to Ward’s life and the espionage section of the book became a major one.

In the course of our interviews, we learnt how the principal characters have come to terms with that traumatic period of their lives, how they have coped – or have failed to cope – with what the scandal did to them. Some have achieved fame and fortune; others have gone under with scarcely a ripple. Some have difficulty even recalling what occurred; others relive it day by day. One continues to live in the same area and to follow the same profession. Another went into exile abroad, disgusted that in Britain Ward could have been treated in the way that he was.

When we pulled all these threads together we found that we had an entirely new account of the Profumo affair. It is a story of sexual compulsion, political malice, jealousy, envy and hate. It is a story of friendship, loyalty, honour, betrayal, and the forces of the State bent upon the destruction of one abandoned individual, the only one to leave the scene with dignity. In the end it is our hope that this book says something for Stephen Ward: it may not be too late for the truth.

Minister for War, John Profumo, following his resignation.






This book was first published in 1987 by Jonathan Cape and Atheneum, under the title:

“An Affair of State – The Profumo Case and The Framing of Stephen Ward”.

The Profumo Affair: ‘It was decided that Stephen Ward had to die’

As the musical ‘Stephen Ward’ opens tonight, a new book makes a strong case that the osteopath at the centre of the Profumo Affair was murdered

Stephen Ward leaves Marylebone Magistrates’ Court in police custody

Stephen Ward leaves Marylebone Magistrates’ Court in police custody Photo: Getty Images

8:29PM GMT 02 Dec 2013


There is a poignant photograph of Stephen Ward, eyes closed, head lolling to one side as he is stretchered into an ambulance for his last journey. It is the morning of July 31 1963 and the Establishment can breathe a little easier.

Ward, society osteopath, supplier of sensual pleasure to the upper classes, is in a coma induced by an overdose of sleeping pills. Taken from his temporary refuge, the Chelsea flat of an acquaintance, to St Stephen’s Hospital in central London, he hovers between life and death. As he does so, a jury at the Old Bailey convicts him of living off immoral earnings – the conclusion of a sensational trial that has witnessed evidence from, among others, his protégées Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies, good-time girls he has fashioned into suitable consorts for his influential friends. As far as the world is concerned, Ward, son of a vicar and product of a minor public school, has spared himself the final humiliation of being branded a pimp. Without regaining consciousness, he succumbs to barbiturate poisoning on August 3.

The end of the affair: good-time girl Chistine Keeler in 1963 (Popperfoto/Getty Images)

On this final day, outside the hospital, standing with a hungry press, waits Stanley Rytter, a Polish émigré, and his daughter, Yvonne. “Someone came to us and said, ‘That’s it. He’s dead’,” she later recalled. “Then we drove away.”

The Profumo Affair, which took its name from the Conservative minister John Profumo, one of its key casualties, is the scandal against which all others are measured. Fifty years later, it continues to fascinate, a heady mix of power, class, espionage, hypocrisy and sex.

Tonight, 50 years after his death, Stephen Ward returns to the public stage in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s dramatisation of his colourful, tragic career. Titled simply Stephen Ward, the musical, at the Aldwych Theatre, promises to be a highlight of the West End year. Lloyd Webber wants it to be more, however: the springboard for a campaign to have the osteopath’s conviction declared a miscarriage of justice. “Ward,” he says, “once embraced by his friends in high society, became a pariah as the Establishment made him a scapegoat.”

He was backed yesterday by the eminent lawyer Lord Hutchinson, who defended Keeler in a perjury case. He sees the continued refusal to release documents relating to Ward’s trial as the Establishment “still looking after itself”.

But the wrong done to Ward may have been much worse than being made a scapegoat. Accounts of his end contain the standard ingredients: a man deserted by his erstwhile friends, alone in the early hours as disgrace beckons; a desperate succession of suicide notes written and addressed to recipients; a bottle of pills; the only “decent thing” left to do.

Could there, however, have been another ingredient – Stanley Rytter, the man standing outside the hospital that day with his daughter? Rytter was a “deniable”, a freelance operative for both MI5 and MI6. Now, for the first time, an intelligence colleague of his has gone on the record to claim that, in a deathbed confession, the Pole admitted that he murdered Ward to ensure his silence.

“It was decided that Ward had to die,” says Lee Tracey, a long-time MI6 asset. “Stanley Rytter is the one who killed Ward. I know because he told me. Rytter told me he was paid to kill Ward.

“He convinced Ward that he ought to have a good night’s sleep and take some sleeping pills. He let Ward doze off and then woke him again and told him to take his tablets. Another half an hour later or so, he woke Ward again and told him he’d forgotten to take his sleeping pills. So it went on, until Ward had overdosed. It might sound far-fetched, but it’s the easiest thing in the world to do. Once the victim is drowsy he will agree to almost anything.”

Ward, says Tracey, knew too much. For years, he had cultivated the high and mighty of British society, supplying friends with girls, not for money but for the kudos of moving within such circles. Politicians, aristocrats, even royalty, all attended Ward’s gatherings, some of which involved sadomasochism. John Profumo had been introduced to Keeler at Cliveden, home of Lord Astor, who had allowed the osteopath to rent a cottage on his estate. Scandal duly ensued when it emerged that Keeler had been sharing her bed with the Soviet naval attaché in London, Yevgeny Ivanov. Profumo, caught up in allegations that nuclear secrets had been betrayed during pillow-talk, denied having an affair with Keeler, but was then forced to admit the truth and resign.

That the death of Ward was convenient for Britain’s social and political elite is beyond doubt. Reputations remained intact that might otherwise have been destroyed in a flurry of disclosures about the sexual adventures of the great and good. The intelligence services, meanwhile, were rid of a potential embarrassment. Ward had been their man, a source of useful information on the peccadilloes of MPs, peers, diplomats and others. But when the Profumo story exploded, MI5, the domestic security service, and MI6, the foreign intelligence service, both involved with Ward, ran for cover.

“One can see why it may – repeat may – have seemed necessary to remove Stephen Ward from the scene,” says the investigative author Anthony Summers. “This was apparently a man with dangerous knowledge and by no means all of it had emerged at his trial. He had inside information of MI5 efforts to manipulate Ivanov and the seamy activities of Establishment figures.”

