Why not make Parliament into a Holocaust Memorial?

May 08, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

holocaust parliament.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Five British Prime Ministers, some of them renowned war criminals, united yesterday in a call to build a Holocaust Memorial in proximity to Parliament.  “A sacred, national mission,” is how Theresa May described the idea and for once, I totally agree with this tragic, sad woman. I would take it further: don’t just build a holocaust shrine in Westminster, make our parliament into a Holocaust monument. We don’t really need a House of Commons; as things stand, we better get direct orders from our true rulers in Tel Aviv.

But there is a deeper ethical rationale that justifies the erection of a holocaust memorial instead of our dysfunctional parliament. Every political commentator in Britain knows by now that the more that Jewish pressure groups terrorise the kingdom, its human rights campaigners, its artists, writers and poets, the more Brits become aware of the crimes of Zionism, Israel and their ruthless Lobby. The more British politicians join Parliamentary friends of Israel clubs, the less Brits trust their political system. The more Holocaust indoctrination is shoved down our throats, the more suspicious Brits become of the manner in which history is told.

Mrs May said: “By putting our National Holocaust Memorial and Education Centre next to our Parliament, we make a solemn and eternal promise that Britain will never forget what happened in the Holocaust.” Is that true Mrs. May? Do you really mean what you say? Will our Holocaust memorial bring to light the embarrassing fact that Britain made it very difficult for Jewish refugees to seek a safe haven in the Kingdom or in other parts of the empire? In 1937, as the rate of Jewish refugees looking to immigrate to Britain increased, the British government created stricter standards for those whom they would admit. One was that refugees had to have ₤50 deposited in an overseas bank, but in Germany it was against the law to possess foreign currency. If this was not enough to stop Jewish immigration from Germany, the British government limited the number of immigrants in 1938 and 1939. Practically speaking, the British Government turned its back on German and Austrian Jews.

 The PM vowed that “in the face of despicable Holocaust denial, this memorial will stand to preserve the truth forever.

” I am here to tell you with confidence that the British Holocaust memorial will act intensively to conceal British complicity in the destruction of European Jewry.

 Mrs May was joined by all the living former prime ministers: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Sir John Major. With the exception of Sir John Major, all our living PMs are involved in a lot of death and carnage. While Blair and Brown led this kingdom to a disastrous criminal war in Iraq that led to millions of casualties, it was Cameron who managed to pull this country into a chain of disasters in Libya, Syria and beyond.

 Tony Blair whom third of the British people see as a war criminal  said in his message that “Antisemitism and hate did not end in 1945. Unfortunately today some of this poison is back from the political fringe to parts of the political mainstream.” Blair was probably referring to his own party that struggles to disown the criminal past he himself inflicted on it. But the truth of the matter is that Antisemitism didn’t die in 1945, certainly not in Britain. The post-war Labour Government went out of its way to make the lives of Jewish holocaust survivors impossible. In Zionist history, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin (Labour) is remembered as one of the bitterest enemies of the Jewish people. This senior Labour politician had opposed removing the limiting of Jewish immigration to Palestine. Is this Zionist chronicle of Labour anti-Jewish politics going to be explored in the Holocaust monument?

It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Blair and Brown are so enthusiastic about a museum that Chronicles Nazi crimes rather than a proper and timely institute that would explore their own crimes in Iraq. It is pretty clear why David Cameron prefers to divert attention from his own blunders in Syria and Libya. But it goes further. Britain and the Empire have a long list of crimes against humanity to account for: slavery, concentration camps in the Boer war, the partitioning of India, the destruction of Palestine, famines in Ireland and Bengal. Millions of innocent people lost their lives due to the crimes of the empire, yet our ethically compromised Prime Ministers are committed to the commemoration of crimes that were committed by another people. Is this the ethical message we are supposed to pass to the next generations? Is zero self-reflection a new British value?

