Peter Snow heads a TV dynasty second only to the Dimbleby’s. His family also have a deep personal connection with the elite responsible for the disasters of the first world war.
A journalist, author and broadcaster he was ITN’s Diplomatic and Defence Correspondent from 1966 to 1979 and presented BBC’s Newsnight from 1980 to 1997.
His Great-Grandfather was David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister from 1916 until 1922.
His Grandfather was General Sir Thomas D’Oyly Snow, one of the army leaders who planned and executed the battle of the Somme in which on the first day 1 July 1916, the British army suffered over 57,000 casualties, including more than 19,000 dead.
His historian and broadcaster son Dan is married to the Duke of Westminster’s daughter, Lady Edwina.
The fabulously wealthy Westminster’s are one of the five richest families in the UK, with a combined wealth exceeding that of about 20% of the population of the UK.
Dan Snow the historian
In a fanciful documentary for the BBC about WW1, he revealed the extent of his pride in his family’s role in the war when he opened the narrative with the statement: “Many soldiers enjoyed WW1. If they were lucky they would avoid a big offensive, and much of the time, conditions might be better than at home. For the British, there was meat every day – a rare luxury back home – cigarettes, tea and rum, part of a daily diet of over 4,000 calories. Absentee rates due to sickness, an important barometer of a unit’s morale were, remarkably, hardly above peacetime rates. Many young men enjoyed the guaranteed pay, the intense comradeship, the responsibility and a much greater sexual freedom than in peacetime Britain”.
General Thomas D’Oyly Snow
He described his Great Grandfather as, “a hardened enforcer for QueenVictoria who fought Zulus in South Africa and the Mahdi in Sudan, where he carried a bottle of champagne with him to Khartoum and drank it when his troops had avenged the death of General Gordon, who was killed fighting the Mahdi’s warriors in 1885. He had command of the 4th Division at the start of WW1.
He dismissed the description critical of the British army command “lions led by donkeys” insisting that the Generals had been at the forefront of military innovation.
But his ancestor General Sir Thomas D’Oyly Snow who experienced the war first hand saw it in very different terms when he wrote: “The higher staffs had had no practice in command, and although they had been well trained in the theory of the writing and issue of orders, they failed in the practice…added to this we all suffered from the fault common to all Englishmen, a fault we did not know we suffered from till war revealed it, a total lack of imagination”.
But Snow’s opinion was that his Great Grandfather had been overly critical of himself and others, attributing failures at the Somme and after to the inexperience of the British gunners and Churchill who had refused to re-supply artillery shells to the front claiming there was no money available.
He expanded his views stating “A revolution in firepower had given the Germans the ability to bring a wall of steel and explosives down on anyone brave enough to attack. Radio was in its infancy. Telephone cables were severed. Messengers were picked off by snipers armed with rifles of undreamed-of power and accuracy. Thousands of miles of newly invented barbed wire posed an intractable problem”.
But Sir Thomas in his memoirs wrote; ‘We lost men on the first night, drowned or smothered. The men had either to stand in water, knee-deep, with every prospect of sinking in deeper still or hang on the side of the trench. Later in the war, we should have overcome the difficulty but at this time the men were overworked in keeping the front trenches in order, and we were all inexperienced. On one occasion one of my staff said to a Corporal of the Engineers, “Now you are an engineer; cannot you devise some method of draining this trench?” to which he replied, “I am afraid, Sir, that I cannot; you see before the war I was a Christmas card maker by trade.”
And the high command did nothing to help. A soldier said: ‘We were not provided with wood wherewith to make trench-boards, and no extra socks or waterproof boots were forthcoming. We were only censured for having so many sick.”
Snow said that his Great Grandfather’s memoirs ended before, “his darkest days of the war”.
But the records state that at the Somme Sir Thomas’ men, “attacked the strongest stretch of German line as a diversion for the main assault, which went into the south and even by the standards of that bloody and futile day, the attack of Snow’s VII Corps was a disaster. For the general had been located at his chateau headquarters, a long way from the carnage of the trenches.”
Adding insult to injury General Snow attempted to shift blame for the carnage away from himself when he wrote to his seniors, “I regret to have to report that the 46th Division in yesterday’s operations showed a lack of offensive spirit.”
This was after the men had fought their way into the German trench system through unbroken barbed wire. And held off numerous counter-attacks until they had run out of ammunition and were forced to use shovels and their bare hands.”
The foregoing is at odds with Snow’s claim that “Many soldiers enjoyed WW1. If they were lucky they would avoid a big offensive, and much of the time, conditions might be better than at home.”
The old imperial warrior in his recollection admitted that soldiers were poorly trained and unsupported by generals who did not know what they were doing since whilst they had the experience of colonial warfare they were totally unprepared for industrialized total war.
Why were they located at chateau’s far from the front line? Why did they try to shift the blame for failure onto the rank and file of the army? In his documentary on WW1, the Dan Snow of 2014 dismissed criticism of the conduct of the generals as unjustified but I prefer the account of his Great Grandfather.
The NHS in England is adopting USA healthcare provision.
Once contracts are in place they cannot be reversed, hedge fund private healthcare conglomerates would sue for billions and bankrupt England. The changes will be processed to a conclusion regardless of the political shade of government. The NHS in England is being flogged off.
The “No” vote in the 2014 independence referendum increased the likelihood that the Scottish NHS will suffer a similar fate since financial allocations for healthcare are first decided at Westminster.
Indicators point to a period of around 10 years, from 2018 for the cost of healthcare provision in England to mirror that of the USA. In 2007 the cost of healthcare for the average American was $7,290. In the same year, the cost of healthcare for the average UK citizen was $2,992. Assuming a fully privatized English NHS will continue to be fully funded by Westminster through existing taxes for basic healthcare needs (what this will encompass is as yet unknown) will require the balance of $4,298 to be found by each person in England.
There is no free market solution to providing funds for every person to receive health care deemed proper by the medical system without universal insurance schemes and a family of four will probably need to take out an annual healthcare policy, monthly premiums, (at today’s rates) approximately £300. Annual cost £3600. Bite on that!! many families will struggle to ensure adequate healthcare provision. It should be noted that the bulk of the cost difference, between the UK and USA, can be attributed in part to profit-taking by private Healthcare providers.
Will Primary care trusts lead to US-style health care?Extract:
“The use of private finance in primary care premises has seen the entry of commercial property developers and for-profit healthcare companies, paralleling developments in the NHS hospital sector.
As funding for capital investment in the NHS has become more complex, with the requirement that public-private partnerships generate a mixture of state and commercial revenues, the risks and costs of investment make general practitioners’ ownership of premises increasingly unlikely.
At the same time, the government’s NHS Plan expects a rapid move of general practitioners into a salaried service, the end of independent contractor status, and an increasing role for the private sector. These changes raise questions about how government policy will affect the control of clinical decision-making in managing NHS budgets and the core principles of the NHS. Full article here:
Great Britain & the USA “The Special Relationship”
During World War II Scotland suffered some 34,000 combat deaths, and approximately 6,000 civilians were killed, many in air attacks on Clydeside.
The phrase was first used by Churchill in a 1946 speech. It was his way of selling to the British electorate his belief in a high level of trust and cooperation that prevailed between the USA & Britain in economic activity, trade and commerce, military planning, execution of military operations, weapons technology and intelligence sharing.
But many politicians and a sceptical Scottish public were less enamoured of the USA, having been saddled with meeting the massive cost of the “lease lend contract” negotiated by Churchill & Roosevelt at the start of the war. The final repayment of which was not made until 1966, twenty years after the end of WW2. So much for the special relationship, more akin to stabling a Trojan Horse in the House of Commons.
There were also many in the Tory Party who questioned Britain’s decision to go to war with Germany in support of Poland, since the policy had not been debated at length in Westminster.
Such doubts were speedily squashed by the Labour government, which was determined to bask in the glory of winning a war with Germany, Japan and their allies. It is said that “the Victor writes the history” and questions such as, could war have been avoided? Were not examined and aired in the glory of triumph.
But in 1982 Robert Harris released an explosive BBC “News-night” report providing previously unknown information about events in the period 1938-45.
The report was centred on a former US intelligence officer, Tyler Kent who, up to 1940 was employed as a diplomat, (cyber decoding) in the US Embassy.
In 1940, he was arrested, tried and convicted by a secret court in London of violating the British Official Secrets Act, (which as an American citizen he was not bound to)
In an unprecedented act, again decided upon, in secret, at Presidential level, Tyler Kent’s diplomatic immunity was removed so that he could be arrested by MI5 and kept secure in a British prison until after the war.
There is no record of his trial. But he was sentenced to 7 years in prison, without appeal. He was released in 1945.
The Strange Case of Tyler Kent was subsequently written up and published – Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt – Their Conspiracy to Take Britain to War
In May 1940, a 29-year-old American code clerk at the U.S. embassy in London was arrested by British authorities in his apartment. Tyler Kent was charged with having violated the British Official Secrets Act. “For a purpose prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state,” the charge stated, Kent had “obtained a document which might be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.” He was sentenced to seven years in prison, but was released and returned to the United States after serving five.
Between June 1940 and December 1945, the Kent case was the subject of numerous American newspaper articles. Most were sensational or highly speculative, since reliable information was hard to come by. (At the time, the British press was strictly censored.) Many Americans wanted to know how a foreign government could secretly arrest and put on trial a U.S. citizen who held diplomatic immunity. Congressmen and newspapers speculated as to what the code clerk really knew about rumoured secret arrangements between President Roosevelt and British leader Winston Churchill.
Many wondered if Kent had been jailed to keep him from talking. But preoccupation with the war and official government statements satisfied the curiosity of all but a handful. When Kent returned to the United States in 1945 from British imprisonment, almost all interest in the case had evaporated in the general euphoria of Allied military victory. For many years the Kent story was virtually forgotten.
The passage of time and a more sober awareness of how American presidents operate encouraged new interest in the case. Dramatic revelations of illegal Presidential actions that emerged from the Vietnam War and the Watergate affair shocked Americans into a bitter realization that their Chief Executive could lie and break the law. In recent years, the Kent case has been the subject of several scholarly and semi-scholarly articles.
Highly acclaimed author John Toland devoted several pages to the affair in his 1982 revisionist book on Pearl Harbor, Infamy. In December 1982 the British television program “News-night” examined the Kent case. The broadcast included excerpts from an interview with Kent filmed near his Texas home. Several books about the Kent story have been published critically re-examining President Roosevelt’s path into the Second World War.
Tyler Gatewood Kent was born on March 24, 1911, in Yingkou (Newchwang), northern China, where his father, William P. Kent, was serving as the American Consul. The family had strong roots in Virginia. Kent’s English forebears settled there in 1644. President John Tyler was a distant relative. A grandfather was Speaker of the Virginia Assembly and lieutenant governor.
Tyler Kent attended St. Alban’s School in Washington, D.C., and received his higher education at Princeton (AB, 1931), George Washington University, the Paris Sorbonne, and the University of Madrid. From an early age he showed a remarkable aptitude for languages. Eventually he learned numerous ancient and modern languages. Like his father, Kent chose a career in the State Department foreign service.
His first assignment was to the American embassy in Moscow. From 1934 to 1939, Kent learned first-hand in the Soviet capital about life under Communism. His fluent command of the Russian language helped him to know the Russian people and the realities of Soviet life much more intimately than most diplomats. He developed an intense hatred for the Soviet system and for those who had foisted this monstrous tyranny on Russia.
Kent was appalled at Roosevelt’s support for Stalin’s cruel and despotic regime.
His personal experience and careful study convinced him that Communism represented a mortal danger to the world, and to the West in particular. President Roosevelt, though, considered the Soviet system a rougher but more progressive version of his own New Deal, both motivated by the same lofty humanistic ideals.
From Moscow Kent was transferred to the U.S. embassy in London. From October 1939 until that fateful 20th day of May, 1940, he served as a code clerk. This was an especially important position there because all diplomatic dispatches from American missions across Europe to Washington were routed through the London embassy’s code room.
When Kent began work, war had already broken out in Europe. U.S. law and overwhelming public sentiment seemed to insure that America would avoid entanglement in the conflict. But from his special vantage point in London, Kent quickly learned that President Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to subvert the law and deceive the people in order to get America into war.
Kent decided to make copies or summaries of diplomatic dispatches documenting Roosevelt’s secret policies and somehow bring them to the attention of sympathetic congressmen and senators. And so he took the course that led to his untimely arrest, briefly made him something of a celebrity, and cost him five years in prison. As he puts it, he got “tangled up in history.” In fact, he came very close to changing its course.
As code clerk, Kent intercepted hundreds of diplomatic dispatches between the embassies in Europe and the State Department in Washington. He made verbatim copies of most of the messages and paraphrased summaries of the rest. The most important and incriminating of these was the top secret correspondence between Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, which began with a letter from the President dated September 11, 1939.
Until May 11, 1940, Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty (or head of the British Navy). Thus, any exchange of communications between him and Roosevelt until that date was highly irregular because it took place behind the back of the head of the British government, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Officially, heads of state communicate only with their counterpart heads of state, and any communications otherwise are understood to be for the ultimate attention of the counterpart head of state.
In the case of the Roosevelt-Churchill correspondence before May 11, 1940, not only was that exchange designed to be kept secret from Prime Minister Chamberlain, it was indeed something of a conspiracy against him. Churchill wanted to supplant Chamberlain, and Roosevelt himself desired this end. For this reason, the exchange was kept especially secret. Until he became Prime Minister himself, Churchill signed his messages to Roosevelt simply, “Naval Person.”
The public revelation of the mere existence of a secret Churchill-Roosevelt exchange behind Chamberlain’s back would have been highly embarrassing to both correspondents. But if Kent had somehow succeeded in making the contents of the exchange known to the American public, there would have been loud demands for Roosevelt’s impeachment.
Kent intercepted and made a complete copy of Churchill’s message to Roosevelt of December 25, 1939 (Telegram 2720) in which Churchill informed the President that British warships would continue to violate American sovereignty to seize German ships within the U.S. three mile maritime territorial zone. However, in order to keep these violations secret, Churchill promised that the seizures would take place out of view from the American shore. “We cannot refrain from stopping enemy ships outside international three-mile limit when these may well be supply ships for U-boats or surface raiders, but instructions have been given only to arrest or fire upon them out of sight of United States shores.”
In his message to Roosevelt of February 28, 1940 (Telegram 490), which was also intercepted and copied out by Kent, Churchill wrote that the British would continue to seize and censor U.S. mail from American and other neutral ships on their way to Europe. “All our experience shows that the examination of mails is essential to efficient control,” Churchill told Roosevelt. This was, of course, a blatant violation of American neutrality and international law.
There was considerable astonishment in the United States when the full extent of Roosevelt’s connivance in the illegal British seizure and censorship of American mail to Europe became known many years after the war. If this message intercepted by Kent had been made public in 1940 or 1941, there would have been a first-rate scandal.
In the secret correspondence between Churchill and Roosevelt intercepted by Kent, the two leaders conspired to insure that the United States government would secretly tolerate British violations of American territorial sovereignty and restrictions on neutral American shipping. The two men wanted to avoid any embarrassing incidents that would provoke public indignation in America over the illegal British actions. They also worked out procedures for joint British-American naval reporting of the location of German surface raiders and submarines which violated at least the spirit if not the letter of United States neutrality.
The fact that Kent’s diplomatic immunity was waived by the U.S. government so that British authorities could throw him into prison is itself proof that the Roosevelt administration was neutral in name only. If Kent had been discovered intercepting dispatches at the American embassy in Berlin, it is inconceivable that the U.S. government would have waived his immunity so that German authorities could imprison him. To the contrary, the Roosevelt administration would have done everything it could to protect him from any possible prosecution and imprisonment by the German government.
In response to a growing clamour in the press and among the public about a possible official government cover-up in the Kent case, the State Department issued a lengthy public statement on September 2, 1944. The cleverly worded document implied, without ever actually making the charge, that Kent had been a German spy. The State Department in effect admitted, however, that it had put British interests ahead of American interests and law in the case.
Kent’s trial had been held in secret, the statement said, “because of the harmful effects to British counter-espionage efforts which were to be anticipated if certain of the evidence became public.” Even more revealing was the official admission that Kent’s extraordinary treatment was because “The interest of Great Britain in such a case, at a time when it was fighting for its existence, was therefore pre-eminent.” At a time, it must be remembered, when the United States was publicly and legally neutral in the conflict between Britain and Germany, the State Department considered British, and not American, interests in the Kent case to be “pre-eminent.”
In 1939 and 1940, the vast majority of the American people wanted to avoid involvement in the European war. They felt that U.S. participation in the First World War had been a catastrophic error and wanted to ensure that the mistake would not be repeated. The Congress was likewise committed to a policy of firm neutrality, and had passed the Johnson and Neutrality Acts to make sure that America kept out of war in Europe.
The President is constitutionally charged with the duty to execute the will of the American people as expressed through the Congress. The Constitution reserves the power to make war and peace exclusively to Congress. But with brazen contempt for the will of the people, the law and the constitution, President Roosevelt conspired with a small circle of confidants to incite war in Europe and bring the United States into the conflict. He broke his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Over the years, numerous lies have been invented and spread about Tyler Kent. The most slanderous is that he was a traitor to the United States and a spy for Germany. In fact, Kent was a genuine patriot who put the welfare of his nation above his own personal happiness and security. He was never charged with violating any American law. Kent acted on the traditional principle that for United States government officials, American interests (and not those of Britain or any other country) come first. He was sacrificed to foreign interests by his own government.
In London Tyler Kent faced a painful dilemma: What should a government official do when he discovers that his boss, the President of the United States, is breaking the law? Kent felt a greater loyalty to his nation and its laws than to President Roosevelt. His sense of honour moved him to collect documentary evidence of Roosevelt’s treacherous crimes and try to bring it before the American people. Kent paid for his “crime” with five years in prison and a tarnished reputation for the rest of his life, while Franklin Roosevelt, who violated the Constitution and numerous laws, was re-elected President and praised as a hero.
If Tyler Kent had somehow succeeded in making public his collection of intercepted documentary evidence, he would have unleashed an enormous public outcry for President Roosevelt’s removal from office. At the very least he would have temporarily halted Roosevelt’s campaign to get America into war. Roosevelt might well have been so discredited that Wendell Wilkie would have defeated him in the 1940 presidential election.
It is difficult to say whether the Kent disclosures would have been enough to bring about Roosevelt’s impeachment. Certainly the documents provide proof of criminal activity sufficient to warrant removal from office. Congress would have been virtually compelled to begin at least preliminary impeachment proceedings. This much can be said with certainty: disclosure of the Kent documents would have dealt a powerful blow to Roosevelt’s prestige and credibility. Tyler Kent might then have significantly altered the course of American and world history.
So you want to be a soldier – the recruiting process – streaming by ability
An understanding of the recruiting policies of the British army is necessary so that any judgement of soldiers in the Scottish regiments can be arrived at from a position of knowledge.
At the recruitment stage, applicants are required to complete a number of written and oral tests compiled by psychologists, designed to allow individuals to be grouped into one of four classes. There might be changes in the process from time to time, but the purpose remains the same. These provide the means through which the Recruitment Centre is able to allocate recruits to the arm of the service most suited to their educational abilities. Namely:
Class 1: Gifted and intelligent: Most likely educated to higher level qualifiers usually sent for training with specialist services e.g. Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (R.E.M.E.), Royal Signals (R.S.) or Royal Engineers (R.E.).
Class 2: Promising. Educated to “O” level standard, those taller than 5′.10″ are directed to the Guards Regiments (Scots and Coldstream). Others are routed to the Royal Artillery (R.A.) and Royal Tank Regiment (R.T.R.). Recruits with a stated preference for service with the Scottish infantry are permitted to join the Regiment of their choice
Class 3: Education problematic. Underachieving but displaying some abilities are based on their place of residence, sent to one of the Scottish Infantry Regiments.
Class 4: Not well-educated, Usually non-combatant (except for personal protection). Earmarked for the Royal Transport Corps (R.T.C.), Royal Catering Corps (R.C.C.) or Royal Pioneer Corps (R.P.C.) or other supporting service.
The Scottish Infantryman – Training and Indoctrination
Recruits are sent to a specialized military unit for 3-4 months training, at the end of which they are usually (but not always) allocated to the Regiment of their choice. The training is physically intensive, mentally demanding and life changing. Some fail to meet the standards demanded and repeat the training. Persistently poor performers are discharged or transferred to a less demanding service. The process of creating the Scottish infantry soldier is well planned, well-structured, well practised and successful. It comprises:
Basic training. Individual thought processing eliminated and replaced with uniformity (thinking as one). Military number allocated and memorized. Civilian clothing and personnel effects confiscated. Head-hair removed. Issue of military clothing and explanation of how to dress uniformly. Bed blocking and locker layout (uniform presentation of kit). Cleaning duties allocated. Square bashing, up to four hours daily. Weapons training. Combat training. Physical exercise, field training. The list is extensive, and takes up to 16 weeks to complete.
With the Regiment. More of the same but including weekly indoctrination sessions including, regimental history, espousing glorious past battles and campaigns in which the Regiment was involved, religious education and weekly address to the family by an officer providing reminder of the authority of Commissioned Officers and the requirement for unquestioned obedience to their will.
Rite of passage – roles and responsibilities of Officers of the Scottish Regiments
Young men accepted as commissioned officers are usually Public School educated, and many are descended from Scottish nobility and other well-connected Scottish families. After 6 months of training at Sandhurst they enjoy a “rite of passage” and their commission in the Regiment is almost always handed down from father to sons who are expected to honour their family tradition of military service. These young officers form an elite, tight-knit community, membership of which is exclusive and zealously protected. There is no place in this hierarchy for the common soldier.
The concept of family is heavily promoted and attention is given to training officers in the subtle art of persuading soldiers that their welfare and that of their dependents is paramount in the thoughts of their officers. The intent is to build trust between commissioned officers and their soldiers. The system works extremely efficiently although not always to the benefit of the ordinary soldier. The word of the officer is law.
Scottish Infantrymen
In the course of the 2014 Scottish Independence campaign, many contrary views were voiced by the informed and uninformed about the future loyalty of the soldiers of Scottish Regiments. The dialogue (except through use of a proxy) was not inclusive of rank and file forces, who were forbidden from participating in discussions or expressing any views on independence. The measures silencing the voices of the rank and file stifled debate within the military and influenced the outcome of the referendum in favour of remaining in the Union.
This strictly enforced silence did not extend to a number of Generals and other senior officers who, with a lifetime commitment and obligation to Her majesty’s forces, were vociferous in declaring their support to the “Better Together.” campaign.
The foregoing policy should not be permitted at the next referendum, and its removal would be assisted by the publication of a well presented discussion document outlining the make-up of Scotland’s armed forces in an independent Scotland.
The makeup of the Scottish infantry following independence
Infantry forces of an independent Scotland might be comprised of 2 Divisions (Highland and Lowland) each comprising 4 Regiments with 1 regular battalion of 650 soldiers and 1 Territorial Battalion. This provides a total complement of 5,200 regular soldiers supported by an expanded force of 5,200 Territorial soldiers.
The regimental system butchered by successive Westminster governments would be re-instated, permanently garrisoned in Scotland and deployed as necessary by the government in support of NATO commitments.
Forces families would be provided with married quarters, based within the local community and maintained by the Local Council. A transfer of relevant military personnel, equipment, weaponry, transport and dependents would be agreed through negotiation with the Westminster government and implemented over a period of 1 year from the date of independence. Any soldier that wished to remain with the UKr armed forces would be permitted to do so. Given freedom of choice, it is expected that in excess of 90% of rank and file infantry personnel would exercise a preference to transfer to the Scottish Defence Force.
Not all Commissioned Officers will follow the lead of the soldiers, and (given their support of the Westminster system of government) it would be reasonable to anticipate that less than 50% would transfer their military loyalty to Scotland. Any shortfall would be made up through the promotion of serving warrant officers and/or senior NCO’s, who would be well able to fill the gap.
Soldiers of the Queen
In recent months fanfares have been sounding in the unionist press proclaiming, glorifying the groundbreaking decision by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to allow women to serve as soldiers on the front-line. Much was made in the announcement of the equal rights act and the need to provide opportunity for women to volunteer to fight and die for their country. But the unexpected messenger bearing gifts it is not entirely upfront. The real reason for the new approach to army recruitment is a marked fall off in the number of male volunteers.
This is attributed to the extended over deployment of soldiers to foreign fields of war with little chance of a change of emphasis. Indeed there are many ex- soldiers who at the time of their discharge had been away from the UK at war throughout their entire contract of service.
Another factor is that in the last 20 years Westminster politicians have been complicit in the exposure to the public of jingoistic rhetoric reminding the nation, (usually after yet another military setback, loss or cock-up resulting in loss of life) of its enduring commitment to the Armed Forces, their families and veterans.
But the Westminster politicians pledge to care for servicemen and women, their dependents and veterans, many suffering from the adverse effects of war is not honoured and the jaundiced views of military personnel (serving and discharged) are being increasingly voiced in public warning off those who might be tempted to take the “Queens Shilling.” Hence, the need for women.
The Much Maligned Covenant between the Westminster Government, the Public and the Armed Forces
Thieves such as the boss of BHS, and time served wasters in the civil service get lordships, knighthoods and very fat pensions. Forces people who put their lives on the line get shafted. This is down to the liars in the lib, lab, con sh*t pile that is parliament. Sadly, it has always been the British way.
The Tories are Known As the nasty party. But they are worse than that. They have betrayed our armed forces more times than I want to remember. When a government jails its own troops to appease the enemy, it’s time to get rid of them forever, and never trust them. The Tories are the artists of betrayal. They have a history of betrayal. They dumped our loyal commonwealth countries to join the EU.
Redundancy letters were sent to soldiers on active service in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the government set out to reduce the pensions of wounded and limbless veterans.
Refugees and EU migrants were rehoused in nice new houses with mod-cons and gardens, but the MOD forced limbless and incapacitated veterans and their families to live in high rise flats. The MOD are pure evil.
The Tory government recruited a pen pushing General to back the decision not overturn the 20-year jail sentence of Sgt Blackman, Royal Marines for shooting a wounded insurgent after an ambush / firefight in Afghanistan, which beggars belief. If there is any justice at all in this country at all, our soldiers that are interned, should be released now. It’s hardly shocking, in fact pretty much of what was expected by this government who seem hell-bent on giving as much of taxpayer’s money as they can on foreign aid, supporting migrants, whether legal or not, in this country and of course their £10 billion per year EU contributions that go towards other basket case countries in club Med or on the Eastern Front, there’s no money left for our own vulnerable people everybody knows that!
Since the days of the Napoleonic wars, successive British governments have promised a land fit for hero’s, and then promptly dumped them onto the streets. The military covenant was supposed to have stopped that,but governments decided that the welfare of 3rd world despots and so-called refugees and asylum seekers were a priority. Perhaps our time served newspaper industry can campaign for some honesty and action?
One former military soldier sleeping rough on the streets is one too many, and the people responsible should hang their heads in shame. Meanwhile, an immigrant arriving at our shores, with no paperwork is permitted to claim asylum and is provided with furnished council accommodation house, allowances, legal aid and a free TV licence.
Come on boys you have done your job for the country, but we don’t require you any more, all our promises to you are off, don’t you forget we now have to support many thousands of immigrants displaced by your activities. They are entitled to welfare benefits, housing and medical care. How on earth can we support you as well. British government, shame on you. Started when Gordon Brown snapped the purse shut, denying the army proper kit and equipment, then continued by Osborne, aided and abetted by Cameron.
The government supports illegal migrants and foreign criminals but fails to honour its commitments to members of the armed forces injured and handicapped doing the government’s bidding.
Typical Cameron and government promise to people wounded and handicapped, protecting the nation. All hot air and lies.
The Armed Forces should have all the support necessary. It is a disgrace that many are sleeping rough. Some of the foreign aid budget could be utilised to give them a roof above their heads.
We can look after and give houses to people who have not been born or worked here. But we can’t look after our own. While the lords and MP’s milk the system for all its worth.
Our military veterans and their dependants Must be put at the top of the queue for housing and welfare when they retire. It is totally unacceptable they are not, especially as priority seems to be given to other people who have contributed little or nothing to this country.
Of course the covenant is not being honoured. Because the establishment politicians of the legacy parties are dishonourable traitors !
The armed forces covenant and the so called remit should be written up as a policy document as a minimum requirement, not as a remit that can be twisted and even ditched all together by the local councils etc:
We put our lives on the line & we have no guarantee on a fair deal for our families or even ourselves.
We cannot get decent housing or proper food to eat.
At least when we had our own cooks we decent food, the civilian contractors are screwing the troops and seem to be doing it expressly in the eyes of the troops. Bring back the ‘Catering corps’.
The Military Covenant is a waste of time and only pays lip service to personnel leaving the armed services, it’s the government’s way of showing that they are doing something, something that doesn’t really mean anything. I spoke to my GP, and he had never heard of it, that’s how good it is, if no one buys into it then it’s a total waste of time.
He’s right and most likely a Tory traitor? But that’s what I was told after serving 12 years and not residing in the UK for 3 consecutive years. Because I was overseas in the Army. The Council told me I was an alien in our own country. Council Regulations are that you have to live in England for 3 years, or you don’t qualify for housing. Unless you are an EU migrant or a refugee. That’s the rules in this land. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/705046/British-troops-failed-military-covenant-not-honoured
The BBC, Other Media Outlets and the Scottish Press
Black propaganda, authorized by the Westminster government, is routinely used by the BBC, other media outlets and the Scottish Press to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent those in Scotland who support Scottish independence.
Media Bias against Scottish Independence
The coverage of political events in Scotland’s press and television is devastatingly fraudulent, so far as unbiased reporting is concerned. This is primarily due to the right wing policies of the owners and the adverse impact of the companies that place their advertising with the various media outputs.
Without advertising revenue, and state funding, many newspapers would fold. The foregoing dismantles any concept of democracy in the UK and subjects Scots to a society ruled by financial oligopoly’s interested only in the furtherance of an insatiable greed determined to ensure an accumulation of wealth to themselves and those to whom they might have an obligation. But this was not always the way in which the press went about its business.
In times past, the press and the BBC were admired because of the plurality of opinion they brought to the nation. The coverage of daily newsworthy events was good, and senior political journalists were highly valued members of society due to their unbiased delivery of news matters and political comment. No politician or political party was ever given a cosy slanted bedtime interview, which is often the case nowadays. Perhaps the most telling factor was that editorial output was never driven by a need to satisfy the advertising department.
Scotland, up to the late seventies, enjoyed a media which whilst biased in favour of Unionism always aired right and left wing political bantering for the nation to decide upon.
The Times (the voice of the UK) was a newspaper which promoted itself as above political persuasion, committing only the truth to print. Other newspapers served their readership dependent on their political stance, but journalists would always demand of their editors that their copy would be presented unaltered so that their words would be presented accurately.
The Impact of Thatcher and Murdoch
The demise of the British press started at around the time Margaret Thatcher and the ultra-right wing Tory Party took up the reigns of government. She adored Ronald Reagan, and embracing the ideals of the Americans forced change on UK society. Overnight, large tracts of the population of England dumped the British way of life and embraced with indecent haste the “dog-eat-dog” approach actively promoted by the Tory Party.
Scotland rebuffed Thatcher and her drive to create a Kingdom full of “Gordon Gekko’s” in preference for retaining political systems driven by a desire to ensure communities would always be at the forefront of individual thought.
An example is The Blood Transfusion Service. In England and in Scotland the Services had, up to 1980 been self-sufficient in the collection of blood from volunteers within the community. Many companies placed their facilities at the disposal of the service free of charge and allowed staff to be away from work to give their donation.
Very quickly after the election of the Tory Party to power, things changed in England. Employers became increasingly reluctant to release their staff, and free use of facilities markedly dried up. The Blood Transfusion Service in England & Wales failed to collect sufficient blood and the NHS in England was forced to import HIV contaminated plasma and other blood products from the US, who collected much of their blood from paid donors and prisoners.
Scotland remained self-sufficient in blood and blood products until the late-1990’s due to the retention of the community spirit, until it was finally overrun by the spread of the Thatcher Dogma.
Rupert Murdoch, the British American Society and the Secret Service agencies of the UK and the USA
Murdoch purchased a poorly performing Sun newspaper and converted it into a “slick chick” rag, with an approach radically at odds with the mainline press in the UK. Page three photographs of topless young ladies, (often paid around £50 for the shoot) and similar pleasurable, superficial and erotically titillating headlines dominated its coverage.
He followed up with the purchase of the News of the World, which promoted the use of “sex expose” headlines, much of which was obtained by improper means and financial payoffs’.
Not content, he went on to purchase “The Times” and almost overnight destroyed its reputation for unbiased reporting of news and politics. The final act of political vandalism supported by Thatcher was Murdoch’s destruction of “Fleet Street” which brought about the situation which is of relevance today.
Other tabloids followed Murdoch’s lead and embraced American ownership, transferring to the UK the foibles and vices of the US. The search for the truth no longer occupies the thoughts and actions of news editors, having been replaced with a driving force of “media control” ensuring the public is provided with news copy heavily slanted in favour of the politics of the news Barons and Unionist politicians who hold the reins of power in Westminster and the US.
BBC senior management in Scotland, an anti-independence Scottish press and a UK body corporate are determined upon the elimination of anything Scottish in the mantra of the Scottish electorate to support policies only wholly favourable to the Westminster government.
This was demonstrated at the time of the Scottish referendum by the side lining of Scottish based presenters and the very expensive transfer from England to Scotland of (British American Society), right wing political presenters Sarah Smith and James Naughtie and others who in the course of their secondment eagerly contributed to the “No” campaign by their performances in the course of the referendum.
Paul Mason: BBC Newsnight’s former economics editor who is now at Channel 4 News said “Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this. So glad I’m out of there,”
On Twitter, he posted a link to a U-Tube video claiming that the BBC had been “completely biased and unbalanced in their reporting of the referendum”, adding the comment: “Media students, journos, (coughs loudly) this is well worth watching.”
Appeasement policies favouring Unionist politicians were given a further boost with the controversial appointment of Laura Kuenssberg to the post of BBC Political Editor, replacing Nick Robinson.
Kuenssberg is a right wing, lightweight, opinionated, nasty political interviewer who follows the lead of her mentor, Andrew Neil formerly the BBC’s senior political commentator who, is also a former employee of Murdoch. So at the very top of the political journalism tree of the BBC there are two anti-Scottish independence right-wing journalists.
My top staff aren’t worth their extravagant pay extraordinary confession from boss of RBS
The boss of bailed-out Royal Bank of Scotland revealed that many of his top staff ‘aren’t worth’ their extravagant pay and bonus deals. In an extraordinary admission, the chairman said legions of traders and financiers at RBS’s investment bank were not generating enough profits to justify their lavish rewards. He told a conference on restoring trust in the banking industry: “I’m sure that we’re paying many people who aren’t worth it – maybe that’s the issue.”
The declaration by the RBS boss is also likely to inflame public anger over the pay deals on offer at the bank, which received more than £45b in government cash since its implosion.
More than 100 bankers at the group’s investment banking wing were paid a bonus of at least £1million last year – even though the Edinburgh based giant racked up losses in excess of £28billion.
But, defending the practice of handing fat bonuses to staff at its so-called “casino” division – even if it meant that some bankers were paid too much for their efforts, he said: “We see people who are worth a lot of money (to us), who when they leave take a lot of business with them,”
He further claimed that RBS, which is 84 per cent owned by the taxpayer, was powerless to rein in rewards as this would trigger a walk-out of top staff. He said: “If you are the bank that decides to cut bonuses for the most important people, you’ll be the first with a franchise-destroying defection.”
So the UK electorate is forced to stand back and witness a rabid, public funded banking recovery from a financial crisis created through the greed of those who stand to benefit most. Seizing the opportunity and with embarrassing haste, banks embarked on a virtually unprecedented hiring spree, driving up wages across the London Square Mile.
RBS, which employs 160,000 staff across the globe, last night maintained that very few of its staff enjoy bumper bonuses and salaries. But the bank handed out a gigantic £1.3billion to its 16,800 investment bankers.
On average, this is equal to a bonus of around £77,400 each. But, in mitigation, the Chairman offered that RBS had “virtually” eliminated cash bonuses, with most rewards paid out in shares and other stock, and staggered over a number of years so that they can be clawed back.
His comments were echoed by Barclays chairman, who added that “unilateral action by any single bank (would) not provide a practical solution” to the problem of ever-rising pay for “star” performers. The revelations lift the lid on the bonus arms race sweeping through London’s square mile.
Goldman Sachs recently handed tens of millions in bonuses to its 80 London-based partners to prevent more senior staff defecting to rivals.
The headline is incomplete, should it not have read “My top staff aren’t worth their extravagant pay”, but “what the hell, we are being subsidized by the taxpayer so let’s make hay while the sun shines”.
They and all the banking industry know that those in government have not the guts or the brains to stop one of the massive injustices of all time. Instead, they hit the soft target, the Taxpayer. (Daily Mail)
A Boom in Hedonistic “Greed is Good” Spending is Sweeping Through London
The return to “flaunting it” mirrors the conduct of the cinematic symbol of eighties excess, (Michael Douglas’s amoral trader Gordon Gekko.) West End stores, clubs and restaurants have been astounded by the sustained growth in guilt-free spending.
A spokesman for Selfridge’s said: “The range and style is more obvious’ or ostentatious than ever. Stuff is just flying off our shelves. There are a lot of £1,000-plus shoes being sold. Particularly popular are Alexander McQueen Loki’ankle boots at £2,195 a pair and Christian Louboutin Margot platform shoes costing £1,575.“
fashion and luxury goods groups report that sales of their £1000 Prada bags had exceeded expectations. The ‘Neverfull’ handbag from Louis Vuitton at £900 is very popular
Bollinger UK, imports£140 a bottle Special Cuvée into Britain because demand is so strong. A spokesman said: there was a time when people certainly didn’t want to be seen with an expensive bottle of champagne — but we’re past that phase now.”
Bugatti and Ferrari have sold out of their latest models
The spending boom is being fuelled by the prospect of yet another year of bumper bonuses in the City — an estimated £10billion will be handed out this winter. And there is the influx of rich high spending Arabs influx of high-spending
The opening of a number of rejuvenated nightclubs and hotels after sumptuous makeovers is also being seen as a sign that it is acceptable to be rich. Tottenham Court Road lap dancing hangout Spearmint Rhino, which fell heavily out of favour during the credit crunch years, is booming. A club spokesman said: “We sold out of £395 a bottle champagne last night. He went on: “six City guys came in and dropped £5,000 to take the VIP area for the evening. A few nights ago we had four guys from the Middle East who bought £20,000 in chips for dances and drinks. After service charges, they spent £24,000. It’s great to be back to the days of five or six years ago. Those sorts of customers are starting to come back, there’s been a huge increase recently.”
London is also being assisted by France’s burka ban, with many wealthy Arabs boycotting Paris. Saudis who divert to London spend an average of £40,000 each. They will easily spend £5,000 or £10,000 a night on the casino tables at Les Ambassadeurs. The Arabs absolutely love the British. They must have the best of everything and do their shopping in Mayfair Lane or treat their friends with the best champagne as Scott’s.
17 January 1701 – An Address to King William in London from the Scottish Chancellor, Patrick, Earl of Marchmont, concerning events in Caledonia.
We your majesty’s most faithful and dutiful subjects, the noblemen, barons and burgesses of the Scottish parliament, do in all humility represent that we are of sound mind, and do and shall ever most heartily acknowledge, that God raised your majesty to be our great deliverer, by whom our religion, liberties, rights and laws were rescued and restored into the happy estate and condition within which we now enjoy them.
Not least amongst the blessings was that your majesty desired the Kingdom to introduce measures for raising and improving the trade of the nation, and you were pleased in the year 1693 to give the royal assent to an act of parliament authorizing societies and companies in general, and then by act of parliament in the year 1695, to elect and establish “The Company of Scotland, Trading to Africa and the Indies,” And, with the powers, privileges, liberties and immunities contained in the said act, by virtue and warrant whereof letters patent were also granted for the same effect under the great seal of this your ancient kingdom.
But though the act and patent contained nothing save what is agreeable to the law of nations and to the use and custom every where in like cases, yet no sooner were they expedited and the founders began to act than, to the great surprise of the said company and of this whole kingdom, the kingdom of England take offence and acting against the company place upon it great and grievous hardships.
First there was the address, made in December 1695 by both houses of the parliament in England wherein they complained to your majesty of our said act of parliament for granting to the said company the privileges and immunities therein mentioned, as likely to bring many prejudices and mischiefs to all your English subjects concerned in the trade or wealth of that nation
And at the same time the House of Commons ordered an inquiry to be made to establish who were the advisers and promoters of our said act of parliament and acting on the information so gathered did move and make several prosecutions, even against the subjects of this kingdom who did not so much as reside in England, and only were acting by virtue and warrant of our said act of parliament and your majesty’s patent, whereby our said company was also disappointed and frustrated at the loss of the subscriptions of our own country men and others in England to the value of about £300,000.
And further, the House of Lords, by another address to your majesty, upon the twelfth of February 1698, persisted with the opposition made against our company and their colony of Caledonia in Darien in the continent of America, on the grounds of it being prejudicial to their nation and detrimental to its trade.
They went on to use the aforementioned statement to justify certain proclamations emitted in the year 1699 by the governors of the English plantations against our said company and their colony as agreeable to the above mentioned address of both houses of parliament, alleging that the same did proceed upon the unanimous sense of that kingdom in relation to any settlement we might make in the West Indies, and gave forth their resolution that the settlement of our colony at Darien was inconsistent with the good of the plantation trade of England.
All which being laid before us by our said company, and having fully considered the same, we have unanimously concluded and passed the resolve that the votes and proceedings of the parliament of England and their address presented to your majesty in December 1695 in relation to our act of parliament establishing our Indian and African Company, and the address of the house of lords presented to your majesty in February last, were an unwarranted meddling in the affairs of Scotland and an invasion upon the sovereignty and independence of our king and parliament.
Secondly, when our company sent their deputies to the German City of Hamburg, about the month of April 1697, to establish a treaty with that city and its inhabitants establishing free commerce to join with them according to the warrant contained in our act of parliament and your majesty’s patent, these deputies were immediately upon their arrival opposed by Sir Paul Rycault, an Englishman resident in that city, and a Mr Cresset, your majesty’s English envoy at the court of Lunenburg.
Both made several addresses to the senate of that city in prejudice of our company, and at length gave to the senate a memorial in your majesty’s name as king of Great Britain, stating that they represented your majesty, and the said deputies endeavoured to open to England a commerce and trade with the City of Hamburg by making some convention or treaty with them and had commanded the City fathers to notify the Luneburg Senate that, if they should enter into any convention with Scottish men, your subjects, who had neither credential letters, nor were otherwise authorized by your majesty, you would regard such proceedings as an affront to your royal authority and would not fail to resent it.
And then, noting that the City of Hamburg, without regard to their remonstrations did offer to make conventions or treaties with the Scottish deputation, proceeding upon the supposition that they were vested with sufficient powers, they repeated their complaint beseeching the said Luneburg Senate, in your majesty’s name, to remedy the matter since the City of Hamburg were intent on proceeding to enter into a contract with said Scotsmen were not instructed with due credentials and also expressly invading their rights and privileges.
Your majesty was graciously pleased to signify to the company, once and again by your secretaries, that you had given orders to these ministers not to make use of your majesties’ name and authority to obstruct the company in the prosecution of their trade with the inhabitants of that city, which, nevertheless, the said English ministers altogether misrepresented.
Which being also complained of to us by the company and duly considered by us, we have unanimously concluded and passed another resolve that the memorial presented in your majesty’s name as King of Great Britain to the senate of Hamburg, upon the seventh of April 1697, by Sir Paul Rycault, then resident in that city, and Mr Cresset, your majesties’ envoy extraordinary at the Court of Lunenburg, were most unwarrantable, containing manifest falsehoods and contrary to the law of nations injurious to your majesty and an open encroachment upon the sovereignty and independence of this crown and kingdom, the occasions of great losses and disappointments to the said company and of most dangerous consequence for the trade of Scotland now and in the future.
Thirdly, your majesty’s favour of forming the company, having been very acceptable to the whole of Scotland and having the financial support of many subscribers of all degrees and from all parts, and having procured a greater advance of money for a venture then was ever made before, the council and directors of the company thought good to make some settlement for a plantation. And, having considered that by the for-said act of parliament they were limited in their planting of colony’s either to places not inhabited or to other places with consent of the natives and inhabitants, and not possessed by any European prince or state.
And having investigated available information understood that that part of Darien in America, where they thereafter fixed, was no European possession, they set forth well equipped with ships, men and provisions, which, arriving upon that coast in November 1698, the founders of the colony did not only find the place uninhabited, but also treated and agreed with the chief men of the natives near to the place, whom they found in an independent and absolute freedom, and, being very kindly and friendly by them admitted, our colony took possession and settled upon the most complete right of a place, void and unoccupied and with the consent of all the neighbouring natives that could have any pretence to it, and thus the company hoped they had made a good settlement and happily prevented others having designs for the same place in such manner as might tend to the advantage of all your majesty’s dominions.
But when they believed that their matters were thus in a hopeful and prosperous condition, they were exceedingly surprised to hear that proclamations had been published by the governors of the English plantations placing an embargo on the company as enemies, debarring them from all supplies, and that these proclamations had been executed against Darien with the utmost rigour, forbidding our men wood, water and anchorage, and all sorts of provisions, even for money, contrary to the very rules of common humanity: and, within some weeks after, the company was informed that their colony had deserted Darien to the great loss and regret of the whole of Scotland.
And though the Company sent out a very considerable second mission to repossess Darien, the same rigorous execution was still continued against them. Which proclamations proceeding, as we believe, and that from the very style and variations that may be observed in them, from the error of the governor’s mistaking, as it is like from some cautions given them for prevention and not from direct orders, we are persuaded were not emitted by your majesty’s warrant, beside that they were executed with an unheard of rigour.
And therefore, upon a further complaint from our company in this matter, we have most unanimously concluded and past a third resolve in these terms: that the proclamations in the English plantations in April, May, June and September 1699 against our Indian and African Company and colony in Caledonia were and are injurious and prejudicial to the rights and liberties of the company, and that the execution of these proclamations against the settlers sent out by the said company was inhumane, barbarous and contrary to the law of nations and a great occasion of the loss and ruin of our said colony and settlement of Caledonia.
And we taking to our further consideration the proceedings of our company in making the said settlement and how they punctiliously observed the condition of the for said act of parliament and patent in making their plantations in no European possession, with the greatest caution both to fix in a place void and uninhabited and also with consent of all the neighbouring natives that could have the least shadow of pretence thereto, and that yet on the other hand the said planters have been treated by the Spaniards, first at Carthagena and then in the very seat of our colony and like ways in old Spain, with all insolences and hostilities, not only as enemies but as pirates.
We thought it our duty, for vindicating and securing our said company and colony from all imputation or charge that has been or may be brought against them, to pass and conclude with the same unanimity a fourth resolve: that our Indian and African Company’s colony of Caledonia in Darien in the continent of America was and is legal and rightful, and that the settlement was made conform to the act of parliament and letters patent establishing the said company, and that the company, in making and prosecuting the said settlement, acted warrantable by virtue of the said act of parliament and patent.
We, having thus found the for said invasions to be manifest encroachments upon the undoubted independence and sovereignty of this your majesty’s ancient crown and Scotland and unanimously passed the above-mentioned resolves and votes for asserting the rights and privileges of our said company, and also for asserting our company’s right to their colony of Caledonia, we have further thought good to lay the same before your majesty by this our solemn address.
And, therefore, do with all humble duty and earnestness beseech your majesty to take this whole matter to your royal consideration and to prevent all encroachments for the future that may be made, either by your English ministers abroad or any other to the prejudice of this kingdom and our said company, or any project of trade that we may lawfully design, and to assure our said company of your majesty’s royal protection in all their just rights and privileges, and to grant them your countenance and concurrence for reparation of their losses, especially those great losses and damages that they and their colony have suffered by the injuries and violences of the Spaniards.
And further, we represent to your majesty that the press ganging of Scots by the English for their sea service is contrary to the natural right and freedom of the subjects of Scotland, ought to be absolutely discharged.
All which we represent to your majesty with the greater confidence, as being most assured that none of your kingdoms and subjects are or can be more dutifully and zealously affected to your majesty’s royal person and government than we and the good subjects of your ancient kingdom of Scotland are, and shall ever continue to testify by laying out our selves for your majesty’s service to the utmost of our power.
Signed in presence by warrant and in name of the estates of the Scottish parliament may it please your majesty, your majesty’s most humble, most obedient and most faithful subject and servant, Patrick, Earl of Marchmont, Lord High Chancellor to the Parliament of Scotland, 17 January 1701
Patrick, Earl of Marchmont
King William of England was never crowned King of Great Britain, yet his two representatives insisted on referring to him as this in 1697, (10 years before the Treaty of Union was signed). This reveals the duplicity of William and his cronies in Westminster. He sold out Scotland, then fell off his horse and died before he could enjoy the fruits of his deceit.
Baron John Reid – Labour MP – leader of the Monklands mafia – sex predator
Reid was a Cabinet Minister who led nine different departments and left a trail of destruction behind in each of them. It is no wonder he was known as “Wreck it and Run”.
Baroness Dawn Primarolo, is a British Labour Party politician who was an MP from 1987 until 2015 when she stood down. She was nominated for a life peerage in 2015.
In May 2007 Cabinet Minister Reid, announced that he wouldn’t stand against Gordon Brown for the party leadership and would be leaving the Cabinet.
At the time, rumours were circulating in Westminster that a tabloid was preparing to run a scandal story if he announced his candidacy.
The newspaper concerned was the Mail on Sunday, who ran the story alleging that Reid had been sexually harassing a fellow MP, Dawn Primarolo. An extract from the report stated:
“He is a drunken sex predator who, when he was Shadow Defence Secretary in 1994, was involved in a second incident, witnessed by several people.”
Describing events, one witness said: “John came lurching up and said to Dawn, “I want to have sex with you, I want to f*** you, you want it as well.”
Labour MP later Baroness Jean Corston who was present intervened and said to Reid: “You are a disgusting creature. Get away from her,” adding, “That’s it, I’m going to report you.”
Another Labour insider said: “Dawn was on the verge of tears. She said Reid had been harassing her over a period of years and had propositioned her in the bar. It was very painful for her.”
Reid was summoned by Labour leader, John Smith who read him the riot act, telling him to stop drinking and giving him a one time warning that he would be dismissed from the party if there was any further nonsense. (http://iaindale.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/dirty-past-of-dr-john-reid.html)
2014 Independence referendum – Reid Accused “Yes” campaigners of sex harassment. Rich coming from him!!!
In a public speech, Reid accused Scottish supporters of independence of running offensive misogynistic campaigns using the “language of abuse” against female unionists such as J K Rowling and businesswoman Michelle Mone. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756558)
Reid Censured by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Reid became the first senior cabinet member ever to be severely censured by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin. He was accused of using taxpayer’s money, to pay the salaries of his son and other staff who were working for Labour’s electoral campaign. In the course of the inquiry, it emerged that Reid had held, “discussions” with witnesses, “which in unparliamentary language sounded a lot like threats”. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,659705,00.html)
Reid and the Medical Consultant’s excessive salary increases
As Health Secretary, Reid was responsible for introducing a revised medical consultants’ contract. The final recurring cost of his “new deal for medical consultants” took up a significant amount of the new money allocated by the treasury for the entire staff of the NHS in England and created large recurring financial deficits for health boards
Lobbygate at Holyrood
Kevin (my father is John Reid) Reid, then a media lobbyist boasted to potential customers of his contacts, “I worked for Jack (McConnell) and for Wendy (Alexander—Minister for Communities) and for Henry (McCleish—Enterprise Minister) and for Donald (Dewar—First Minister) on a one-to-one basis. I also worked with the Labour Party media team, briefing and monitoring the press team each evening.” (http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/oct1999/scot-o06.shtml)
The Ukraine – The forced marriage of two independent States
At the end of WW2, the Province of Ruthenia was ceded to the Soviet Union by a restored Czechoslovakia. The Western province was then merged with the Russian-speaking province of Novarossya and a new state, “The Ukraine” was formed. Relations between the two provinces were never other than barely tolerant. A state of affairs not assisted by failing crops and famine in Novarossya which created the “haves” in the West and “have-nots” in the East. The USSR then invested in agriculture in Western Ukraine and in heavy industry and shipping in the mineral and seaport rich, (coal and the Crimea) East.
This is the pseudo country that gained its freedom when the USSR collapsed. The Ukraine has never really been a single entity and this being the case, the Eastern State of Novarossya had every right to hold a referendum and then declare independence from the Western State of Ruthenia.
February 2014: President Obama admitted the US orchestrated a coup in Western Ukraine so that the Ukrainians would be brought on-side expanding NATO.
Obama told Fareed Zakaria, a member of both the Council For Foreign Relations (CFR) and Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, that the United States “brokered” the coup in Ukraine in February 2014.
Obama’s candid admission did not come as a surprise following the release of a recorded conversation between Victoria Nuland, the US-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey R. Pyatt, the US Ambassador to Ukraine.
Their conversation centred on ousting Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and replacing him with one of several hand-picked US State Department choices. Nuland formally instructed Pyatt to “have the UN glue this thing” then dismissively added “fuck the EU” for its lack of leadership over the crisis.
The U.S. orchestrated “transition,” as Obama characterized it, resulted in the appointment of right wing fascists to key positions in the Kiev government and this led to the launching of an invasion of the Eastern State of Novarossya by the forces of the former confectionery magnate turned Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko.
Western Ukraine’s war on those in the Eastern province who refused to accept the US backed government in Kiev resulted in the death or injury of over 5,000 people, mainly civilians.
2014: Russia Reacts
But Putin was determined Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea Peninsula, the base for the Russian fleet, would not transfer allegiances under duress to an ever expanding NATO, and he authorized a peaceful takeover of the Crimea.
Following on from a successful referendum of the mainly Russian-speaking population, he formally annexed the Crimea, returning it and the large Russian Naval base back to Russia.
The EU and the USA imposed sanctions on Russia. Putin imposed “counter-sanctions” on the EU and abandoned any dialogue with Europe then turned to the East and quickly established a new banking and business treaty (BRICS) with China, India, Brazil, South Africa and a host of other nations.
Russia, which had previously opened its economy to European and US capital, witnessed thousands of Western companies withdrawing investment and set about replacing them with companies from their new partners.
Yet again, the old saying, “every loser wins” aptly fits. The pro-western euphoria of perestroika embraced by President Gorbachev and Russia was unfortunately ended by the US and the EU, and any future business will be entirely pragmatic regardless of leadership.
January 2017: Eastern Ukraine in flames as Western Ukraine forces breach peace accord
The situation in the Donbas deteriorated sharply after Western Ukrainian security forces struck powerful artillery barrages on the positions of the defending forces of the Eastern Province of Novorossiya and residential areas of Donetsk, as well as settlements of Makeyevka, Yasinovataya, Gorlovka and Dokuchaevsk. A power line was damaged in the shelling and electricity supplies to the Donetsk filtering station were curtailed.
A resident said that the scale of destruction and the intensity of the attacks, in which many homes were destroyed, mirrors that of the hostilities of 2014 and speaking about the current situation said:
“The Western Ukraine armed forces shell us all around the clock. It appears that they are completing a pre-planned mission to destroy water supplies. They targetted a major filtering station. There are other infrastructure losses, but the worst is civilian casualties.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) monitors do nothing to stop the attacks, confining their efforts to recording the impact of the Western Ukraine forces attacks and their expansion within the exclusion zone. The situation has worsened dramatically in recent days because the Minsk Accord has had little effect on the aggression of the forces of Western Ukraine.”
December 2021:Russia, NATO and the US where do we go from here?
Hard line officials in the State Department in Washington continue to pressurize Kiev to use military action to bring an end to the referendum supported autonomous Eastern province, which would compel Russia to protect its mainly Russian-speaking population, triggering a large scale conflict. Such action will be supported by Western propaganda which will go into overdrive portraying Russia as an aggressive enemy, determined to coerce Ukraine into seeking peace, when the truth is that Russia is only defending its own people.
Sanctions will be imposed, but these will constitute an acceptable risk when compared to the inherent dangers incurred by an encirclement of Russia by NATO forces who do not take Russia’s warnings seriously.
Indeed, a number of NATO members still view Russia through the prism of the Cold War, which, in their view, Russia lost, ruling out the relationship of equals promised by Gorbachev and Reagan.
Experts at the Center for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, believe that the US and NATO will continue with their provocative expansionist actions, so long as Russia appears to be reluctant to do anything about it.
The US State Department in Washington perceives Moscow’s diplomatic, rational approach to foreign relations as weakness and is basking in the confidence of its victory. There can be no place for peace in such a scenario. Russia needs to get tough with the West.
Commenting on the growing crisis, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov recently stated:
“If the US and NATO continue to avoid discussions, Russia will take measures to ensure that its security, its sovereignty and territorial integrity does not depend on anyone else,”
But following an online discussion between the US and Russian presidents, the parties agreed to set up a body that would formulate and agree proposals related to security guarantees for Russia. To facilitate the foregoing, Russia agreed to prepare a document based on the concept of indivisible security and its legal guarantees. This will be forwarded to the President of the US. United States for study and promulgation. It is to be hoped that the US “deep state” does not nullify the initiative.
But, it will be impossible to fully resolve the conflict in Ukraine until other difficulties are first settled. Namely, Russia being given a key role within the European security system. NATO cannot be expanded to the detriment of the interests of other countries, and relationships pertaining to European security that evolved after the Cold War need to change.
Tritium is radioactive hydrogen a product generated by nuclear power reactors. Like all radioactive substances, tritium is a carcinogen, a mutagen, and a teratogen. The radiological significance of tritium is not related to its inherent toxicity, as it is a very low energy form of radiation, but to its easy incorporation into all parts of the body that contain water.
Tritiated water can be ingested in the liquid form. It can also be inhaled or absorbed through the skin in the form of water vapour or steam, which makes tritium an occupational hazard for nuclear power plant workers.
In pregnant females, tritium ingested by the mother can cross the placenta and be incorporated directly into the foetus. Like all radioactive substances, tritium can cause cancer, genetic mutations, or developmental defects in unborn children (the latter following pre-natal exposure of the foetus). No threshold or “safe dose” of tritium has been scientifically established for any of these effects.
Scientist raises radiation fear
A scientist has warned that radioactive materials being released in Britain are many times more dangerous than previously believed. Dr Chris Busby says he has found that low-level radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster caused a sharp rise in infant leukaemia in Wales and Scotland.
His warning comes as the Environment Agency considers whether to allow Devonport Dockyard to dump TRITIUM from submarines into the River Tamar in Plymouth. Campaigners had been assured that low-level radiation would not be a health hazard – the same advice given after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Devonport Dockyard processes tritium from nuclear submarines.
Leukaemia rates in Plymouth were recently shown to be 25% above the national average among males and 29% above average in females. Some tritium – a weak radioactive form of hydrogen – is already released into the Tamar from the city’s historic naval dockyard.
Dr Busby says the risk of people contracting cancer from low-level radioactivity could be far greater than calculated by the Environment Agency’s advisers. He told BBC News Online: “We have sent the Environment Agency a solicitor’s letter saying they can no longer accept risk levels are safe. “So if they go into court saying they didn’t know, this letter will show they were warned.” Their model fails to predict all sort of risks. Their understanding of radiation risk is faulty.
Dr Busby, from Aberystwyth, presented a paper at a World Health Organization conference on Chernobyl in Kiev. He said the Chernobyl findings cast serious doubt on the internationally-adopted model used to calculate health risk. His paper says the increased danger comes from radiation absorbed into the body through food and drink. That makes that health risk many times greater than from external exposure. Radiation levels in the UK after Chernobyl were considered too low to have a measurable effect on health.
Dr Busby’s paper says: “Government advice was that food was safe to eat and water and milk safe to drink.” He said: “The models being used to calculate risk to health from low-level radiation are out by a factor of between 100 and 1,000. “When they apply this risk model they find hardly anybody will become ill – the figure is point-zero something. “But their model fails to predict all sort of risks.
“The whole basis of their understanding of radiation risk is faulty. Dr Busby has been advising anti-radiation campaigners who live close to the River Tamar, which divides Devon and Cornwall. They launched Cansar – Campaign Against Nuclear Storage And Radiation – when the Environment Agency announced a public consultation on Devonport Dockyard.
The operating company, has applied to increase tritium emissions by 700%. The tritium is a created in submarine reactors but cannot be dumped legally in international waters. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1422130.stm
Safety failure after failure at Faslane
Faslane has been home to the UK’s nuclear missile fleet since Polaris came into service in the mid-1960s, and is now the base for the four Trident missile submarines that replaced it. The facility, known formally as HM Naval Base Clyde, is also the base for the last remaining nuclear-powered Swiftsure hunter-killer and its replacement: four Astute class submarines.
Alongside seven Trafalgar class hunter-killers based at Devonport in Plymouth, these vessels are routinely serviced at Faslane: their nuclear reactors produce radioactive coolant that has to be replaced and need regular maintenance. That waste, which can contain radioactive tritium, cobalt-60, nickel-63, iron-55 and argon-41 gas, is handled and stored using a complex series of storage barges, tanks and pipes deep within the base.
And for nearly five decades, that process has been managed by the Ministry of Defence. That system of self-policing is now under increasing strain. Shocked by repeated safety breaches, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa), the government authority that oversees radioactive emissions from civil nuclear sites, is pressing for the legal power to inspect and control Faslane’s nuclear operations.
The most damning report, produced by the MoD in September 2008 after complaints by Sepa, states that failing to abide by safety procedures is a “recurring theme” at Faslane. “This is a cultural issue that HM Naval Base Clyde needs to find a way to address,” it says. The 100-page report, released by Sepa to Channel 4 News, concludes that many of the ageing facilities used to process, store and dispose of radioactive waste at Faslane are not fit for purpose.
Other documents disclose that there have been at least eight radioactive leaks in the last 10 years, bringing the total number acknowledged at Faslane over the last three decades to more than 40.
The MoD admits its facilities fail to meet safety standards requiring that the “best practicable means” are used to control waste. In one case, the poor design of holding tanks has meant radioactive sludge has built up, which presents a “significant radiation hazard”. Those tanks are now going to be taken out of service.
Faslane and Coulport nuclear bases plan to discharge even more radioactive waste into the Clyde
The nuclear weapon and submarine base at Faslane near Helensburgh is proposing to increase the amount of radioactive waste discharged into the Clyde and the air as the number of UK nuclear submarines based there rises from five to 14. The waste comes from the submarines’ reactors and includes radioactive cobalt-60 and tritium.
The MoD also wants to keep emitting tritium gas to the atmosphere from the nuclear weapons stored at Coulport on Loch Long where annual emissions of tritium doubled between 2008 and 2012, and are expected to rise with the introduction of upgraded warhead designs.
TRITIUM: Like all radioactive substances, can cause cancer, genetic mutations, or developmental defects in unborn children (the latter following pre-natal exposure of the foetus). No threshold or “safe dose” of tritium has been scientifically established for any of these effects.
Proposals to shift some submarine work to Coulport will also mean radioactive waste being transported by road between the two bases. The amount of solid waste to be treated and disposed of at Drigg near Sellafield in Cumbria is also due to increase.
The MoD stresses that all the discharges will be within authorised limits, which are being reduced. But critics say that Sepa and the Scottish government should crack down on the pollution.
In the wake of the MoD’s failure to reveal a 2012 radioactive incident at the Vulcan naval reactor in Caithness, the Scottish environment minister, promised to end the MoD’s crown immunity from regulation on radioactive pollution.
“This is not the time for an informal gentleman’s agreement,” said the coordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. “After being bullied by the MoD at Vulcan, Sepa should wait until the Scottish Parliament gives them full power.”
Then they should set legally enforceable limits for discharges from Faslane, he argued. “If Scotland votes Yes, Trident and all nuclear submarines will go and the limits for nuclear discharges can then be reduced to zero.”
A Tokyo Electric Power Co. employee monitors the discharge of groundwater into the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima No. 1 plant, in the facility’s control room
2014: Tritium levels at Fukushima exceed Pacific Ocean dumping limits
Water sampled from a well at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant has been found to contain levels of radioactive tritium that exceeds the limit for dumping it into the Pacific, operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said. The discovery was the first report of over the limit tritium in groundwater at the wells since Tepco began discharging water into the ocean last week.
In samples taken from one of the 12 wells on Monday, 1,700 becquerels per litre of tritium was detected, exceeding the maximum limit of 1,500 becquerels, the utility said on Tuesday. Tritium levels in samples taken last month also topped the limit. Tepco stopped pumping water from the well on Tuesday night, and said it plans to step up groundwater monitoring.
caltonjock 