Summers is co-author of The Secret Worlds of Stephen Ward, an examination of the Profumo Affair undertaken with the academic Stephen Dorril. The book names Tracey as the source of the Rytter allegation for the first time. Tracey, now in his eighties, was himself tasked by MI6 with keeping an eye on people around Ward. MI6 engaged in many domestic operations between the Fifties and Seventies, often without reference to MI5.

“Ward was spotted by one of MI6’s stringers [freelance operatives] in the early Fifties as a possible asset,” says Dorril. “He was on nodding terms with influential people . MI6’s purpose with Ward is not yet clear, but they thought he might prove useful and helped him with small amounts of money.

“An opportunity to use Ward came in 1961, when he was introduced to Ivanov. While MI6 may have been targeting Ivanov – with a ‘honeytrap’ operation to snare the Russian through sexual compromise – things went wrong almost immediately when MI5 appeared on the scene with a similar interest in Ward.”

MI6 dropped its operation and MI5 got to work. Ward was happy to pass on information about Ivanov to his handler and MI5 did not regard the osteopath as a security risk.

Rytter was a former employee of Polish intelligence who had escaped to Britain during the war. He sometimes used journalistic cover to mask his activities, and also worked for Peter Rachman, a fellow Pole and the most notorious racketeer landlord in post-war London.

It was Rachman, says Tracey, who recommended Rytter to Ward. The latter was living in “abject fear” at the time of his trial and was persuaded that he should have a minder.

“Bumping people off was not Rytter’s forte,” says Tracey, who spoke with the dying Rytter in 1984. “He could be boastful. But why does a man who knows he is dying lie about something like that? What has he got to gain?”

Tracey was not alone in believing that Rytter had “assisted” Ward’s death. Another associate of Rachman, Serge Paplinski, told the authors: “Stanley was there with Ward on that last night. He always said that Ward was poisoned.”

The journalist Tom Mangold was working for the Daily Express in 1963 and knew Ward well. He visited him in Mallord Street and dismisses out of hand the notion that he was murdered, pointing to the numerous suicide notes penned by the osteopath.

However, there is a discordant aspect to the night of the supposed self-administered overdose. Some time after Mangold’s departure, Bryan Wharton, a Daily Express photographer, was asked to meet Ward at the osteopath’s flat in Bryanston Mews, not Mallord Street in Chelsea, where he was staying. There, Wharton found Ward engaged in writing a letter to Henry Brooke, the home secretary. It was full of names and Wharton managed to get a shot of it. Ward, he said, was “extremely upset” and insistent that Wharton should be at the Home Office at 7.30am the next day to photograph him delivering the missive. There was another man there. Wharton left Ward some time after midnight and delivered his pictures to the Express. They subsequently disappeared.

“The letter itself may have posed a threat,” says Summers. “Ward was a tinderbox, a man with nothing to lose, wounded, at bay, and it may be that someone decided to ensure his silence. I don’t know, though, how one squares such a notion with the evidence that he did intend to commit suicide. The story ends with a question mark.”

John Profumo died in 2006, his reputation rehabilitated by years of charitable work. Stephen Ward was an outcast at the time of his death. A single wreath marked his passing.

“I’d rather get myself,” wrote Ward in one of his suicide notes. “I do hope I haven’t let people down too much. I tried to do my stuff.”

He had “done his stuff” in refraining from naming names during those humiliating days in the dock. But no one was going to thank him.

The spying Welsh Lord, his occult secrets, and the dancing kangaroo

A new book about the notorious Lord Tredegar Evan Morgan aims to tell his outrageous story for the first time 

Lord Tredegar Evan Morgan, pictured around 1935, with Blue Boy the macaw perched on his shoulder at a Tredegar House garden party
Lord Tredegar Evan Morgan, pictured around 1935, with Blue Boy the macaw perched on his shoulder at a Tredegar House garden party

He was the Pope’s right hand man, a practising occultist, a spy and a fantasist.

His wild society parties attracted everyone from HG Wells to high profile Nazis – all of whom he’d entertain by dancing with his pet kangaroo.

But now a new book about the notorious Lord Tredegar Evan Morgan, entitled Hush Hush: The Peculiar Career of Lord Tredegar, aims to tell his outrageous story in full for the first time.

It also aims to redress the legacy of a man who, while eccentric – possibly to the point of madness – deserved greater recognition for how he served his country.

Writing it has been a labour of love for its author Paul Busby, who first fell under Morgan’s alluring spell while working at Tredegar House in Newport, the late aristocrat’s former home.

“I got there as a tour guide 14 years ago and can recall being shown the ropes by an elderly volunteer,” said the 34-year-old historian.

“And, as we passed by paintings of such family luminaries as the first Viscount Tredegar, who featured in mighty military operations like The Charge of the Light Brigade, he stopped and pointed at Evan’s portrait, saying, ‘and this one here should have been throttled at birth’.

“Well, after that I just had to find out more,” he said, adding that he was first intrigued by the paradox of Morgan being both chamberlain to Pope Pious XI and a veteran dabbler in the Black Arts.

“He’d met and become friends with infamous occultist Aleister ‘The Great Beast’ Crowley in Paris in the 1920s.

“In fact, Crowley called him Adept of Adepts, which means ‘the best of the best’ – Evan also went by the name The Black Monk, although you couldn’t fail to spot him with his robes on because that big beak of a nose would always poke out from underneath his cowl.”

So how on Earth did he serve so highly in the papacy for most of the 1920s and 1930s?

“Good question, to which my answer is ‘don’t know’,” said Busby.

“I’m not sure why the Vatican, where Evan lived for one month of each year, put up with it – it’s also said he’d often go directly from his papal duties to the grave of the Romantic poet Shelley in Rome and perform incantations.”

The last known surviving photograph of Lord Tredegar Evan Morgan, taken in 1949
The last known surviving photograph of Lord Tredegar Evan Morgan, taken in 1949

Perhaps – given that King Paul of Greece took him as a lover and Queen Mary called him her “favourite bohemian” as he read her palm – it was all down to how well connected he was?

“Well, British Intelligence certainly used him, and he was close to the likes of Lloyd George and Churchill’s Minister of Information, Brendan Bracken,” said Busby.

“Ultimately though, he was a consumptive who, despite being desperate to join in the second World War effort, got turned away by the Welsh Guard.