 I have learned that Jeremy Corbyn, the person who according to the polls is destined to become our next PM, is not at all different from his predecessors. Corbyn, who at a certain point claimed to care for the many, is now subscribing to the primacy of Jewish suffering. Corbyn was quick to announce that he also would “strongly support permanent commemoration, including a national memorial, alongside extra investment in educational programmes.” I guess that supporting a Holocaust memorial is an entry ticket to 10 Downing Street.

There is a good reason to believe that our entire political class has migrated to Egypt by now, without exception they all live in a state of denial. 

My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.



The David Kelly Black Hole

By Alison Broinowski


In July 2003, five months after the US and its allies invaded Iraq, Dr David Kelly CMG was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home. The circumstances did not suggest suicide, although some of the British biological weapons expert’s friends and family knew he had differences with his employer, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) over his retirement salary. After his comments to journalists about the Blair government’s use of a ‘dodgy dossier’ to justify invading Iraq were reported by the BBC, Kelly was subjected to aggressive questioning by the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee. In an interview that could have been scripted from Kafka’s The Trial, Kelly (like Josef K) was not told what evidence they had, or what he was charged with. But K’s grilling did not take place in the mother of parliaments, as Kelly’s did.

Lord Hutton was commissioned by Blair to inquire into Kelly’s death and in January 2004 found it was suicide. He did not call the Thames Valley constables to appear, though they had been at the scene, and he sealed the medical evidence for 70 years. That made it impossible for what Kelly knew from his experience as a weapons inspector in Iraq to lead to Blair being indicted for war crimes.  Arrangements were made by the Prime Minister’s friend from university, Charles Falconer, who gave the inquiry no powers to compel witness, and no requirement to take evidence under oath, but complete control over what was made public. Blair later advised another friend Rebekah Brooks, whose News of the World was accused in 2011 of phone hacking, to ‘publish a Hutton-style report’ which the former PM told her would ‘clear you’, and deliver a similarly acceptable result (Geoffrey Wheatcroft, ‘How the Murdoch gang got away’, New York Review of Books, 8 January 2015: 32-3).

But Tom Mangold, a former BBC journalist, believed it was suicide, arguing that Kelly, when cornered by the Committee, lied about what he had said to two journalists and weakly claimed not to have been the BBC’s Andrew Gilligan’s main source for the story about the ‘sexed-up’ dossier (Rod Barton, The Weapons Detective, Melbourne: Black Inc 2006. Tom Mangold, ‘Shame made David Kelly kill himself’, Independent Online, 22 August 2010).

In 2006 Norman Baker, a Lib-Dem. MP, took up the case, concluding that Kelly’s death was notsuicide. Data was inexplicably wiped from the hard drive of Baker’s computer in July 2006, but he wrote The Strange Death of Dr David Kelly the following year. An ex-Army medical officer, Dr Stephen Frost, also waged a long campaign for a full investigation of Kelly’s death, as did journalist Miles Goslett, who recently published An Inconvenient Death: How the establishment covered up the David Kelly affair (Daily Mail Australia, 14 January 2019). None of them, predictably, has succeeded in getting anyone to open the trapdoor of the black hole where the truth lies.

Dr Kelly went out for his usual mid-afternoon walk on 17 July 2003 and failed to return. Eighteen hours later, volunteers with a search dog succeeded where a heat-seeking helicopter had failed, in finding his body. After their report to local police, it was at least 25 minutes before two Thames Valley Constables came to take charge, with two paramedics. In the meantime, the volunteers met three other policemen, led by Detective Constable Graham Coe, near the scene. Coe later claimed he had only one companion, although five witnesses saw two. The paramedics saw very little blood, much less than would be expected from a severed artery, but a forensic pathologist described seeing scratches and bruises and copious quantities of blood, as did a forensic biologist. The volunteers saw the body propped against a tree, with a cut in the left wrist, and no objects on the ground. When the Thames Valley police arrived they saw the body on its back, a distance from the tree, with a knife (50 years old, and blunt), a watch and a water bottle near it. No fingerprints were found on them.

