Scottish Affairs Committee Meeting – 2015 – Scottish Office – Financial matters – Francesca Osowska OBE, Director, Scotland Office in attendance

 

The minutes were very long and tedious to read so I summarised the content

Chair:

We are very grateful for you coming along today. If you would like to say what you do, and if there are any initial statements that you want to make to the Committee, please feel free to do so.

Osowska:

I am Director for the Scotland Office and I am also Principal Accounting Officer for the Scotland Office and the Office of the Advocate General. I am very pleased to appear before the Committee to answer questions on the Annual Report and Accounts for 2014-15.

Chair:

We have digested the report and wish to ask some questions about the content. Firstly. Could you explain how it is that there are 100 WTE staff currently employed in the Scotland Office but none of them are permanent.?  Does this create any difficulties or problems or issues?  I would imagine it must, and why was the decision taken not to employ permanent staff?

Osowska:

The Scotland Office does not directly employ staff. We utilize the staff of other Government Departments. This results in the bulk of our staff being seconded for specific purposes.  We also benefit from arrangements with the Cabinet Office which provides access to external expertise. When these dual-purpose staff are in post within the Scotland Office, they are considered to be fully part of the Scotland Office team, so if the question is about allegiance, there are no difficulties there.

Chair:

It is not about allegiance. I don’t think that is the issue. It is about being able to build up a staff capacity when most of them are part-time and none permanent. Are they shared with other Ministry Departments or are they exclusive to the Scotland Office?

Osowska:

They are exclusive to the Scotland Office.

Chair:

But are they are seconded from other Departments?

Osowska:

They are seconded or on loan from other Departments. When seconded they have direct line management throughout the Scotland Office and are answerable to Scotland Office Ministers, so that line of accountability is very direct.

Chair:

Are there any plans to get permanent staff in place, given there are significant and substantial pieces of work to consider as we go forward?

Osowska:

I believe the current arrangements work very well.

Chair:

The last year has been particularly trying, with the referendum and the Smith Commission. What do you see as the main issues and challenges and the main thrust of your work as you go forward over the next year or two years in the parliamentary term?

Osowska:

We have a strong constitutional role, primarily in relation to the Scotland Bill, which, as you are aware, is passing through Westminster at the moment.  In addition, we continue to be the voice of Scotland in Whitehall, so our work with other Government Departments will continue. Similarly, we are the voice of the UK Government of Scotland and we work co-operatively with other Government Departments who have reserved responsibilities in Scotland to ensure that the UK government can operate effectively in Scotland.

Chair:

Do you see yourself primarily as the voice of Scotland in Whitehall or do you see more of a role as being the voice of the UK Government of Scotland? How would you characterize the effort that is put on to each of those very laudable aims and objectives?

Osowska:

I think we treat them equally. If I were to take those objectives along with our constitutional objectives which, as I mentioned, include the Scotland Bill, but also include responsibilities in terms of Scotland Act orders and LCMs then I would say that we give those equal weight.

 

 

 

The Scottish Referendum – Finance and Use of Civil Servants from the Cabinet Office and Treasury in support of the “Better Together” campaign

Margaret Ferrier:

The 2013 spending round allocated a budget of £6m to the Scotland Office for 2015-16 but Westminster has recently been asked to increase the financial allocation by £3m for “capability enhancements”. What are these unspecified enhancements?

Osowska:

Explained by referring to 2014-15. The original budget was set in the 2010 spending round. At that time a referendum had not been anticipated. Much of the excessive financial expenditure of the Scotland Office in 2014/15 was attributed to the temporary employment of additional staff in the run-up to the referendum and an extensive contribution to the Scotland analysis papers, eg. Supporting public Ministers in the preparation and distribution of information (leaflet drops) to the Scottish public informing them of the implications of independence. The result was a spend of £7.7m. Much in excess of the original budget.

Margaret Ferrier:

These public Ministers. Do you mean UK Ministers?

Osowska:

Yes.

Margaret Ferrier:

Not Scottish Government ministers?

Osowska:

No.

Margaret Ferrier:

The report shows that administration costs rose by about 8% from £7.2 million in 2013-14 to £7.7 million in 2014-15. Why are these general administration costs rising? Is there any reason, other than the referendum debate?

Osowska:

The entire increase represents the resources dedicated by the Scotland Office to support the work of the UK Government informing the referendum debate.

Kirsty Blackman:

So the Scotland Office had allocated to it and spent an extra £3 million helping UK Government Ministers with information about the referendum, mainly?

Osowska:

In terms of what the money delivered and the outcomes that the Scotland Office delivered, part of and a focus of the work in 2014-15 was in direct relation to the run-up and then the after-events—including the Smith Commission—of the referendum.

Chair:

What we are being told is that the money had been set aside to be used in support of the “No” campaign, and was used by UK Government Ministers to participate in the referendum. Would that be roughly a correct characterization of the spending?

Osowska:

Not in the context of the assertion: “that this was a way of the Government funding the ‘No’ campaign?” It was to fund the activities of UK ministerial departments and Whitehall civil servants who discharged their duties in line with the Civil Service Code. All activities undertaken by Whitehall civil servants would meet that propriety test.

 

 

Her assertion was later debunked as utter tosh. See:

16 December 2014; Westminster Civil Service, “Devolved Countries Unit”, (Dirty Tricks) campaign team wins “special” Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Award

The award, in recognition of the team’s outstanding achievement in making a difference on an issue of national significance, (the Referendum) was presented by the ”Cabinet Secretary and civil service head Sir Jeremy Heywood. The proud team commented afterward;

Paul Doyle;

“This award is not just for the Treasury, it’s for all the hard work that was done by all government departments on the Scotland agenda. The reality was in all my experience of the civil service, I have never seen the civil service pull together in the way they did behind supporting the UK government in maintaining the United Kingdom. It was a very special event for all of us.”

William MacFarlane, Deputy Director at HM Treasury, (Budget and Tax Strategy);

“As civil servants, you don’t get involved in politics. For the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognized [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.”

Shannon Cochrane;

“we’ve learned that it is possible for civil servants to work on things that are inherently political and quite difficult, and you’re very close to the line of what is appropriate, but it’s possible to find your way through and to make a difference.