“So he ended up being put in charge of the Third Monmouthshire Battalion of the Home Guard – essentially he was our version of Captain Mainwaring from Dad’s Army.”

And several of Morgan’s attempt at foiling Nazi plots might well have been lifted directly from the script of that classic sit-com.

“While he was with MI8 he hatched a plan to drop hundreds of spy pigeons from planes, but they just ended up getting sucked into their engines,” he said.

“Effectively, he just ended up showering the enemy with mince meat.

“And let’s not forget the time he blabbed top secret information to some girl guides he’d shown around his office.

“He got a spell in the Tower of London for that and MI5 had to bail him out. Why MI5? Again, maybe he knew too much and had to be kept in check.

“Furthermore, the chap who tried to have Evan court marshalled ended up dying mysteriously a short while later – it’s suggested he and Crowley had performed some kind of ritual to bring it about.”

Severely reprimanded, Morgan was sent back to Wales to see out his days throwing the sort of boozy bashes he’d hosted in his ‘30s heyday – his guests ranging from Brave New World author Aldous Huxley to KGB agents and Hitler’s close friend Princess Stephanie Hohenlohe.

“Was Evan still gathering intel for the secret services? We can’t be too sure because he could also be something of a Walter Mitty.”

But, be it truth or lies, the life of Lord Tredegar often proved so much stranger than fiction.

“It’s like Aldous Huxley himself once said, ‘Why even bother trying to make up characters for one’s books when real people like Evan Morgan already exist,” added Busby.

Hush Hush: The Peculiar Career of Lord Tredegar will be out later this year


Alexander Victor Montagu (above), the late Earl of Sandwich, regularly had sex with his son Robert Montagu and with around 20 other young kids.The sexual abuse of Robert Montagu began at the age of seven.Robert Montagu has written about his experience in a memoir entitled A Humour Of Love, to be published by Quartet on 2 September 2014.http://www.dailymail 
Robert MontaguAlexander Victor Edward Paulet Montagu, 1906 – 1995, was the 10th Earl of Sandwich, and was also known as Viscount Hinchingbrooke and as Victor Montagu.

He disclaimed his peerage in 1964.

For much of his career, he was the Conservative Member of Parliament for South Dorset.
He was a member of the Conservative Monday Club, which has been associated with child sexual abuse.
Victor Montagu, his wife Rosemary, and Robert’s older siblings.

Robert Montagu says: “There’s a huge amount of shame and a huge will not to cause damage within your family.”I wrote the first draft when I was 16 and I’ve probably done ten versions since then.”I always intended it to be written as a novel but then I came to realise in the last three months it had to be done as a memoir.”If you want the message to come across that people should be brave enough to speak out, you really have to put your name to it and write it with people’s names as they are.””After all, as a therapist I spend my life advising people to tell what’s happened to them, and I can’t therefore continue to take cover under my own story and disguise it. It’s not an honest thing to do…”I could lose all contact with my brother… It’s going to give him problems walking round the House of Lords and I sympathise with him but I’m afraid I can’t spare him… I’ve spared him for 55 years.”
Jimmy Savile owned a flat in Dorset and reportedly abused a number of children in Dorset.Savile’s string of victims in DorsetVictor Montagu married Rosemary Peto who later divorced him.

She apparently preferred the company of women.

Victor Montagu then married a daughter of the Duke of Devonshire. Their marriage was later annulled.

Victor Montagu’s abuse of Robert was discovered by one of Robert’s sisters.

Robert was sent back to his boarding ‘prep school’.

The family and the family doctor decided to keep things quiet.

Robert says: “I know personally of ten (victims) and I’ve spoken with most of those.

“They were family friends, London contacts, Dorset contacts, holiday contacts.

“I suspect it might be 20, possibly more.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.

Another Lord Montagu –

Victoria: A Life by AN Wilson – review

Bad behaviour, pan‑European politics and a rich, inward life – a queen is reinterpreted in this shimmering new biography

Queen Victoria

Protean and particular … Queen Victoria. Photograph: Gunn & Stewart/Hulton-Deutsch Collection/Corbis

Towards the end of this subtle, thoughtful biography of Queen Victoria AN Wilson presents his defining argument. Victoria, he suggests, was an artist. He isn’t talking here about her rather good watercolours, but something more profound. The queen, he claims, lived an entirely inward life, filled with characters and narratives of her own making: saintly Albert, bad Bertie, twinkly Disraeli and the wicked, wicked Boers. Just like that other epic storyteller Marcel Proust, Victoria stayed home (although, unlike the Frenchman, she never allowed herself to lie in bed) and conjured up a world that unfurled over the decades as larger-than-life characters bloomed, hovered and faded, leaving behind their own particular perfume.

  1. Victoria: A Life
  2. by A. N. Wilson

It is the queen’s inwardness, Wilson says, which makes her such an excellent subject for a biographer. There’s no requirement to go puffing after her on endless banal state visits, bridge openings, or troopings the colour – because she didn’t do them, or at least not much. Anyway, Wilson covered all that in The Victorians, his bestseller of 10 years ago that dealt with the 19th-century’s outerworld of iron, brick and cotton bales. In this new book he prefers to stay indoors with Victoria in one of her freezing residences as she pours out millions of words into her daily journal and letters, sifting external events through what Wilson calls “the rich comedy” of her consciousness.

Like any artist whose vision was both protean – she was perfectly capable of believing six contradictory things before breakfast – and particular, Victoria has been a magnet for biographical rereadings in the 11 decades since her death. The best include Lytton Strachey‘s surprisingly tender Queen Victoria of 1921 and Elizabeth Longford‘s still highly readable Victoria RI of 1964. Then, in the 1990s, academic scholars got hold of the queen and the result was a poststructuralist Victoria – all fragments, gaps and jagged edges. Now, 20 years since that last serious flurry of biographical interest, Wilson picks up the pieces and puts the jigsaw back together again, creating in the process a Victoria for our own times.

And what those times require, it turns out, is a passionate pan-Europeanist. It has long been a given of Victorian scholarship that Prince Albert spent his short, strenuous life trying to graft German liberalism on to the British constitution to create a template of moderate monarchism that could withstand the challenge of revolution and nationalism alike. His grand idea was to export this model back to Protestant Europe as a gift-with-purchase whenever someone married one of his and Victoria’s nine-strong nursery tribe. By this means every Duchy, Palatinate and hyphenated micro-kingdom would be given the tools it needed to stay safe in an uncertain world. They would also, in time, join up to form a central European hub that was rock-solid liberal.