Evidence from the autopsy showed a knife wound whose direction and location suggested it almost certainly was not self-inflicted. The forensic report found 29 co-proaxamol painkillers in Kelly’s system, but the autopsy revealed only one fifth of one such tablet, which he was prescribed for a heart condition. A letter to The Times from medical specialists argued that it was impossible for Kelly to have died by cutting the ulnar artery and bleeding to death in the way Hutton described (Jim Rarey, ‘The Murder of David Kelly,’ The Journal of History, Winter 2004). Their doubts were shared by a plastic surgeon (a relative of Kelly’s) and a vascular surgeon whom she consulted after the inquiry.

Without inquiring into these or other anomalies, such as the failure to check Kelly’s mobile phone records, the Oxford Coroner obligingly adjourned his inquest when the Hutton inquiry pre-empted it. The Coroner later reviewed the evidence with the Lord Chancellor and concluded in March 2004 there was no need to reopen the inquest (Brian Wheeler, BBC News, ‘MP investigates Dr Kelly’s death’, 19 May 2006).

Some strange events appeared to anticipate Kelly’s death, on which silence later fell or was imposed. In the Thames Valley Police Tactical Support Major Incident Policy Book a ‘not for release’ document for Operation Mason was opened at ‘1430 17.07.03,’ up to an hour before Kelly went out, and closed at ‘930 18.07.03,’ about the time when Coe and his men left the scene. Kelly’s records disappeared from his dentist’s room on 17 July, before his body was officially located. The day before his death, Kelly told his confidante Judith Miller, the New York journalist, about ‘dark actors playing games’. Kelly had earlier expressed fear that he was on a hit-list to David Brouder, a former British Ambassador to Prague, saying he could be ‘found dead in the woods’. He told Brouder in Geneva that the PM’s claim that Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes was false, and said Blair’s PR adviser Alistair Campbell wanted a strongly-worded dossier supporting it. A barrister, Michael Shipton, reported a British intelligence contact telling him Kelly had been ‘taken down’ (Marcus Lowth, ‘Maybe the suicide of Dr David Kelly should face more scrutiny,’ 2 April 2018).

Kelly knew about much more than WMD. As a leading biological weapons expert, he transferred in 1984 from the Institute of Virology in Oxford to the Ministry of Defence at its Porton Down facility near Salisbury. After Vladimir Pasechnik defected to the UK in 1989 he revealed to Kelly and others that the USSR maintained a bioweapons program in violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (in force 1975), producing ‘microbial agents, bacterial agents and viral agents, particularly, plague and smallpox, which are transmissible from man to man, and could be launched against large civil populations’ (Jim Rarey, ‘The Murder of David Kelly,’ The Journal of History, Winter 2004. Christopher Davis,’ Frontline,’ PBS.). Kelly travelled several times to Russia and Iraq to inspect bioweapons, which in 1997 were banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. He went earlier to South Africa where the CIA collaborated with an apartheid-era program to develop genetically-altered diseases which would affect only designated groups, such as black people, as well as materials for use in assassinating individuals. Two scientists from Porton Down were transferred to that program.

This suggests there is much more in the black hole about Kelly, and the Skripals too. Some people at Porton Down may know what it is, but if they want to keep their jobs and their lives, they won’t say.

Quelle Surprise! Britain’s intelligence services systematically planted fake news in major newspapers


© True Publica Org

Is the CIA editing your newspaper? Here is a great overview by Ed Jones of OpenDemocracyUK of why corporate media are the arch-exponents of “fake news”. The media are overwhelming owned and controlled by billionaires and gargantuan corporations, who depend on the support of other corporations for ad revenue, and employ journalists from a narrow, privileged class whose careers depend on maintaining access to elite sources. It would be simply astounding in these circumstances if we had anything resembling a pluralistic media.

