The Tory Party – Brexit – Political Suicide – Déjà vu



Related image




15 Nov 2018: The Theresa May Government – A promising start and a dismal end

Theresa May’s leadership was plunged into a new crisis last night after claims that she had described her former and remaining anti-European market Cabinet colleagues as “bastards” in comments accidentally recorded after a television interview.

The remarks, which were not broadcast but have gained circulation among broadcast journalists, are likely to enrage the right of the Conservative Party when Mrs May had promised a truce with her cabinet rebels.

The incident followed an interview with the BBC after the Prime Minister had won her confidence vote over her handling of the Brexit negotiations in the Commons.

Private discussion appears to have been picked up on a ‘live feed’ and taped by technicians.

According to the media Mrs May told the BBC “The real problem is one of a tiny majority. Don’t overlook that.

I could have all these clever, decisive things which people wanted me to do – but I would have split the Conservative party into smithereens. And you would have said I had acted like a ham-fisted leader.”

Asked why she did not sack the rebels she replied: “Just think it through from my perspective. You are the Prime Minister, without a majority, a party that is still harking back to a golden age that never was and is now invented. You have right-wing members of the Cabinet who actually resign. What happens in the Parliamentary party?”

Answering the proposal that she had the power to bring in others, Mrs May said: “I could bring in other people. But where do you think most of this poison is coming from? From the dispossessed and the never-possessed. You can think of ex-ministers who are going around causing all sorts of trouble. We don’t want to add to the other bastards out there. It’s probably better to have them inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.”

At no point did the Prime Minister name the colleagues singled out for attack. But there are at least six Cabinet ministers who are regarded as skeptics on Europe:

But revelations of Mrs May’s private opinions, unless proved false, will damage her standing on the right of the party – and undermine her claims to be a skeptic on Europe herself.

They also underline the deep divisions which have been created within the Conservatives by the near two year long row over leaving the European Community.

Downing Street said last night that it “did not know if the conversation took place and if it did it would have been a private matter”.


Related image


Now look back to the last time the Tory government had to deal with the EEC. Is it Déjà vu????



A puppet of Theresa May in front of an EU flag.




Tony Blair the Confidence Trickster That Defrauded the Nation Who Trusted Him



Image result for new labour




1997 – The Fall of the Tory Party and Rise of New Labour

After nearly 20 years in government the Tory Party collapsed under a mire of lies, sex scandals and just about every political crime imaginable.

The single saving grace was the economy which was in robust health due to the policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Ken Clark.

The misdeeds of the Tory government would normally have ensured a transfer of power to the Labour Party but this was not the case.

In the early stages of the election campaign the media and public were not sold on the content of the Labour Party manifesto.

Something needed to be done pretty sharpish to rescue their bid for power.

Blair, backed by his political mentors in the US went on vacation as a guest of media tycoon, Rupert Murdoch.

On his return the campaign was restarted but with an entirely new tack.

There was the promise to abide by the policies of the Tory Chancellor, Ken Clark and an undertaking not to increase direct taxation in their first term of office.

Murdoch instructed his media outlets in the UK to back the Labour campaign and the fortune of the labour party was assured.

New Labour had arrived. Things could only get better. The tiger had indeed changed its spots. The British electorate had been duped. But what actually transpired?


Image result for new labour



Blairs Agenda for Change

Tony Blair at the Labour Party Conference 1999: “They are what hold us back……..The old elites, establishments, who have run our country for too long.

Blair’s speech against the “forces of conservatism” was in fact an attack on anything that he deemed to be an obstacle to his “revolution”, but truth be told in the first three years of the “New Labour” government he created an entirely new political elite who’s place in society could be credited to entirely to himself. But how did he achieve his goals so quickly?


Image result for new labour




The House of Lords

Viewed by the public as an anachronism in a democratic society the peers took the first hit.

Blair’s reform of the House of Lords was a classic “New Labour” attack and an early example of his ruthless approach to change for the betterment of the new Labour elite.

No regard for tradition and public service, Blair ripped just ripped it asunder then, gratuitously recast it from a house of peers into a house of place-men.

And the number of Labour peers appointed by Blair is unparalleled.

He created more life peers than any other Prime Minister in modern day history changing the composition of the House almost completely supplanting the aristocracy with people from the voluntary and public sectors, trade unions, business and media.

Number of life peers created by Prime Ministers:

Macmillan 90
Douglas-Home 29
Wilson 143

Heath 48
Wilson 83
Callaghan 60
Thatcher 216
Major 171
Blair 357
Brown 34
Cameron 242
May 39


Image result for new labour





The background of new peers

  1958-1997        1997-2000

Finance                  2.3                       2.6
Industry                12.0                     8.4
Media                     3.4                       5.2
Land                       0.9                      0
Academic             8.3                       4.5
Teaching              1.0                       0.6
Medical                2.8                       1.3
Military                1.5                       0.6
Civil Service       5.1                       3.9
Legal                     5.0                      6.5
Journalism         1.8                       0.6
Engineering      0.9                      0
Arts                       1.1                       2.6
Voluntary           1.6                      7.1
Trade Union     3.4                      6.5
Local Govt         3.9                      8.4
Other Public     1.0                      5.2
Politics              41.5                    32.3
Other                  2.6                     3.9

The percentage changes in the mix (in the first three years of the “New Labour” government 1997-2000) is quite marked with significant increases in Media, Arts, Voluntary, legal, Trade Union, Local Government other and public Service. All natural allies of Blair’s new politic.