The assumption has always been that by the time of Albert’s early death in 1861 this project had stalled under pressures of working class democracy at home and Prussian militarism abroad. Wilson, though, has been back to the archives in Coburg and reconnected with the tap-root of Victoria and Albert’s plan for a united, moderate Germany. He shows convincingly that, despite being poleaxed by grief at losing her “Angel”, Victoria remained passionately engaged in what might be described as “the Coburg project”. When the Schleswig-Holstein crisis blew up in the early 1860s she understood, in a way that her prime minister, Palmerston, did not, that buried in this parochial squabble between Prussia and Denmark were the first signs of the Bismarckian aggression that would eventually rip Europe apart. It was only thanks to the wise queen, suggests Wilson, that Britain did not blunder into a war with Germany at this point, 50 years before it was capable of winning.

Wilson pays proper attention to the Hanoverian side of Victoria’s inheritance too. She was the granddaughter of King George III, which meant that whenever she behaved oddly courtiers began to wonder if she might be mad. Wilson believes that there were times, especially in the late 1860s, when Victoria was properly “out of her mind”. Her letters to Gladstone, sometimes scrawled in blue crayon and barely stretching to two lines, read like dispatches from an interior world to which the drawbridge has been pulled temporarily shut.

In the end, though, Wilson doesn’t put the queen’s strange episodes down to porphyria, the heritable disease that is assumed to have caused her grandfather to clatter off into his own imaginary kingdom. Instead, he blames grief, the menopause and too much whisky: Victoria picked up the tippling habit from John Brown and never shook it off. And as to whether or not she actually slept with the man in the tartan skirt, Wilson thinks it doesn’t really matter, although it’s pretty clear he thinks she did. What interests him, rather, is the way that “Mrs Brown’s” spectacular bad behaviour makes her the obvious, if unlikely, role model for her scoundrel heir, the hapless Bertie. Mother and son both did exactly as they damn well pleased, embarrassing their families and imperilling the monarchy as they acted on the prompts of their own emotional and erotic inner worlds.

This makes Victoria’s constant criticism of Bertie as well as his siblings – arrogant Affie, wild Louise, selfish Leopold – seem hypocritical. But, Wilson insists, for Victoria, the political always remained intensely personal. She was critiquing her children not so much as real people but as characters in an imaginary dynastic drama, as vivid to her as the Guermantes were to Proust. As Prussia began to dominate Germany, the ageing queen continued to fret over the marriages of her grandchildren – all those oyster-eyed Victorias, Alices, Arthurs and Alfreds – who were to be sent out in a second wave to the four corners of Europe, carrying their fateful cargo of haemophilia, porphyria and sound constitutional principles.

Of course, anyone who gathered in the streets in 1897 to wave a flag as the queen passed by on her way to celebrate her diamond jubilee with a Te Deum on the steps of St Paul’s was probably not thinking much about the Coburg project. Decades earlier she had thrown in her lot with Disraeli, that other great storymaker, who had turned her into the Empress of India, a suitably gaudy figurehead for the new age of popular, jingoistic Toryism. All the same, Wilson suggests in this shimmering and rather wonderful biography, as the elderly queen smiled and inclined her head to the ecstatic crowd, it was still possible to discern in that dumpling form traces of all the earlier versions of herself still buried deep inside. She had become nothing less than a symbol of Time itself, a reminder of the good intentions of the past and a warning about what might happen once she was gone and, with her, the dream of a united Europe.

Whatever became of western civilization?

At the End of the Day

I started work on this piece two days ago, but I am indebted to regular Slogger Edward for sending me a Youtube clipof former Commons Speaker and decent human being Lord Tonypandy* talking on the subject of British sovereignty in the context of Europe. If nothing else, it inspired me to get on with finishing it.

We have this idée fixe in our Western culture that legislation through election is an indivisibly and undoubtedly good thing. The fact that a great deal of evidence over the last 200 years flatly contradicts this notion has never stopped the demos tendency from pressing ahead with everything from elected Police Chiefs (what a success that’s been) to primaries for MEP Candidates.

Day in and out, the facts everywhere from Washington to Warsaw point clearly at one obvious conclusion: far from being a guard against corruption, totalitarianism and privilege, democracy allows all three not just to survive, but to thrive.

Traditionally, the main selling points of universal suffrage have been (1) it’s a flawed system, but far better than the others in terms of liberty; and (2) it reins in the development of oligarchic rule.

Well, here we are with the NSA in the USA, GCHQ in the UK, and the EC in the EU…all of them unaccountable bodies allowed to flourish under a system of 100% citizen voting rights. And there they are, all oligarchies operating above the law to dilute and one day (I suspect) destroy our liberties. This is before we get anywhere near to the CIA, MI6, or Interpol.

For Plato, the term demos was a a boo-term: unbridled democracy he defined as, effectively, ‘mob rule’. But even Plato – who believed that every electorate must be 100% informed – could never have envisaged today’s eternally spun internet, foreign-owned press and TV news media – or directly-marketed pinpointing of persuasion through content targeting and privacy invasion.

Let’s face it: twenty years ago, none of us did.

The Western ‘developed’ world’s electorates have become nothing more than a rationale used by élites to claim legal power. You can tell this by the slimey, insincere voter-compliments all Anglo-Saxon politicians on either side of the Pond resort to when trying to excuse their sleaze:

“I have supreme confidence in the wisdom of the electors to give me a fair hearing on this question, and although I stand accused of the bestial paedophile abuse of 3,402 piglets, I am sure that they will exonerate me….the voters, not the piglets. I am not guilty of blowing their house down, but er um…”

(You could do a lot worse than search the late George Carlin’s website on this subject)

When it comes to voting, most wishfully unthinking liberals ignore the following obvious truths:

1. After a half-century of dumbing-down, the average voter can barely remember the name of most senior politicians, and has no idea of any of their policies. As George Carlin was fond of remarking, “The frightening thing about that average is just how f**kin’ dumb the other 49% must be”.