The data concerns UK outlets, but the same principles apply in the US.

One section makes especially disturbing reading. It is the little-discussed matter of the intelligence services’ deep penetration of most western, and in some cases non-western, media organisations. In short, US intelligence services – and to a lesser extent British ones – have for many decades fed information to sympathetic journalists in key positions inside the “free” media, working with them hand in glove. Additionally, the CIA has sought to put its own people into publications to shape directly editorial content and influence public opinion. In some cases, these people may have reached very senior positions.

Nick Davies, of the Guardian, dedicated a whole chapter of his book Flat Earth News to documenting these practices. Strangely, that chapter is rarely mentioned. Journalists who praise the book instead concentrate on his less revealing concept of “churnalism” – journalism compromised by constraints of time and resources.

Jones adds other sources who make much the same point: Richard Keeble, professor of journalism at the University of Lincoln, … has written on the history of the links between journalists and the intelligence services. … He quotes Roy Greenslade, who has been a media specialist for both the Telegraph and the Guardian [and is a former editor of the Mirror newspaper], as saying: “Most tabloid newspapers – or even newspapers in general – are playthings of MI5 [Britain’s FBI].” Keeble goes on to say:

“Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of ‘one of Britain’s most distinguished journals’ as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll [the British equivalent of the CIA – my emphasis]. And in 1991, Richard Norton-Taylor revealed in the Guardian that 500 prominent Britons paid by the CIA and the now defunct Bank of Commerce and Credit International, included 90 journalists.”

Keeble has given many more examples in his book chapter of the intelligence services infiltrating the media and changing the politics of the time, including around the miners strikes and Arthur Scargill in the 1980s and during the lead-up to the Iraq war in 2003. …

David Leigh, former investigations editor of The Guardian, wrote about a series of instances in which the secret services manipulated prominent journalists. He claims reporters are routinely approached and manipulated by intelligence agents and identifies three ways – providing examples for each in his article – in which they do it:

They attempt to recruit journalists to spy on other people or themselves attempt to go under journalistic “cover.”

They allow intelligence officers to pose as journalists “to write tendentious articles under false names.”

And “the most malicious form”: they plant intelligence agency propaganda stories on willing journalists who disguise their origin from readers.

Remember that those who should be exposing the intelligence services’ manipulation of the mainstream media are the very same mainstream media that are already compromised.

In other words, this story of is almost impossible for the media to tell because it would expose a very uncomfortable reality: that they are not, as they claim, watchdogs on power, but rather the lapdogs of the powerful.

If all this still seems hard to believe, please watch this video (below) of a senior German journalist admitting that he was recruited by the US intelligence services (h/t Antonio Nascimento). Udo Ulfkotte covered the Middle East for the Frankfurter Allgemeine for 12 years, and says he regularly acted as a conduit for CIA propaganda. He adds that many of his colleagues were doing the same, willingly promoting CIA disinformation.

If all this still seems hard to believe, please watch this video of a senior German journalist admitting that he was recruited by the US intelligence services (h/t Antonio Nascimento). Udo Ulfkotte covered the Middle East for the Frankfurter Allgemeine for 12 years, and says he regularly acted as a conduit for CIA propaganda. He adds that many of his colleagues were doing the same, willingly promoting CIA disinformation.


Blair: UK’s deceitful ideologue should be tried for Iraq war crimes

UK’s deceitful ideologue should be tried for Iraq war crimes: Expert


Tony Blair is “a deceitful and manipulative ideologue,” who should be tried for war crimes over his role in the 2003 Iraq war and for deceiving a naive British public, but instead he is discussing the threat of political uprising in the West, an international lawyer and political analyst says.

In a phone interview with Press TV on Wednesday, Barry Grossman called the former British prime minister a “fraudulent and corrupt progressive” as well as “a Bill Clinton clone.”