Image result for new labour




Castrating the Civil Service

The Civil Service, once famed worldwide for its independence, integrity and impartiality, lost many of its senior and middle ranking officers, who had been schooled in the old ways of working, and replaced with new people whose loyalty was owed to “New Labour”.

A telling example of how premeditated the attack was on the impartiality of the Civil Service was the unprecedented “Order in Council”, issued immediately after the Government came to power enabling two non-elected persons, key members of Blair’s team, Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell, to exercise executive power over, and give instructions to, civil servants.

The attack was followed up in a Civil Service Reform Report, produced by by Sir Richard Wilson and published in January 2000, which made it clear that the traditional ethos and profile of the Civil Service no longer fitted with the thinking of “New Labour” and a three year programme of “modernization” (supported by a £100 million budget, much of which was earmarked for redundancy deals) proposed a “dramatic improvement in the diversity of staff”, a younger age profile of top civil servants, a demand that officials work more closely with outsiders and that top positions be advertised publicly.

The changes were subsequently implemented transferring power away from civil servants making it easier for “New Labour” to ensure Whitehall was loaded with influential people sympathetic to the cause.

Top Civil Servants (permanent secretaries) whose credentials were in doubt were forced to retire. The Government Information Service Unit (numbering around 20) was stripped of all of its duties and many of its staff were replaced with new thinking “communication Officers” all reporting directly to Alistair Campbell no less.

What followed was a 10 year programme of disinformation orchestrated by Alistair Campbell and his newly formed “Knowledge Network Partnership” led by a (non-civil servant) Labour Party  “Special Adviser” in the course of which the “rebuttal unit” fed distortions of the truth to the electorate, all with the purpose of ensuring the public would be denied the truth of any given matter where the “image” of “New Labour” might be at risk.


Related image




The Expanding Establishment of “Special Advisers

Special advisers were employed as pseudo civil servants but were exempted from normal civil service impartiality requirements in order to allow them to give political advice to Ministers and to introduce their ability to direct permanent civil servants.

They possessed a huge amount of power, but none were elected and very few of their jobs were advertised – they were all political appointees.

Whilst Special Advisers had been employed by Governments in the past, their numbers increased by a huge amount under Blair, rising to a total of 80 by the year 2000.

There were 29, in post reporting to Alistair Campbell in the newly created Downing Street Policy Directorate and the Strategic Communications Unit. The cost of this group of Advisers was around £5 million, making the average salary nearly £65,000.

The total salary bill for Blair’s private office was around £11 million in 1999. The salaries of Advisers were kept secret, but it is now known that both Alastair Campbell, Blair’s Press Secretary and Jonathan Powell, Downing Street Chief of Staff, were paid more than £120,000.

Over two-thirds of Blair’s special advisers had been raised in either left-wing think tanks, journalism or union research. Others were friends with senior Labour Party figures for many years, or were the partners of millionaires or bosses, a self-perpetuating elite that thrived on patronage, using it to by-pass the grubby world of democracy surreptitiously slipping into positions of power and influence.

When Labour won the 2001 general election a number of long-standing MPs were handed peerages getting them out of the political system, providing safe Labour seats for Special Advisers including David Miliband, James Purnell and Andy Burnham, all former members of the Downing Street Policy Unit.

A retiring civil servant commented:

“I think there’s the making of an alternative civil service…..There is a lack of discipline, and in some cases the propriety of behaviour that they have brought in with them……I am talking about the trashing of reputations of certain members of the then Government Information Service by special advisers. I have had no doubt at all that it happened – quite improper for a temporary civil servant to be passing value judgements on the ability of full-time established civil servants.”


Image result for new labour



Quangos and Task Forces

For many years, the Labour Party, in opposition, criticized the growth of quangos (a useful instrument extending the power of the State) under the Conservatives and Blair told the 1995 Party Conference “It’s time to sweep away the quango state.”

But after three years of the “New Labour” government there were around 35,000 public appointments in place, of which about 8,000 would come up for appointment or reappointment every year and the number of quangos had increased from 5,500 to 6,000.

The bodies wielded an enormous amount of power and spent an massive amount of money (well in excess of £100 billion a year) out of proper scrutiny.

A number of appointments, such as those of Patricia Hewitt to the British Council (1997-98), were openly political.

In a sense, the appointment of these people is not too troubling – their political status and allegiances are well advertised.

More insidious was the influence of other figures who happened to have strong attachments to New Labour, but who were appointed in an ostensibly apolitical role.

Such figures included Baroness Kennedy (Chairman of the British Council, 1998-), Baroness Warwick (Committee on Standards in Public Life), and Baroness McIntosh (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) – all three were ennobled by Blair.

Other New Labour quangocrats included Party donors Greg Dyke (Trustee of the Science Museum and Director-General of the BBC) and Dr Chris Evans (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts).

The foregoing was paraphrased from part of the content of a report “The Great and Good”  (   produced by the Centre for Policy Studies. It is well worth a read since it provides explanation of the “New Labour” approach to government.


Image result for new labour



Glasgow Council Female Staff To Take Their Equal Pay Battle to the Streets Causing Disruption and Despair – It is Important to be aware any blame must be placed at the Labour Party Front Door




Image result for equal pay women glasgow




Industrial Action in Glasgow

Indications are that women employed by Glasgow District Council will be taking industrial action very soon in pursuance of their long running campaign seeking equal pay with male workers as required by law.

It is important that the hard working people of Glasgow attribute fault for any disruption to their lifestyle to the previous council run by the Labour Party, who left a poisoned chalice for the SNP to sort out.

And many re-elected Labour Councillors are still blocking any move by the recently elected SNP Council to resolve the matter.

The remaining part of this blog provides an explanation of events to date.

It reveals the duplicity of the Unions who unconditionally supported the policies of their Labour Party Councillor colleagues assisting their efforts to deny women workers a fair wage. And who are now taking a different tack actively supporting the same women in their decision to take industrial action against the SNP run Council.


Image result for equal pay women glasgow

Susan Aitken



Equal Pay Claims Glasgow District Council Female Social Care staff

In May 2017, the SNP took control of Glasgow City Council. The party had fought the election with a commitment to sort out the long standing injustice, and new leader Susan Aitken, an “unashamed feminist”, was sincere about living up to her pledge.

“I could not have presided over the continued unequal treatment of women, knowing in my heart and my head it was happening, seeing the evidence in front of me: that the previous Labour Party council undervalued not just women, but the lowest paid women, doing vital jobs, these are the women who are washing and feeding our elderly grandparents and parents, they’re clearing up our weans’ sick. It’s hard physical work. It has been treated as lesser value for the same reasons women’s work has always been treated as lesser value. And previous leaders and Labour run administrations of Glasgow City Council have chosen not to redress it.”

Aitken knows there is a risk the issue will take up a large part of the SNP’s first ever term of office, and might jeopardize a second one, but she believes securing equal pay would be a legacy worth having. However,there are many obstacles in her way, not least a resistance from deeply entrenched veteran council officers, who – having defended the system for so long – are still struggling with the idea of conceding defeat.

Coupled with this is the challenge of finding additional finance in times of austerity and of the need to devise and implement new, improved pay and grading conditions essential if future equal pay claims are to be avoided.

The stakes are high: any new pay and grading scheme will involve winners and losers, creating a likelihood of industrial action. “There will be a bin strike in 2019. I don’t know this, but I know it,” says one union insider.

The women welcomed Aitken’s commitment, and were buoyed by the SNP council’s decision abandon the civil action case against them. Still, with so many previous disappointments, they were not holding their breath. They want to see deeds not words.


Related image



Union Inaction and Action 4 Equality (Scotland)

In Glasgow, women involved in the pre-2007 pay claims recall how the GMB union and the Labour Party council pressurized them into accepting low settlements by offering them cheques for a few thousand pounds just before Christmas so long as they signed quickly. Many signed.

But many more held out against the injustice and badly judged advice from their Unions and took their cases to another source of advice. Namely, Action 4 Equality – Scotland managed by Solicitor Stefan Cross.

In doing so they had to wait longer, but received far greater settlement sums. Not only did Cross take on Glasgow District Council, he sued the unions for failing to properly represent their female members, forcing them to up their game.

In so doing, he made himself hugely unpopular and many still regard him as an ambulance-chaser who got rich off the back of driving English councils to the brink of disaster.

To the women, however, he is a hero, which explains why – though Unison and the GMB are involved in Glasgow’s current equal pay dispute – Cross still has 80 per cent of the current claimants. “I will have to give him 10 per cent of the payout, but he deserves it,” one woman tells me. “He stuck with us when the unions couldn’t be bothered.”


Related image




Labour Party Glasgow District Council Responsible for the unresolved Dispute

The current Glasgow dispute relates to the pay and grading system the Labour Party council introduced in 2007 to rid the system of gender bias.

For reasons best known to itself (but possibly to do with cost), it rejected the “red book” scheme implemented by the other 31 Scottish authorities, opting instead for a bespoke system.

The new system is complicated, but the problems with it are two-fold. The first is that, at the behest of the unions, the council built in a three-year payment protection for those men who lost out on bonuses, without extending it to women, thus perpetuating the gender differential.

In May 2017, just after the SNP took control, the Court of Session ruled this payment  protection had been discriminatory and the council accepted its judgment.

The second area of contention is the design of the scheme itself. The point of the job evaluation exercise was to create transparency, so any worker could look across the council and compare their wage with that of other roles.

However, this is difficult to do in Glasgow, because – alone among Scottish councils – it introduced the concept of core and non-core pay.

Work done in relation to core pay is assessed using identifiable job evaluation techniques, even though the scores awarded to some jobs have been disputed.

But non-core pay is more difficult to understand because people are being rewarded for the “context” rather than the content of their work.

For non-core pay, Glasgow workers are awarded extra points (and extra points mean extra pay) for specific working conditions, many of which appear to be relevant only to jobs done predominantly by men.

For example, extra points are given to those with full-time contracts. Women are more likely than men to have part-time contracts (though those with two part-time contracts may still work more hours).

Action 4 Equality (Scotland) maintains the disparity was compounded by the creation of arms-length external organizations (ALEOs), such as Cordia (predominantly female workers) and City Building (predominantly male workers).

However, an Employment Appeal Tribunal later ruled the ALEOs were all still part of the Glasgow City Council family for the purposes of equal pay.

The new way of working has been attracting claims ever since it was introduced. Cross now has 10,900, Unison 2,100 and the GMB 2,000, with more coming in every day.

But while all political parties have signed up to achieving a negotiated settlement, the internal tensions are far from resolved.

In particular, the leadership is understood to be furious that no money was ever put aside by the Labour run council in case of a defeat, nor any work done to prepare for possible negotiations.


Related image




The Newly Elected SNP led Council Proposals

Council leader Aitken accepts the scheme is dead in the water and is creating a new pay and grading system, in conjunction with the negotiated settlements and in agreement with the unions.

She is also pressing for an early settlement on the payment protection element of the claims and to believe it could be dealt with on a sector-by-sector basis and resolved within 18 months.

But some long-standing Labour Party Councillors, with the support of a number of senior council officers remain reluctant to embrace a course of action that effectively concedes their past decisions were misguided.

They say that, while the Court of Session found there were grounds to suspect the scheme could not be relied upon in relation to the Equal Pay Act, it did not rule it was discriminatory, and are dragging their heels on a commitment to a new pay and grading scheme.

There are also important decisions to be made on where the money for the settlements will come from. Some sources still appear to be peddling the line that it will be devastating for jobs and services.

In a recent newspaper article, a former official was quoted as saying: “We all want women to get equal pay, but we also want children to be educated, we want secure jobs, our sick and vulnerable to be looked after and for potholes to be filled. Putting these things at risk is not progressive, it is an abdication of responsibility.”

Yet Aitken is understood to believe there are other ways the cash can be raised: options include a loan from the Scottish or UK government or securitising assets such as the SEC.

The continuing gulf between the leadership, Labour Councillors and council officers means negotiations are proceeding at a glacial pace. “We get the impression we are dealing with two warring camps: the political leadership have clearly crossed the Rubicon, but Labour Party Councillors and council officers are not subscribing to this process at all,” says Cross.

Aitken is working hard to bridge the gap; but Cross believes that unless the council gets its act together soon, the claimants could find themselves back at tribunals. “That would take five years and double the cost,” he says.


Related image



And What About the Women Workers?

In a room at Unison Glasgow branch office, a dozen or so women are tying suffragette ribbons to boater hats and are writing “Equal Pay Or We Walk Away” on placards ready for a march.

After the council meeting last month, they were buzzing, optimistic that at last their long fight for equality might be coming to an end. They had allowed themselves to dream about the things they might buy: a car to replace the one that won’t start; or a foreign holiday with the family to make up for all the time they missed out on when they were young.

Now, rattled by rumours of stalled negotiations, their heads have dropped; some say industrial action – which had been put on hold – is back on the cards.

When all this is over – if it is ever over – big questions will have to be asked. How could the council have believed this convoluted scheme – with payment protection for the men built in – would eradicate inequality and increase transparency?

And why wasn’t the previous Labour party administration willing to challenge their officers’ advice on fighting the claims?

The introduction of a new pay and grading system will probably bring more industrial strife, but as the women point out, the former Labour Party Council created the problem and refused to deal with it leaving the headache to the SNP council to resolve.

For more than a decade the council had their labour on the cheap and trying to hold them responsible for any industrial action is the worst kind of victim-blaming.

A Unison spokesperson commented: “If you think about the consequences it’s frightening – of course it is – just like the situation we have faced year upon year with the council cuts, but a lot of the impact of those cuts has been absorbed by the depreciation of the female workers’ pay and fighting it and imposing a pay and grading system which didn’t work. The responsibility  for this lies with the Labour Party politicians who took the decisions and the structures of the Labour government, both local and national that allowed the council to conduct itself in that manner.”

For the female workers, there is a broader frustration too; that 100 years after women got the vote, they are still having to fight for recognition.

One said: “I can’t believe that here we are celebrating the suffragettes and we still don’t have equality, but whatever happens, we will keep on fighting and if it takes that long, we will die fighting.”

(paraphrased from an article by Lucinda Cameron in the Scotsman 10 Feb 2018)


Related image

If the Unions really believed their rhetoric why did they support the labour run Glasgow District Council against their female staff?



And What About the Labour party?

The Scottish Labour leader, Richard Leonard said women workers employed by Glasgow City Council were owed an apology for “too much resistance” to their equal pay claims when the local authority was under Labour control.

Speaking to the Labour Party’s Women’s Conference in Glasgow he said there was “too much legal obstruction” when Labour was in power in Glasgow for decades before being ousted by the SNP in May 2017.

See my previous article:


Image result for equal pay women glasgow




The murky world of Westminster politics – big business protection – and the abuse of the electorate – Spies-lies and naked thighs



Image result for Hakluyt



A Murky World

In the article before this I provided a “through the keyhole report on the activities of Hayluyt.

It generated a bit of interest and begged the question. How deeply entrenched in the British state is this bunch of very rich individuals?

This article provides some answers and raises even more questions. Such as. Did they get involved in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum?


Image result for Hakluyt and the josephs


Opening Statement

Colin Joseph and his son operated a business, designing, providing and running scratch card competitions (out of Shell garages) for Shell UK. Without reasonable cause Shell terminated the contract and the Josephs could not remain in business.

Over an extended period Shell refused to provide good reason for their actions and the case ended up in the courts. But that was not all. Hakluyt got involved and a disinformation campaign ensued for many months.

When the case eventually reached the high court Shell dragged their evidence out milking what information it had to its full extent. But, just as Shell solicitors were about to apply the coup de grâce the Josephs produced irrefutable new evidence proving their case.

Shell settled out of court, including all of the Joseph’s trial expenses but the damage had been done. Joseph senior was bankrupt and his son had to remortgage his house. A bad day for British justice.

But we are able to benefit from the misfortunes of the Joseph’s. I commend their story to you.

John Donovan


Shell Transport & Hayluyt MI6 Spy Firm – One and the Same?

Dear Mr Joseph

You have written off my account of the cloak and dagger events leading up to the last settlement as being a “parody of the truth and characterized it generally as being “nonsensical” and based on “wider conspiracy theories”.

The problem you have Mr Joseph is that you cannot change what you and Shell director Richard Wiseman have already admitted in writing about undercover activity by Shell agents involving fraud and deception. Your letters are now a matter of historical fact.

I will deal directly with your accusations by separating fact from theory. However we must obviously reconsider the relevant past sinister events in the light of the latest revelations.

As I have indicated, I never imagined even in my “wider conspiracy theories that a shadowy corporate intelligence organization was at the time in question, led by Shell Transport directors and staffed by former MI6 Officers.

I refer of course to Hakluyt & Company Limited and The Hakluyt Foundation.

Sir William Purves was simultaneously a director (and shareholder) of Shell Transport, and the Chairman and major shareholder in Hakluyt & Company Limited.

The late Group Chairman of the Royal Dutch Shell Group, Sir Peter Holmes, was until 2002 simultaneously a director (and shareholder) of Shell Transport and also President of the Hakluyt Foundation – a “Supervisory” Board overseeing spying operations.

He took over the role from the late Brigadier Sir Fitzroy Maclean – the model for Ian Flemings “James Bond” character.

I note Mr Joseph that you ignored my comments and questions about Hakluyt. I wonder why?

For your information I now have in my possession a Hakluyt & Company Ltd document co-signed by Sir William Purves and Mr Christopher James, a co-founder of Hakluyt.

Christopher James is a former senior British Secret Intelligence Service MI6 officer and was in the SAS before leading a section of MI6 which liaised with British firms.

This applies to many of the staff at Hakluyt. So is his Hakluyt co-director, Mr Mike Reynolds.

Reynolds founded MI6’s counter terrorism Branch and was Head of Station in Berlin. Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6 is reportedly “a close friend”.

Sir David Spedding, the head of MI6 in 1995 when Hakluyt was launched “wished him luck with the venture”.

Shell/Hakluyt used freelance serving intelligence agents when deemed appropriate, as revealed in The Sunday Times article of 17 June 2001 entitled:  “MI6 Firm Spied on Green Groups”.

Hakluyt modus operandi is that when an assignment is received, it calls up to five associates to London (often from overseas) to be briefed and then re-deploys them.

Each agent works independently. No doubt other spy firms work on a similar basis.

Hakluyt is identified on a number of credible websites as being a front for the SIS; the commercial arm of MI6.

With the written permission of Jyoti Munsiff and Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, our dossier complaining about the “cloak and dagger” activity directed against us was sent to all Shell Transport directors, including Sir Peter Holmes and Sir William Purves.

Of course we did not know that Sir Peter and Sir William were the Spymasters of Hakluyt which engaged in the type of sinister clandestine operations that we were drawing to their attention.

Evidence of corporate espionage on an epic scale on behalf of Shell is given in The Sunday Times article.

Perhaps as a lawyer you would argue that such conduct is unseemly but not illegal? But what if the same conduct occurred in connection with a pending High Court trial – the SMART trial for example? Would not everyone involved, including relevant Shell directors, the spy firm, relevant agents and any lawyers knowingly involved, be part of a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

Of course it would make it harder to prove anything if the spies were called in from overseas.

As I have now set out some of the salient information which has recently emerged, I will, as promised, separate fact from theory.

I sold my house to pay legal fees; my son ended up having to sell his. This was all in the reasonable expectation of a fair trial.

Due to the undercover activities, some of which has been admitted in writing by you and your client, that was not what we ended up with.

It was more like going up against the Mafia. My son even faced outright deception during his cross examination by Geoffrey Hobbs QC.

The perceived reality at that time was of a highly reputable multinational – the public could be sure of Shell, its senior management GUARANTEED honesty, transparency and integrity in all of its dealings.

The actual reality was that Shell was secretly running sleazy covert operations against its perceived enemies including us (as has been admitted in writing).

The operations were directed against people and organizations campaigning against Shell for one reason and another.

We were in 1995 given a substantial consideration to close down one such organization – The Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group (another fact).

Another indication of the way in which our hard hitting campaign impacted on the reputation and competence of Shell’s most senior management was the eventual personal intervention of Lady Judy Moody Stuart. I have the correspondence to prove it.

Time has shown that our criticisms were well-founded in terms of Shell’s performance compared with its rivals and in regards to the deeply ingrained cover-up/subterfuge mentality which has led to the current difficulties which have made headlines around the world.

(I refer of course to the accusations of fraud and deception made in US class action suits currently underway, plus the investigations by regulatory bodies including the US Securities & Exchange Commission, and the criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice.)

The scale of the clandestine activity undertaken at the behest of Shell senior management at the time of our litigation against Shell was breathtaking.

(1) According to the Mail on Sunday article on 4 April 2004, headlined: “Shell Chief had a private army”: Sir Philip Watts helped to organize and pay for a 1400 strong private army of Police spies in Nigeria in conclusion with a murderous regime;

(2) Shell Transport directors were the Spymasters of Hakluyt, whose secret agents targeted groups campaigning against Shell, including human rights and environmental groups e.g. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Body Shop etc. Indeed any group whose campaigning activities might impact on the reputation of Shell.

The alleged activities of my son and I obviously fell within that definition, as alleged in the Counterclaim.

(3) And I should not forget the admitted undercover activities involving Mr Phillips and other agents you refused to name.

It is quite a collection of trickery and deception. And it involves so many titled people. A roll-call of establishment grandees are directors and shareholders in Hakluyt & Company Limited:

Sir Brian Cubbon, former permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office;

Lord Inge, former Chief of the Defence Staff;

Lord Trotman, former Chairman and Chief Executive of Ford and a director of the New York Stock Exchange;

Colonel Sir Piers Bengough;

Sir William Purves, formally a director of Shell Transport and Chairman of HSBC Bank;

Lord Renwick, Chairman of Robert Fleming Merchant Bank:

Sir John Weston;

Sir Anthony Hammond;

Sir Ralph Robins;

Sir John Jennings;

Sir Mark Moody-Stuart;

Sir Philip Watts;

Sir Peter Holmes;

The foregoing names are from the Annual Return filed at Companies House just a few months ago – 23 December 2003.

A number of them, including Sir William Purves, are also directors of The Hakluyt Foundation.

The following prominent people are also connected with Hakluyt:

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Former Foreign Secretary;

Ian Lang, former Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry;

Earl Jellicoe, President of the SAS Association;

Sir Peter Cazalet, former Deputy Chairman of BP;

Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill.

Hakluyt also has a strategic agreement with Henry Kissinger, the legendary former US Secretary of State and guru of realpolitik.

Mr Kissinger’s company, Kissinger Associates, apparently facilitates top-level introductions for Hakluyt. It must be good to have friends in high places.

Commonsense suggests that Shell Transport management was more likely to use what is in effect an in-house resource rather than taking their dirty washing outside of the company.

That ties in with what we were told at the time by the claimed “Shell insider” about an investigative resource.


Related image



Members of Parliament have accused MI6 of using Hakluyt as a front to spy on activists.

In the case of the Shell/Hakluyt agent featured in The Sunday Times story of 17 June 2001, it was reported that there seemed to be no boundaries between his activities working for state or business.

It was also stated in the same revealing article:

“MP’s believe the affair poses serious questions about the blurring of the divisions between the secret service, a private intelligence company and the interests of big companies.”

Yours sincerely
Alfred Donovan

Earthquake damage in Holland due to fracking




Present Day

20 years after the names might have changed the system of privilege and protection of the wealth of the “in Crowd” continues to be fully protected by the state and the secret services cabal of Hakluyt.




A comprehensive record of events including the foregoing article, (in full) can be viewed at:




The Blog that reveals the news Shell Oil and the government would deny the public, if it could:

Hakluyt & Company and the Clinton/Trump scandals

Shell’s greener future is a matter of survival







The umbrella group under which three subsidiary companies operate – The present day composition of Hakluyt.





Other articles exposing the extent of the Hakluyt network – TATA Steel?”




British Spymasters revealed




Image result for rifkind and straw




I am publishing the under-noted article which exposed the activities of the British Secret Services to the public in Scotland. Many of the principal characters involved went on to dominate Scottish politics and, operating out of London still do so. After reading the article you might wish to read some of my other articles which provide substance to briefing information I provide through my blog


Related image




Mon 20 Jan 2003: Intelligence firm with an air of mystery

It has all of the ingredients of a cold war spy thriller – with a cast of characters including former Cabinet ministers, diplomats, spies, a Scottish oil company, the widow of Labour leader John Smith, and sensational allegations of murder and corruption in the Czech Republic.

At its centre lies a British-based private intelligence firm, with close links to MI6 – and a distaste for any sort of publicity. But now Hakluyt is facing the spotlight as MPs called for its activities, and its connection to MI6, to be investigated following the company’s role in the collapse of a High Court libel trial.

“This is an extraordinary tale which appears to have mushroomed because of the involvement of a secret company, Hakluyt, said Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes.

“This is not the first time their fingerprints have been on strange matters. It would be helpful if a spotlight could be shone on them to show who they are, what their role was, what connection they have to MI6 and why they won’t answer questions about these particular events.

Set up by former MI6 executives after the end of the Cold War, Hakluyt has provided intelligence for 26 FTSE 100 companies and a number of US and European clients.

Its latest Companies House returns reveal a high calibre of directors, including Mike Reynolds, MI6’s former head of station in Germany, and Michael Maclay, a former journalist, diplomat and special adviser to former foreign secretary Douglas Hurd.

This is not the first time they have been tied to strange events.

Baroness Elizabeth Smith was, until recently, a member of the Hakluyt Foundation, the equivalent of the company’s board.

Little about the company finds its way into the public domain, but in a rare interview given to the Financial Times two years ago, managing director Christopher James, also ex-MI6, described his firm’s main commodity as “the truth”.

“We give focused, timely intelligence, he said. But following an extraordinary libel trial last month, in which former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind gave evidence, there were question marks over the quality of the intelligence Hakluyt provides.

In fact, a report produced by Hakluyt on Czech oil tycoon Karel Komarek and his father, which contained allegations of corruption and murder,led to Scottish oil company Ramco being sued for libel.

Ramco employed Hakluyt in good faith on the recommendation of one of its consultants, Mr Rifkind and Baroness Smith.

During the libel trial, brought against Ramco by Mr Komarek, the chairman of MND, a Moravian oil mining company, it emerged that the company was responsible for allegations of “the gravest kind”.

In a report produced by Hakluyt for Ramco, which cost £40,000, the company even claimed the involvement of a Ukranian hit-man to murder a European businessman.

The allegations, described in court as being akin to a James Bond plot, were then passed by Ramco to the British Ambassador in the Czech Republic and later discussed with several high-ranking members of the Czech and British governments, including the then foreign minister, Robin Cook. later, they found their way into a Czech newspaper and the internet.

During proceedings, the allegations were not tested. The legal argument was one of privilege, which acts as a defence to an action for libel or defamation, regardless of whether the allegations are true or false.

Following the collapse of the libel trial against Ramco, after the judge concluded that the case fell short of the legal standard, Mr Komarek said he was “disappointed” by the result and was aggrieved that no apology had been made.

“We came to Britain because we thought we could take our case to a jury, he said. “The defendants have never said any of the serious allegations they published about us in the Czech Republic and this country are true, but they have never been willing to apologize.

When contacted by The Scotsman, Hakluyt refused to answer any questions about its allegations, including where it got the information and whether it stood by its claims.

A company spokesman said: “We do not comment on any assignments we have undertaken, and therefore it would not be appropriate to say anything about the court case. The Komarek brothers have lost their libel case and we have nothing further to add.

Yesterday Baroness Smith who was until the end of 2000 a member of the Hakluyt Foundation, set up to ensure it abides by its code of practice, said she knew nothing of the report.

“As a member of the foundation I wouldn’t have access to that sort of information, she said. “Company reports and their activities were never discussed at meetings. The foundation was set up to provide “reassurance that we are not just a tearaway bunch of ex-governmental officials”, according to Mr James.

But when asked whether her former role included making sure the company abided by the rules, Baroness Smith replied: “Absolutely not. We were there to oversee general strategy. She left the foundation, she said, because “my period of office came to an end and she declined to comment further.

It is not the first time the publicity-shy company has found itself in hot water.

Last year MPs called on Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, to investigate the company following newspaper  revelations that Hakluyt spied on green pressure groups in order to pass information about them to oil production companies Shell and BP.

It emerged that Hakluyt had employed a German spy, who posed as a left-wing sympathizer and film-maker, in order to betray plans by Greenpeace against oil companies. The affair left MPs questioning whether secret intelligence services used the firm as a front to spy on green groups.

Hakluyt has denied claims by some in the intelligence community that it was started by MI6 officers to carry out “deniable” operations. (Karen McViegh, The Scotsman)


Related image




Skripal works for Hakluyt.

Provided mis-information greatly contributing to the subsequently discredited report on Donald Trump which started still on-going Trumpgate investigation

Rifkind: the architect behind “Better Together”. The Secret Services organizer


Image result for british spies




Transatlanticism drives UK politics- Scots need to get off the Bus Sharpish



Image result for labour party andcia and mi6 covert operations




The Political Ideology of “New Labour”

The political thinking of right wing “New Labour” politicians is closely aligned with their Tory “soft left” colleagues in Westminster and in political pressure groups in England, Wales and Scotland

The right wing faction opposes just about all of the economic policies of the labour unions, especially regarding nationalization and control of the economy for the benefit of union membership and its thinking repudiates the concept that socialism identity’s with public ownership as the only means of efficient production and service provision, and that such ownership is essential to achieve all major socialist objectives.

It actively promotes support of personal liberty, social welfare, and above all social equality and advances the argument that targets can be achieved through the use of appropriate fiscal and social policy policies within a market-oriented mixed economy.

Public ownership is not ignored but is regarded as  a tool to be used sparingly.

The thinking is termed “Transatlanticism” and is the belief in and support of a close relationship between the United States regarding political, economic and defense issues, coupled with the unquestionable belief that its support maintains security and prosperity and the protection of perceived values that unite the two nations.

It is fully supported financially and politically by the US and is monitored by the secret services of both countries.

Many politicians, peers, other public figures, agencies, news presenters, entertainers and media managers are recruited to the ranks of the secret services and their contribution to the cause is huge.

They are trusted and have the ear of the public.


Image result for labour party andcia and mi6 covert operations




The Corbynites

The rise of the left in the Labour Party is matched by a significant drop in the fortunes of “new Labour”.

A return to government by Labour is possible but not probable, if the US and the Secret Services get involved.

In Scotland the party under, the leadership of Leonard will pursue an agenda for change well to the left of the SNP government and might enjoy a small measure of success.

The tussle for control of Scottish politics will probably revert to a two party confrontation between the SNP and the Tories and the SNP would do well if they challenge the credibility of Ruth Davidson, the only political asset they possess.

Previous party manifesto’s contained little in the way of policies to be adopted by the Tories in Scotland and public awareness of the scarcity of any political thinking by Davidson and her personally selected bunch of cretins should be exploited.


Related image

Jack Cunningham, Labour MP, John Smith, Labour Party leader, Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli Prime Minister, 1992.



Reds Under the Beds: The British Secret Service and the Labour Party

Labour politicians, including the late Donald Dewar, the late John Smith, Gordon Brown, Lord George Foulkes, Lord George Robertson, Lord Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair and the late Robin Cook were precisely the types the intelligence services longed to see take control of the Labour party and it is believed that contemporaries and acquaintances of these leading Scottish Labour figures took active roles in organizations sponsored and endorsed by MI6 and the CIA. (The Sunday Times)


Image result for John Smith Bilderberg




So who was John Smith?

The public persona was that he was a genial, whisky-drinking Scots lawyer from the traditional Labour right. Not so.

John Smith and his close friend and political ally Denis Healey were senior figures, with others, of the influential right wing, Bilderberg Group and were members of its Steering Committee.

It was Smith, then leader of the committee who arranged for his young protegee, Gordon Brown to be invited to the 1991 meeting of the group.

He also recruited Ed Balls, formerly a leader writer for the Financial Times as political advisor to his team. An ideologist for globalization, Balls had spent a year in America as a Kennedy Scholar at Harvard from where he adopted US economics ideology.

A trend embraced by other prominent Labour figures, such as, Yvette Cooper MP, (whom Balls later married). David Miliband, head of Blair’s policy unit and Gordon Brown, later to become the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Just about all of the “New Labour” people with influence had some connection to America and American money……Tony Blair took the US government’s free tour of the States and extended stay in 1986 with Gordon Brown and assured his hosts that, while officially members of CND they and the Labour Party under their leadership supported the nuclear deterrent and retention of Trident by the UK. Blair, and his team in 1983, all joined the CIA front, Labour Friends of Israel.


Image result for new labour vs old labour



The Role of the Secret Services in the Labour Party

An example of the British secret services infiltration into the “New Labour” party is Margaret “Meta” Ramsay, (who attended Glasgow University with John Smith) and was the President of the Scottish National Union of Students between 1959 and 1961.

From 1962 to 1967, she was secretary of the Fund for International Student Co-operation, (FISK) where the organizer was Lord George Foulkes.

In 1969 the Radical Student Alliance published a pamphlet alleging that (FISC) was a CIA front.

This was denied, but Ramsay, a life-long chum of the, “Smith’s” went on to join the British Secret Service where she was a specialist in the Scandinavian states.

She also became an active member of the Labour Party, attending conferences where party officials were apparently “unaware” of her intelligence connections and in August 1992, she was appointed to the position of foreign policy adviser to the Labour leader John Smith.

As well as raising a few eyebrows, the appointment begged the question:

“What was the leader of the Labour Party doing employing a known high-ranking MI6 agent in such a senior position?”

A fluent Russian speaker, she was also actively involved with the American backed and funded “Institute for Jewish Policy Research” and the “Zionist Labour Friends of Israel.”


Image result for baroness smith mi6

Elizabeth Smith, Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill



And Mrs Smith?

Elizabeth Margaret Bennett also attended Glasgow University with John Smith whom she later married.

A fluent Russian speaker she was recruited to the British Secret Services together with her friend Margaret Ramsey.

Her powerful role in the service was only revealed after the death of her husband when she was awarded the title of Baroness of Gilmorehill and elevated to the House of Lords.

She is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which provides parliamentary oversight of the Secret Intelligence Services and is an advisory council member of the foreign-policy think-tank, the Foreign Policy Centre.

She is also the Lords Chair of The Labour Friends of Israel and leads the London based “intelligence” company, Hakluyt, allegedly started by MI6 officers to carry out “deniable” operations in support of government policies.

Smith’s eldest daughter Sarah is the Scotland Editor for BBC Scotland, having joined in Spring 2014 for the run-up to the independence Referendum on 18 September 2014.

Her background and friends of the family does little to engender public confidence in her political impartiality (wikipedia)


Related image





The main political parties in the UK are tied financially and politically to Israel and the US.

European centralization was always a non-starter for the “Little Englanders” and the future of the UK will be tied to a steady process of assimilation by US markets and standards.

Scotland (before the 1707 Act of Union) maintained important trading and political links with many European countries and there is a desire to get back to those arrangements but this can only be achieved by an independent Scotland.

Another read:


Image result for cia and mi6 covert operations




The 1707 Act of Vandalism is not fit for purpose and should be binned without further delay




Image result for 1707 act of union and catholics

Massacre of the Macdonalds at Glencoe




Events that break the political union

The discredited Westminster political system of government is close to collapse and its welcome termination might be closer than the pundits would have you believe.

The press is increasingly headlining that a huge majority of little Englanders would be happy to let Scotland leave the alliance if it would provide a certainty of a successful Brexit for England, without the frills of remaining in the EU market.


Related image




Westminster’s House of Lords to rewrite the 1706 Act of Union

More pressure on the unsustainable union. Today, the little known  “Constitutional Reform Group” introduced a “Union Reform” bill to the House of Lords (with the support of a number of peers) , the content of which, if approved: “would re-balance and stabilize the constitutional relationships between the four nations of the United Kingdom”.

No input from the majority of Scots whose preference is to close the entire edifice down. It is no longer fit for purpose.


Image result for 1707 act of union and catholics




 Hamish McPherson – Scottish Historical Storyteller  and the “Act of Union”

Today, the best newspaper in Scotland, the “National” carried a historical record of the “Massacre of Glencoe”  written up by Hamish.

The murder of near one hundred Macdonald men, women and children by English “redcoats”  was yet another betrayal of trust by English military occupation forces who were jubilant in their celebrations destroying a large rebel force.

Hamish wrote: “Political machinations in Britain were now aimed at securing a Protestant heir for Queen Anne who had ascended to the throne after King William fell off his horse and died in 1702.

Anne herself was one of the main driving forces behind the movement for a union between Scotland and England and her principle motive was clearly the need for a Protestant heir, namely her cousin Sophia, the Electress of Hanover.

The real claimant to the throne, James Francis Edward Stuart had to be excluded. Hence the sentences, at the beginning of the “Act of Union” that:

“all Papists and persons marrying Papists shall be excluded from and forever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the Imperial Crown.”

“Why any Catholic supports such a union is beyond me.”


Related image




Tony Blair – Prime Minister at any cost

Blair married a catholic girl and committed  under oath, to raise his children in the catholic faith.

A man forced by political necessity to observe the teaching of two widely different religious bodies. One of them in secret.

As a practicing catholic he would not be appointed to the highest political office of Prime Minister since the politically active bishops of the “Church of England” that sit in and vote in the House of Lords are recommended to the Queen by the Prime Minister and no catholic would ever be given authority over an Episcopalian Bishop.

So Tony swallowed his pride and denied his true faith witnessed by his acceptance into the Church of Rome by the Pope in a private ceremony in the Vatican a few days after he left office. The tribulations of politics.!!


Related image

Queen Anne



Conclusion: The Act of Union, in its present form denies the human rights of Catholics in Scotland, to equality under the law and should be referred to the European Court so that it can be removed from statute.