2. After just one broadcast candidates’ debate during the 2010 UK Election, the terminally lightweight Nick Clegg turned up in the next day’s Polls as favourite to be Prime Minister. Clegg’s performance in achieving this accolade consisted of not falling over, not soiling himself, and not being the other two candidates.

3. On the basis of typical alcohol consumption among adults (18+) in the UK, some 11% of electors who voted in the 2010 Election after 5 pm were anything from fuzzy round the edges to pissed out of their minds at the time.

4. There is no way on God’s Earth that any commercial concern – be it bank, pharmco, pub, supermarket or farm – would call upon the expertise of the man sweeping up the tickets/dead animals/sawdust/broken bottles/cow dung when it came to elucidation of the correct business strategy. But every 4-5 years in Western democracies, we allow this exact practice to occur. Hardly surprising, therefore, that what The Sovereign Electorate says is then studiously ignored for the next 4-5 years by our legislators.

The wishfully unthinking liberal, in fact, regards having the vote as being a basic human right. This is really nothing more than the unconscious belief of many people on the Left that Homo sapiens is somehow unique. But the only unique things about the species identity we all share – and if there are any dolphins reading, I always knew you had it in you – are that we gain pleasure in killing for the sake of it, and we know we are mortal but spend 99.9% of our lives denying it. And you think this to be a sound basis for awarding us Universal rights?

What the Tonypandy clip I linked to at the start of this post shows pretty conclusively is that, freed from the tyranny of needing the votes of everyone from the naive mensa prodigy to the knuckle-dragging, Sun-reading X-Factordevotee, legislators display wisdom, calm judgement, good humour, and an ability to listen politely.

Believe me, this is not a plea for dictatorship – benign or otherwise. I merely ask that people open their minds to the way the world has changed since 1776, 1832, 1945, and 1979. My twofold questioning argument is this:

i. Surely a Second Chamber based on another criterion beyond mass voting must be a good Check & Balance against media-driven spin…most of which emerges from the unelected anyway?

ii. If people clearly and obviously display that they cannot tell (and do not care about) the difference between Thursday and chicken soup, WhyTF give them a say in how their country is run?

I remember going on a skiing holiday in 1986, and – over a long and boozy cheese-fondue chalet dinner – calmly laying these arguments before a friend who was the experienced Chairman of a plc company. He exploded. I mean, he lost it completely. In a diatribe lasting at least three minutes without drawing breath, the bloke called me a fascist, a Nazi, and a despicable control-freak, before adding predictably for good measure, “How could you even think such a thing, let alone say it?”

I am bound to observe, his response stuck me as that of a fascist, a Nazi, and a despicable control-freak.

The last thing I want is the encouragement of yet more self-appointed élites – most of whom are more effete than élite. But in the digital, instant-reaction, half-baked-thought Age, surely we need the guiding influence of those who have in their favour a track-record of success, sagesse, and humility to act as a counterbalance against the obviously unbalanced (and largely self-interested) twerps who – in their blissful ignorance, the British people choose to elect….based on the calculated lies of the unelected media.

PressTV: Whatever became of western civilization? – by Paul Craig Roberts

Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:48PM GMT

Paul Craig Roberts

Western civilization has lost its attractiveness. As nothing remains but a shadow of its former self, it will not be missed as it disappears into a bottomless pit of corruption.

Not that long ago government and free market proponents were at sword’s point, but no more. With little left in the private sector to rip off, the financial gangsters have turned to the public sector and put to work for them the free market economists’ advocacy of privatization.

Governments themselves became part of the conspiracy once the politicians realized that looting public assets was an efficient way to reward their private benefactors.

We can see the entire picture in the David Cameron government’s privatization of the British Royal Mail. The prime minister has described the looting as “popular capitalism” even though the British public overwhelmingly opposes turning over the mail service to a profit-making enterprise.

The British government’s pursuit of policies opposed by the public shows the absence in Britain of the very democracy that British prime ministers, such as Blair and Cameron, are so anxious to help Washington spread with invasions, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran.

Here is how the Royal Mail is being privatized or, rather, looted.

First Cameron’s government, guided by the financial gangsters, undervalued the assets of the Royal Mail and assumed mail delivery charges below those that will be charged. This fictitious accounting allows public assets to be transferred to the politicians’ private benefactors at a price below their value.

For example, all of the Royal Mail’s real estate is being transferred to the new private owners for less than the value of the Royal Mail’s London real estate alone. Neil Clark reports that one Royal Mail London depot is worth about one billion British pounds; but the entire real estate assets of the Royal Mail-public property-is being transferred to the new private owners for about three-quarters of one billion British pounds. The deal was so loaded in favor of the private purchasers that the share price rose almost 40 percent on the first day of trading. (This might have been some sort of nominal trading as the deal possibly has not been finalized.)

According to reports, many of the mail carriers are going to lose their jobs, and the public, not the private purchasers, is stuck with the liability of the Royal Mail pension fund, which is about $55 billion dollars. So the private looters get the assets but not the liabilities.

The purchasers are the financial gangsters in whose behalf economic policy is run in the US, UK, and Europe, and, you guessed it, Goldman Sachs made $33.5 million “advising” Cameron on the sale.

Wall Street and the City of London, the two world financial centers so beloved and misrepresented by free market economists as financiers of investment and economic growth, are in fact legal, government supported, Mafia gangs that loot. Their profits come from looting.

We are seeing them at work in Greece, where the sanctity of financial profits requires public assets to be sold at bargain basement prices to private interests. The deal requires protected islands of the national heritage be turned over to real estate developers, and public assets such as water companies, ports, and the state lottery be sold at lucrative prices to private interests consisting of the private banks and their clients.

In Italy government indebtedness is forcing the sale to private investors of historic castles and villas and the Island of San Giacomo in one of Venice’s lagoons. These national treasures will be turned into hotels, restaurants, and resorts for the one percent.

Are the British Museum and the Smithsonian next to be privatized?

In America prisons are privatized despite the incentive this gives to produce inmates.

Public schools are being privatized in the form of “charter schools.” Charter schools are a scheme to eliminate public sector teachers unions, and to convert their pay into private profits by bringing in contract hires to teach for a few years before they are replaced by a new group of contract hires.