On Monday, Blair warned that political upheavals in the West, including Britain’s vote to leave the European Union in June and the November 8 election of Donald Trump as president of the US, as well as the collapse of the Italian government on Sunday, signals the most dangerous time for Western democracies in decades.

“It does feel perilous, actually, because I think there are decisions that are being taken of vast moment in circumstances where systems are fragile, and that is troubling,” Blair told the USA Today newspaper during a trip to Washington.

‘Blair advanced the New World Order agenda’

Tony Blair (left) and George W. Bush at the infamous March 2002 summit at Bush’s ranch house in Crawford, Texas, where the two men spoke about invading Iraq. (Photo by AFP)

“I find it bizarre that Tony Blair is still speaking publicly given that nobody is interested in anything he has to say, apart from insiders involved in promoting the same special interests he has long served and the wider establishment which he notes is being largely rejected by an angry electorate which has had enough of business as usual,” said Grossman, who is based in Bali, Indonesia.

“There is nothing particularly insightful about Tony Blair’s most recent comments and the only place where he should have a platform to speak publicly is the defendant’s dock in a criminal court trying him for his war crimes against Iraq and his deception of the British public while he was prime minister. He certainly brings nothing productive to the difficult process of addressing the issues of our day,” the analyst stated.

“At his best, he was nothing more than a Bill Clinton clone who went so far as to use key members of Clinton’s team to model his own victorious election campaign on the same ‘promise nothing and say anything’ tricks pioneered by Clinton,” he argued.

“At his worst, he was a deceitful and manipulative ideologue willing to commit any crime to advance the New World Order agenda he and his ilk have worked decades to foist upon an uninformed, gullible and naive public,” the lawyer noted.

In March 2003, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in blatant violation of international law and under the pretext of finding WMDs; but no such weapons were ever discovered in Iraq. More than one million Iraqis were killed as the result of the US-led invasion, and subsequent occupation of the country, according to the California-based investigative organization Project Censored.

‘Blair’s contrived diplomatic positions’

Grossman said, “The irony of Blair lamenting today’s nascent broad spectrum public rage at the Atlantic World establishment is completely lost on him, bearing in mind that the only reason he is still prancing around the globe under cover of various ever changing quasi-official portfolios, is that he was very much a key player in pushing the Atlantic World dominated international system we call the New World Order across the line.”

“So naturally today’s Atlantic World leaders are more than happy to keep him cloaked in the immunities that come with the contrived diplomatic positions bestowed on him so that he can remain insulated from any and all attempts to hold him legally accountable, while continuing to work behind closed doors to advance their cause,” the international lawyer explained.

‘Blair and Clintons sold out their people’

Tony Blair (right) and Hillary Clinton 

“The public is waking up to the fact that fraudulent and corrupt progressives like Tony Blair and the Clintons sold out ‘the people’ and the cause of genuine social justice to corporate and special interests which dominate the think tanks that formulate both the domestic and foreign policies prescribed to all the dominant political parties,” he stated.

“Fake progressive like Blair have always been equally willing to embrace neoliberal economic policies and neoconservative foreign policies, while paying lip service to the ideal of social justice. That said, they are neither liberals nor conservatives and certainly not progressives, so much as pragmatic corporatists who always keep a keen eye on their own personal self-interest,” the commentator noted.

“Their corrosive legacies are the main reason we now see a widespread public backlash against them and their corrupt business-as-usual way of advancing agendas which serve anything but the interests of social justice, security, progress, or the people,” he explained.

“Yes, things will apparently get a lot worse before they can get any better, largely because political parties opposing the hard-right have been fully infiltrated and corrupted by special interests and refuse to learn anything from their mistakes or get back to placing principle above political pragmatism, and the people above big business,” the analyst concluded.

Michael Gove is probably one of the most hare-brained, bonkers and deranged MPs to sit in the House of Commons.