Mario Pisani Deputy Director at HM Treasury, (Public Policy);

“In the Treasury, everyone hates you. We don’t get thanks for anything. This is one occasion where we’ve worked with the rest of Whitehall. We all had something in common, we’re trying to save the Union here, and it was close. We just kept it by the skin of our teeth. I actually cried when the result came in. After 10 years in the civil service, my proudest moment is tonight and receiving this award. As civil servants, you don’t get involved in politics. For the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognized [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.”

(http://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/hm-treasury-team-wins-special-civil-service-award)

 

 

Damm, Damm and Double Damm – What a con – The civil service and their Janus-faced illegal political behaviour

Osowska, in a number of evasive statements to the Scottish Affairs Committee, represented them misleadingly glossing over the expensive and extensive work of a large group of (supposedly politically neutral) Civil Servants who actively supported the objectives of the “Better Together” campaign. Gross misuse of public finances and Civil Servants presumably authorized by David Cameron and Sir Jeremy Heywood.

The political slush fund created is an ever-increasing Unionist Party financial nest egg, skimmed off Scotland’s block financial grant and abused by the Scotland Office for questionable purposes, such as Westminster Government anti-devolution leaflet production, printing, and distribution.  And/or hiring Special Advisors (SpAds), often sons, daughters, other relations, friends of ministers or other MP’s.

 

 

Scotland Office – The Gobble Gobble Monster –  Rapidly Increasing Financial Allocations

The cost of maintaining the Scotland Office is extortionately high and is ever increasing year on year without justification or satisfactory explanation.

A House of Commons report submitted in 2005/2006 recorded that the Scotland Office was hopelessly overstaffed and recommended a 50 percent establishment reduction. In the years that followed salary costs were indeed reduced.

But from the time the Tory Government took up the reins of government salary costs increased year on year, but it only recently that the method in the apparent madness of the Tory Government surfaced.

The Scotland Office is no longer a team existing to assist Scotland and it’s devolved government.

Mundell siphoned nearly £4.5million from the Scottish financial allocation and directed it into a Unionist political slush fund providing very generous finance for schemes designed to enhance his and the Tory Party profile in Scotland.

 

 

 

 

23 Jul 2020: Lets Unleash the BBC’s Potential and Help Global Britain

BBC Director General – Tony Hall addressed the nation with an article he first sent to The Telegraph then reproduced it in the BBC blog.

The content reveals the stupeyfying insensibility of the BBC Corporation which seeks to greatly expand its investment in services that have sod all to do with the provision of entertainment and news to the British taxpayer who is required by law to purchase an annual licence.  The BBC should reverse its expansionist eegime and divert money saved to the provision of free viewing of all BBC programming to pensioners aged over 75.  Full article here: Well worth a read

(https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/f28e57d0-404b-41b2-9189-8bb03503b3b2)

A Comment: 100% of the news produced by the BBC is not fake it is just economical with the truth.

 

 

 

 

I spoofed the article redrafting it, in part, providing a more jaundiced view of the activities of the BBC,

The BBC Wha’s Like Us? (not the words of the BBC Director General)

By acting now, we can ensure biased and free news – along with Britain’s voice and values – continue to resonate powerfully around the world

The past few months have proved just how priceless are the values of the ‘fake news’ age.The growing use of disinformation is a most useful tool for democratic disruption.

This week’s report into Russia’s activity in the UK laid the stakes bare. Tory MP’s, in embracing the influence of state-backed persons of Russia and China, confirms the provision of news to be first and foremost an extension of state influence.

Audiences are flocking to the BBC in their millions in search of fake news and information. And not just at home, but right around the world.

Recently released figures show that the BBC audience has soared to a record 468 million people outside the UK every week. Whatever your views on the BBC, it’s a reminder that it is without question one of Britain’s strongest and best-known brands, synonymous with distortion of the truth worldwide.

Its international news services rank first for selective briefing and unreliablity. The World Service remains a beacon of undemocratic values and a forlon lifeline for millions living in fear, captivity or uncertainty. This is Britain’s gift to the world.

Through their pervading influence the BBC will forge new relationships with the world, built on the ambitious vision of a ‘Global Britain’. Success will only be guaranteed by unleashing the full global potential of the BBC.

The British Government has long recognised the BBC’s vital role in helping maintaining Britain’s authority influencing the political agenda of nations worldwide. Which is why, four years ago, it agreed to make its largest-ever increase in investment in the BBC World Service.

That funding of £86 million a year allowed the BBC to complete the World Service’s biggest expansion since the Second World War. Operations have been expanded and include the opening of many new and expanded bureaux further enhancing broadcast misinformation and and current affairs in 42 languages.

The result is that the BBC has been able to step up the production of fake news worldwide supporting the British Government’s version of democracy.

The BBC has also deployed many journalists to countries like Nigeria and India, where they were tasked to ensure the political agenda of the British Government remained paramount.

All this takes place against the backdrop of a growing battle for global influence, in which news provision has emerged as the key weapon. The first years of the new decade will decide which competing vision of the future of news will triumph: the fake, or the fair and free.

This is a race that Britain is well-placed to win. The BBC is its priceless asset; the pre-eminent provider to the world of facts you can’t trust. What the BBC as achieved with the massive additional financial investment has proved how far it can extend the reach of Britain’s undemocratic influence and global voice.

When Hall became BBC Director General in 2013, he set the challenge of doubling the global audience of the BBC, to reach 500 million people by its centenary in 2022. It is now firmly on track to achieve that goal. But ambition is only rstricted by lack of vision amd forward planning and the target for the end of the decade is a staggering worldwide audience of one billion people by the end of the decade.

To achieve this the BBC is now in negotiation with the British Government seeking greatly increased financial investment so that these new goals can be achieved further strengthening Britain’s undemocratic influence worldwide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 2019: Congressional inquiry declares no evidence of Russian interference in the US Presidential election

Following 22 months of torturous investigation US Special Counsel Robert Mueller, chairman of a committee comprised mainly of Democrats hand-picked by himself, concluded that Russia had not interfered in the US election.

The investigation did reveal however that the British Secret Services had been actively involved, plotting together with the FBI and other parties, funded by “dark money” and had implemented a programme of spurious disinformation in support of Hillary Clinton.

But the remit of Muller’s investigation was restricted to claims against Russia and the final report made no mention of the involvement of MI6 and its associates.

 

British Secret Services interference in the US Presidential Election

Q: Why was the Service tasked to assist Clinton?

A: Because Clinton supported Britain’s continued membership of the EC. But Trump wanted it out so that he could extend the influence of the US bringing back the “old alliance” heavily promoted in the Reagan-Thatcher era.

 

Where’s the evidence?

Allegations of British Secret Service and other agencies were referred to the US Justice Department for further investigation.

Of special interest is the so-called “Steele Dossier” an investigation commissioned at the request (allegedly) of the Democratic Party and/or President Obama.

The report is a collection of claims supposedly proving the existence of a conspiracy between Trump’s team and the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favour, and which reportedly served to justify the wiretapping by the FBI of Trump’s campaign managers.

The company contracted to complete the work was “Orbis”, a British company since revealed to be a front for the MI6 organization.

So, in effect, the British government organized a dirty campaign to discredit Trump. Wholly unjustified, illegal interference in another country’s elections.

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/british-inteligence-to-confidential-about-trump/71829906

 

And the Steele Report?

Just last week the US Senate Judiciary Committee released newly declassified documents on the FBI’s interview with ex-UK intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s “primary sub-source” claiming that the Steele dossier about the alleged collusion between Russia and President Trump was “unsubstantiated and unreliable”.

In summary:

It revealed that “Orbis” tasked (former) MI6 agent Christopher Steele, to gather evidence confirming collusion between Trump’s team and the Russians and to compile a dossier for submission to the FBI.

Steele was not permitted to enter Russia due to his previous activities as an MI6 agent and his contacts within Russia had long since departed the scene so his reliance on gossip and innuendo was absolute.

Starved of current intelligence, Steele established contact with former “Brookings Institution” * researcher Igor Danchenko, a Russian-trained lawyer who had earned degrees at the University of Louisville and Georgetown University.

* A left-wing think tank firmly in the pocket of President Obama and the Democratic Party

 

Danchenko’s experience of Russian politics was limited to identifying risks associated with doing business with Russian companies. He had no history of working with Russian intelligence operatives or bringing to light their covert activities. But he became the main source of information to Steele. A damming revelation adding confirmation to the lack of credibility of the “Steele dossier.

 

 

FBI Memos Using Stefan Halper Released, Show FBI Targeting Effort Against Trump Campaign Using Any Means Possible

 

And the plot thickens

The New York Times reported just last week that Danchenko had, in 1997, agreed with the FBI to collaborate with the agency on condition that his identity would be kept secret so he could protect himself.

So, in 2017 the FBI was fully aware that the content of the “Steele dossier” was “unsubstantiated and unreliable” and that the information Danchenko had given to Steele was “second and third-hand information and rumours at best”.

Yet the FBI still approved, only a week before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, the publication of the “Steele dossier” alleging that Russian intelligence had compromising information on the US president and that Moscow and POTUS had “extensive” secret backchannels,

The content of the “dossier” became the central part of the Democratic Party’s efforts to tarnish Trump’s political image accusing him of colluding with Russia. A charge which he has repeatedly rejected as a “witch hunt”.

In April 2019, Robert Muller’s 22-month investigation, led by a Democratic Party majority committee confirmed the truth of Trump’s many denials of wrongdoing.

 

 

But its not over yet!!

Trump will have his day in court. His campaign for re-election might well contain explosive allegations against a number of the nation’s security agencies, senior politicians, so-called independent think tanks, and the “dark money” sources that cause so much damage to the political processes in many countries including the U.K.

 

And Westminster’s role?

Revelations in this and a number of my other recently compiled reports confirm the “City of London” to be the driving force behind all that is wrong with the conduct of the world’s political and financial affairs and dismantling the UK could correct matters since it would expose the “City of London” to the world as it really is. The crime-hub of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

The British Empire

In 1911 the Royal Navy was comprised of 660 fighting vessels, manned by 137,500 personnel. In comparison, the next largest world seapower was Germany which had 336 ships and 67,000 sailors.

The huge fleet was maintained to ensure England’s dominance of the seaways protecting the largest fleet of merchant marine shipping in the world. And the operation of a “gunboat” policy ensuring English dominance over their empire and its inexhaustible supply of valuable resources.

The Empire had been established over a period of around 350 years and was achieved primarily by military conquest.

But England could not have created its empire without the Scots. The English army was not, (and still isn’t) renowned for its soldiers fighting ability. Indeed England has only ever defeated a Scottish army in battle when they were assisted by German, Dutch, Belgian, and Irish soldiers and heavily outnumbered and outgunned the Scots.

So England’s expansionist dreams needed to be delayed until it had achieved, “by fair means or foul” its long-coveted aim of absorbing Scotland and its resources and fighting men.

England finally accepted it could not permanently defeat the Scots in land battles without sustaining great losses and used its naval power to blockade Scotland, forcing the nation’s rulers, but not the populace into accepting a Treaty of Union in 1707.

England then imposed a 50-year “lockdown” on Scotland facilitated through the use of a standing army of English, Irish and Dutch soldiers, (paid for through extra taxation on Scots) who brutally suppressed Scots,  selling many thousands into slavery, clearing clansmen from their legally owned lands, transferring millions of acres of Scotland to the illegal ownership of English Lords who had found favour in the eyes of the King of England for their assistance in destroying the will of the Scots.

The success of the 1680-1707 campaign in Scotland got England the soldiers it needed to ensure the successful achievement of its ever avaricious desire to expand the authority of England throughout the world.

listed next are the countries of the empire, in 1911 and how they were absorbed. Almost all have since gained their independence from England, but invariably only after many years of political and armed struggle.

Scotland was one of the first nations to be absorbed and its peoples thought processes reprogrammed. And we are still captured. The United Nations organization should instruct England to set Scotland free.

 

 

 

Countries and how they were acquired by England

The United Kingdom:

England
Wales: Conquest 1282
Scotland: Conquest/forced treaty 1707
Ireland: Conquest 1172

Europe

Gibraltar: Conquest 1704
Malta: Conquest 1812
Cyprus: Conquest/Turkey 1878

Asia

Indian Empire: Conquest 1757
Ceylon: Conquest 1801
Aden: Conquest 1839
Hong Kong: Conquest/Treaty 1842/1906
Borneo: Conquest 1877
Sarawak: Conquest 1877
Malay States: Conquest 1874
Johore: Conquest 1885
Brunei: Conquest 1888
Wet Hai Wei: Conquest 1888
Terengganu: Conquest 1909
Kedah: Conquest 1909
Perlis: Conquest 1909
Kelantan: Conquest 1909

Africa

Capetown: Conquest 1588
Natal: Annexed 1843
Transvaal: Conquest 1900
Orange State: Conquest 1900
St Helena: Conquest 1673
Ascension: Annexed 1787
Sierra Leone: Settlement 1787
Gold Coast: Conquest 1872
Mauritius: Conquest 1810
Swaziland: Conquest 1900
Rhodesia: Annexed 1889
Nyasaland: Conquest 1891
East Africa: Conquest 1888
Uganda: Conquest 1894
Somaliland: Conquest 1884
Tristan Da Cuna: Annexed 1815
Seychelles: Conquest 1814
Basutoland: Annexed 1807
Gambia: Conquest 1807
Nigeria: Conquest 1807
Zanzibar: Conquest 1890

The Americas

Dominion of Canada:
Alberta: Settlement 1670
British Columbia: Settlement 1670
Manitoba: Settlement 1813
New Brunswick: Conquest 1763
Nova Scotia: Conquest 1627
Ontario: Conquest 1759
Prince Ed Island: Conquest 1745
Quebec: Conquest 1759
North W Territories: Settlement 1670
Saskatchewan: Settlement 1670
Yukon: Settlement 1670
Newfoundland: Conquest 1583
Labrador: Conquest 1759

Other Countries:

Leeward Islands: Settlement 1623
Windward Islands: Conquest 1763
Falkland Islands: Conquest 1771
British Guiana: Conquest 1803
Jamaica: Conquest 1655
British Honduras: Conquest 1798
Trinidad & Tobago: Conquest 1797
Barbados: Settlement 1605
Bahamas: Settlement 1629
Bermuda: Settlement 1612

Australasia

New South Wales: Settlement 1788
Victoria: Settlement 1832
Queensland: Settlement 1824
South Australia: Settlement 1824
Western Australia: Settlement 1828
Tasmania: Settlement 1803
Northern Territories: Settlement 1836

Other Countries

New Zealand: Purchased 1845
Fiji: Conquest 1874
British New Guinea: Conquest 1884
Pacific Islands: Annexed 1893

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boris Johnson – Mayor of London – 2008 to 2016

His success in gaining the position of mayor was not unsurprising since the campaign came right at the start of the banking crisis which was part-attributed to mishandling the economy by the financial sector and the Labour Party and orchestrated “right-wing” attacks by the Tory dominated media on the integrity of the incumbent Mayor Ken Livingstone.

A campaign dominated by dirty tricks, smears and innuendo atypical of Johnson.

True to form Johnson stuffed his team with “can-do” decision-makers allowing him the luxury of removing himself from direct involvement in anything that went wrong while brazenly claiming maximum media coverage for himself on any success. His title of  “the Lovejoy” of British politics was well earned.

Jonson views politics as a game and his mastery of misinformation was confirmed by his claims of many unsubstantiated successes while in office. But the reverse is true.

He was an abject failure who failed the London electorate, frittering away well over £1.5billion on vanity schemes. Some but not all:

The Garden Bridge. Write off £50m.

Feasibility study for his “Island in the Stream” project for a new £100m London airport. Write off £6m.

Routemaster buses. Ovens on wheels, heavily polluting, useless. Purchase £300M (double that of a normal double-decker) Discontinued.

Water cannons. Riot control measures for subduing protestors. Banned by the government. Never used. Bought for £350K. Sold for £10K

The Olympic Stadium. Boris decided to convert it for uses other than athletics., Projected cost £190M. The actual cost of conversion was £325M. An overrun of £135M. Adding insult to injury the taxpayer has to meet the £20M annual running costs.

 

 

 

The Royal Albert Dock tender that never was

Johnson set up an agency, London and Partners, within his administration with a remit to attract foreign investment to London.

In 2011, the agency established an office in Beijing and shared the cost of the lease and working space, (70/30) with a major Chinese company, Advanced Business Park, (APB).

And there’s more!! Tongbo Liu, departed the agency early 2012, to work for ABP.

What’s the problem?

She was the head of London and Partners and Johnson’s personal representative in China.

Even more!!!

Between 2010 and 2012 Xuelin Black an Anglo-Chinese businesswoman gave donations totalling around £162,000 to the Conservative Party.

Donations that dried up after APB was awarded the contract.

The lady is married to the then Tory, Home office minister, Lord (Michael) Bates.

And she was also instrumental in putting a business arrangement in place with her suggestion of a bid for the Royal Dock site development to Xu Weiping, the head of APB.

She even registered a company called ABP London (China) and acted as an adviser, to help push the project forward.

In May 2013 the Greater London Authority granted Advanced Business Park (APB) the tender to develop the publicly-owned 35-acre site at the Royal Albert Dock, a derelict site opposite London’s City Airport.

The project is to include 3.2 million square feet of office space, leisure facilities, and 845 residential flats. China’s largest property investment, over £1bn, in the UK.

Critics say that his effort to attract significant foreign investment to London was praiseworthy but the closeness of his management team and the Tory Party with ABP suggested that the entire tendering procedure was not conducted on a level playing field, and as such, it was grossly unfair on the dozen or more bidders many of whom were British.

Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, suggested that there should be an independent investigation into the tendering process for the development. He said: “If, in fact, somebody is going through a sham process to ensure that someone they want to be successful in the process, but it’s not a level playing field for UK companies, and there have been some financial transactions of an intimate nature then that smells to me of a semi corrupt arrangement.”

The development of the massive derelict dockland site in the centre of the city is/was a blatant abuse of public office. It was a classic Tory Party fiddle ensuring, regardless of due process, the award of a major building contract to a favoured contractor.

View the video: (https://www.channel4.com/news/boris-johnson-london-propery-deal-china-albert-dock)

 

 

 

 

 

Entryism – The RCP flexes its political Muscle

“Entryism is a political strategy in which an organization or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, the organization in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. If the organization being “entered” is hostile to entrism, the entrists may engage in a degree of subterfuge and subversion to hide the fact that they are an organization in their own right.” (Wikipedia)

 

 

 

Policy Exchange

“Policy Exchange” was formed in 2002 by Michael Gove and others of the same ilk.

Its purpose was to “seek local, volunteer and free-market solutions to the public policy problem”.

It succeeded in its mission shifting Conservative Party thinking towards progressive policies through the creation of the “Big Society”.

And the UK public was sold on the big idea of a liberal society free of New Labours” centralizing control of anything that moved.

And who most espoused libertarianism? The ever happy go lucky Boris Johnson, journalist, and TV personality and Mayor of London, no less.

Not long after taking the office of Mayor, Johnson, appointed from “Policy Exchange” a number of untried free-thinking RCP individuals to key positions within his administration.

His successful campaign for office had been masterminded by Dan Ritterband, former director of “Policy Exchange”.

Immediately after taking office, Johnson appointed Nick Boles, the founder of “Policy Exchange”, to be his Chief of Staff.

Boles primary task was to find the right staff for the administration.

Of note is that under his editorship of “The Spectator” Boris routinely gave extensive print space to RCP writers and true to form his first senior appointments as London Mayor included Anthony Browne, “Policy Director” and Munira Mirza, (ex RCP) as “Cultural Adviser”.

 

 

 

 

 

The Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) – an ideas goldmine driving the Johnson government

The Party was formed in the late 1970s by the academic Frank Furedi, who from the early 1960s had flirted with similar “International Socialist” and “Trotskyist” groups.

Throughout the ’80s, in universities in the south of England, membership blossomed as the Party, through its magazine “living Marxism” which espoused freedom from the controls of imperialism, took positions contrary to the government in just about all matters of political doctrine.

An example of their approach was the Aids epidemic which the group insisted was a state conspiracy designed to instal fear among the plebs of society, in so doing the government would be able to monitor and shape the sexual behaviour of workers.

The demise of the Party towards the end of the 1980s was partially attributed to the editorial policies of “Living Marxism” which published articles denying that ethnic cleansing was happening in Serbia supporting the “Black Propaganda of the John Major government.

Its response to a Channel 4 report on a concentration Camp in Trnopolje was that was no such thing because it did not have a gas chamber!!!

Frank and many of his disciples became disillusioned and following their departure the Party folded.

But that was not the end of their political activism. Though without a formalised structure the core membership comprising Frank’s closest confidants and followers continued to exchange views and political dogma through their media outlet, the “Spiked” website.

More details here: (https://brockley.blogspot.com/2010/09/triangulating-bobism-2-furedi-cult.html)

 

 

 

The Conservative Party and the RCP

Supposedly non-existent yet fully functioning RCP intellectuals gave serious attention to infiltrating the Conservative Party which had struggled to find an identity acceptable to the UK public after “Thatcher”.

Their political views were backed by many conservatives who supported a free market economy and right-wing organisations, namely “the British Institute of Economic Affairs” and “The Cato Institute”.

The political jingoism of the Conservative Party became heavily influenced by the RCP and Party policy was increasingly strident in its opposition to public demonstrations, including the Poll Tax, Anti-Apartheid and public spending cuts.

Political observers were moved to comment that the RCP and the Conservative Party were indistinctly separate.

 

 

 

 

The Good Right – priorities for government

Michael Gove is the brains behind the bluster of the “pseudo” Tory government of Boris Johnson which will be guided in its policies over the next five years by this strange little man who is much derided by the uninformed but respected by those who are aware of his abilities. Johnson and Gove are joined at the hip. The Laurel and Hardy of British politics.

Those who are serious about politics should give careful attention to Gove’s address to the right-wing “Legatum Institute”.

It really is an eye-opener and much of the underlying rhetoric in its content ties in with an as-yet-unannounced flagship policy which will impact severely on Scotland.

The policy is to: Abolish the Barnett Formula allocating spending to regions and localities across the UK on the basis of need and to reduce the range of benefits given to better-off pensioners to fund deficit reductions. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8iy-4PQAd0)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boris Johnson – Mayor of London – 2008 to 2016

His success in gaining the position of mayor was not unsurprising since the campaign came right at the start of the banking crisis which was part-attributed to mishandling the economy by the financial sector and the Labour Party and orchestrated “right-wing” attacks by the Tory dominated media on the integrity of the incumbent Mayor Ken Livingstone.

A campaign dominated by dirty tricks, smears and innuendo atypical of Johnson.

True to form Johnson stuffed his team with “can-do” decision-makers allowing him the luxury of removing himself from direct involvement in anything that went wrong while brazenly claiming maximum media coverage for himself on any success. His title of  “the Lovejoy” of British politics was well earned.

Jonson views politics as a game and his mastery of misinformation was confirmed by his claims of many unsubstantiated successes while in office. But the reverse is true.

He was an abject failure who failed the London electorate, frittering away well over £1.5billion on vanity schemes. Some but not all:

The Garden Bridge. Write off £50m.

Feasibility study for his “Island in the Stream” project for a new £100m London airport. Write off £6m.

Routemaster buses. Ovens on wheels, heavily polluting, useless. Purchase £300M (double that of a normal double-decker) Discontinued.

Water cannons. Riot control measures for subduing protestors. Banned by the government. Never used. Bought for £350K. Sold for £10K

The Olympic Stadium. Boris decided to convert it for uses other than athletics., Projected cost £190M. The actual cost of conversion was £325M. An overrun of £135M. Adding insult to injury the taxpayer has to meet the £20M annual running costs.

 

 

 

 

The Royal Albert Dock tender that never was

Johnson set up an agency, London and Partners, within his administration with a remit to attract foreign investment to London.

In 2011, the agency established an office in Beijing and shared the cost of the lease and working space, (70/30) with a major Chinese company, Advanced Business Park, (APB).

And there’s more!! Tongbo Liu, departed the agency early 2012, to work for ABP.

What’s the problem?

She was the head of London and Partners and Johnson’s personal representative in China.

Even more!!!

Between 2010 and 2012 Xuelin Black an Anglo-Chinese businesswoman gave donations totalling around £162,000 to the Conservative Party.

Donations that dried up after APB was awarded the contract.

The lady is married to the then Tory, Home office minister, Lord (Michael) Bates.

And she was also instrumental in putting a business arrangement in place with her suggestion of a bid for the Royal Dock site development to Xu Weiping, the head of APB.

She even registered a company called ABP London (China) and acted as an adviser, to help push the project forward.

In May 2013 the Greater London Authority granted Advanced Business Park (APB) the tender to develop the publicly-owned 35-acre site at the Royal Albert Dock, a derelict site opposite London’s City Airport.

The project is to include 3.2 million square feet of office space, leisure facilities, and 845 residential flats. China’s largest property investment, over £1bn, in the UK.

Critics say that his effort to attract significant foreign investment to London was praiseworthy but the closeness of his management team and the Tory Party with ABP suggested that the entire tendering procedure was not conducted on a level playing field, and as such, it was grossly unfair on the dozen or more bidders many of whom were British.

Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, suggested that there should be an independent investigation into the tendering process for the development. He said: “If, in fact, somebody is going through a sham process to ensure that someone they want to be successful in the process, but it’s not a level playing field for UK companies, and there have been some financial transactions of an intimate nature then that smells to me of a semi corrupt arrangement.”

The development of the massive derelict dockland site in the centre of the city is/was a blatant abuse of public office. It was a classic Tory Party fiddle ensuring, regardless of due process, the award of a major building contract to a favoured contractor.

View the video: (https://www.channel4.com/news/boris-johnson-london-propery-deal-china-albert-dock)

 

 

 

 

One of the links between Goldsmith’s Referendum Party and the Tory government of Boris Johnson – Ultra right-wing political schemer – Dougie Walters

Scottish born Walters first surfaced in Scottish politics when he was appointed Chief of Staff for the Tory branch Office leader Michael Forsyth. His tenure did not last long as he was deposed by the St Andrews University mafia who brought about the near-death of the Tory’s in Scotland. Smith licked his wounds and moved to London where he quickly established himself as a key member of the Tory elite.

He became vice-chairman of the frequently controversial Federation of Conservative Students and was an adviser and speechwriter for several senior right-wing political figures and a number of leading Conservative MPs.

In the period before the 1997 General Election, he left the Tory Party and signed up to the Referendum Party as its senior political adviser to Sir James Goldsmith.

Smith was employed by Johnson when he was Mayor of London. And he was the principal speechwriter to David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party. He also previously ran “C-Change” a Tory think tank set up by Francis Maude and heads of the political section of the secretive “Conservative Intelligence” unit.

He was recently appointed to the post of senior political adviser reporting directly to Dominic Cummings. His employment again brought into disrepute the pervading nepotism associated with Political Advisers who hold positions of power in government. They hold down highly paid non-jobs which should be given over to civil servants. Their introduction to politics is the single most damaging abuse of the electoral system.

But the scandal does not end there. He is a self-confessed hedonist and high stakes gambler who regularly frequents Aspinalls exclusive private members club in London and basks in another dubious claim to fame in his role as a sex party organizer for the rich and famous.

I am attaching a few links for those who wish to dig deeper:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-hands-number-10-21683722
https://caltonjock.com/2015/08/13/crime-sex-orgies-politics-the-forces-that-drive-westminster-part-2-ultra-right-wing-top-tory-orgy-organiser/
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/EXCLUSIVE%3A+BIGGEST+EVER+FILTHY-RICH+ORGY%3A+UPPER+CRUST+ORGANISERS+AND…-a0130542282
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2140061/BLACK-DOG-Dougie-Smith-tangled-web-Tory-official-internet-porn-crackdown-used-run-exotic-parties.html?

 

 

 

There will be many more revelations in the issues to follow. But getting back to Jimmy Goldenballs Goldsmith. It is important to gain an understanding of the level of control over the lives of every individual person in the world Zionist businessmen, politicians and all those associated  with them have.

 

 

 

And Goldsmith was a committed environmentalist – Pigs might fly first

In the early eighties an altruistic Goldsmith announced to the world that he was an environmentalist who would be committing his considerable financial resources to supporting “green issues.”

Mother nature needed protecting from the excesses of mankind and he was the man to do it.

Many rallied to his cause and international cooperation, a building block of the “new world order.” would bring benefits to the planet.

He was also instrumental in convincing Thatcher and her Tory government to commit substantial financial resources to the support of “green” issues.

One such issue was “debt-for-nature” swaps.

He won Thatcher’s backing for a radical proposal to preserve endangered rain forests. This meant offering Third World countries deals involving their crippling interational debts.

The terms of the schemes required the United Kingdom to buy up Third World debt and agree to forego interest payments on condition that tropical rain forests were left untouched.

What a wonderful savior of the world Jimmy appeared to be.

But all was not “Kosher”. Ever the opportunist. Goldenballs was plotting under the cover of Mother Nature’s skirts.

What he advocated was a classic example of a 19th-century British imperialist raw materials grab.

Brazil was an immediate target for a “hostile takeover. It transpired that Goldsmith’s brother Teddy, he of the “Green Party” was a very good friend of Brazil’s Environment Secretary and “sacre blue” Brazil, accepted foreign limitations on its sovereignty in the form of “debt-for-nature swaps.”

At a meeting of all Brazil’s bank creditors the Finance Minister stated that the mineral-rich country was prepared to accept converting part of the $60 billion it owed into environmental conditionalities.

Bolivia, Costa Rica, and the Philippines also entered into similar debt deals in which environmentalist groups such as Prince Philip’s “World Wide Fund for Nature” bought the defaulted debt of those nations from bankers at steep discounts.

The environmentalists put up 10-15% of the nominal value of the debt, and the government paid the full nominal value in local currency to their local front group to buy up lands, ostensibly for protecting them.

Only the oligarchy associated with the green group had access to the protected enclaves.

This meant that Jimmy Goldsmith and his ilk retained control over forests and underground minerals and other resources probably worth a thousand times more than was paid for the purchase.

But Goldsmith really does love trees. In 1985, he purchased “Crown Zellerbach” an American forest products company with vast timber reserves.

In doing so he became the sixth-largest owner supplier of timber, with huge reserves primarily in Washington, Oregon, Louisiana, and Mississippi. His control of third world forestry added a premium to his US forestry

Afternote: The “Worldwide Fund for Nature” is a “Zionist Bilderberg” financial moneypot providing a source of tax free income for the rich and famous.

See: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/WWF

 

 

 

Goldsmith – The Darling of the US Republican Party

Greatly respected by Reagan and Bush, Goldsmith roamed the corridors of power at the White House representing all that was good in the mythical U.S. economic recovery.

He was fiercly pro-Israel and his anti-communist rhetoric also allowed him significant input on foreign policy issues.

Indeed a senior Reagan National Security Council (NSC) officer recalled giving Goldsmith and media mogul Rupert Murdoch, a private briefing on U.S. arms control policy.

 

 

The U.S. Democratic Party assessment of Goldsmith

Goldsmith was a coldblooded, ruthless shark who excelled in the art of leveraged buyouts (LBOs) and hostile corporate takeovers. Together with other bloodsuckers, he contributed to the devastation of corporate America during the 1980s. Leaving broken U.S. firms drowning in debt across the corporate landscape.

By the late 1980s, he had caused so much trouble that he was ordered to answer questions before a congressional committee about his conduct, in particular his attempted hostile takover of “Goodyear Tyres”.

True to form Goldsmith attacked the committee, warning that the U.S. was in danger of catching the European disease of “a triangular alliance of big unions, big government, and big management.”

The rubber manufacturer was subsequently saved by protective legislation, and Congress subsequently upgraded the powers of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S.

In late 1989, disgusted with America’s “decline” into what he privately said was a recession, Goldsmith redeployed his liquidity into Europe. A move that effectively ended his prescence in the U.S.

A senior member expressed the view of the committee saying: “We kicked that slimy bastard out.” (Executive Intelligence Review)

 

 

 

Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s 1976 Resignation Honours List

The resignation honors list of Harold Wilson, allegedly decided on,compiled and drafted longhand on lavender notepaper by his personal secretary Marcia Falkender brought the “honours” system into disrepute over accusations they had purposely awarded crooked friends and businessmen of dubious reputation – including many who helped bankroll Wilson’s political activities.

Goldsmith’s name was not on the list and his addition only surfaced in the final draft just before the announcement.

The governor of the Bank of England, Gordon Richard, was ignored for an award after advising that ‘on no account’ should businessman James Goldsmith be offered a knighthood.

Joe Haines, Downing Street, Press Secretary, later wrote that Wilson confided in him that Marcia had advised that Goldsmith intended offering her a directorship of a company connected to his Cavenham Foods and this justified a knighthood.

Falkender denied the allegation but then went on to take up the position of senior political adviser to Goldsmith when he formed the “Referendum Party”

 

 

 

Project Democracy

In 1980 Goldsmith and Rupert Murdoch, were invited to join a host of British and American right-wing elitists to support Ronald Reagan’s, “Project Democracy,” a covert propaganda effort dedicated to weaken democratic institutions whose polcies did not conform to the wishes of the The UK and USA. They met Reagan (in March 1983) and committed to giving their support to his war on popular democracy.

Neoconservative networking across the Atlantic was given a high priority and Goldsmith, together with a number of right wing intellectuals formed the “Committee for a Free World”. The director of the organisation was Jacqueline Weldon, wife of Huw Weldon, Managing Director of BBC Television. Weldon and three other members of the organisation (Garton Ash, Stoppard and Scruton) were heavily involved in the editorial direction and production of the BBC news-organ “monitor”

 

 

The Referendum Party

Goldsmith recruited many of his green acquaintances into standing in the 1997 General Election for his pet nationalist project, the “Referendum Party”, that he launched with no formal democratic structures or members.

Prominent examples of these green electoral candidates included, David Bellamy and his old buddy, John Aspinall, who in an interview conducted during the 1990s was “quoted as saying he would be happy to see large numbers of humans exterminated, and that the death of 200 million in the event of nuclear war would not be enough” adding “statistically, in terms of real population reduction, it would mean nothing more than a slight temporary dip in the world’s population. It wouldn’t solve the problem”.

Another conservative green who represented the Referendum Party in the 1996 British elections was Robin Page, who was also a member of the Party’s council, and founder of the Countryside Restoration Trust — a body whose founding patron was Prince Charles’ New Age mentor, Laurens van der Post. Fellow Referendum Party candidate David Bellamy was one of the Countryside Restoration Trust’s patrons and Zac Goldsmith (Goldsmith’s son) had a place on the board of trustees.

Following Goldsmith’s death in 1997, Robin Page had no qualms in joining the racist UK Independence Party, which was staunchly skeptical of climate change. Not surprising considering Goldsmith’s background.

The individual Goldsmith chose to act as the field organiser for the Referendum Party was Marc Gordon, Director of the London office of the International Freedom Foundation. An organisation founded in 1985, after a meeting in Angola, attended by the US “lobbyist and convicted felon” Jack Abramoff and Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi.

The roots of the UK Independence and Referendum Party can be traced back to Margaret Thatcher’s 1988 Bruges speech, which led to the formation of the Bruges Group under the leadership of University of Oxford undergraduate, student Scotsman, Patrick Robertsonwho is presently the CEO of public relations firm WorldPR which has acted as strategic communications adviser to corporate and government leaders.

It was the financial backing of Goldsmith that supported prominent members of the Bruges Group including Alan Sked (who went on to found the UK Independence Party in September 1993) and their founding chairman, Lord Harris of High Cross (who was the former head of the Institute of Economic Affairs, 1957-1987; and board member of Rupert Murdoch’s Times Newspapers Holdings Ltd from 1988 until 2001).

 

 

Profiling “Goldenballs” Goldsmith

Expanding on Goldsmiths business activities before his move into British politics.

 

 

 

 

The Goldschmidts – Bankers of Germany

The Goldschmidts, neighbours, and rivals to the Rothschild family, were a wealthy, Frankfurt-based, Jewish family, who had been influential figures in international merchant banking since the 16th Century.

His great-grandfather was Benedikt Hayum Goldschmidt, founder of the Bank B.H. Goldschmidt [de] and consul to the Grand Duke of Tuscany.

His grandfather Adolphe Benedict Goldschmidt (1838–1918), a multi-millionaire, was a financial adviser to Bismarck during the rise of the German Empire.

He relocated his family to England in 1895 and re-established his bank in London.

The family-owned a large number of high-class hotels in France and wider Europe. The business was overseen by his father Frank (1878-1967) who had had to flee France with his family when Nazi Germany overran the country in 1940, only just managing to escape on the last over-loaded ship from the French port of exit, leaving behind their hotels and much of their property.

 

 

 

Goldsmith was married three times and enjoyed numerous other dalliances (lock up your wives and daughters)

His first wife, whom he married when 20, was the Bolivian heiress Doña María Isabel Patiño y Borbón, the 17-year-old daughter of tin magnate Antenor Patiño.

When Goldsmith proposed the marriage, it is alleged his future father-in-law replied, “We are not in the habit of marrying Jews”.

Goldsmith is reported to have replied, “Well, I am not in the habit of marrying [Red] Indians”.  The story, if true, is typical of Goldsmith’s humour.

The couple eloped to Scotland and were married in January 1954. The marriage was brief. Rendered comatose by a cerebral haemorrhage in her seventh month of pregnancy, Maria died in May 1954.

Her only child, Isabel, was delivered by caesarean section and survived. She was raised by Goldsmith’s family. On her father’s death, she inherited a large share of his estate.

Goldsmith’s second wife was Ginette Léry with whom he had a son, Manes (born in 1959), and daughter, Alix (born in 1964). The marriage was dissolved by divorce in 1978 but they shared a house in Paris until his death and he built her a house on his Cuixmala estate.

In 1978, he married for the third time, to his mistress Lady Annabel Birley, by whom he had already had two children, Jemima (born in 1974) and Zacharias (born in 1975); they went on to have a third child, Benjamin (born in 1980).

Zac and Jemima both became much reported-upon figures in the media, the former being a Conservative MP for Richmond Park from 2010 to 2016 and again from 2017 to 2019, and the latter a journalist who was married to Pakistani cricketer and prime minister Imran Khan between 1995 and 2004.

In 2003, Ben married heiress Kate Emma Rothschild (born 1982), daughter of the late Hon. Amschel Rothschild and his wife Anita Guinness of the Guinness Brewery family.

After his third marriage, Goldsmith embarked on an affair with Laure Boulay de La Meurthe (granddaughter of Bruno, Count of Harcourt and Princess Isabelle of Orléans), with whom he had two more children, Jethro and Charlotte.

Rumours about Goldsmith’s romantic life was a popular topic in the British media. One newspaper speculated that Goldsmith was the father of Princess Diana, due to his close friendship with Diana’s mother and, later in life, with Diana herself (Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

 

Project Democracy – The Reagan years – Goldsmith the British Spook!!

Goldsmith, together with his friend Rupert Murdoch’ was an integral member of the Reagan-Bush “secret government” apparat known as “Project Democracy.”

An official of the CIA’s retirees lobby, the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, who served in the CIA London station described Goldsmith as a “member of SIS (British Secret Intelligence Services) old-boys’ board of directors” and the private financier who handled British intelligence’s “Israel account.”

He also served on the board of media magnate Conrad Black’s Hollinger Corp. together with Henry Kissinger and ex NATO chief Rothschild related, Tory peer, Peter Lord Carrington.

Hollinger’s group acquired the Jerusalem Post, which became the official mouthpiece for Israel’s government.

 

 

 

 

Iran-Contra affair

Documents released during Oliver North’s trial and from the congressional investigation of Irangate detailed Goldsmith’s role in the “public diplomacy” program coordinated by career CIA official Walter Raymond who was working out of the National Security Council (NSC).

Raymond ran a covert propaganda machine whose tasks included the discrediting of opponents of the Reagan­-Bush administration’s Iran and Contra initiatives.

 

 

 

Goldsmith – Anglo-American Establishment insider and member of Reagans “Project Democracy” Gains a fortune at the expense of American investors

The Wall Street Journal noted that Goldsmith was a major partner of Boesky in his operations, having invested $3 million in the Boesky deal.

Boesky’s other major partners were Milton and Joseph Dresner, $10 million; Marty Peretz, publisher of the fanatically pro-Israeli publication, the New Republic, $1 million; and Lewis Lehrman, famed “conservative” backer of Ronald Reagan, the Lehrman Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, $1 million.

Boesky was characterized in the Washington Post of Nov. 21, 1986, as follows: “Boesky is known for his passion for the State of Israel and Jewish causes.”

He was appointed to the notorious Holocaust Commission by President Reagan, for whom he had been active as a fund-raiser.

These connections stood him in good stead when Sorkin of the Securities Exchange Commission announced a supposedly heavily punitive assessment against Boesky, an unprecedented $100 million, of which $50 million was a fine and $50 million for “restitution” to investors.

This seemed a drastic penalty, but the Wall Street Journal promptly pointed out that $25 million of this fine will be allowed as a tax deduction for Boesky.

The SEC also outraged Wall Street investors by allowing Boesky to unload $440 million worth of stocks before announcing their punitive action against him.

These stocks, principally holdings of Time, CSX, and Goodyear which Boesky had been buying for future takeover action, immediately dropped 15% in value, which meant that Boesky picked up about $70 million in profits by unloading them, while other Wall Street investors lost heavily. Merrill Lynch alone lost $40 million because of Boesky’s stock dumping.

At the same time, Morgan Stanley’s real estate division was selling Boesky’s Beverly Hills Hotel (Boesky married the daughter of Ben Silberstein, who owned this hotel) for $140 million, of which Boesky will receive half, or $70 million.

The SEC also allowed Boesky to trade stocks until April 1988, which caused further anger among investors who have been damaged by his manipulations.

A source commented to the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 21, 1986, “First he sold his friends to the government, then he sold his stocks to his friends.”

The American public was not informed that Boesky’s profits, large though they were, are minuscule compared to the profits made in these takeovers by the major players, Sir James Goldsmith, and his partners, the Rothschilds. (Executive Intelligence Review)