Western civilization, to the extent than any civilization remains, is confronted with a total collapse of economic and government morality. Looting and exploitation rule, and the presstitute media does its best to hide the fact.

Western civilization has been reduced to remnants-historical artifacts, picturesque villages in England and France, German efficiency, joie de vivre and good food in France and Italy, and architectural masterpieces and classical music created before our lifetime.

In addition to Wall Street’s mechanisms for looting, America contributes technology for putting the entire world under constant surveillance, exploiting the information for economic benefit and for silencing dissenters.

Western civilization has lost its attractiveness. As nothing remains but a shadow of its former self, it will not be missed as it disappears into a bottomless pit of corruption.

GEORGE OSBORNE – The Shadow Chancellor who became a shady Chancellor.

The Slog.

Osborne’s China is the new Newscorp. Andy Coulson, prostitutes, drugs, criminal charges and Met police raids are still the old Newscorp.

Following new revelations from the Sunday People and Newscorp, on the day that George Osborne declares China really jolly nice after all, The Slog offers some help in joining up the dots re this one.

chinahammerstitleThere are times when I think certain that the real George Osborne is actually 40 feet tall, but they have to use holograms to reduce him to human proportions. Both these hypotheses seem to me irrefutable, because you can see Osborne coming from a mile off, and he carries no weight at all when it comes to economic strategy. I’m afraid as well that, although the Draper is gaining a reputation in Whitehall for being the man who can avoid any solid storm emerging from even the most powerful fan, there is one thing…

View original post 846 more words



Margaret Thatcher

by craig on April 8, 2013 2:25 pm in Uncategorized

By chance I knew Margaret Thatcher rather better than a junior civil servant might have been expected to, not least from giving her some maritime briefings during the First Gulf War. On another occasion Denis and I once got absolutely blind drunk in Lagos – I had been given him to look after for the day, and the itinerary started with the Guinness brewery and went on to the United Distillers bottling plant, before lunch at the golf club. I had to reunite him with his spouse for the State Banquet and quite literally fell out of the car. Happy days.


I can say I was on first name terms with her – she always called me by my first name. Except unfortunately she thought that was Peter. I recall she came out to Poland when I was in the Embassy there and I was embarrassed because she knew me, and thus greeted me more warmly than my Embassy superiors. The problem was lessened by her continuing to call me Peter very loudly, even after I corrected her twice.


In person she was frightfully sharp, she really was. If you gave her a briefing, she had an uncanny ability to seize on the one point where you did not have sufficient information. She also had that indescribable charisma – you really could feel when she entered a room in a way I have never experienced with anybody else, not Mandela or Walesa, for example. You may be surprised to hear that in person I found her quite likeable.


Yet she was a terrible, terrible disaster to this country. The utter devastation of heavy industry, the writing off of countless billions worth of tooling and equipment, the near total loss of the world’s greatest concentrated manufacturing skills base, the horrible political division of society and tearing of the bonds within our community. She was a complete, utter disaster.


Let me give one anecdote to which I can personally attest. In leaving office she became a “consultant” to US tobacco giant Phillip Morris. She immediately used her influence on behalf of Phillip Morris to persuade the FCO to lobby the Polish government to reduce the size of health warnings on Polish cigarette packets. Poland was applying to join the EU, and the Polish health warnings were larger than the EU stipulated size.


I was the official on whose desk the instruction landed to lobby for lower health warnings. I refused to do it. My then Ambassador, Michael Llewellyn Smith (for whom I had and have great respect) came up with the brilliant diplomatic solution of throwing the instruction in the bin, but telling London we had done it.


So as you drown in a sea of praise for Thatcher, remember this. She was prepared to promote lung cancer, for cash.

Thatcher wanted Cecil Parkinson as foreign secretary, records show

But for affair with aide, Parkinson effectively would have been annointed as Thatcher’s preferred successor in 1983

Margaret Thatcher and Cecil Parkinson

Margaret Thatcher and Cecil Parkinson in 1983. Photograph: Herbie Knott/Rex Features

Margaret Thatcher planned to promote Cecil Parkinson to foreign secretary and effectively annoint him as her successor in the immediate aftermath of her 1983 post-Falklands general election landslide, according to the latest release of the former Conservative prime minister’s personal papers.

She was due to make the move [having had her government lecture the rest of the country about a return to ‘Victorian values’] before she was told of his affair with his former Commons secretary Sara Keays.

Thatcher’s Downing Street private office files for 1983, released at the Churchill archives in Cambridge on Monday, show that the prospect of her handing one of the most senior jobs in government to the man who as party chairman had masterminded her victory election campaign filled some of her closest advisers with alarm. While they admired him as a communicator, some did not rate him as an intellectual.

David Wolfson, Thatcher’s chief of staff, warned her that giving Parkinson the post would put in “a position of immense power” a man who had yet to prove himself as a cabinet minister. He suggested that Parkinson, as an accountant, might better be left in charge of the nationalised industries.

Thatcher’s handwritten notes in her personal papers about her preparations for a post-election reshuffle show quite clearly that while there was some public speculation that Parkinson might replace Lord Whitelaw as home secretary, she fully intended to give Parkinson the job of foreign secretary.

Indeed, on the night when she won her 144-seat second-term majority she offered the post to Parkinson, only to be told by him of his affair with Keays.

Initially Thatcher did not think that an “insuperable obstacle” to his becoming foreign secretary. But when Keays’ father wrote to tell Thatcher that Keays was pregnant with Parkinson’s child and that he had promised to marry her, she decided instead to make him trade and industry secretary.

The only reference to the father’s letter in Thatcher’s papers is a draft reply saying: “I understand that you have since spoken to the person concerned and have asked that I should return your letter which I now do.” Instead she decided to destroy it by burning it in the fireplace of the sitting room at Chequers.

Thatcher, in her memoirs, says she showed Parkinson the letter when he arrived for lunch that Friday, the day after the election on 8 June. “It must have been one of the worst moments of his life. It was immediately obvious I could not send Cecil to the Foreign Office with such a cloud hanging over him. I urged him to discuss the personal question with his family. Meanwhile I decided to make him secretary of state for the newly created Department of Trade and Industry.”

Chris Collins, of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, said the move would have catapulted Parkinson up the party hierarchy. “It’s only speculative that she considered him to be her successor but it would appear that she was very serious about him indeed,” he said. “He had certainly risen very fast and she knew that by promoting him in this way, she would create an atmosphere around him.”

Nicholas Ridley, who served in Thatcher’s cabinet and was a close friend of Parkinson, said in his memoir My Style of Government: “Her first choice of an heir apparent back in 1983 was Cecil Parkinson.” He said her second choice was John Moore, and John Major, her eventual successor, was only her third choice.

Parkinson was forced to resign on the eve of Thatcher’s triumphant party conference speech in October 1983 when Keays made the affair public in a newspaper interview. Thatcher’s papers include the unpublished exchange of resignation letters between them in which she tells Parkinson that she and Denis were heartened by the way he was looking forward to the future with his wife, Ann, and his family.

“I need not tell you how deeply Denis and I have felt for you and Ann and your family during this difficult time. And we are enormously heartened by the way you are now looking to the future with great courage and the strength which comes from the family,” she wrote.

The scale of Thatcher’s 1983 victory had left her with a freer hand in deciding who should be in her cabinet than at any other time as prime minister. Although the handwritten notes of potential cabinet lists clearly show her intention to make Parkinson foreign secretary, she seems to have kept the idea very much to herself.

Even Wolfson, her chief of staff, assumed that Parkinson might be made home secretary once the encumbent, Lord Whitelaw, had been persuaded to become leader of the House of Lords. In fact, Thatcher had pencilled in Geoffrey Howe, the eventual foreign secretary, for this job.

But that was enough to alarm Wolfson who, in a paper entitled Another View of the Reshuffle, told her in June 1983: “As chairman and, say, home secretary, the party would suffer in the runup to an election. Cecil would be in a position of immense power, and you must judge whether he has yet proved himself as a cabinet minister.

“Home secretary will be important, but not as important as it seems,” wrote Wolfson. “The crucial thing may well be having someone who can say with conviction that the riots, which we should expect, are not due to unemployment. That is why Francis Pym would be a hazard; he would not carry conviction. But possibly Patrick Jenkin, with his soft voice, would be as tough as Cecil and be more believable to the public?

“Cecil might well be ideal at Industry. He is an accountant and could cope with the problem of controlling nationalised industries, as well as having good contacts with industrialists through his years as chairman,” he said.

Howe in his memoirs reveals that he had embarrassingly interrupted Thatcher and Parkinson in a huddle at the Conservative central office election night party: “Not until much later did we discover the reason why … the prime minister was still considering whether she could appoint Cecil as her foreign secretary.”

Howe says in his book Conflict of Loyalty that he would have been startled to realise that at the time. “Although I had high respect for his potential, I should not have credited him with sufficient seniority or experience for this particular position … he had shown himself during the Falklands to be … a ‘consummate executor of prime ministerial command’ … I am not sorry – and not just for my own sake – that this plan was frustrated.”

Taxpayer-funded funerals like Margaret Thatcher’s are ‘not for public debate,’ says MP

THE preparations for future funerals for prominent politicians like Baroness Thatcher are “not a fit subject for public debate”, Commons Leader Andrew Lansley said today.

Published: Thu, April 18, 2013

The Government was asked by David Watts to publish detailed costs of any future funeral plans
The preparations for future funerals for prominent politicians like Baroness Thatcher are “not a fit subject for public debate”, Commons Leader Andrew Lansley said today.
An effigy of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher in a 'coffin' is burnt together with a sofa and wood as people gather to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher in Goldthorpe, northen England, on April 17, 2013. The funeral of Margaret Thatcher took place on April 17, with Queen Elizabeth II leading mourners from around the world in bidding farewell to one of Britain's most influential and divisive prime ministers. AFP PHOTO/ANDREW YATESANDREW YATES/AFP/Getty Images
An effigy of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher in a ‘coffin’ is burnt together with a sofa and wood as people gather to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher in Goldthorpe, northen England, on April 17, 2013. The funeral of Margaret Thatcher took place on April 17, with Queen Elizabeth II leading mourners from around the world in bidding farewell to one of Britain’s most influential and divisive prime ministers. AFP PHOTO/ANDREW YATESANDREW YATES/AFP/Getty Images
In the wake of fierce debate over the cost of the former prime minister’s funeral, the Government was asked by Labour MP David Watts to publish detailed costs of any future funeral arrangements it has in place.But Mr Lansley said a debate on funeral costs would be “inappropriate” and said the public cost of Lady Thatcher’s funeral was “substantially below” the £10-£20 million being touted by some, including Mr Watts.During the Business Statement, Mr Watts asked: “Can we have a debate in government time on the future funeral arrangements for ex-prime ministers and how their funerals will be dealt with given the fact that we have spent extravagantly million on Mrs Thatcher’s.”Can the Government publish all the detailed costs so that we can aid that debate?”

Preparation for future funerals for people is not a fit subject for public debate.


Andrew Lansley


To shouts from the Labour benches, Mr Lansley replied: “Matters of this kind are inappropriate for public debate.”Preparation for future funerals for people is not a fit subject for public debate.”But they are the subject of detailed consideration, as indeed were the arrangements for Baroness Thatcher’s funeral over a quite substantial period of time.”I don’t recognise the figures he says. I have no knowledge of any basis for figures of that kind, we have made it clear that the figures are going to be substantially below what he describes and they will be published in due course.”He described Lady Thatcher’s funeral arrangements as “entirely appropriate” and “fitting in the circumstances”.
Sarah Fergusson lurking at the funeral
Sarah Fergusson lurking at the funeral
A horse drawn hearse carrying an effigy and a coffin pass Goldthorpe Union Jack Memorial club on the day  of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatchers Funeral . PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo.Picture date: Wednesday April  17  2013 . Photo credit should read: John Giles/PA Wire.
A horse drawn hearse carrying an effigy and a coffin pass Goldthorpe Union Jack Memorial club on the day of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatchers Funeral . PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo.Picture date: Wednesday April 17 2013 . Photo credit should read: John Giles/PA Wire.

Dance on Thatcher’s grave, but remember there has been a coup in Britain

25 April 2013

In the wake of Thatcher’s departure, I remember her victims. Patrick Warby’s daughter, Marie, was one of them. Marie, aged five, suffered from a bowel deformity and needed a special diet. Without it, the pain was excruciating. Her father was a Durham miner and had used all his savings. It was winter 1985, the Great Strike was almost a year old and the family was destitute. Although her eligibility was not disputed, Marie was denied help by the Department of Social Security. Later, I obtained records of the case that showed Marie had been turned down because her father was “affected by a Trade dispute”.

The corruption and inhumanity under Thatcher knew no borders. When she came to power in 1979, Thatcher demanded a total ban on exports of milk to Vietnam. The American invasion had left a third of Vietnamese children malnourished. I witnessed many distressing sights, including infants going blind from a lack of vitamins. “I cannot tolerate this,” said an anguished doctor in a Saigon paediatric hospital, as we looked at a dying boy. Oxfam and Save the Children had made clear to the British government the gravity of the emergency. An embargo led by the US had forced up the local price of a kilo of milk up to ten times that of a kilo of meat. Many children could have been restored with milk. Thatcher’s ban held.

In neighbouring Cambodia, Thatcher left a trail of blood, secretly. In 1980, she demanded that the defunct Pol Pot regime – the killers of 1.7 million people – retain its “right” to represent their victims at the UN. Her policy was vengeance on Cambodia’s liberator, Vietnam. The British representative was instructed to vote with Pol Pot at the World Health Organisation, thereby preventing it from providing help to where it was needed more than anywhere on earth.

To conceal this outrage, the US, Britain and China, Pol Pot’s main backer, invented a “resistance coalition” dominated by Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge forces and supplied by the CIA at bases along the Thai border. There was a hitch. In the wake of the Irangate arms-for-hostages debacle, the US Congress had banned clandestine foreign adventures. “In one of those deals the two of them liked to make,” a senior Whitehall official told the Sunday Telegraph, “President Reagan put it to Thatcher that the SAS should take over the Cambodia show. She readily agreed.”

In 1983, Thatcher sent the SAS to train the “coalition” in its own distinctive brand of terrorism. Seven-man SAS teams arrived from Hong Kong, and British soldiers set about training “resistance fighters” in laying minefields in a country devastated by genocide and the world’s highest rate of death and injury as a result of landmines.

I reported this at the time, and more than 16,000 people wrote to Thatcher in protest. “I confirm,” she replied to opposition leader Neil Kinnock, “that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with the Khmer Rouge or those allied to them.” The lie was breathtaking. In 1991, the government of John Major admitted to parliament that the SAS had indeed trained the “coalition”.  “We liked the British,” a Khmer Rouge fighter later told me. “They were very good at teaching us to set booby traps. Unsuspecting people, like children in paddy fields, were the main victims.”

When the journalists and producers of ITV’s landmark documentary, Death on the Rock, exposed how the SAS had run Thatcher’s other death squads in Ireland and Gibraltar, they were hounded by Rupert Murdoch’s “journalists”, then cowering behind the razor wire at Wapping. Although exonerated, Thames TV lost its ITV franchise.

In 1982, the Argentine cruiser, General Belgrano, was steaming outside the Falklands exclusion zone. The ship offered no threat, yet Thatcher gave orders for it to be sunk. Her victims were 323 sailors, including conscripted teenagers. The crime had a certain logic. Among Thatcher’s closest allies were mass murderers – Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, responsible for “many more than one million deaths” (Amnesty International). Although the British state had long armed the world’s leading tyrannies, it was Thatcher who brought a crusading zeal to the deals, talking up the finer points of fighter aircraft engines, hard-bargaining with bribe-demanding Saudi princes. I filmed her at an arms fair, stroking a gleaming missile. “I’ll have one of those!” she said.

In his arms-to-Iraq enquiry, Lord Richard Scott heard evidence that an entire tier of the Thatcher government, from senior civil servants to ministers, had lied and broken the law in selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. These were her “boys”. Thumb through old copies of the Baghdad Observer, and there are pictures of her boys, mostly cabinet ministers, on the front page sitting with Saddam on his famous white couch. There is Douglas Hurd and there is a grinning David Mellor, also of the Foreign Office, around the time his host was ordering the gassing of 5,000 Kurds. Following this atrocity, the Thatcher government doubled trade credits to Saddam.

Perhaps it is too easy to dance on her grave. Her funeral was a propaganda stunt, fit for a dictator: an absurd show of militarism, as if a coup had taken place. And it has. “Her real triumph”, said another of her boys, Geoffrey Howe, a Thatcher minister, “was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible.”

In 1997, Thatcher was the first former prime minister to visit Tony Blair after he entered Downing Street. There is a photo of them, joined in rictus: the budding war criminal with his mentor. When Ed Milliband, in his unctuous “tribute”, caricatured Thatcher as a “brave” feminist hero whose achievements he personally “honoured”, you knew the old killer had not died at all.

An edited version of this article originally appeared in the New Statesman

A topnotch site

Fabrication in BBC Panorama 'Saving Syria’s Children'

Analysis of the 30 September 2013 BBC Panorama documentary 'Saving Syria's Children' and related BBC News reports, contending that sequences filmed by BBC personnel and others at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo on 26 August 2013 purporting to show the aftermath of an incendiary bomb attack on a school in Urm Al-Kubra are largely, if not entirely, staged.


ARTICLES IN THE NEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMENTS, FEEDBACK, IDEAS

Historical Tribune

The Factual Review

Desultory Heroics

A Chronicle of Dystopia and Resistance

Astute News

The Science Of News And Analysis

Taking Sides

Thinking Through and Against Received Opinion

The Last Refuge

Rag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits - Contact Info:

Citizen WElls

Obama eligibility, Obama news

Burst Updates

Burst Updates, an explosion of news, politics, and opinions.

tomfernandez28's Blog

A topnotch site

The Free

blog of the post capitalist transition.. Read or download the novel here + latest relevant posts

John Laurits

Insurgent journalism. Poetry. Weaponized Mathematics.

Hwaairfan's Blog

"We are all pieces of the puzzle of Truth, one piece missing and our self image is incomplete...Tawhid! !..."

Web Investigator.KK. org... is one web investigative resource for searching thousands of online sources, and public databases. This blog will change your life!

Johnsono ne'Blog'as

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Nwo Report

Nwo News, End Time, World News and Conspiracy News

Journal of People

Peasants and workers

%d bloggers like this: