Category: Uncategorized

 

 

 

 

Winston Churchill and Zionism

Churchill fervently believed in markets free of restrictive practices. However,his beliefs were at odds with the Tory Party and increasingly disillusioned he offered his support to the Liberals, on condition he would be selected to stand for a seat in Manchester, at that time the centre of free trade in Britain.

His overtures to the powerful Jewish community in Manchester were eagerly embraced and he was willingly indoctrinated in the Zionist philosophy, many years before the movement expanded into positions of political power and influence.

Nathan Laski a cotton merchant, a Manchester magistrate, and a leader of the Liberal Party was also the most prominent Jewish leader in England.

In 1904 he pledged his support for the bid of Churchill (then a Liberal) to become MP for North West Manchester where the electorate was one third Jewish. Churchill won the election, and Laski became a life-long friend. It was at one of Laski’s dinners that Churchill and Chaim Weizmann first met.

In parliament, appalled by the persecution of Jews in Tsarist Russia, Churchill battled against legislation designed to curtail Jewish immigration to Britain.

Shortly after, he wrote in a letter: “I recognize the supreme attraction to a scattered and persecuted people of a safe and settled home under the flag of tolerance and freedom.”

 

 

Chaim Weizmann third left

 

 

Chaim Weizmann – Zionist World leader and First President of Israel

Weizmann was born in Belarus, then part of the Russian Empire, in 1874 and studied chemistry in Germany and Switzerland before lecturing in chemistry at the University of Geneva.

He emigrated to England in 1904, and six years later became a naturalized British citizen.  Churchill signed his papers.

He was a reader in biochemistry at the University of Manchester, UK, when the first world war broke out in 1914.

His discovery, in 1912, of a way of making acetone from the starch in cereal grains may well have saved his adopted country from defeat in the War against Germany.

In the early years of world war one, Britain faced a severe shortage of acetone, a solvent traditionally obtained by treating acetic acid obtained by the destructive distillation of wood.

It took about 100 tons of wood to produce just one ton of acetone.

The solvent was required in increasing quantities during the war for the manufacture of cordite, the propellant used by the British Army and Royal Navy to fire its artillery shells.

It also had other uses, not least for the manufacture of fire-resistant lacquers that were used to waterproof and stiffen the canvas wings of military and naval aircraft.

This placed an increased demand on wood, but there was a greater problem: before the war, Britain imported most of the acetone it needed from Germany and Austria, both of whom were on the opposing side.

The Weizmann process changed everything. Instead, it relied on the use of the bacterium Clostridium acetobutylicum (known as the Weizmann organism), to ferment maize, rice and other cereals.

The process yielded acetone, butanol and ethanol, and became known as ABE fermentation.

In 1915, Weizmann began work on the process for the British Admiralty and showed that it could potentially produce 12 tons of acetone from 100 tons of maize. (Chemistry World)

 

 

 

 

The Growth of Zionism and the Balfour Declaration

At the beginning of 1917 the War against Germany had reached a stalemate. The war in the Middle East, against the Ottoman Empire, an ally of Germany was being won and it was expected

Britain and France would be then be able to dismantle the regime and return democracy to a number of former States.

Enter: Chaim Weizmann, (President of the World Zionist Organization, later the first President of Israel).

In Manchester he had formed a friendship with ardent Zionist supporters Simon Marks and Israel Sieff who were in the process of turning Marks & Spencer from a family business into a nationwide retail giant. Once asked to describe their growing movement they said:

“It is a fellowship of friends brought together by a common cause and sharing a common approach”, giving themselves the rather grandiose title of the “Manchester School of Zionism.”

Weizmann’s single purpose, as a Zionist, was the lobbying of influential Westminster politicians (including Lloyd George, Arthur Balfour, Winston Churchill, and Herbert Samuel) to recognize and support the aims and aspirations of the Jewish Zionists in return for their assistance.

His requests were well received by a British government badly in need of Jewish finance and US military support and he was asked to submit his proposals in writing, to the Foreign Office.

Weizmann, together with with Leopold Amery, British Zionist and Colonial Secretary of State for India and Louis Brandeis, US Zionist Leader and Supreme Court Justice compiled and tabled a draft declaration.

“His majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this

object, it being clearly understood that nothing will be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Foreign Secretary Balfour gained Cabinet approval and the declaration, as writ was circulated to eminent British Zionists formalizing British support for the establishment of a Jewish National Homeland in Palestine.

The following supported the declaration (with slight amendments):

1. The Rt. Hon. Herbert Samuel, M.P.
2. The Chief Rabbi.
3. Lord Rothschild.
4. Sir Stuart Samuel, Chairman of the British Board of Deputies.
5. Dr Weizmann.
6. Mr Nahura Sokolov.

The following did not support the draft and submitted major changes, some of which were included in the final declaration:

1. Sir Philip Magus, M.P.
2. C.G. Montifiore, President of the Anglo Jewish Association.
3 L.L. Cohen, Esq, Jewish Board of Guardians.

 

 

 

 

1918 King Hussein Expresses Concern

Emir Hussein was perplexed by the declaration and in 1918 the British government sent Commander Hogarth of the Arab Bureau to Cairo to assure him that the Jewish settlement of Palestine would be allowed only if it was compatible with the freedom of the existing population. He implored Hussein to accept the Zionists because, “the friendship of world Jewry to the Arab cause is equivalent to support in all states where Jews have political influence”. A joint Anglo-French proclamation promising Arab’s a government, “freely chosen by the population, gave Hussein the assurances he desired.

 

What was envisaged by King Faisal and Chaim Weizmann

 

 

1918-1919: Arab Leader King Faisal Approves Balfour Declaration

Jerusalem was liberated from Turkish rule by General Allenby’s army on December 11 1917, when the last German troops left the city.

Accompanied by “Lawrence of Arabia”, Allenby walked through Jaffa Gate in a ceremony watched by rabbis, muftis, patriarchs, consuls and the Mayor of Jerusalem.

Lawrence called it “the supreme moment of the war, the one which for historical reasons made a greater appeal than anything on earth.”

The Zionists were seen by Britain as an engine for the revival of the Middle East. Western Palestine, in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence of 1915, had specifically been excluded from the Ottoman territories promised to the Hashemite Arabs.

In 1918, the Zionist Commission came to Palestine and Chaim Weizmann travelled over the desert with Lawrence to meet Emir Faisal, the Hashemite leader who started the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, near Aqaba.

Weizmann told Faisal that the Jews would develop the country under British protection.

Lawrence saw the Jews as “natural importers of Western leaven so necessary for countries in the Near East.”

Faisal “accepted the possibility of future Jewish claims to territory in Palestine.”

When the three men met later in London, Faisal agreed that Palestine could absorb “four to five million Jews without encroaching on the rights of the Arab peasantry.”

He approved a Jewish majority in Palestine provided he received the crown of Syria.

There followed a written document in Paris in January 1919, signed by Faisal and Weizmann, in which the Emir agreed to “the fullest guarantee for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November 1917″ and enforcing all necessary measures to “encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale.”

In a letter to the Zionists, Faisal wrote, “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement” and that, “we will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.”

Faisal felt that “there exists room in Syria for us both and that neither can be a success without the other.”

 

Israel/Palestine State borders Agreed with King Faisal.

 

Jewish/ Palestine State at  1922 (population fully integrated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scottish Home Rule

In the period 1905 -1914 ever-increasing unrest in Ireland coupled with growing unrest in Scotland concentrated the minds of politicians at Westminster.

By the Spring of 1914  a “Scottish Home Rule Bill”, passed two readings and was fully supported by the Liberal Party (which held around eighty per cent of parliamentary seats in Scotland). How times have changed.

Just as on so many instances since the sirens of Westminster protectionism screamed ever louder as the Liberals grip on power began to wane as the English working-class changed their allegiance supporting the Labour party which was promoting workers’ rights.

 So, the ascendancy of the “all for one and one for all” Labour Party and the start of WW1 put paid to the aspirations of Scots, yet again.

Click to access scottishhomerulescot.pdf

 

 

Douglas Haig

 

 

Haig – A Pen Picture

Haig was a dour, taciturn, lowland Scot from a family of wealthy whisky distillers.

He rarely gave an opinion or expressed emotion preferring to keep his own counsel, confiding his thoughts only with his loving wife Dorothy, a lady-in-waiting and confidante to the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

And she was ever keen to whisper manipulative words about the quite remarkable qualities of her husband into receptive royal ears.

There are many who conjectured that it was Haig’s skills as an intriguer and his influence in royal circles that finally brought him the top job rather than his military ability.

The events of 1914-1918 confirmed their suspicions.

 

 

 

 

Haig and his private secretary Sir Philip Sassoon:

Inset: Sir John French, who was sacked for incompetence and replaced by Haig as commander-in-chief in December 1915; Blendecques Château, where Haig was based.

There are many who are critical of the lifestyle and indifferent behaviour of the army hierarchy but a life  well to the rear was not without its privations.

During 1918’s aborted German offensives, Haig and his staff went four consecutive nights with little sleep, “Fighting the battle until the situation stabilized and the crisis passed.” Poor wee things. Such hardship!!!!

 

Wars are won on the playing fields of Eton

The Sandhurst trained elite. Spot the difference in each, if you can. Like peas in a pod with their swagger sticks, walrus moustaches, jodhpurs, and shiny knee-high boots.

 

 

 

King George v on a visit to France conferring knighthoods – in reward for maintaining the stalemate on the war front.

 

 

British army Headquarters –  Château de Bertangles  One of a number of similar buildings commandeered by the British

 

Pictorial View of the war in France 1914-18

 

The British Expeditionary Force suffered many reverses in 1914 and the appointment of Haig in 195 signalled a major change in tactics.

He introduced  “defensive offense”. Which was “dig in, hold the line,  bombard the enemy positions relentlessly then advance forward in great numbers mopping up what is left of the foe.

But the tactic brought problems. By the beginning of 1916, Haig had just about used the entire stock of British Army artillery munitions in France.

Reluctant to deploy his reserves he requested a resupply of artillery munitions but his repeated pleas fell on deaf ears as politicians began to count the cost of the war.

He was finally advised by the War Office that he would need to change his tactics and launch offensives to gain ground.

If successful subsequent requests for artillery munitions might then be approved.

 

Haigs Response was the Somme 

 

 

Commencing 24 Jun 2016 German trenches were bombarded for 7 days.

Over 1.5million shells were fired, but the shelling was worse than useless since around 40% were duds and the use of “air burst” munitions to remove extensive wire defences protecting the german positions was stupidity beyond belief.

But “HE” groundburst shells were not included in the British munitions supply since the generals had decided the war would be over in weeks and battles would be fought in the open where “air burst”  shells would be very effective.

But the Germans did not play fair. They dug trenches with all the mod cons around 50 feet below ground and relocated to safety during any bombardment.

The British Generals, who had not  foreseen the change in tactics failed to match the digging prowess of the Germans with the result that British soldiers were exposed to  the frequent German artillery bombardment and incurred many unnecessary casualties

 

 

 

 

On 1 Jul 2016, when the bombardment lifted, the Battle of the Somme began and lasted for nearly five months ending on 19 Nov 2016. 141 days of carnage.

Day one of the battle was a bloody disaster.  Briefed to expect a walkover  British soldiers were cut to pieces by enfilade fire from German machine gunners, whose trenches had remained intact despite the week-long artillery bombardment. 20,000 were killed.

By the end of the Somme offensive 500,000 British soldiers were either dead or severely wounded, (including tens of thousands of young Scots), many still teenagers.

After 141 days of battle, there was over a million casualties between the British, French, and German forces.

When the Battle of the Somme was over, 420,000 British men had lost their lives.

Haig got his much-improved artillery munitions.

He was willing to make any sacrifice to achieve success including the death of 135,000 Scottish soldiers.

By the war end total Scots deaths exceeded 180,000, (including many who died from their wounds after the war ended).

A nation with eight per cent of the overall population of the British Isles sustained 15 per cent of the casualties.

 

 

 

Young men of the Royal Scots, from Prestonpans / Tranent and Haddington…before being sent up to the front.

In 1914 the Scottish population was 4.6 million (under 10 per cent of Britain’s pre-War population).

But, at the start of WW1 the standing (regular) British Army comprised 13 per cent. The professional Army was already dominated by the presence of Scots.

 

So young

 

 

Unbelievable Tosh ( the Germans equipped their battalions with a minimum of 40 and used enfilade fire against attacking Scots.)

 

 

 

Shot at Dawn: Lest We Forget WW1 Crimes and Haig: by Peardiver

 

And the pipers kept playing

 

 

 

Scottish soldiers enjoying life behind the lines, (what luxury)

 

 

The Somme offensive

 

Many drowned in the mud

 

Our finest young men dead

 

The Somme  The Royal Scots

 

The boys from Newbattle entering their rat hole

 

Gas attack sentry

 

The fog of War

 

Fallen Scots

 

living in the trenches

 

Their sacrifice will not be in vain Scotland will be free of Westminster and its corruption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opening Narrative

The Brexit endgame is not that far off and it is important to look-back to other events and the actions taken by the political and royal elite to protect their interests where the Westminster establishment was perceived to be under threat.

An event occurred in Ireland in 1882 the outcome of which shook Westminster to the core and brought about a change of government but failed to bring about change in the mindset of the English elite.

The English press and other media outlets were guilty of feeding the public false information aimed at demonizing inhabitants of parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland that had failed to accept and implement English lifestyle standards and religious beliefs.

The outcome of the event provided proof that Westminster will do anything including perverting the course of justice by arranging` a show trial of eight innocent men (the hanging of three and a near 20 year incarceration of the remaining five) all designed to ensure its survival intact and free of any unwanted change.

Queen Victoria gave voice that had the trial been held in England all eight of those falsely charged would be hung. Her lackey’s heeded her wishes and did their best to accommodate her.

The report that follows provides explanatory information in support of my assertion that little has changed. The “little Eng-lander” mentality of Westminster still drives the thinking of the establishment and Scotland is in for a rocky ride over Brexit and beyond as Westminster “circles the wagons” and denies anyone outside London/England their right, (enshrined in the UN charter) to self determination of their future governance.

 

 

 

 

17 Aug 1882: The Maamtrasna Murders

John Joyce, his mother, his second wife Bridget and two children were brutally killed in their home at Maamtrasna in Galway. The occurrence, which occurred just three months after the murders of Lord Ardilaun’s bailiffs at Pheonix Park, convinced the English authority it was part of an uprising, when it was in fact a local dispute.

The day following the murders, Anthony Joyce (a cousin of the murdered man), with his brother Johnny and his nephew Paddy, all from a nearby parish,  three miles from the murder scene, went to the police with an astonishing tale.

These Joyces, known as ‘the “Malora” Joyces  (to distinguish them from the many Joyce families in the area),  gave a sworn statement that they had followed a crowd of men that fateful night, they saw them joined by other men, and saw them approach John Joyce’s house at Maamtrasna.

Hidden behind a bush, they heard the noise at the door, and saw some of the men enter the house, while others stayed outside. Anthony heard shouting and screeching. “He could not distinguish the screams of the women from those of the men.”

He named 10 men whom he alleged were out that night as follows: Anthony Philbin, Tom Casey, Martin Joyce, Myles Joyce, Patrick Joyce, Tom Joyce,  Pat Joyce, Patrick Casey, John Casey, and Michael Casey.

They were duly rounded up and brought before the magistrates at Cong, and charged.

Westminster justice prevailed. Investigations were swiftly completed and retribution was exacted. The English state actively assisted by the Press, “nipped the problem in the bud”. But the implementation of swift justice, without appeal dammed Westminster for ever when it was revealed that  a number of those put to death by hanging or jailed were innocent.

True to form, Westminster politicians refused to issue pardons and/or recompense those who served an unwarranted twenty years in jail.

 

Westminster justice

 

 

Westminster Panic- Agitating for Change – The Land League Campaign

The Maamtrasna Murders happened at a time of deep unrest in Ireland.

Three years previously, the most effective protest against the insidious landlord domination of the vast majority of the Irish people found expression in the Land League.

It was established on October 21 1879, in the Imperial Hotel, Castlebar, by a former Fenian prisoner Michael Davitt.

In a sweeping revolutionary statement, the League proclaimed the right of every tenant farmer to own the land he worked on.

Because of the abuses heaped on tenants by some landlords, it had an immediate impact. It also found a powerful voice in its president Charles Stewart Parnell, a Protestant landowner in County Wicklow.

Parnell was initially seen as an unlikely leader of a mass agrarian movement, but Davitt declared him “an Englishman of the strongest type moulded for an Irish purpose.”

Parnell’s policies were so effective that it vaulted him into the unchallenged leadership of the advanced wing of the Irish Parliamentary Party.

In its time, through a series of Land Acts, it achieved extraordinary concessions for the Irish tenant, far in excess of what was ever achieved for their contemporaries working on the land in England, Scotland, or Wales.

Parnell advocated peaceful protest, such as non payment of rent, the effective use of ‘boycott’, and solidarity and support for those who were evicted. But passions were high and violence frequently took a vicious turn.

Principle targets for murder were landlords or their agents, many of whom were soft targets.

In January of same year of the Maamtrasna murders, Joseph and John Huddy, who worked for Lord Ardilaun,(a member of the Guinness family, a generous philanthropist who lived mainly at Ashford Castle, Cong ) were murdered and their bodies dumped in Lough Mask.

John Henry Blake, an agent of the despised Lord Clanricard, was shot dead in broad daylight in Loughrea in June 1882.

A Claremorris landlord, Walter Burke and Ballinrobe landlord Lord Mountmorres, were both shot dead.

The British government was determined to stamp out these outrages by whatever means and Parnell and other leaders were arrested on the basis of allegedly seditious speeches and held, without trial, in Kilmainham Gaol.

But what brought England to near hysteria, were the stabbings in Phoenix Park, on 6 May 1882, of Lord Frederick Cavendish, the newly appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Thomas Henry Burke, the permanent under-secretary, the most senior Irish civil servant.

Draconian measures were immediately introduced giving the police much increased powers of search and arrest. New three-judge English language courts were set up and compensation for murder, injury, or damage to property was levied on the jurisdiction in which the crimes were committed.

 

A tenant evicted

 

 

 

18 Nov 1882: The “Spectator” newspaper Loads the Dice Before and During the Trial

This is what was published:

“The tragedy at Maamtrasna, almost unique as it is in the annals of the United Kingdom, brings out in strong relief two facts Which Englishmen are too apt to forget.

One is the existence in particular districts of Ireland of a class of peasants who are scarcely civilized beings whose approach is far nearer to savages than any other white men.

In remote places of Ireland, on a few of the islands and in one or two mountain areas, dwell peasants who are in knowledge, in habits, and in the discipline of life no higher than Maories or other Polynesians.

They survive for generations, without a rudimentary idea of comfort, or instruction, even in the alphabet, inaccessible to the teaching of any Church.

Men, whose strain of blood is not originally Milesian or Saxon, display a dull bitterness and ferocity of temper such as Englishmen in their own island see only rarely in individuals, the temper of men out of whom circumstances have crushed every feeling, except savage resentment against their lot, against all who come athwart them, against, in fact, all men and things.

Human sympathy seems almost extinguished in them, and when provoked, they perform the most dreadful acts, with that callousness and, as it were, unconsciousness, which Europeans for the most part have lost, but which reappear in narratives from the South Sea.

The Joyces of Maamtrasna, as the papers call them, though they are not all of one name now under trial, clearly belong to this class, utterly wretched, utterly poverty-stricken, utterly without hope of better things, as little under Christian influence as the animals, but when alarmed or excited, dully ferocious and bloodthirsty.

Some of them were implicated, in some way in the murder of Lord Ardilaun’s bailiffs, and knew that the police, with whom they were always at war, suspected them.

They also either knew or suspected that some one member of a neighbouring family, also named Joyce, had given the police the clue, and could, if willing, supply still further evidence.

They did not know, however, which member of the family was the guilty party, and therefore, under the guidance of two of their number, one of whom is just convicted, resolved to remove the danger by murdering them all, those innocent, even in their eyes, as well as the guilty.

The house was remote, they could get rid of all evidence and even if suspected, the new suspicion would not hurt them more than the previous one of the murder of the bailiffs had done.

The plan had about it all the audacity and completeness of the true savage raid, the raid in which extirpation is intended, without respect for sex or age,indeed, without thought of either and it very nearly succeeded.

Ten desperadoes went at night to the house of the suspected family, and shot or bludgeoned them all, John Joyce, his mother Margaret, his wife Bridget, his son Michael, and daughter Margaret. They had intended also to murder one other son but he although sorely wounded, feigned death, and survived.

Recollection of the cruelty of the mode of murder, completely overcame the Judge when passing sentence, but murder is never gentle, and except as illustrating the callous savagery of which we speak, the method adopted is unimportant.

Having (as they thought) destroyed the entire family, of whom most were guiltless of even an imaginary offense, and four were women or children, the murderers retreated, their leaders, doubtless, congratulating themselves on a final release from fear.

There seemed no possibility of evidence, except from one of the guilty accomplices, and they could be relied on, even if they did not fear the secret society which, Mr. Justice Barry hinted, must in some way have prompted the deed.

It is more probable that the ten themselves constituted a secret society but at all events the leaders thought themselves secure, both as regards the murdered Joyces and the murdered bailiffs.

They had not reckoned, however, on two circumstances, the fact that their crime would stir the horror naturalis which in most countries makes of every man the murderer’s enemy and that their tyranny, which had lasted years, had roused the silent detestation of their neighbours.

Even fear for their own lives seems unable in Ireland to rouse the people to form Vigilance Committees, and suppress terrorism for themselves, as would happen anywhere else, but three neighbours, themselves in terror of murder, and aware that “the Boys” were in movement, had nerve enough, if not to defend the victims, at least to watch the murderers.

They did not warn the threatened or shoot down the threateners, but they stalked the ten as Maories or Red Indians might have done, noted their persons, saw them break-in the doors, heard the shouts and shrieks, and gave evidence to the police and when the leaders were arrested, one of their followers turned Queen’s evidence, and made the proof legally as well as morally complete.

The badly injured child, who could have given the account of an eye-witness, was not examined, for he had been left so devoid of the most rudimentary training that he could not comprehend the obligation of an oath, and, therefore, could give no evidence.

One leader has been sentenced to death, and if all his accomplices share the same doom, there will, even in Ireland, be no sympathy for their fate. They had gone beyond even the awful secret code of the Western peagantry, which teaches that the loss of a bit of land, or of a little profit, or the telling of plain truth in a Court of Justice, justifies execution, without trial or opportunity of defense, by the bludgeon or the revolver.

We have no intention of deepening in any way the horror of this incident in English eyes, for terribly as it has affected English imaginations it is, among the crimes which have disgraced Ireland, one of the least truly horrible.

Not only were all concerned, victims as well as murderers, of a type below civilization, but the crime was punished, and punished by the help of Irishmen, by the aid of neighbours, through their testimony, and by the verdict of an ordinary jury.

No one in Ireland has defended it, no one has threatened the witnesses, no Member of Parliament has attempted to extenuate it. It is the unpunished murders, in which the witnesses are silent, and the jurors are perjured, and the journalists talk as if Christianity had never been heard of, of the “wild justice of revenge,” and as to which a whole land seems either sympathetic or cowed, which are so truly horrible, and for which, as the Catholic Canon told his audience, the retribution of Heaven will arrive.

But we would with this case before us, ask those Irishmen who still believe it needless to make the law executive, whether they can devise or suggest any substitute for its action, whether they believe any other agency than Law, steadily enforced till it becomes part of the order of things, can awaken conscience in men like these murderers?

Would one of them have murdered, if he had known that retribution would be certain ; that every Irish- man would, as against him, be a policeman. That he would arouse the instinctive horror not only of the good, but of all, bad and good alike?

We do not believe it. We believe that the law awakens conscience as nothing else save the direct grace of God, not often given to murderers can • and it is therefore we support in England the penalty of death.

In Ireland every obstacle to the certainty of legal retribution, even if that obstacle be an institution like the jury, or a personal right like the freedom to walk about at night, should be swept away.

The apologists for agrarian crime, though not for crimes like this Joyce murder, hope one day, or say they hope, to rule Ireland for themselves.

If they do, they will be the worst pests even unhappy Ireland ever had, if they do not beforehand learn that the sanctity of Law is the safety of the people, and that there is such a crime in the divine system of the world, if not in human legislation, as “bearing the sword of the Lord in vain.”

 

Not involved but hung just the same

 

 

 

 

20 August 1882: The “Times” newspaper was not to be upstaged and commented:

“No ingenuity can exaggerate the brutal ferocity of a crime which spared neither the grey hairs of an aged woman nor the innocent child of 12 years who slept beside her. It is an outburst of unredeemed and inexplicable savagery before which one stands appalled, and oppressed with a painful sense of the failure of our vaunted civilization.”

 

 

 

 

10 Dec 1882: The Judgement

Of the ten men arrested, two (fearing for their lives) decided to become informers in order to escape punishment. Eight men were convicted, Three were hung and the other five were imprisoned.

Two of the jailed men died in jail while the other three spent 20 years in custody for a crime they did not commit.

It later transpired that they had been pressurized to plead guilty in return for a reduced sentence as opposed to hanging.

The man suspected of having been the actual ring leader of the killings – moneylender John Casey was never arrested.

 

Three Hanged

 

 

A Serious Miscarriage of Justice.

1. The defendants were were convicted on perjured evidence: Eye witnesses were paid 1,250 pounds sterling – equivalent to about €160,000 today in “compensation” for testifying for the prosecution.

2. Lord Spencer, the Lord Lieutenant, (an ancestor of Prince William and Prince Harry) said the payments were for: “courageous and praiseworthy conduct in the pursuit and prosecution of the murderers”. later recantations were never properly considered.

3. The prosecution case was a farrago of deceits and the defense lawyer was lamentable – simply went through the motions.

4. The trial was conducted entirely in English before a Dublin-based English-only speaking jury, but the defendants only spoke and understood the Irish language and translation for the defendants was ill provided.

5. Both Patsy and his older brother, Martin, (who was away in Clonbur on the night of the murders) gave statements to the investigating police but these were not submitted in evidence. They were also detained against their will, in the police station in Ballybough for the duration of the trial.

6. Facing the hangman’s noose at Galway Prison, one of the accused, Patrick Casey signed a declaration before the prison Governor, George Mason, that, of his own free will “as a prisoner under sentence of death….Myles Joyce is innocent in this case.”

7. An urgent telegram containing a plea for mercy was sent by Governor of Galway prison to the lord lieutenant of Ireland, Earl John Spencer and was returned with a scribbled note on the reverse side stating: “the law must take its course”.

8. It was also noted that there was substantial evidence that could have proved the innocence of some of the men, but it was hidden away from court and evidence given in Irish had not been translated correctly.

9. The accused men’s solicitor, a 24-year old novice from Tuam, Co. Galway, had graduated from Trinity College Dublin only two years previously and, as a non-Irish speaker, was unable to communicate in any meaningful way with most his clients.

10. An inquiry was refused soon after the trial and for a long time thereafter despite clear evidence showing that justice had not been done.

 

Charles Stewart Parnell

 

 

 

12 Mar 2018: The Irish to Have the Final Say on the Matter

Irish President, Michael D. Higgins revealed that the Government has appointed an expert to examine the case for granting posthumous pardons to the innocent men convicted of the historic murders.

In an interview he said he is looking forward to hearing that expert’s opinion and the Government’s advice on one of the most famous miscarriages of justice in British and Irish legal history.

“At that stage, I will be returning to this issue to see what I can do. If it were up to me, the formalities aside, I would be happy to accept that the injustice which occurred should be recognized.

My view is that the moral issue is clear. Everything that happened at the level of the State was horrendous. There was bribery involved. The accused didn’t get a proper chance to defend themselves. There wasn’t an atmosphere of equality and there was no equality as regards legal processes.”

The President also said that the British authorities, did not treat citizens outwith England as equals: “They viewed them as a race apart who were not on equal footing with ordinary civilized people.”

Comment: The last comment from the President of Ireland is an accurate reflection of the mindset of the British elite, at Westminster, with one word change: Delete “were” Insert “are”.

 

 

 

 

The man that would have inspired Machiavelli is dead and politicians sleep  more soundly. If only it were possible to delve into his diaries.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, civil servant and permanent secretary to Prime Ministers Blair, Brown, Cameron and May and confidant to the rich and powerful elite of British politics and their hangers on died from cancer this week.

His death will bring about significant change.  But it is doubtful his replacement will enjoy the same privileges and political clout as  Jeremy who, armed with all of the secrets and knowledge of misdeeds of a huge range of politicians had all of the Prime Ministers and their cohorts in his employ, at his mercy. And boy did he wield his sword with murderous efficiency.

His hatred of free thinking Scots was without parallel, as his actions proved and Scotland can only benefit from Westminster’s loss.

I wrote many articles exposing his unfettered control of the civil service and I am publishing them again so that those who failed to pick up on his power can get to know the man who was king.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/31/yes-campaign-faced-the-might-of-the-abbotsford-team-actively-backed-by-the-entire-uk-political-system-the-civil-service-media-barons-commercial-and-financial-institutions-the-city-of/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/29/sir-jeremy-heywood-edward-snowden-whistleblower-nsa-gchq-data-collection-surveillance-of-individuals-worldwide/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/30/sir-jeremy-heywood-the-iraq-inquiry-other-controversies-are-his-hands-clean/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/30/sir-jeremy-heywood-a-perfect-manifestation-of-everything-that-has-gone-so-very-wrong-with-the-british-civil-service/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/30/sir-jeremy-heywood-adored-by-blair-brown-and-cameron-he-knows-just-where-the-bodies-are-buried/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/30/sir-jeremy-heywood-chinese-whispers-is-this-anyway-to-run-a-country/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/03/sir-jeremy-heywood-new-civil-service-chief-executive-appointed-track-record-failure/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/02/sir-jeremy-heywood-the-referendum-the-dirty-tricks-department-run-by-civil-servants/

https://caltonjock.com/2015/03/07/top-civil-servant-sir-jeremy-heywood-and-david-cameron-in-battle-for-downing-street-supremacy/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/31/sir-jeremy-heywood-sell-off-of-bae-the-last-of-britains-great-british-defence-manufacturers/

https://caltonjock.com/2015/01/22/chilcott-inquiry-delays-the-cover-up-the-machiavellian-influence-of-sir-jeremy-heywood/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/03/politics-scandals-cuts-destruction-and-chaos-yet-he-seems-to-thrive-on-it/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/03/sir-jeremy-heywood-warns-cuts-you-aint-seen-nuthin-yet/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/31/heywood-the-big-society-debacle-allegations-of-a-misuse-of-government-and-charitable-funds/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/31/sir-jeremy-heywood-pfizer-astrazeneca-takeover-bid-hang-on-david-ill-ask-the-wife/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/30/sir-jeremy-heywood-european-surveillance-drone-technology-introduction/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/major-says-three-in-cabinet-are-bastards-1486997.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Blairs Agenda for Change

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

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

 

 

 

 

The House of Lords

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

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

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

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

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

Number of life peers created by Prime Ministers:

Macmillan 90
Douglas-Home 29
Wilson 143

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

 

 

 

 

 

The background of new peers

  1958-1997        1997-2000

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

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

 

 

 

 

Castrating the Civil Service

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

The Expanding Establishment of “Special Advisers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A retiring civil servant commented:

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

 

 

 

Quangos and Task Forces

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The foregoing was paraphrased from part of the content of a report “The Great and Good”  (https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/111028112356-TheGreatandGood.pdf)   produced by the Centre for Policy Studies. It is well worth a read since it provides explanation of the “New Labour” approach to government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Industrial Action in Glasgow

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

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

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

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

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

 

Susan Aitken

 

 

Equal Pay Claims Glasgow District Council Female Social Care staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Union Inaction and Action 4 Equality (Scotland)

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

Labour Party Glasgow District Council Responsible for the unresolved Dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

The Newly Elected SNP led Council Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

And What About the Women Workers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

And What About the Labour party?

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

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

See my previous article:

https://caltonjock.com/2016/03/07/women-employees-betrayed-by-glasgow-councillors-the-labour-party-and-the-unions-not-worthy-of-your-vote/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Murky World

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

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

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

 

 

Opening Statement

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

John Donovan

 

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

Dear Mr Joseph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Inge, former Chief of the Defence Staff;

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

Colonel Sir Piers Bengough;

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

Lord Renwick, Chairman of Robert Fleming Merchant Bank:

Sir John Weston;

Sir Anthony Hammond;

Sir Ralph Robins;

Sir John Jennings;

Sir Mark Moody-Stuart;

Sir Philip Watts;

Sir Peter Holmes;

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

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

The following prominent people are also connected with Hakluyt:

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Former Foreign Secretary;

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

Earl Jellicoe, President of the SAS Association;

Sir Peter Cazalet, former Deputy Chairman of BP;

Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill.

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

It was also stated in the same revealing article:

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

Yours sincerely
Alfred Donovan

 

Earthquake damage in Holland due to fracking

 

 

 

Present Day

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

 

 

 

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

http://shellnews.net/images/ShellHakluyt.html

https://royaldutchshellgroup.com/category/hakluyt-co/

 

 

 

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

https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2018/03/18/hakluyt-company-and-the-clinton-trump-scandals/

https://royaldutchshellgroup.com/2018/10/13/99622/

 

 

 

 

 

 

The umbrella group under which three subsidiary companies operate

http://holdingham.com/directors

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03481321/officers – The present day composition of Hakluyt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other articles exposing the extent of the Hakluyt network

https://www.newstatesman.com/business/2008/08/private-security-company

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/05/former-head-gchq-sir-iain-lobban-adviser-shell-hakluyt

https://www.shellnazihistory.com/?cat=158

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/company-spies-get-pay-rise-as-city-deals-soar-ss95jtd8359 – TATA Steel?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-18/meet-hillary-clintons-other-much-more-powerful-and-shadowy-oppo-research-firm

https://www.hakluytcyber.com/

https://www.smh.com.au/business/be-careful-of-the-company-you-keep-20120330-1w35j.html

http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=articles&id=2018_05_25_halper.html

https://www.afr.com/business/death-in-china-sheds-light-on-shadowy-hakluy-20120524-j2q0u

https://opportunitynetwork.org/about-us/associate-board/varun-chandra/

http://mtlandreliance.org/about-us/mlr-people/legacy-committee/jon-selib/

https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/13/smallbusiness/trump-dossier-corporate-intelligence-business/index.html

“https://twitter.com/johnwhuber/status/994010765886672896”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

Skripal works for Hakluyt.

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

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

https://caltonjock.com/2017/06/05/rifkind-fulton-straw-snookered-the-2014-independence-referendum-and-are-waiting-in-the-wings-to-do-it-again-next-time/

https://caltonjock.com/2018/04/18/attempted-murder-of-former-russian-spy-sergie-skripal-the-facts-without-the-waffle-who-did-it-you-decide/

https://caltonjock.com/2018/04/14/dirty-tricks-trumpgate-and-skripal-all-roads-lead-to-london-and-mi6/

https://caltonjock.com/2018/03/22/cambridge-analytical-scl-chiels-wha-winna-ding-and-canna-be-disputed-remember-the-2014-referendum-a-stitch-up/

https://caltonjock.com/2017/11/24/jack-straw-to-colin-powell-a-few-weeks-after-the-7-years-in-the-making-chilcot-report-the-brexit-vote-was-a-silver-lining-reducing-public-interest-on-chilcot-the-story-has-faded-altogether-here-i/

https://caltonjock.com/2017/03/16/trojan-horse-for-american-politics-the-british-american-project-wields-its-power-over-scotland-through-latter-day-daniel-defoes-he-was-english-but-many-of-them-are-scots-21st-century-born/

https://caltonjock.com/2017/02/20/president-putin-eats-babies-the-magnitsky-case-a-tale-of-espionage-fraudmurder-and-attempted-regime-change-and-uk-spooks-are-at-the-centre-of-it/

https://caltonjock.com/2017/01/23/chilcot-inquiry-fraudulent-content-severely-compromised-by-the-old-boy-network-report-should-be-subject-to-a-judicial-review-chaired-by-independent-judge/

https://caltonjock.com/2016/09/14/libya-another-mess-created-by-powerful-western-allies-driven-by-a-desire-for-the-countrys-resources-an-uncertain-future-a-war-without-end/

https://caltonjock.com/2016/04/28/breaking-news-former-scottish-tory-party-chairman-and-ruth-davidsons-mentor-andrew-fulton-works-for-team-putin-and-a-mobbed-up-russian-lawyer/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Political Ideology of “New Labour”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are trusted and have the ear of the public.

 

 

 

 

The Corbynites

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

So who was John Smith?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

The Role of the Secret Services in the Labour Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Elizabeth Smith, Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill

 

 

And Mrs Smith?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

Summary

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

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

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

Another read:

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/10/the-cia-call-the-tune-and-the-labour-party-dances-to-it-scotland-sold-for-american-gold-but-to-the-deep-pockets-of-the-party-not-the-public/