The Mad Hatter of Westminster


Image result for michael gove


Image result for michael gove


Image result for michael gove

I first met Michael Gove when I was 17 years old and participating in the final of a regional schools debating competition. At that time he was Home Affairs Editor of The Times and was acting as one of the judges in the final round of the competition. I met him again at a reception a year later in Inner Temple, one of the old inns of law in London, at a reception with the late Baroness Thatcher whom I was asked to present a gift to. A few years later as I was graduating from Cambridge University I became professionally involved with him while helping to set up a think tank euphemistically called The Henry Jackson Society.
Gove became a Trustee of the The Henry Jackson Society just after he was elected a Tory MP in the General Election of 2005 Sadly, due to internal management and leadership problems The Henry Jackson Society degenerated into something which it was never intended to be. My own personal account of the degeneration of The Henry Jackson Society is still to be written but my former colleague Marko Hoare has already written an excellent expose from his own viewpoint of what went badly wrong with theHJS and it is well worth a read. Since then, and with the reality of what the Iraq War has created, I have renounced my original support for the war (I was to be fair to myself a naive 19 year old at the time) and severed my links with the HJS, repudiating it and what it stands for. As John Maynard Keynes once said: «the facts change, my opinions change». Yet, Michael Gove (17 years my senior and vastly more professionally experienced than myself), to the best of my knowledge, has not renounced his ardent intellectual and journalistic support for the invasion of Iraq or even expressed regret at the aftermath.
This unflinching, undiluted support for the Iraq War and its aftermath combined with his ideological hatred of the European Union and doctrinaire championing of a British exit from the EU at all costs, I think, qualifies him for the title of the Mad Hatter of the Westminster village. Gove is indeed probably one of the most hare-brained, bonkers and deranged MPs to sit in the House of Commons. Boris Johnson’s sister, Rachel, labelled him a «political psychopath». I suppose having grown up with one for a brother, Ms Johnson knows one when she sees one. Mr. Gove, like Mr. Johnson, is divorced from reality.

He likes to think of himself as a intellectual snob. Yet, he only achieved a 2.1 in his undergraduate studies, not in the premier intellectual league of a First class degree, and is only educated to BA level having undertaken no post-graduate study and research. Being so absorbed in his own little pseudo-intellectual world, he evidently cannot see the intellectual word for the trees.

No more clearly can this be seen than in his steadfast support to this day for the Iraq War. Tariq Ali once recalled how, at the time of the Iraq War, he «debated the ghastly Gove on television [… and found him] worse than most Bush apologists in the United States». That takes quite some doing. Back in 2002 and 2003 from his column in the Murdoch owned Times. Gove helped beat the journalistic drumbeat to war in Iraq. As the loathsome Editor of the Daily Mail Paul Dacre put it in evidence to The LevesonInquiry: «I’m not sure that the Blair government – or Tony Blair – would have been able to take the British people to war if it hadn’t been for the implacable support provided by the Murdoch papers. There’s no doubt that came from Mr Murdoch himself».

Gove wrote in an article for The Times in December 2002 while he was Assistant Editor that the invasion of Iraq would «deliver millions from misery». Those who warned against the dangers of invading Iraq were labelled by Gove as «Saddam’s useful idiots». Even as far on as 2008 when it had become clear to most sensible and rational people that the invasion of Iraq had proved to be a catastrophe on epic proportions Michael Gove was adamant that the «liberation» of Iraq represented:«that rarest of things – a proper British foreign policy success». 

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. And so it was with Mr. Gove, stating in 2008 that: «Alone in the Arab Middle East, it is now a fully functioning democracy with a free press, properly contested elections and an independent judiciary». And just to leave no hostages to fortune Gove threw in for good measure that: «Sunni and Shia contend for power in parliament, not in street battles». Even in 2013 Gove was professing how he was a «big fan» of Tony Blair. 

Strangely Michael Gove has gone rather silent on the topic of the invasion of Iraq and it’s aftermath. Instead he has poured his political energy into leading the charge for another high-risk adventure, taking Britain out of the EU. Perplexing the man who professed during the EU referendum campaign that the British people had had enough of experts, never had his own political and intellectual judgement rigorously examined with regards to his greatest cheer-leading role before Brexit – that of the Iraq War. But just as Iraq is a liberated paradise of democracy and Sunni and Shia harmony in the fevered mind of Michael Gove, so to is it unnecessary for Britain to remain in the Single Market or even have an extended transitional phase upon it’s departure as has been mooted by the Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney. After demonstrating during the summer Tory leadership contest that Gove has loyalty only to himself and the ease he displayed in the (but ultimately cack-handed) political knifing of his fellow Brexiteer Johnson, the new Prime Minister Theresa May sacked Gove from the Cabinet and exiled him to the backbenches with the atonement: « I have been talking to colleagues and the importance of loyalty is something on people’s minds…. it would perhaps help if you could demonstrate that loyalty from the back benches». Ouch! Gove has now taken full advantage of his return to the backbenches to demonstrate his loyalty, yet not just from the backbenches of the House of Commons, but with a brand new column in his old employer of the Murdoch Times, which he is getting 150,000 pounds for.

Curiously one of the more overt corrupt quirks of the British House of Commons (which no one in the British media or public ever really campaign against) is that, outrageously, MPs can hold multiple outside jobs while still being an MP as long as they are not serving in Government. This means that many electors are left with part-time MPs who do not represent fully and solely the interests of their constituents but represent multiple outside commercial, business, journalistic, industrial and lobby interests which they derive a handsome income from in addition to their tax-payer funded MPs salary and expenses. It also means that the very people who are voting on the laws of the land and shaping and passing legislation are beholden to external financial interests and multiple conflicts of interests. All the MP has to do is «register» the outside interest and the financial remuneration involved. This type of activity is banned in the US Congress. Congressmen and Senators cannot hold outside, financially remunerated jobs as well as serving as elected representatives of the people and voting on the laws of the land.

There is no such ban in the British House of Commons. So, you have MPs who sit in Parliament and sit on Parliamentary committees – proposing legislation, scrutinizing and amending legislation and voting on legislation – who could also be working as a Director or Consultant for an investment bank – in effect a paid lobbyist who can influence and vote on financial regulation laws. And the British complain about the EU Parliament! It is not just Mr. Gove who has taken advantage of his return to the backbenches while still serving as an MP to get his snout firmly in the trough. The former Chancellor, who still serves as MP for Tatton, George Osborne, is also doing it as well. There was quite a to do about Hillary Clinton making paid speeches to financial groups before she ran for President. But the fact was Mrs. Clinton was out of politics at the time and was not holding any public office. She was a private citizen. Yet, since his return to the backbenches of the House of Commons in the summer time, Mr Osborne, still MP for Tatton has made well over 300,000 in paid speeches to big investment banks. Perhaps before the British public and the rest of the EU are subjected to any more hyperbolic, bonkers rantings from Michael Gove about how horrible and corrupt the European Union is he would kindly stop writing his 150,000 pound Murdoch paid column in The Times, focus on doing his job as an MP and making that his only job, and renounce his previous positions regarding the Iraq War, admit he was wrong and apologize to the millions of people who have since lost their lives, homes and loved ones

‘An example should be set’: Tony Blair faces new charges in Parliament for ‘misleading’ UK over Iraq

‘An example should be set’: Tony Blair faces new charges in Parliament for ‘misleading’ UK over Iraq

A cross-party group has tabled a new motion against Tony Blair, on the basis of facts revealed in the Chilcot report, that could see him stripped of his place on the Privy Council – a potential humiliation for the former leader, who is attempting to play a bigger role in UK politics.

The motion, which will be debated on Wednesday, claims that the seven-year Chilcot inquiry “provided substantial evidence of misleading information presented by the then prime minister and others on the development of the then government’s policy towards the invasion of Iraq as shown most clearly in the contrast between private correspondence to the United States government and public statements to parliament and people.”

It asks for “a further specific examination of this contrast in public and private policy and to report on what further action is necessary to help prevent repetition of this disastrous series of events.”

The motion was tabled by Alex Salmond, the former leader of the SNP, and has been backed by Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and senior figures from the two leading parties, according to the Observer, which broke the story.

“An example should be set, not just of improving government but holding people to account,” Salmond told the Sunday newspaper.

Alex Salmond © Cathal McNaughton

Salmond claimed that as a result of the inquiry, parliament could “recommend whatever action it pleases”, including depriving Blair of a place on the Privy Council, an advisory body that encompasses respected senior figures, and serves as a marker of establishment respect.

“If he continues to be a member of the Privy Council while there is all this damning evidence against him, what does that say about the institution?” Hywel Williams, Westminster leader of Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party, told the Observer.

Williams said the process would be “scrupulously fair” to the man who led the UK between 1997 and 2007, and that Blair would be given a chance to defend his position to MPs.

“The Chilcot report confirmed Tony Blair lied to the public, parliament and his own cabinet in order to drag us into the Iraq war. Privately, he said he would support Bush ‘whatever’ eight months before the war – everyone else was told war could be avoided,” said Caroline Lucas, the co-chair of the Greens.

“Thousands of lives were lost because he put that promise before all the evidence. Yet – despite the damning evidence against him contained in the inquiry’s report – no action has been taken against the former prime minister.”

Sir John Chilcot, the civil servant, who led the inquiry over the 2003 decision to invade Iraq, said that Blair went “beyond the facts” when advocating involvement in the conflict, and pushed through his views with “sheer psychological dominance,” but said he “absolved him from a personal and demonstrable decision to deceive parliament or the public.”

But Salmond said the facts revealed by the 2.6 million word report, released in July, were damning, while officials were “preoccupied with preventing previous and future prime ministers being held accountable.”

Salmond also referenced a slew of recent stories around the genesis of the inquiry, including the Observer Freedom of Information request, which revealed documents last week suggesting that it was set up by civil servants with a “legalistic” focus and designed to “avoid blame.”

Blair’s office has refused to comment on the motion, but sources told the Observer that Blair was unconcerned, as he had faced similar unsuccessful motions in the past, even without the backing of Chilcot.

Having served in a series of international roles since resignation, the Europhile Blair has recently moved his office to central London, and has campaigned for Britain to “keep its options open” over Brexit. He has, however, ruled out running for election, or being appointed to a senior government post.

“I can’t come into frontline politics. There’s just too much hostility, and also there are elements of the media who would literally move to destroy mode if I tried to do that,” he told the New Statesman earlier this week.


Have you ever heard such a dishonest statement? UK says 2011 Libya intervention ‘saved civilian lives’

UK says 2011 Libya intervention ‘saved civilian lives’

The British government defended its decision to militarily intervene in Libya in 2011 and help to topple long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi, after criticism was directed at it in a parliamentary report.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee published a report in September that harshly criticised the decision made by then-prime minister David Cameron to join France in a military intervention to save the lives of civilians during the revolt against Gaddafi’s regime.

The committee described the British intervention as “based on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”

It also accused Cameron’s government of selectively taking the threats of Gaddafi at face value, suggesting that Gaddafi was full of bluster and did not seriously mean his threats.

The government responded today, stressing that its actions “undoubtedly” saved civilian lives in Libya, adding “Gaddafi was unpredictable and had the means and motivation to carry out his threats. His actions could not be ignored, and required decisive and collective international action.”

The critical report stated that Cameron should have been aware that “extremist Islamists would try to exploit the popular uprising,” noting that it did not find evidence that the British government had “correctly analysed” the nature of the various rebel factions.

On its part, the government stated in its response that the overwhelming majority of Gaddafi’s opponents have no links to the so-called Islamic extremism, noting that “Daesh are now on the back foot in Libya.”


%d bloggers like this: