caltonjock

19 May 2016: Defence Minister, Philip Hammond ‘tried to court-martial senior general

General Sir Richard Shirreff, who served as Nato’s deputy supreme allied commander for Europe until 2014, said before standing down from the post the Government was taking “one hell of a risk” by cutting the regular army. In his book ‘2017: The War with Russia’, published today, Sir Richard claims he was summoned by the head of the Army after his remarks in March 2014, who told him the Foreign Secretary wanted disciplinary action against him.

Formal action would have involved a court-martial and, fortunately for (Mr Hammond’s) political reputation — “it also seems he had not appreciated that I reported to Nato and not to him — wiser counsel prevailed. But the damage to our armed forces… had already been done. It’s the duty of senior soldiers engaged with politicians not to think like politicians, not to make life easier for politicians, but to be prepared to lay out the military consequences of political decisions, and I sense that is something that has got blurred in recent years.”

Sir Richard, who was the army’s third most senior officer, said the level of cutbacks to the British military means the armed forces might not be able to deploy an effective force for war. There has been a hollowing out, a cutting away at muscle and damn nearly bone in UK defences which puts us in a very different position from where we were even ten years ago.

I would question whether the UK could deploy a division for war — I think that’s highly unlikely. The notion of deploying a division for war as the UK did in Iraq in 2003 and Iraq in 1991 is frankly almost inconceivable.” Sir Richard also hit out at what he branded “increasingly irrelevant” political leadership and claimed Britain has become “semi pacifist” in recent years. The former general suggests Vladimir Putin’s regime “has set itself on a collision course with the West”.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/defence/defence-funding/news/75163/philip-hammond-tried-court-martial-senior-general-new

14 August 2016: Scandalous splurge – Ministry of Defence doubles spending on on ‘experts’ to £91million as it cuts troops to the bone

Whitehall defence chiefs employ over 2,395 pen-pushers (many on salaries over £60K) in its Finance Department, at an annual cost in excess of £75million. It also employs 282 lawyers at a cost to the taxpayer of £26 million.

But last year it still spent another £17.8 million on legal consultants. And £57million on other experts in areas such as “change management.”

In recent years, the Army has axed 18,000 personnel, the RAF 6,000 and the Navy 3,000. In March the MoD announced it was closing 10 sites across the UK reducing the size of its built estate by 30 per cent.

The chief of the UK National Defence Association, said: “For the MOD to be lavishing so much public money on “consultancy” is scandalous and an insult to all the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have lost their jobs in the last few years in wave after wave of penny-pinching Defence cuts.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1607670/ministry-of-defence-doubles-spending-on-on-experts-to-91million-as-it-cuts-troops-to-the-bone/

 
17 Sep 2016: Gen Sir Richard Barrons, Senior General of the British Armed Forces accuses the government of leaving the UK vulnerable to a military attack

General Sir Richard Barrons served as Commander Joint Forces Command, one of the six ‘Chiefs of Staff” leading the UK Armed Forces until April 2016. He was responsible for 23000 people worldwide and a budget of £4.3Bn, delivering intelligence, Special Forces, operational command and control, information systems and communications, logistics, medical support, and advanced education and training across the Armed Forces. His military career includes leadership from Captain to General on military operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan – often as part of US-led coalitions
In a long memo (written just before his retirement), to the Secretary of State for Defence, Sir Michael Fallon he warned that key capabilities had been sidelined to cut costs. His warning stated that the government was simply “preserving the shop window” with items “large ticket items” such as aircraft carriers and “capability that is foundational to all major armed forces has been withered by design.”

He continued: “Counter-terrorism is the limit of up-to-date plans and preparations to secure our airspace, waters and territory. Neither the UK homeland nor a deployed force could be protected from a concerted Russian air effort. The army has grown used to operating from safe bases in the middle of its operating area, against opponents who do not manoeuvre at scale.”

He further warned that crucial manpower in all three armed services is “dangerously squeezed and there is a sense that modern conflict is ordained to be only as small and as short term as the UK wishes and is able to afford which is absurd. The failure to come to terms with this will not matter at all if we are lucky in the way the world happens to turn out, but it could matter a very great deal if even a few of the risks now at large conspire against the UK.”

The memo was sent to Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, following the government’s decision to increase defence spending by nearly £5bn ($6.5bn) by 2020-21, reaching Nato’s target to spend 2% of GDP on defence until 2020.

But the vast bulk of the projected increase in defence spending includes the purchase of “big ticket” items, New type 26 destroyers, 2 aircraft carriers (without aircraft or crews), 48 x F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft (not available from the USA for some years yet). Replacement of the Trident nuclear missile systems and accompanying nuclear submarines. Conventional forces are reduced to their lowest level ever, including reservists and recruitment is stagnant.

Note:

The F35 joint strike aircraft (US built) is the most expensive combat aircraft ever built for the UK. But payloads are restricted and with a complement of 48 the RAF will only be able to place 6 in the air in any combat situation. In any event the aircraft will not be available much before 2020. Plans are to deploy the new carriers equipped with complements of US aircraft and flyers but the logistics of joint deployment of forces has yet to be discussed and may never get off the ground in which case the carriers will be mothballed for a few years.

Britain has 6 x type 45 destroyers. 4 are tasked to protect the new carriers. The remaining 2 destroyers are needed for the defence of the UK mainland & islands. And the foregoing provides no time for maintenance. The Type 45 destroyers are unable to operate in warm climates for any length of time due to design faults and this restricts their deployment to the North Atlantic. So the navy will need to confine deployment of the new carriers to the same area. Hardly inspiring.

The army has not deployed forces for training in tank warfare since 2003 and skills have been lost or waned. Plans are to upgrade the remaining ageing Challenger tanks but not until other higher priority items are completed. Russia’s new “Armata” tanks outspeed and outgun the Challenger and are equipped with an active protection system that further reduce the efficacy of existing UK anti-tank weapons by over 50%.
The UK’s operates a fleet of 6 x AWACS planes, (providing long-range radar coverage and command hubs for deployed forces). They are hopelessly outdated and require ever increasing downtime for maintenance. It is known that only 1 aircraft is guaranteed to be airworthy at any time.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-armed-forces-ill-prepared-attack-uk-says-retired-commander-1581819

http://con4lib.com/the-scandal-of-britains-withered-armed-forces-a-strong-defence-is-essential-to-liberty/

1 Nov 2016: Army’s new £3.5bn mini-tanks are ‘DEATH traps’ that are only useful against ‘incompetent enemies’ who cannot hit them with heavy artillery

Hundreds of Ajax mini-tanks are due to be supplied to the Army next year with the full order of 600 delivered to the Ministry of Defence by 2024.

But sources have claimed the delivery could be delayed due to complications with a revolutionary weapons system fitted on board each tank, although the MoD has insisted the project will be completed on time and will provide the ‘best’ tanks.

Critics claim the ‘lightly armoured’ tanks cannot stand up to heavy artillery and say the weaponry on board is not sufficient – with the gun having already ‘stopped working’ during foreign trials. Raising concerns about the new tanks, one former defence official told The Times: ‘It is fine if you are operating against incompetent enemies, but if you are up against a peer enemy this thing is useless, it’s a death trap.’

The Ajax armoured vehicles will travel at speeds of up to 40mph and have been touted as the first ever fully digital armoured fighting vehicle in UK military history.

The 589 tanks are said to become the ‘eyes and ears’ of the British Army on the battlefields of the future. The new vehicle will allegedly give the army enhanced intelligence, surveillance, protection, target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities, and it will be able to defend itself with a highly effective 40-millimetre cannon, which was developed jointly with France.

However, critics claim the cannon has already encountered problems during routine testing in overseas trials and say it is simply not up to the job of defending rival power from countries such as Russia. Referring to an alleged complication with the cannon’s turret – a section attached to the weapon to feed ammunition to the barrel – a source claimed: ‘As soon as the turret was subject to vibration and bumps the [feeding] mechanism failed. ‘My understanding is that there are quite a few reasons why the programme has been delayed’.

In addition, there are reported concerns that the barrel life of the weapon system is too short to function adequately – although the MoD says the new technology ‘can’t be compared to previous technology’. The turret and feeding mechanism on the cannon is being supplied and tested by defence firm Lockheed Martin, while the cannon and ammunition are being developed by BAE Systems and Nexter.

The Ajax tanks are being supplied to the MoD by US defence company General Dynamics, as part of a £3.5bn deal. A spokesman for Lockheed Martin admitted ‘issues did arise in recent trials’ on the weaponry but said ‘early indications point to a component failure and not a design flaw’, The Times reported. BAE systems said the cannon had passed ‘stringent qualification trials’ and said there were no issues with its performance or when it will be delivered. ‘Deliveries to date to the UK Ministry of Defence are ahead of schedule,’ a spokesman said.

The MoD said the project is ‘running to time and cost expectations’ and insisted the tanks were ‘the best in class’. delivering internationally best-in-class standards of scalable protection, reliability, mobility, lethality, and all-weather surveillance. Prototype vehicles are currently being put through a rigorous trials process, with successful live firings taking place in April and more to come. ‘As planned, the Army will take delivery of the first production vehicles in Spring 17.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3892754/Army-s-new-3-5bn-mini-tanks-DEATH-traps-useful-against-incompetent-enemies-hit-heavy-artillery.html

UK Defence Secretary in waiting

6 Mar 2015: Children in State Schools to complete “readiness for war” education projects

A government-issued teaching resource which includes a task asking pupils to devise a plan for going to war, is presenting a “sanitised” and “positive” view of life in the armed forces, claims a prominent educationalist and citizenship expert.

In a report joint-issued by campaign groups “ForcesWatch” and Quakers in Britain about the ‘British Armed Forces Learning Resource’ A former director of curriculum resources at the Citizenship Foundation accused the government of trying to boost recruitment through a “biased” piece of literature.

He said: “Its aims, judging from the text, appear to be to present a positive, sometimes sanitised, view of the armed forces, to boost recruitment, and advocate for more combined cadet forces in schools. I believe this is completely unacceptable, and that the document should be withdrawn and redeveloped in such a way that students can be enabled to learn about the role of the military in our society and in national and international affairs in a way which is educationally-sound, balanced, and which respects the rights to freedom of belief of students and their families.”

A government spokesman said that The learning resource had been commissioned by the office of the prime minister with the support of the Department for Education (DfE) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) and its aims were entirely consistent with the government’s strategy to promote a ‘military ethos in schools’.”

The resource pack includes a foreword by the prime minister, five chapters of information about the armed forces, and a series of suggested activities. One suggested activity stated: “Devise a plan for how to go to war. Include how you will get there, what equipment and people you will need.”

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/teaching-resource-asks-pupils-to-devise-a-plan-for-war/

5 May 2016: The number of cadet units in state schools is to increase five-fold by 2020, George Osborne announced in the Summer Budget.

The Chancellor pledged to create cadet forces in 500 state schools. Most would be in “less affluent areas”. According to the Ministry of Defence (MoD), as of April 1 last year there were about 131,000 cadets in the UK, divided between the Combined Cadet Force (42,950), a scheme run through schools, and the Army Cadet Force (41,000).

A Treasury spokesperson said that the money required, £50million would not be diverted from schools but would instead come from fines levied on banks. “In the last government, £450 million was given to support military causes and emergency services. This builds on that repertoire. “This has been billed as a priority for the government and the initiative was launched by the prime minister in 2012, when he said he would increase the number of cadet units. This will make sure there is the same quality of cadet experience across all schools.”

Last year, David Cameron announced a £1 million bursary scheme for state school cadet units, funded with fines from banks caught up in the Libor rate-fixing scandal. On top of this bursary, Mr Cameron pledged £11 million in 2012 to set up a further 100 cadet units in state schools by 2015 under the Cadet Expansion Programme (CEP).

The Combined Cadet Force says on its website: “The CEP is part of the Government’s aim of promoting military ethos in schools; to instil values in young people that will help them get the most out of their lives, and to contribute to their communities and country. “This means pupils developing qualities such as self-discipline, loyalty and respect, strong leadership, teamwork and resilience, which will help them achieve excellence and shape their future.”

Details for the scheme are still minimal. The Summer Budget document states: “CEP £50 million – to increase the number of cadet units in state schools to 500 by 2020.”

The MoD recently faced criticism after Schools Week revealed last month that it had requested access to sensitive data in the National Pupil Database so it could “target its messaging” around military careers.
A spokesperson for “ForcesWatch”, a campaign group scrutinising army recruitment policies, said: “This is a huge amount of money to fund yet more military activities in schools at the expense of universal provision which is accessible to all students.”

 
4 Oct 2016: Armed Forces cadet units are to be set up in 150 schools

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon announced the first of the new units would be established in Birmingham’s Rockwood Academy to boost efforts to instil ‘British values.’

On his visit to the school, he said: “This used to be a ‘Trojan Horse’ school. “It has been turned around completely and instead of promoting religious segregation, today, as a new academy, it is instilling British values with a school cadet unit that will parade this afternoon, serving the Queen and country.”

He added the Armed Forces were driving opportunity for young people across the country. He said: Look at how the Armed Forces provide the most apprenticeships. Helping people develop skills that benefit our military – setting set them up for better careers in civilian life.I am setting a target to deliver 50,000 apprenticeships over this Parliament.”

Mr Fallon rehearsed attacks on the Labour Party over Trident and wider defence policy – insisting ‘waving the white flag’ would not keep the country safe. He said instead, the Conservative Government was investing in a new generation of equipment and tackling threats from ISIS, Russia and North Korea.

But the shadow defence secretary, dismissed the speech. He said: “Michael Fallon’s speech was a smokescreen, designed to deflect from the Tories legacy of failure on defence. The reality is their devastating cuts since 2010 have weakened and demoralised our Armed Forces, leaving them poorly-equipped, over-stretched, under-paid and too often living in squalid conditions.The Tory obsession with cost-cutting means they are not even using British steel to build our ships and vehicles. ‘They have systematically undermined our industrial communities, ripping up Labour’s Defence Industrial Strategy and spending billions overseas, instead of investing in British jobs and British steel. For Labour, our Armed Forces personnel and veterans will always come first. We will tackle the decline of wages and pensions, the decay of on-base housing and the shocking lack of support for veterans.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3821422/A-unit-Armed-Forces-cadets-set-school-infiltrated-Trojan-horse-extremists-help-inspire-British-values-Michael-Fallon-reveals.html

8 Feb 2017: Fallons Nose out of joint as Scottish government rules out Army Cadet Force units in Scottish state schools

Army cadet units will not be permitted to operate in state schools north of the Border, the Scottish Government has confirmed. Ministers said there was no change to the long-standing policy in Scotland that units could not be based at council-run schools.

The intervention came after UK defence minister Sir Michael Fallon suggested he wanted more units to be allowed in Scotland during a discussion about a pilot project at Maxwelltown High School, in Dumfries (Mundell’s seat of power).

A Scottish Government spokeswoman added: “There is no proposal being progressed to introduce a UK Government scheme to establish cadet units in Scottish schools. “The pilot at Maxwelltown High School is significantly different to the UK Government scheme, which we have made clear is not suitable for introduction in Scotland’s schools because it does not contribute to the curriculum. Instead of separate cadet units, our approach is focused on how voluntary youth organisation the Army Cadet Force can contribute to the Scottish curriculum as part of our national youth work strategy.”
Note: Forces recruitment is at an all time low and shows no sign of recovery. The introduction of cadet units in state run schools is advance planning by Fallon who will be hoping the measures will produce an increase in recruits. Hence the reference to 50,000 apprenticeships”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15076292.Army_Cadet_Force_units_ruled_out_at_Scottish_state_schools/

Time For Scotland To Escape the Madness

The outcome of the next UK general election is already established. The Tories will be returned to power and Scots will be subjected to rule (for another 5 years) by a government it did not vote for. There is so much to be done to progress Brexit to the conclusion desired by the Tories and anything, anyone or any organisation that stands against their intent will be destroyed.Scotland’s final opportunity for independence needs to be grasped and a campaign put in motion before the spring of 2017.

In support of the foregoing I looked back at the banking scandal that brought the World to it’s knees and the many years of austerity forced upon Scots by Cameron, Osborne and the financially well off who were determined that the massive financial deficit would be recovered from the many, (who had done nothing wrong) rather than the financial gangsters that had created the problem.

A couple of high profile Bankers, (Bob Diamond and “Fred the Shred” Goodwin)  were forced to retire, with the promise of huge personal pension schemes, coupled with obscene lump sum final settlements. But not one Banker faced court proceedings.

Instead the Banking system continued very much as before (as though nothing untoward had occurred) . Obscene Bonus schemes were retained and further extended so that Bankers would be assured austerity would not be applied to the financial services.

If not the bankers and the rich this left the burden of financial restraint with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne to resolve. Which he did, borrowing many billions of pounds from nameless but very rich institutions, who had avoided the financial crash!!! Payback was charged to the UK electorate so that the many settled the debts of the rich. Unfair.

The remaining part of this report provides historical data proving that the financial excesses of the recent past were no accident and they will be repeated again and again by a financially corrupt electoral system that allows a bunch of spivs to exercise authority over Scots who deserve better governance.

.

30 Jun 2012: Cameron allies linked to City firms are under scrutiny over interest rate fixing

Senior Tories were dragged into the interest rate-fixing scandal as fresh evidence emerged that the banking industry denied there were any problems with “the integrity” of Libor five years ago.

It has been revealed that the Conservative deputy chairman, Michael Fallon, is a board member of a leading brokerage firm that dominates the rates market and which has been asked to co-operate with the Financial Services Authority’s investigation into malpractice across the City. Fallon is a close ally of David Cameron and a senior member of the Treasury select committee that will question the Barclays chief executive, Bob Diamond, this week, prompting demands from Labour that he should declare an interest.

The Prime Minister continues to resist calls from Ed Miliband for a Leveson-style inquiry into rate-fixing. The Government is to set up an “urgent independent review” into Libor (the London inter-bank lending rate), but Labour continued to press for a judge-led inquiry. The review will consider the future operation of the Libor rate and the possibility of introducing criminal sanctions, a Treasury source said.

Class-action lawsuits are being filed in the US by plaintiffs that held financial products that depended on Libor. Any lawsuits that arise are likely to dwarf the fines that Barclays has already paid, perhaps running into the tens of billions across the industry. The IoS can also reveal that the Bank of England was aware of concerns over Libor five years ago, and discussed it in at least two meetings with representatives of some of the City’s biggest financial institutions.
Fallon, the MP for Sevenoaks, has been a director of interdealer broker Tullett Prebon since 2006, standing down in 2010 when he ran unsuccessfully for chairman of the select committee, before being reappointed that year. Tullett Prebon is not under full investigation by the FSA into manipulation of Libor but has responded to “requests for information”. A City source close to the investigation said it was “extremely unlikely Tullett Prebon would not be investigated” at some point, and sources at the firm, asked if employees could have engaged in wrongdoing, said they could “never say never”. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of Fallon or the company. In a statement the firm said: “Tullett Prebon, like probably all firms in the City, has been responding to requests for information from the regulators. To date, we have had no cause to suspend or otherwise discipline any employee in connection with this inquiry.”

Labour said the Tory deputy chairman had “serious questions” to answer over his role at the firm, given his key role in Parliament’s inquiry into the rate-fixing scandal, which is thought to extend far beyond the wrongdoing at Barclays. Labour MP Simon Danczuk said: “Across the banks there are serious questions about who knew what and when and that must include the deputy chair of the Conservative Party. We have to get to the bottom of the Libor fixing scandal, and the Government must also agree to calls by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls for a proper independent inquiry into the culture of banking.” The questions over the role of Fallon followed the revelation that one of the Prime Minister’s closest advisers, the former Tory party treasurer Michael Spencer, is under scrutiny by the FSA. Mr Spencer’s brokerage firm ICAP is one of a number of institutions alleged to have helped to manipulate bank interest rates while he was treasurer of the Conservatives.

Mr Cameron said yesterday that he needed to “think this through carefully” whether there should be a judge-led inquiry into the Libor scandal. Fallon and Mr Spencer are not the only Tories with close links to the City, prompting concerns that the party is not enforcing tough action against the banking industry.  Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, was paid by Barclays to sit on its Asia-Pacific advisory committee between 2005 and 2009. A spokesman for Mr Maude said last night the minister was “absolutely not” aware of any wrongdoing at Barclays and that the committee met “three times over a couple of years”, was purely advisory and had no executive function. Fallon declined to comment.

Court documents filed in the US accuse Bank of England officials of failing to act on questions about “the integrity of Libor” raised during meetings of the Money Markets Liaison Group as early as 2007.The meeting was chaired by the BoE deputy governor, Paul Tucker, and attended by officials from institutions including at least seven that have since been named in Libor investigations.

The British Bankers Association assured group members of its “quality control measures”, and said that “they speak to contributing banks regularly.” The decision not to investigate further effectively enabled British bankers to go unchecked for more than a year. The FSA finally joined the investigation into Libor manipulation in October 2009, after other countries had already launched their own inquiries. A Bank spokesman said last night it was “nonsense” to suggest it had been aware of any Libor-fixing in 2007 or 2008.

The Conservative Party Connection

Michael Fallon: Deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, close ally of David Cameron and a reliable defender of the Government on the airwaves, the 60-year-old is a board member of Tullett Prebon Plc, a leading brokerage firm that dominates the rates market and which is being asked to co-operate with FSA inquiries. He resigned his directorship in the days after the coalition was formed, but was reappointed in September 2010. He receives a quarterly fee of almost £7,000 for 20 hours’ work.
George Osborne: In a statement to the Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer described the Libor scandal as a “shocking indictment of the culture at banks like Barclays in the run-up to the financial crisis”. But at the time that brokers were swilling Bollinger and fixing rates, Mr Osborne was trying to convince the City that he was not some callow newcomer but a chancellor in-waiting.In 2007, bruised by hostile briefings that he wasn’t up to the job, he made strenuous efforts to court the City, through the Conservative City Circle. This week he condemned his opposite number, Ed Balls, for failing to regulate the banks, but in 2007 he backed a Tory policy report written by John Redwood which called for deregulation of the mortgage market.
Michael Spencer: Spencer is a former treasurer of the Conservative Party. The 57-year-old, a close friend of David Cameron, is head of ICAP, a brokerage firm alleged to have helped manipulate bank interest rates while he was also Tory party treasurer from 2006 until October 2010. ICAP is being investigated by regulators over claims the Libor lending rates were rigged. He remains chairman of the Conservative Foundation, a body launched in 2009 for the party to receive legacies free of inheritance tax. He was among a list of party donors to have enjoyed “kitchen suppers” in the PM’s Downing Street flat.
Francis Maude: The Cabinet Office minister is a key Tory moderniser. He was a member of Barclays’ Asia-Pacific Advisory Committee for much of the boom from 2005. In an entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, he said: “My duties were to attend committee and other meetings by phone or in person; other advice and consultation by e-mail.” He received payment of £9,230.23 after tax for 15 hours’ work in 2009, and resigned at the end of that year. He joined the coalition government in May 2010.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-top-tories-dragged-into-banking-scandal-7901941.html

2012: The Wheatley Report

David Cameron (acting on heavily publicised issues in the UK relating to the credibility of LIBOR) refused opposition proposals to appoint a Judge Led inquiry and instead commissioned Martin Wheatley, a managing director at the Financial Services Authority (FSA), to prepare a review of the way LIBOR was managed.

The outcome of that review (the Wheatley Review) was published in 2012. It proposed a ten point plan which was accepted. Key recommendations accepted: “https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191762/wheatley_review_libor_finalreport_280912.pdf”

Just about every major bank worldwide was caught in the net of price fixing scam of LIBOR. The cost to investors, home owners, mortgage holders was incalculable but exceeded many billions of dollars and brought about the Worlds financial crisis. Fines on banks are still being processed but exceed billions of dollars US.

In the UK only one LIBOR rate fixer ( middle management level) has been tried and convicted. The bankers got away with the biggest scam in history thanks to the Tory government.

2 Jul 2015: Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – Osborne Strikes again

Having produced an excellent report it was no surprise when Martin Wheatley was asked to take on the leadership of the FCA charged with getting to grips with the banks, establishing order from chaos ensuring banking business in the UK met with the highest standards possible. He set about the task with purpose and quickly brought bankers to heel. But Martin had made enemies in the banking system and soon paid the price with his job. He was advised by Osborne that his 3 year contract would not be renewed. Having none of it Martin resigned his post.

In a parting statement Martin took a coded swipe at Osborne, saying that he had “unfinished business” and that the job of tidying up investment banking was far from complete. He went on to express disappointment that George Osborne had refused to renew his contract as chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority,(FCA) despite the authority levying billions of pounds in fines and making top-level attempts to reform the culture of trading floors.

He also made it clear that the culture of investment banking remained largely unreformed despite several years of scandals. He said: “The top of organisations have understood the environment . . . but I still think it is quite hard to deliver. It’s tough and it takes time.

As we saw with FX [the foreign exchange-rigging scandal], there are some parts, the wholesale parts of financial services, where it is actually not yet seen as relevant. There’s still a view that: ‘Well, that’s a caveat emptor market’ and big financial players trading with one another. That’s the area that has much further to go.” Mr Wheatley’s damning appraisal of the City will pile further pressure on the FCA and Mr Osborne as the search gets under way to recruit a successor for the handover in September.

The chancellor will have the final say on any hiring decision but will want to avoid the perception that he has replaced a chief executive known for taking a hard line on wrongdoing with one more sympathetic to the big banks.

John Griffith-Jones, the chairman of the FCA, declined to say whether he had supported Osborne’s decision. “The appointment, or the question of renewal of Martin’s contract in March, is a decision for the chancellor. It is the job of the board, in particular the chairman, to run the organisation,” he said.

Wheatley left little doubt that if he had remained in charge of the FCA the banking industry would have faced no respite in his tough approach to regulation. He had considered banning some firms from trading as an alternative to fines, he said. “The use of trading bans, or, in our terms, ‘variations of permission’, is something we actively look at each time we feel that we’ve got to take an action. Those variations of permission can be removing somebody from part of the market, or a significant part of the market, for a period of time,” he said.

Wheatley’s remarks came after the FCA’s annual meeting, where members of the public questioned senior executives on the regulator’s actions. At a fiery session in central London, Mr Wheatley and his team faced repeated criticism for their handling of the compensation process for victims of the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products.

Wheatley defended the FCA-led redress scheme, pointing out that nearly £2 billion had been paid back to small and medium-sized businesses. Several small businessmen argued that no bank had been fined despite overwhelming evidence of the systematic mis-selling of tens of billions of pounds of interest rate swaps to customers who did not understand what they were buying.

Wheatley later said that banks could still face action from the regulator for their behaviour. “We haven’t ruled out that there will be actions taken at some point,” he said. It was this statement that brought about his downfall. There would be no further pursuit of Bankers so long as the Tories were in power at Westminster.

6 January 2016: It is shamefully clear now that Osborne has let the banks off the hook

The banks are no longer in the doghouse – or, at least, not so far as the government is concerned. Never mind that their manipulation of financial markets against the interests of their customers is still fresh in the mind and that the courts are handing down prison sentences for those found guilty. Forget all that stuff about high-street banks mis-selling financial products to their customers, you and me in other words, for which they have had to set aside a colossal £26bn to meet claims. It is, apparently, time to move on. Of course, there has been no announcement as such. This is a case where you look at the facts and draw your conclusions. For me, the final proof came with this week’s announcement by one of the City’s two regulators, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), that it was abandoning its plan to inquire into the culture of banks.

Compare this withdrawal with what this same regulator said less than a year ago about the importance of culture: “Our Risk Outlook 2014/15 noted how important embedding cultural change would be to regaining the trust of consumers, as well as achieving our objectives. This remains true for the coming year and the foreseeable future… We continue to address conduct issues arising from failures in firm culture and are committed to ensuring this momentum is not lost.” Now this commitment has gone. How did this come about? The most plausible starting point is April 2015. With just a few weeks to go before the General Election, the giant bank HSBC announced that it had ordered a review into whether it should move its headquarters out of Britain, thus damaging London’s reputation as a global hub for finance and investment.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, cannot have liked the sound of this. Threatening to move domicile is frequently used by large international companies as a way of bringing pressure to bear on national governments. Just seven weeks later in a Mansion House speech in June, Mr Osborne made plain his discomfort. He said he wanted Britain to be “the best place for European and global bank HQs”, adding: “It’s in our national interest to be so.” At the same time, the door to the doghouse was to be left open: “Our financial services industry in Britain has, in recent years, been seen as part of the problem – now it must become part of the solution… Now we can raise our ambition and ensure we have the best, and most competitive, financial services in the world”.

Except that the Chancellor himself doesn’t have the key in his own pocket. It is the FCA which opens or closes the door. And under its tough chief executive, Martin Wheatley, the prospect of the lock being turned seemed remote. So Mr Wheatley would have to go. Thus seven weeks later, 17 July, Mr Wheatley was sacked. Osborne said “different leadership” was needed to take the regulator forwards. “Britain needs a tough, strong financial conduct regulator.

The government believes that different leadership is required to build on those foundations and take the organisation to the next stage of its development,” he said. In proceeding thus, the Chancellor had had a stroke of luck. For under Mr Wheatley’s leadership, the FCA had committed a serious error some months earlier. It had deliberately leaked a story to the Daily Telegraph stating that the regulator was planning an inquiry into 30 million pensions and savings policies sold from the 1970s to 2000 with a focus on high fees and bad service.

Within seconds of the stock markets opening, shares in insurance companies crashed as shareholders took fright at the likely damage to their investments. The regulator took 15 hours to respond, in a reaction deemed “seriously inadequate” in an independent report. Osborne immediately declared himself “profoundly concerned” and described the events as “damaging both to the FCA as an institution and to the UK’s reputation for regulatory stability and competence”. From then onwards Mr Wheatley was at the mercy of the Chancellor.

Meanwhile, Osborne had opened another door to bankers – the door to his own office. Since the 2015 General Election, he has privately met with representatives of the banks five times. This compares with no meetings in the same period of 2014. And as the bank chiefs walked into his office, they will have known that they had a lot going for them despite their poor treatment of customers and brushes with the law. They would be speaking to a Chancellor who, reassuringly, believes in deregulation, who is comfortable with a minimum state and who wants to keep down levels of income tax.

They would know, too, that the government couldn’t be complacent about the City’s future. For there are constant threats from Brussels as well as competition from financial centres in the East.
So here I try to put myself into the bankers’ shoes and I imagine they say to Osborne something like this: “Look, we both really want the same thing. You want to keep the City as the world’s pre-eminent financial centre. And we want to feel comfortable doing business here. That means, to be frank, lighter regulation and lower taxes. So we can do a deal, surely?’

The Chancellor seems to have listened and the FCA seems to have caught the drift. So at the same time that it called off its inquiry into bank culture, it also announced that it would be taking no formal action against HSBC following indications that the bank’s Swiss unit had been giving customers a helping hand with their tax liabilities. So the door to the doghouse swings on its hinges. The bankers are no longer there and will not be returning any time soon.

Alex Nicoll the leader of the SNP on the council, said: “It is incredibly concerning that the value of only recently completed property investments have dropped so much in such a short time.

Council co-leader Douglas Lumsden said:  “In respect of valuation, it is important citizens look at the council’s total value of assets which the accounts show the council’s net worth is £1.21bn.”

Comment: But the council owe the city of London £1bn

Aberdeen (there is a mafia in Aberdeen) its called “lab-Con”

The city has returned the labour and or Tory party to power in all but one election in the last 20 years and is very much a Unionist party stronghold. In every circumstance domination of the electorate for an extended period of time by parties of a particular leaning leads to an abuse of power and this is very much the case in Aberdeen where the Unionists reign supreme.

In the May 2017 election it was hoped that voters would seriously consider the appalling record of financial and administrative mis-management, abuse of power, rejection of the wishes of the majority of city residents expressed in the Union Gardens proposal referendum and many other insults visited upon voters. There was a genuine hope  that the SNP would be given a chance at local government but, yet again  the Aberdeen electorate decided to ignore the misdeeds of the City Councillors and returned the Unionists to power.

2005 The Italian Mob (and there is a real Mafia Presence)

Antonio La Torre and Michele Siciliano, brothers of Augusto La Torre, the former head of the powerful crime clan from Mondragone and influential members of the Camorra Mafia, came to Aberdeen in 1984.

They opened the Pavarotti and Sorrento restaurants, expanding into health and fitness centres, import-export food firms, pubs and betting shops in Aberdeen, Dundee, Stirling, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness. They and their lieutenants were also involved in dealing in luxury cars.

Their many property deals included buying city council land (College Street) for peanuts, building a car park then selling it on for a massive profit purchasing a city centre building, on the cheap and converting it into flats gaining a six-figure profit.

Expanding their empire, they also set-up a number of phantom companies,  in Scotland and Italy enabling bank loan credit guarantees’ providing the finance necessary to purchase building materials, plant machinery, office equipment, computers and huge amounts of wine, pasta and olive oil and other produce from Campania for use in restaurants in Aberdeen and throughout Scotland.

But as soon as the phantom firms got the cash, they were bankrupted and the money was diverted into other accounts. They were both extradited to Italy in 2005 to serve long prison sentences. Disposal details of their massive property and business portfolios has not been released but much of it was sold off before extradition procedures were complete. Much more information here:

(https://kennyfarq.medium.com/a-brush-with-the-neapolitan-mafia-in-aberdeen-e43cd6fdb874)

College Street Car park

2006: Audit Scotland investigated council property sales and identified major deficiencies bordering on fraud.

The report was passed to the Police Fraud Squad for further investigation. They have not yet reported back.

“The most serious comment by independent assessors related to the College Street car park where they concluded that proceeds from sale should have been double the £1.8 million achieved. They concluded that the deal struck by the Council was ‘extremely poor, bordering on negligent’.

(http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/local/2008/nr_080430_aberdeen_property.pdf)

2007 Newly Elected SNP and Liberal Democrat City Council Ask Police to Investigate Potential Fraudulent Sale of Council Property

A police investigation has been ordered into potential fraud surrounding transactions in which Aberdeen city council sold some of its assets for up to £5.5 million below their market value.

Grampian Police confirmed it was called in by the new Liberal Democrat and SNP administration after senior officers requested details of transactions up to 2006.

And a damning report, published by the accounts watchdog, Audit Scotland, revealed “serious deficiencies” in a series of deals in which six council-owned assets were sold for £3.7 million when their maximum potential value was £9.2 million.

The transactions included the sale of land at the Seafield Club and allotments for £685,000 when the maximum potential value was £2,930,000, and the sale of the College Street multi-storey car park for £1.8 million when its potential value was £3,630,000.

The council faces a special hearing by the Accounts Commission into its finances. Read the full blog:

(https://caltonjock.com/2016/09/04/aberdeen-an-enlightened-city-or-a-city-of-luddites-2017-will-provide-the-answer-break-with-the-unionist-s-and-embrace-the-nationalists-or-keep-the-heid-doon-and-stick-with-westminster/)

2008 Final Audit Scotland Report Findings:

Over the past three years expenditure by the Labour City Council has been significantly in excess of its budget, giving rise to concern over diminishing reserves leading to the need for a substantial package of savings. Councillors accepted the views of  the Controller of Audit, who also identified a reluctance, on the part of some to fully appreciate of the seriousness of the financial difficulties the Council faced.

In regard to the report by the Controller of Audit on the property sales investigation, the Council accepted there were significant procedural shortcomings which would need to be addressed as a matter of priority.

The incoming SNP/LibDem Council was forced to implement a 4 year programme of austerity measures designed to ensure a balanced income and expenditure.

In the 2012 election voters punished the SNP/LibDem Council for imposing stringent cuts over the previous four years and returned Labour/LibDem council to office. Voters have very short memories!! The need to make the cuts was forced on the SNP/LibDem Council by the Auditor mitigating the financial mismanagement of the Unionists.

Redeveloped Aberdeen City Chambers (projected cost £20m Actual cost £140m)

2009: Union Square Development

The College Street car park (built on ground) purchased from the City Council for peanuts, by the Italian brothers, who sold it on for a large mark-up and a car park build, was resold, to Hammerson PLC forming part of the £250 million Union Square regeneration project in the heart of Aberdeen.

The development was built by Miller Construction and included multiple shopping units, a civic square, multi storey car parks and a hotel with conference facilities.

In May 2012 Labour formed a coalition Council Administration. Crockett was elected Council Leader.

Not long after taking charge the Unionist conducted a referendum seeking the electorate’s views on a city centre development. The outcome failed to return a “no” vote and was set aside by Barney Crockett who said “I am not bound by the views of the voters. Aberdeen Council business is restricted to local policy issues and these are not subject to the whims of referenda.”

In 2014 Crockett circulated a Unionist political letter, (using Council finance)  promoting “Better Together” rejecting independence.  It said: said, “Aberdeen is stronger now and will be stronger in the future – as a partner within the United Kingdom.”

He failed to note that Aberdeen’s safety, (from the policies of Westminster politicians) is guaranteed by oil and energy whilst the rest of Scotland gets weaker suffering the ravages of increasingly right wing governments, based in the city/state of London whose only interest in  Scotland is the revenue it gathers from its colony to the North

Barney Crockett epitomizes everything that is wrong with the Unionists. The public votes but the Con/Lab council decides. It is their way or the highway. What a sad city led by a bunch of self serving  bunch of incompetent opportunists. Read the full report:

https://caltonjock.com/2014/09/01/barney-rubble-crockett-labour-leader-aberdeen-city-council-i-do-it-my-way-if-you-dont-like-it-tough-live-with-it/

Barney and friend Unionists together in Harmony

2014: Mafia Tightens Its Grip on Aberdeen

Aberdeen is a “mafia Stronghold” for a notorious crime syndicate which controls swathes of the city’s economy, according to a new report from the European Union organisation “Transcrime” who advised that the Naples-based Camorra crime organisation, linked with many killings, in Europe maintains a stronghold in catering, retail, transport finance and property sectors in Aberdeen.

An Unconcerned Barney Crockett said; “I think the attraction of Aberdeen is that they can swap over a lot of (laundered)  money without trace, because Aberdeen is a thriving business environment. But I am totally confident that there is no involvement in public works of any description.”

Comment:

Dream on Barney!!!What about the sale of city property at knock-down prices to Antonio La Torre and Michele Siciliano.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/mafia-tightens-its-grip-on-aberdeen-1-3516206

Nicola Sturgeon’s Speech at the Doors of Westminster

“The SNP will be the principled opposition in this place to the Conservative government. The SNP has worked long and hard in this election to make Scotland’s voice heard. To have people in Scotland in such overwhelming numbers put their trust in us is fantastic, but also is a big responsibility. We are determined to make Scotland’s voice heard here in Westminster, but we are also determined to be that voice for progressive politics that we promised to be during the election. To stand up to policies from a Conservative government that will damage Scotland and to make common cause with others of like mind from across the UK.”

No mention of independence from a Party leader who preferred set the tone by committing the Party to the promotion of progressive politics. Whatever that meant!!!

Beguiled by Westminster Largesse

The House of Commons is a comfortable place to be. The terrace bar, with Big Ben bonging into the night, has the best view in London: to the left, the soaring faux-gothic buttresses of the Palace of Westminster, to the right the London Eye, straight ahead a scene of double-decker buses crossing Westminster bridge. It’s like the opening scene of a Hollywood film set in London. And all around, arresting sights such as Michael Gove drinking heavily subsidised white wine and large groups of men (Tories? Maybe not…) getting in the even cheaper champagne it’s the best workplace ever. There’s a ton of bars and restaurants where MPs hang out at all times of the working day. SNP MPs have colonised the Sports and Social Club, which is where a lot of the parliamentary staff go, and which has a karaoke night. And there are always colleagues around to gossip with. People keep having conversations about “the Tories’ evil plan”, which I only belatedly realise is actually their EVEL plan.  It’s only been a couple of months, but the consensus is that the SNP MP’s are fully institutionalised and chastised where needed. Firmly in the past is the “clap-gate” incident when – instead of uttering “hear hear” at something they agreed with, as if they were 18th-century landowners – they broke into the new fangled concept: applause. The Daily Mail piped in: “Show some respect! Furious Speaker Bercow rebuked new Scots Nat’s MPs for breaking strict Commons protocol by clapping during the Queen’s Speech debate.” Portrayed by the Unionist Press as ignorant ruffians unworthy of a seat in  the Commons they now comply with all parliamentary traditions and procedures. (Carole Cadwalladr)

The Commons sews its seeds in all who enter it. In an instant raw politicians are made to feel they are no longer simply human. They are “special”.  Accompanying their large salary there is a budget for staff hire, generous allowances affording the lease or purchase of luxury accommodation in the most expensive capital city in the World, travel and subsistence and other allowances totalling well in excess of £150 annually. Head spinning stuff!!! Its beguiling influence is addictive and its destructive power has compromised many SNP MP’s who first went there in 2015.

The Westminster trap – another view

You go there full of cocksure rebelliousness. Stupid rules – who cares about the rules. You get into fights in the playground with the older boys, and take no crap about clapping in assembly. But “Westmonster” as some SNP people call the UK Parliament, has been around a long time. It has seen off socialists like Keir Hardie – who caused outrage because he wore a deer-stalker to parliament. It dealt with Parnell’s Irish nationalists, with Suffragettes, Militant Tendency and grade-A parliamentary delinquents like our own Alex Salmond, the first MP to disrupt a Budget Speech in 1988. And it’s still there, with all its fripperies and anachronisms, like the cloak room hook to hold the Hon Member’s sword. The Palace of Westminster is a powerful institution which uses its own often archaic rules and conventions as a means of diffusing political discontent. You see it with Scotland’s MPs. Suddenly they are wearing ties and suits, speaking respectfully to Mr Speaker, agreeing not to clap and promising to be “good parliamentarians”. (Iain McWhirter)

The Sewel Convention Con Trick

The Sewel Convention, under which Westminster supposedly refrains from ruling on devolved issues without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, is froth, mince, tripe, baloney and codswallop. It has no legal force. The clause in the 2016 Scotland Act, which supposedly placed Sewel on a “statutory footing”, was just there to fool the natives into thinking their Parliament’s powers were “entrenched” and irreversible. Holyrood’s legislative powers are clearly and explicitly on loan from Westminster and liable to be over-ridden as and when the UK Government chooses. No one will believe a word UK ministers say in future about the powers and constitutional standing of Holyrood; not that many of us did in the past. (Iain McWhirter)

English Votes for English Legislation (EVEL)

English Votes for English Legislation (EVEL) breached the fundamental principle that all members of the house are equal . Non-English MPs, by Commons convention, no longer vote on “English” bills. This means that Scottish MPs are excluded from whole areas of legislation where they are denied a vote. A change slipped through by parliamentary sleight of hand and the English Grand Committee will gradually extend its influence. But the Scottish Government opposes the change because many supposedly “English” bills on the NHS or income tax, have financial consequences for Scotland. It also means that Scottish MPs are second-class citizens. 

Gerrymandering the Scotland Bill

Scotland’s only Tory MP and Secretary of State for Scotland, Mundell, proposed 80 technical amendments to the Scotland Bill , stating: “some are amendments in terms of the usual changing of commas and apostrophes and these sort of things. However, the bulk of them relate to technical procedures and a rearranging of previous proposals. In three cases the amendments will reserve additional powers to Westminster. Under clause 43, the Scottish Parliament will not be able to raise levies on postal operators, electricity or gas for the purpose of funding consumer advocacy.” 

Scotland Bill: the 3rd reading at Westminster Allocated 6 hours of debate to decide on 253 amendments.

The Scotland Bill was rushed through without adequate discussion before SNP MPs parked their bums on the green benches of the House of Commons ensuring that the legislation would be on the statute books well before the next Holyrood elections. The bill  as it stands is a stitch-up and places a fiscal time bomb under Holyrood.

SNP Welfare Improvements Rejected

Proposed amendments to the Scotland Bill submitted by the SNP giving the Scottish Parliament the power to design its own welfare system were rejected by the Unionists.  Unionist politician and Scottish Secretary Mundell insisted that the Unionist’s stance was fully in accordance with the Smith Commission’s recommendations.  The rejection came after the Unionists also voted against proposals from the SNP for an “Economic Agreement” between Westminster and Holyrood  which would eventually lead to full fiscal autonomy. They also voted against a proposal for an independent commission to examine the effects of full fiscal autonomy. Responding,  Angus Robertson MP said: “This is typical Unionist arrogance. Mundell, the only Tory MP from Scotland arrogantly refuses to listen to the representatives of the people of Scotland and supported by his Unionist colleagues vetoed without reason or explanation every single proposal submitted by the SNP.  And this at a time of savage cuts to the welfare state by Unionists causing real hurt to hard working families and vulnerable people, forcing hardship on and driving increasing numbers of Scots to food banks. Welfare powers should be transferred to Scotland honouring the spirit of the 3 Party Leaders’ Pledge to the people of Scotland  just before the Scottish Independence Referendum.”

It is Time to Boycott Westminster

I monitored debates, discussions and voting in the House of Commons from the time the 2015 General Election landslide which returned 56 SNP MP’s. Day after day the SNP group took their places on the benches and participated in fruitless discussions and debates. Their presence in the Commons was mocked, abused and ridiculed by the Speaker and Unionist politicians who protected their vested interest by ensuring the SNP group were side-lined and rendered irrelevant. The response from the SNP contingent should be to withdraw participation from all business of the Commons including committees. This should be done while retaining all rights and privileges (office, travel subsistence, staff, etc) the right of MP’s.  The boycott of the House of Commons would enable SNP MP’s to spend more time in Westminster resolving their constituents problems and concerns. The foregoing could be implemented without any financial detriment to the Westminster SNP group. Political business between Scotland and Westminster would then be completed through the offices of the Scottish First Minister (advised by the MP group), who would be permitted permanent use of a committee room at Holyrood.

The Chilcot Report – Millions of words without meaning – Philppe Sands catalogues the report’s criticisms of Blair and points to its failings:

“Yet the inquiry has chosen to hold back on what caused the multitude of errors: was it negligence, or recklessness, or something else? In so doing it has created a space for Blair and the others who stood with him to protest that they acted in good faith, without deceit or lies. To get a sense of how this space was created requires a very thorough reading of the report. But two techniques can be identified immediately.

First, the inquiry has engaged in salami-slicing, assessing cause and motive in individual moments without stepping back and examining the whole. The whole makes clear that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein and wage war in Iraq was taken early, and that intelligence and law were then fixed to facilitate the desired outcome.

On legal matters, Blair manipulated the process, forcing the attorney general to give legal advice at the last possible moment, with troops already massed and a coalition ready to roll. He would have known that Goldsmith was less likely at that stage to have said that war would be illegal. […] Second, on the basis of material I have seen but isn’t in the public domain, I believe the inquiry may have been excessively generous in its characterisation of evidence.” Philppe Sands

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/philippe-sands/a-grand-and-disastrous-deceit

No Prosecution of Blair over Iraq

A prosecution of Tony Blair for a ‘crime of aggression’ over the military invasion of Iraq in March 2003 has never been on the cards. A report is still awaited from the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on whether preliminary examination of new evidence (e.g. with the Chilcot Report) may result in Blair’s prosecution for complicity in crimes over the conduct of the war and occupation. The domestic common law crime of ‘misconduct in public office’ offers scope for prosecution.

For this to proceed, an indictment must be prepared by the Crown Prosecution Service. A police investigation is first necessary to produce a file or charge sheet with evidence from which an indictment can be made.

What might a charge sheet for this offence look like for Tony Blair. Areas of the decision process which initiated the military invasion for potential examples of ‘breaches of duty’, resulting in serious betrayal of public trust, from which the offence of misconduct may be applied.

http://www.iraqinquirydigest.org/

 
Kofi Annan – Un Secretary General The Iraq War was illegal

All of this confirms the conclusion of former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who resolutely stated about the US invasion of Iraq in 2004:

“I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal.”

(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq)

 
Downing Street Memos Revealed

Pressure is being applied by MP’s insisting that the Chilcot report be published in full before the end of February. It might be further delaying tactics will be put in place with the purpose of burying the report until after the GE in May. In terms of actions taken or not by a number of persons of note there is a definitive record available for study from which it is possible to apportion events and authority. Ignore the hype, check the facts. Go to:  http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

Top Bush Era CIA Official – Iraq War Was Based On Lies:

Twelve years after George W Bush initiated the illegal invasion of Iraq, ostensibly under the premise of pre-emptive self-defence, a stark majority — as many as 75% in 2014 — feel the so-called war was a mistake.

As evidence rapidly accumulates that Bush’s yearning to launch an aggressive attack was likelier due to a personal grudge than anything else, that number will surely swell. Indeed the former president’s intelligence briefer lent yet more plausibility to that theory in an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball, making an admission that the Bush White House misrepresented intelligence reports to the public on key issues.

Michael Morell’s stint with the CIA included deputy and acting director. During the time preceding the US invasion of Iraq, he helped prepare daily intelligence briefings for Bush. One of those briefings, from October 2002, is an infamous example in intelligence history as how not to compile a report.

The National Intelligence Estimate, titled “Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction”, (https://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf ) was the ostensibly flawed intelligence cited continuously by Bush supporters as justification to pursue a war of aggression against Iraq. However, this claim is dubious at best, and serves more as a smokescreen to lend credence to a president who was otherwise hell-bent on revenge against Saddam Hussein, as evidenced in his statement a month before the report, “After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”

In the Hardball interview, host Chris Matthews asked Morell about Cheney’s notorious statement in 2003:

“We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
(http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/fmr-cia-deputy-director-grilled-on-iraq-war-447888451643)

Bush and Cheney Misled the American Public

The question most deserving an answer, and increasingly posed by the populace at large: If George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and others in the administration, deliberately misled the public on false pretences, directly contradicted intelligence information through misrepresentation, and ultimately initiated a wholly illegal invasion of Iraq that led to the deaths of well over 1 million civilian, non-combatants. WHY have they not been charged with war crimes?

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-iraq-war-was-based-on-lies-top-bush-era-cia-official/5451817)

 
Morrel (reporting direct to President Bush confirmed:

“What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community” had found. “I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war.” Which the administration had to do, considering no such case existed.

As a matter of fact, Cheney’s statement directly conflicts with what the NIE actually stated, which is that the intelligence community only found a “[lack of] persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.” Which is in line with the International Atomic Energy Agency report that came to the same conclusion: “[W]e have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program.”

(https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/status-nuclear-inspections-iraq)

REVEALED: The very cosy friendship between Iraq inquiry chief and Tony Blair – who knighted him after private meeting in London club

Sir John Chilcot met Tony Blair in 1997 when he was leader of Opposition

Blair and Chilcot had a clandestine encounter five months before Blair became prime minister

They worked closely together on the Northern Ireland peace process

Chilcot was then knighted by a grateful Blair into the Order of the Bath

When Blair first appeared before the Iraq inquiry five years ago, the chairman Sir John Chilcot treated him with almost painful deference.

This Report Provides Damming Evidence of a Westminster Fix (Carefully Constructed and Purposely Subjected to Extensive Delays)

Chilcot, a crumpled figure whose opening remarks lasted seven minutes, never laid a glove on Blair, even though the former prime minister gave evidence for more than six hours.

What few people know is that the bumbling Chilcot, a retired career civil servant, could, in fact, have greeted Blair as an old friend. The first time they met in 1997 — when Blair was still leader of the Opposition — was in a far more sedate environment. They dined together in the venerable Travellers Club in Pall Mall, where Chilcot is a member. The meeting was so discreet it would have remained a secret but for a single sentence in a 2008 book by Blair’s former Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell, called Great Hatred, Little Room, Making Peace In Northern Ireland.

At the time of the meeting, John Chilcot was the most senior civil servant at the Northern Ireland Office. He had agreed to the clandestine encounter with Blair almost five months before the Labour leader became prime minister.

Civil servants often meet Opposition politicians for briefings in the run-up to elections, but they are usually held in Whitehall departments, where minutes are taken. Yet Chilcot had agreed to meet Blair in the club, which was founded in 1819 for ‘gentlemen who travelled abroad’, thereby ensuring it was not made public.

After Blair became prime minister, he worked closely with Chilcot on the Northern Ireland peace process, until the mandarin took early retirement at the end of 1997. Chilcot was then knighted by a grateful Blair into the Order of the Bath, the fourth most senior order of British chivalry.

But even after he retired from the Civil Service, Chilcot never really left the corridors of power — he has now worked in Whitehall for 50 years — taking on a series of roles on any number of public committees, often at the behest of the Blair administration.

When Lord Butler was asked to set up an inquiry in 2004 into the role of the intelligence services in the Iraq war, Blair chose the members of the inquiry’s five-strong committee. Surprise, surprise, Chilcot was one of the first people asked to serve on it by the Labour prime minister.

When it reported, the Butler inquiry was widely derided. Though it provided devastating evidence that Downing Street, with the collusion of intelligence chiefs, ‘sexed up’ the threat to the British people from Saddam Hussein before going to war, it concluded that no one should be held responsible. In short, it let Blair off the hook.

In 2009, when Gordon Brown appointed Chilcot to lead his own wide-ranging inquiry into the war, military leaders as well as senior lawyers and politicians were furious that it was to be held behind closed doors.

Major General Julian Thompson, who was highly decorated for his command of the Royal Marines in the Falklands, warned: ‘A report from a secret inquiry will look like a whitewash.’ The Tories forced — and lost — a Commons vote on who should make up the inquiry team, complaining they were ageing patsies who were not up to the job. Political pressure did, however, mean the inquiry was not held in secret.

There was genuine scepticism that Chilcot, a former civil servant who had spent his entire working life immersed in the machinery of government, had the temperament to ask the forensic questions necessary to unravel an Establishment cover-up over the war.

Philippe Sands, QC, who works at Matrix Chambers, the human rights firm set up by Cherie Blair, was one of the first to call into question the choice of Chilcot. Now professor of international law at University College, London, Mr Sands said: ‘It is not immediately apparent that he will have the backbone to take on former government ministers. ‘What was it about his role in the Butler inquiry that caused the prime minister to conclude he was suitable? Some who have worked closely with him, including on the Butler inquiry, fear he is not the right person. ‘Someone who has seen him first-hand described his approach as one of “obvious deference to governmental authority”.

This is a view I have heard repeated several times. More troubling is evidence I have seen for myself.’ Sands was not impressed by Chilcot’s questioning at the Butler inquiry of Lord Goldsmith, who was Attorney General at the time of the Iraq war and who, under pressure, had changed his original judgement that the war was illegal. He said: ‘Sir John’s spoon-fed questions give every impression of being designed to elicit a response from the Attorney General that would demonstrate the reasonableness of his actions and those of the government.’

When it came to Chilcot’s own inquiry, held in a small cramped room in a grey conference centre in Westminster, there have been similar shortcomings — quite apart from the disgracefully protracted nature of the proceedings. According to former senior BBC journalist Rod Liddle, when former Washington ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer was before the panel he became utterly bored with ‘charming, learned and polite knighted people asking the gentlest of questions’.

Then there was the moment in 2011 — two years after the inquiry had begun — when John Chilcot turned up in the audience at the premiere of a play about the build-up to the Iraq war. It was written by Sarah Helm, whose partner is Jonathan Powell, the most important official in the Downing Street ‘kitchen Cabinet’ during the war.

In one scene, the actor playing Blair had a conversation with Sir Richard Dearlove, the then head of MI6, about intelligence issues relating to the war. Despite having interrogated Blair and Dearlove, Chilcot had never unearthed the existence of this particular conversation.

After seeing the play, he demanded more files from Whitehall, which confirmed it really had taken place. In truth, the play seems to have shed more light on the reasons Britain went to war than Chilcot’s blustering. He is, it is fair to say, a rather dry old stick.

Born in 1939, he was privately educated at £31,000-a-year Brighton College and then Pembroke College, Cambridge, where he studied English and modern and medieval languages. An avid reader, he claims to love learning new words and once said he would take The Oxford English Dictionary in 12 volumes as his reading matter to a desert island.

He married his wife Rosemary, an artist, in 1964. They have no children. The couple used to live in a £1.3 million farm in Haslemere, Surrey, but now divide their time between a £500,000 property in Somerset and a two-bedroom flat in Westminster bought without a mortgage in 2012 as the Chilcot inquiry was beginning to drag on.

After spells in a variety of posts in the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, he ended up at the Northern Ireland Office at the start of the peace process. Even though Tory Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Brooke had opened a confidential dialogue with the IRA and Sinn Fein, Chilcot, a key figure in the talks, authorised a statement describing allegations in the media of negotiations with the IRA as a ‘fantasy’.

When a Sunday newspaper produced detailed evidence that the talks were at an advanced stage, he telephoned the editor to try to persuade him to put a ‘gloss’ on the news. Once asked what was his proudest achievement, Chilcot said: ‘Northern Ireland. Helping the transition from war to peace.’

After he left Belfast, Chilcot moved seamlessly into a series of government-appointed posts, chairing inquiries into the voting system and royal security, as well as into an IRA raid. Last week, it was reported he has been known to spend only seven or eight hours a week in his Westminster office on the Iraq inquiry. If true, it’s little wonder.

A fully paid-up member of the Establishment, he also finds time to chair the Advisory Committee of the Centre for Contemporary British History, he is a member of the Institute of Historical Research Advisory Council and is President of the Police Foundation, an independent think-tank. He’s chairman of the Building and Civil Engineering Group and a member of the National Archives Council. One Tory MP said: ‘He is serving on endless well-meaning committees and public bodies. So when does he have the time to do the Iraq work?’

With the costs of the inquiry soaring to £10 million plus, and Chilcot and his three fellow panel members earning a reputed £1.5 million from it, this lifelong mandarin has acquired a new nickname among civil servants. The codename for the initial British and American bombing raids on Iraq back in 2003 was ‘Shock And Awe’; they have dubbed Chilcot ‘block and bore’.

To be fair, Sir Christopher Meyer says Sir John Chilcot is a victim of the limited power of the inquiry’s terms of reference. ‘When Downing Street set up the inquiry into phone-hacking at newspapers it was a judicial inquiry led by a judge, Lord Justice Leveson,’ he said. ‘The Leveson inquiry had powers to compel witnesses to appear and to answer all questions put to them. Chilcot does not have that power. A judge should be running this inquiry, not a retired civil servant.’

Few of Chilcot’s former colleagues in Whitehall expect him to rock the boat when the report eventually comes out. ‘He is a safe pair of hands who is close to some of the key players in the inquiry. It’s why he got the job,’ says another diplomat. ‘He’s also 76 — not exactly a spring chicken — and is clearly slowing down.’

Chilcot, a private figure who eschews publicity, gave a rare interview in 2011 to The Old Brightonians, the magazine of his former school. Asked the most challenging parts of the job, he replied: ‘Keeping steady judgement when sailing through troubled waters.’ He was also pressed on what was the best advice he had ever been given. He replied: ‘Try your best at things you’re not good at.’ Hardly reassuring words for the families still waiting to hear why their loved ones died in the catastrophe that was the Iraq war. Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3198799/The-cosy-friendship-inquiry-chief-Tony-Blair.html#ixzz4WYpxe8WC

The Armed Forces Covenant

An Enduring Covenant Between The People of the United Kingdom Her Majesty’s Government – and – All those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown And their Families

The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm. Our Armed Forces fulfil that responsibility on behalf of the Government, sacrificing some civilian freedoms, facing danger and, sometimes, suffering serious injury or death as a result of their duty.

Families also play a vital role in supporting the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces. In return, the whole nation has a moral obligation to the members of the Naval Service, the Army and the Royal Air Force, together with their families. They deserve our respect and support, and fair treatment.

Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most such as the injured and the bereaved.

This obligation involves the whole of society: it includes voluntary and charitable bodies, private organisations, and the actions of individuals in supporting the Armed Forces. Recognising those who have performed military duty unites the country and demonstrates the value of their contribution. This has no greater expression than in upholding this Covenant.

The Armed Forces of Scotland

This blog is a follow up to information I posted around 18 months ago. The purpose of my writing is to give readers a reminder of the “Forces Covenant” between government and the Armed Forces passed into statute by Westminster.

The legislation requires that high priority should be given to providing first class welfare, housing, medical, and psychiatric care to our young men and women, casualties of wars (in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theatres of conflict) to which they were deployed and their families that suffered so much at the hands of Labour and Tory politicians in the last 25 years. In one year only (2015) did our Armed Forces report a nil fatality at the hands of enemy forces.

My observations of newsworthy events relating to the care of ex-service personnel (veterans), casualties left with horrendous disabilities and families disadvantaged  by poor housing, long periods of unnecessary separation (in the 18 months since I last wrote to the subject) is that the government is not honouring the “Forces Covenant.”

Many serving soldiers, veterans and casualties are disillusioned and stressed by combat and separation from their families and need help but in the macho environment of the forces the weak are shunned. So bravado rules and many turn first to alcohol, progressing to recreational then hard drugs attempting to erase debilitating memories and weariness. And, if/when identified as drug takers (albeit weekender users only) they are castigated and discharged from the forces with the stigma of shame attached to their service record.

Dumped onto the scrapheap their future is hardly full of promise and correctional care systems need to be put in place so that highly trained young men can be rehabilitated and returned to duty. Hells teeth!!!! the military commanders created the problems and are honour bound to care for service personnel.

The other matter needing addressed is the number of forces personnel required to fulfil their duties of protecting their country. The last formal review of requirements in Scotland (by a cross party group) Indicated the Army in Scotland should comprise 8 regular battalions of 650 pers = 5200.

The numbers of front-line soldiers have been reduced by successive governments (attempting to save money.) Such policies cannot be justified given the number of senior military and civil service staff serving out their time in highly paid jobs in Whitehall. Establishment numbers in Whitehall were established in the reign of Queen Victoria!!!!  A cull in that place would release many millions of pounds to the Ministry of Defence and allow an expansion of  the infantry in Scotland.

At the time of writing  the Royal Regiment of Scotland (RRS) comprises 4 battalions of around 550 = 2200. Recruitment and retention is poor with result that rotation to operational duty is well beyond that which is acceptable (see General Dannatt’s memo). So nothing changes. The infantry is still being flogged.

https://caltonjock.com/2015/03/01/heros-or-cannon-fodder-valued-or-abused-easy-living-or-overstretched-reduce-or-increase-political-playthings-or-saviours-of-the-nation/

The Royal Regiment of Scotland

The Regiment was formed in 2006, as part of a reduction in Army strength following a strategic review of armed forces commitments by the Labour Government.

Scottish soldiers on active service in Afghanistan were issued with their redundancy notices and were advised of changes in Regimental configurations. A body blow to the Regimental system nurtured by Scotland for 300 years and more. New Regiments were formed each with a reduced establishment size reflecting the new, much smaller British Army. At a time when the workload of the army was intolerable. Gordon Brown even reduced the post of Defence Secretary to part -time. The new Regiments and their operational deployment comprise:

1 Scots (Royal Scots and Kings Own Scottish Borderers): Operational Deployment Iraq 2006 and Afghanistan 2012. One Company (140 pers) deployed to Kabul, Afghanistan 2015. In a four month tour of duty, they will provide protection to NATO advisers mentoring several Afghan Security institutions critical to Afghanistan’s future.

2 Scots (Royal Highland Fusiliers): Completed two operational tours Iraq (2005) and twice to Afghanistan (2008 2015) In Kabul, Deployed to Afghanistan in 2015 supporting the training of the Afghan National Army, and protection of Kabul Security Forces and UK and NATO personnel in the city.

3 Scots (Black Watch): Completed two operational tours in Iraq (2003 2004) and two tours in Afghanistan.

4 Scots. (Queens Own Highlanders and Gordon Highlanders): Deployed twice to Iraq (2005 and 2008) and three times to Afghanistan (2008 with one company, 2011 and 2014). The regiment was the last Scottish Battalion to deploy on combat operations to Afghanistan, protecting the Battle-group Headquarters and training the Afghan National Army.

5 Scots (Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders): Completed operational tour of Balkans 2005 and Afghanistan 2008. Currently deployed with 2 SCOTS In Kabul, Afghanistan supporting the training of the Afghan National Army, and protection of Kabul Security Forces and UK and NATO personnel in the city.

Recruitment and Retention
The Regiment should have five battalions of 500 to 600 men, (3000 personnel) but recruitment went into sharp decline around 2006 resulting in a significant shortfall from which the regiment has not recovered.

General Dannatt

This is a summary of General Dannatt’s (Chief of the General Staff) Warning to Gordon Brown That Reinforcements For Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan Were ‘Now Almost Non-Existent’

The head of the Army has issued a dire warning that Britain has almost run out of troops to defend the country or fight abroad, a secret document has revealed.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt has told senior commanders that reinforcements for emergencies or for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan are “now almost non-existent”.

In the memorandum to fellow defence leaders, the Chief of the General Staff (CGS) confessed that “we now have almost no capability to react to the unexpected”.

The “undermanned” Army now has all its units committed to either training for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, on leave or on operations. There is just one battalion of 500 troops, called the Spearhead Lead Element, available to be used in an emergency, such as a major domestic terrorist attack or a rapid deployment overseas.

Gen Dannatt’s comments will come as the first serious test of Gordon Brown’s policy on defence. The new Prime Minister has already faced anger over the decision to give Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, the additional part-time role of Scottish Secretary with Tories labelling the move “an insult to our Armed Forces.”

Military leaders have privately suggested that a defence review is essential to examine if more money, equipment and troops are needed. With Britain’s military reserve locker virtually empty, further pressure will mount on President George W Bush to review US troop levels in Iraq after fellow Republicans suggesting significant withdrawals. It also comes at a time when more forces are needed to combat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the lack of reserves was “an appalling situation and damning indictment” of the way the Government handled the Services. “They are being asked to carry out tasks for which they are neither funded or equipped for. There is an urgent need to review our strategic approach because we cannot continue over-stretching our Forces.”

The document said that Britain’s second back-up unit, called the Airborne Task Force formed around the Parachute Regiment, was unavailable. It was unable to fully deploy “due to shortages in manpower, equipment and stocks”.

Most of the Paras’ vehicles and weapons have stayed in Afghanistan with other units using them in intense battles against the Taliban. Parachute Regiment officers are deeply concerned that with nearly all their equipment abroad they are unable to train properly for future operations.

The Paras also no longer have the ability to parachute as a 600-strong battalion because no RAF planes were available to drop then en-masse, the document said. The situation was unlikely to be resolved until late August.

With the Army significantly under-strength by 3,500 troops – many disillusioned with being constantly on dangerous operations and away from their families – it is now struggling to plug the gaps on the front-line. “The enduring nature and scale of current operations continues to stretch people,” Gen Dannatt wrote.

The Army now needed to “augment” 2,500 troops from other units onto operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring up the total force to 13,000 required. This remained “far higher than we ever assumed,” the CGS said. “When this is combined with the effects of under-manning (principally in the infantry and Royal Artillery) and the pace of training support needed to prepare units for operations, the tempo of life in the Field Army is intense.”

The Army has also been forced to call up almost 1,000 Territorial Army soldiers for overseas operations. The general’s concerns came after three RAF personnel were killed in a mortar or rocket attack on the main British headquarters five miles outside Basra bringing the total dead in Iraq to 162.

With the main force pulling out of Basra city to the air station in the coming months there is concern of increased attacks on the large base where some troops are forced to live in tented accommodation.

A lack of vehicles meant that “training is significantly constrained”. Gen Dannatt was also “concerned” that some equipment, particularly Scimitar light tanks that are vital to fighting in Afghanistan but are 40 years old, “may be at the edge of their sustainability”.

More needed to be done on housing and pay in order to retained troops because “people are more likely to stay if we look after them properly”.

The pressure on numbers was partially being alleviated by bringing in civilian firms to train soldiers and guard bases and by “adopting a pragmatic approach to risk where possible”. While the current situation was “manageable” Gen Dannatt was “very concerned about the longer term implications of the impact of this level of operations on our people, equipment and future operational capability”.

It is not the first time Gen Dannatt has raised concerns on Britain’s fighting ability. A few weeks into his job last year, Sir Richard said the military was “running hot” and urged for a national debate on defence. The plain-speaking officer later suggested that the British presence in Iraq was “exacerbating the security problems” and warned that the Army would “break” if it was kept there too long.

Gen Dannatt, who said manning was “critical” in the Army, called for extra infantry units earlier this month following the devastating cuts inflicted by his predecessor Gen Sir Mike Jackson which saw four battalions axed.

“General Dannatt’s appraisal means that we are unable to intervene if there is an emergency in Britain or elsewhere, that’s self-evident,” a senior officer said. “But this is a direct result of the decision to go into Afghanistan on the assumption that Iraq would diminish simultaneously. We are now reaping the reward of that assumption.”

8 February 2016: UK Labour Government Gambled With Armed Forces Mental Health Over Iraq & Afghanistan – Chilcot Report Reveals

Multiple wars fought at the same time saw the British government risking soldiers mental health by ignoring their own guidelines on repeated, back-to-back deployments. The report found that so-called ‘harmony guidelines’ were ignored or broken due to the heightened operational tempo of fighting two parallel wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The report found that: “The government’s decision to contribute a military force to a US-led invasion of Iraq inevitably increased the risk that more service personnel would be put in breach of the harmony guidelines. The issue of the potential pressure on service personnel was not a consideration in the decision.”

The 2006 deployment to Helmand Province in Southern Afghanistan merely compounded the impact on troops, it was found, with further breaches of the guidelines taking place. Figures now show that thousands of troops were placed at breaking point in the course of the wars.

In 2004 alone the rules were broken for as much as 18 percent of the 28,000 army troops fighting in Iraq. That is the health and well-being of an estimated 5,000 troops being violated by their political masters (the Labour government.) and the guidelines continued to be ignored throughout the course of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. RAF personnel were also abused by the UK government who broke the rules for between 2 and 10 percent of the 7,000 airmen it deployed between 2002 and 2009.

The rules had previously been put in place by statute to protect service personnel from the excesses of politicians who were warned by expert witnesses that evidence indicated that compliance ensured service personnel did not suffer but breaching them would endanger the health of service personnel incurring a 20 -50 percent chance that they will suffer in terms of PTSD.

In the last 5 years there has been an epidemic of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). In March 2016 it was reported that desperate calls to a helpline used by serving and former military personnel had surged by 85 percent.

The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA) advised that many callers have problems with mental health, work, housing and relationships. The charity said the rise reflected the stress military personnel and their families are under.

A February report by MoD Statistics claimed more than 10,000 physical wounds were sustained by British military personnel during the Afghan war and that psychological injury remains rife among UK veterans who have returned home. 

 ” https://www.rt.com/uk/350167-troops-mental-health-risked/”

Killed and Wounded – British Casualties – Iraq (2003-2009)

Fatalities: 179

Very-Seriously Injured: 73

Seriously Injured:149

Field-Hospital Admissions: 3,598

Aero-medical evacuations: 1,971

Totals: 5,970

“http://www.casualty-monitor.org/p/iraq.html”

179 Fatalities of the Iraq War
Killed or Wounded – Afghanistan (2002-2015)

Fatalities: As at 24 July 2015 there were 454 fatalities of British Forces personnel including Ministry of Defence (MoD) civilians.

The vast majority of fatalities occurred in consequence of the deployment of British forces to the Taliban stronghold of Helmand province.The Army incurred the heaviest losses, with 362 fatalities as of 1 May 2013. Typically those killed were aged between 20 and 29.

Afghanistan War fatalities
Casualties: In the period 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2013 centrally available records show that:

2,116 UK military and civilian personnel were admitted to UK Field Hospitals and categorised as Wounded in Action, including as a result of hostile action.

4,529 UK military and civilian personnel were admitted to UK Field Hospitals for disease or non-battle injuries.

293 UK personnel were categorised as Very Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.

298 UK personnel were categorised as Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.

6,663 UK personnel were aeromedically evacuated from Afghanistan on medical grounds.
“http://www.casualty-monitor.org/p/british-casualties-in-afghanistan.html”

Soldiers of 3 SCOTS (The Black Watch) and 1 PWRR prepare a fellow soldier for an inbound MEDEVAC helicopter. Private Stephen Bainbridge, aged 25, from Kirkcaldy who was gravely wounded after an IED explosion traumatically amputated his right leg and damaged his left so badly that it too later had to be amputated. His life was saved by the swift actions of Cpl John Goodie (21) a medic with 1 PWRR (The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment) who applied tourniquets and first field dressings to get the bleeding under control. Private Chis Watson (21) also assisted in the treatment whilst reassuring the casualty and keeping him alert and responsive. Once safely on board the helicopter he was rushed to surgery at Bastion Field Hospital. Loya Manda, Nad e Ali, Helmand Province, Afghanistan on the 11th of November 2011.

Drug Abuse in the British Armed Forces: 2016

It has been revealed that nearly 1,000 members of the UK Armed Forces were busted for using illegal drugs in 2016, a year-on-year leap of almost a third.

In all, the figures, obtained via freedom of information laws, equate to roughly three service people testing positive for illicit substances such as illegal steroids, cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy on a daily basis:

The Navy: Offenders increased from 30 to 50.

The Royal Air Force: Offenders increased from 40 to 80.

The Army: Offenders increased from 570 to 730. (more individuals than make up an entire infantry regiment.

The Royal Regiment of Scotland had 90 failures.

The Royal Engineers had 110 failures.

The Foot Guards, Based in London (completing ceremonial duties at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle) were among the worst with 80 offenders.

The UK armed forces claims to have a zero-tolerance policy in respect of illegal drug use, with any personnel caught taking drugs subject to immediate discharge,

But 2015’s figures indicate a shortfall in the number of dishonourable discharges versus the amount of drug offences detected. It’s unclear whether disciplinary hearings in the other cases are yet to begin, are ongoing, or whether mitigating circumstances prevented offenders from being sacked.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson is reported to have said that compulsory drug tests were regularly conducted, and only around 0.3 percent of the UK Armed Forces failed them.

There is Growing Concern Over the Ever Increasing Numbers of Serving Personnel and Veterans Presenting with PTSD and Other Health Issues and  Assistance Should be Provided to Young Scottish Men and Women of Our Armed Forces Presenting With Problems

Alcohol Abuse in the Armed Forces

Alcohol abuse is an inescapable reality for many who serve in the armed forces. The prevalence of alcohol in the military, with its associated rituals and camaraderie, is well known. Overall alcohol is used and abused more frequently and in higher doses than in civilian life and this amplifies its negative effects both for men and women. These include drunkenness, fighting and abuse, poisoning, injury, hangovers, dependency and addiction. A service member who has a drinking problem is a major cause of concern in the military. The armed forces loses good and well-trained troops to the effects of alcohol abuse.

Drug Abuse in the Armed Forces

The use of illegal drugs is a very serious offence for anyone serving in the armed forces – as there is often a zero tolerance approach, but illegal drug abuse still accounts for a high number of discharges from the military . The growing use of legal highs and the illegal use of prescription drugs is of increasing concern to military health chiefs.

Prescription drugs

There have been huge increases in prescription drug use and abuse within the military in recent years. Anti-depressants, sedatives, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety are all routinely prescribed, and in some cases troops have to be trusted to self-regulate their intake for months at a time. Prescription drug abuse almost tripled between 2005 and 2008 . Suicide rates in the military and amongst veterans is a growing .

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in the Military

The nature of military life is closely linked to traumatic episodes. These traumatic episodes need to be processed and dealt with internally by individuals. However, the nature of combat duty, or the routine and duties of a military lifestyle, can often lead to these issues being avoided. This in turn can lead to problems of isolation, depression and severe anxiety, which overwhelm the individual’s ability to cope. These symptoms will often develop over time, and if they persist then a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is likely. Spontaneous recovery from PTSD is possible, but for a significant proportion, the disorder becomes chronic and needs specialist treatment.

Addiction & P.T.S.D.

The link between alcohol or drug abuse and trauma is very close. Before attempting to treat a patient with PTSD, their drinking habits should be known by their clinician, as trauma cannot be processed by individuals who are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. It is also true that when assessing a serviceman or woman for addictive disease, their clinician will often need to assess them for trauma too.

Veterans

A veteran soldier returning to civilian life with a drinking problem is a major concern for the family, community and society. Statistics are lacking in the UK because of the poor tracking of veterans. but it is calculated from other data that approximately 60% of armed forces veterans will be discharged with a substance abuse problem. The higher proportion of substance abuse among veterans can be understood in terms of the nature of addictive disease and PTSD which can take years to develop. Also the difficulties associated with moving back into civilian life can compound these problems – in particular a sense of isolation. http://www.castlecraig.co.uk/resources/addiction/addiction-military-army-veterans

Mental health disorders

The number of cases in the British armed forces has increased by almost 80 percent since 2007. Women serving in the UK armed forces have been diagnosed with mental health disorders twice as often as men in 2015-2016. The report also revealed that neurotic disorders were the most common mental disorders among UK military personnel.

Donald Trump Under Fire From the Democratic Party, Actors and Other Bleeding Hearts 

Congressman John Lewis, a Democrat, said on Friday he would not attend the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States of America on the grounds that he did not see the Republican as a legitimate president. He said: “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected and they helped destroy the candidacy of (Democrat) Hillary Clinton.”

Donald Trump responded in tweets on Saturday: “Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (crime and unemployment rates are higher than national average) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk – no action or results. Sad.

Politicians, entertainers and others opted to attack Donald Trump in defence of the US civil rights campaigner! But Lewis had attacked Donald Trump (seeking to have him impeached for an unspecified and unproven offence) in his position a Democratic Party Senator and his US civil rights activities (which had no relevance to the election of Mr Trump) occurred nearly 50 years ago.

The foregoing events should also be set against the conduct of Sir Jeremy Heywood and his cohort of Civil Servants, President Obama and his re-election team, David Cameron and the Tory party, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrat Party, the Better Together Campaign team, the Queen, Heads of State worldwide and many others roped into many unsavoury, despicable and downright dishonest plots against Scottish Independence.

The content of this blog should be retained for reference in any future Scottish Independence Campaign. No-politician of any note came to the defence of Scotland at its time of need.

“http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38623881”

Scottish Independence Referendum – The Unsettled Will Of The Scot’s – The Inside Story Of The Unionist’s Campaign Of Fear

Early 2014, the “No” camp lead narrowed and pro-union politicians prepared what they hoped would be a fatal blow to Salmond’s plans. In a conference room in Edinburgh on February 13 Chancellor Osborne ruled out a post-independence currency union thinking that he had exposed the biggest weakness in the SNP’s economic case – its claim Scotland would continue to use the pound. Osborne was backed by the leaders of all three main UK parties – and given unprecedented (illegal) public support by Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the Treasury’s top civil servant.

The assault, delivered by a Conservative chancellor deeply unpopular in Scotland, had mixed results. The SNP dismissed it as bullying and bluff – and polls showed many voters in Scotland agreed. But Osborne insisted he was right and that a “No” vote would vindicate his strategy of highlighting the risks of independence. “It’s a No campaign, so of course it’s going to be negative,” the Chancellor said.

Meanwhile the Yes campaign was developing into a grass-roots movement far more energetic and organic than “Better Together” could muster. SNP strategists were building on the databases and tactics that had delivered the 2011 landslide. Their strategy aimed to first persuade voters that Scotland could be independent, next that it should be, and finally that it must be.

Still, Westminster was untroubled. Some months before, Cameron had dinner with a senior business figure. Of all the things in his prime ministerial in-tray, the business figure recalls Cameron saying, Scotland was “the least of his worries”. So Cameron and Osborne departed for their summer holidays in August 2014 in a confident mood. Osborne was heard to remark breezily to colleagues that he would “take 60-40” as a final result.

Polling advice also suggested the “No” lead was solid and backed up his bold conviction that the “Better Together” focus on the drawbacks of independence rather than the benefits of union was working to stop wavering voters following their emotions and voting Yes.

But public opinion was turning toward “Yes.” Some credited Salmond’s strong performance, in a second televised debate against Alistair Darling, former UK chancellor and Better Together leader. There he warded off challenges on currency and scathingly portrayed Darling as being “in bed with the Tories”, and the National Health Service as under threat from continued union.

By the weekend of September 6-7 there was panic inside Number 10, while Cameron was obliged to leave London with a knot in his stomach to stay with the Queen at Balmoral.

Douglas Alexander and Danny Alexander – the Treasury minister overseeing the Lib Dem campaign – reported that the momentum to “Yes” might become unstoppable and indeed a YouGov poll put the “Yes” side ahead. “We knew a poll was coming which would give the “Yes” side a lead – it turned out to be YouGov in the Sunday Times. We were at a point where we had to reframe the campaign,” Douglas Alexander said later.

Frantic discussions took place over that weekend between “the two Alexanders” and Andrew Dunlop, who by now were the principal players in the fight to save the union. Dunlop hit the phones to try to corral a business onslaught, joined by Danny Alexander and Alistair Darling. By Wednesday a trickle of companies led by Shell and BP were speaking out; by Thursday there was a torrent.

Cameron himself turned up the heat on business leaders to intervene in the debate, hosting a reception on September 8 in Downing St. “He left us in no doubt we should speak out,” said one chief executive who attended. The prime minister was also hitting the phones. “Those phone calls can be very persuasive,” said one business figure familiar with the operation. The result was a wave of business opposition to independence, with companies such as Aviva and Prudential coming out to bat on the prime minister’s behalf, although a few – including J Sainsbury, National Grid and Tesco – could not be persuaded.

On the Thursday before the Referendum five Scottish-based banks were pressurised to say they would move their registered headquarters south if there was a “Yes” vote. But the orchestrated campaign also risked fuelling Scottish resentment of Westminster. Salmond loudly protested against Downing St “scaremongering” and blamed a hostile BBC for playing along.

Even the Queen joined the fray, her media advisers orchestrating a “chance remark” to a churchgoer near Balmoral that Scottish voters should “think very carefully about the future”. Buckingham Palace said she was strictly neutral but royal watchers had little doubt about the Queen’s concerns about the breakdown of the union, despite Salmond saying he looked forward to her becoming Queen of Scots.

The fightback also had a new public face: Gordon Brown. The former Labour prime minister had been on the fringes of the “No” campaign for months, but his refusal to work with the Tories and tense relations with Alistair Darling, meant that he often operated alone. Now he was brought centre stage, making the “positive case” for a “No” vote: promising a swift transfer of new powers to the Scottish parliament to demonstrate to wavering Labour voters that a No vote did not mean “no change”. The combination of economic scare stories and promises of future power seemed to work, while it proved harder than independence campaigners had hoped to mobilise the disaffected urban population.

By the last days of the campaign, pro-union leaders were increasingly confident they could hold the line. On Friday morning they were shown to be right. The victory when it came was clear. But by voting for independence, 1.6m Scots graphically demonstrated the depth of popular discontent with Westminster rule. For pro-union politicians the two-year campaign race ended not in a triumphant last lap but a panicky late sprint over the winning line. This was far from the emphatic reaffirmation of union they had expected.

Culled from Financial Times http://www.punchng.com/politics/scotland-how-britain-nearly-lost-a-united-kingdom/

October 24 2014: Revealed: Treasury’s RBS email leak came from Westminster ‘referendum dirty tricks’ department

The UK Treasury stands accused of running a, “political dirty tricks department” spinning against Scottish independence, after it emerged sensitive information about Royal Bank of Scotland plans to leave the country in the event of a “Yes” vote was leaked by a civil servant in charge of, “referendum communications” within the department. The email, sent to journalists the week before the referendum, stated RBS had plans to move its base to London in the event of independence, triggering headlines viewed as a blow to the “Yes” campaign.

But the memo had been circulated whilst the matter was still being discussed by the RBS board at a closed meeting, and many hours before the bank had made a statement to the financial markets A severe breach of stock market trading rules.

First Minister Alex Salmond demanded a criminal investigation into the matter, while Edinburgh financier and Independent Midlothian councillor Peter de Vink, an RBS shareholder, also asked the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and police to investigate. The Sunday Herald obtained a copy of the email, which showed it was sent by a civil servant the head of Scottish Referendum Communications at the Treasury. City of London Police were tasked to investigate the complaint by de Vink and were in the process of contacting, “relevant individuals and organizations”.

SNP Treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie MP said the fact the email had been sent by the head of Scottish Referendum Communications was an, “extraordinary revelation”. He added “The previous claims by the Cabinet Secretary (Sir Jeremy Heywood) that the Treasury was, “promoting financial stability” in revealing RBS plans has been totally blown apart by the revelation that it was actually a pro-active email from an official in a so-called, “Scottish Referendum unit” and released while the RBS board was still in session. The London Treasury employed and deployed civil servants in a political dirty tricks department which operated throughout the referendum campaign.

The Treasury email was sent to journalists at 10.16pm on September 10, around 25 minutes before the RBS board meeting on the issue had finished. It contained a response to a statement issued by Lloyds Banking Group which stated it had contingency plans to establish “new legal entities” in England in the event of a “Yes” vote. But it also contained a quote from a “Treasury source” which said: “As you would expect, RBS have also been in touch with us and have similar plans to base themselves in London.” The following day, RBS issued a statement to the markets which confirmed its intention to, “re-domicile” in the event of a Yes vote, but added it would intend to retain a, “significant level of its operations and employment in Scotland”.

RBS chief Ross McEwan also issued a letter to staff in the morning saying the business was based in Scotland because of the, “skills and knowledge of our people, and the sound business environment”. It added, “So far, I see no reason why this would change should we implement our contingency plans … I know many of you will have already heard about this first in the media. My apologies for that, on this occasion this was unavoidable.”

Heywood, head of the civil service, subsequently rejected demands by Salmond that the matter be investigated. He stated the Treasury email had been issued following a newspaper report, which quoted an RBS source as stating that the bank would follow Lloyds in its plans to move its registered HQ out of Scotland in the event of a Yes vote.

In a response to Salmond, he claimed it was, “simply a confirmation of the Treasury’s understanding of RBS’ contingency planning”. He added, “The Treasury judged that it was important to set this out – at a time when the UK financial markets were closed – given their overarching responsibility for maintaining financial stability in the UK.”

Salmond subsequently wrote to the head of the FCA, the Chief Constable of Police Scotland, and the Commissioner of Police for the City of London urging action over the alleged leaking of market-sensitive information. He stated the grounds for his belief a criminal offence may have been committed, including that decisions of such a substantial nature should be a matter for the bank to report “openly and transparently” to markets; and that there had been improper disclosure of market-sensitive information, which is “tantamount to insider dealing”. He also raised concerns the action by the Treasury would have potentially created uncertainty if its information had differed from the position taken by the RBS board when its meeting had concluded.

De Vink, who filed complaints on the potential leaking of market sensitive information two days after the Treasury email was sent, said he has now been contacted by City of London Police and invited to attend an interview next month. He said: “They have asked would you come in and talk to us, which is what I am going to do in November. “I told them while it is a political issue, that doesn’t take away that what happened was absolutely unacceptable.” De Vink also criticised the FCA for a lack of response, describing its attitude as “lackadaisical”. “I find it incredible that these things are allowed to happen,” he added, “If anyone else would have done that they would have had the book thrown at them and quite understandably.”

The Sunday Herald asked the FCA if the complaints were being investigated. A spokeswoman said it was unable to comment on individual complaints. A spokesman for City of London Police confirmed it had received the letter from de Vink and added: “We are now speaking to the relevant individuals and organisations.” The Treasury claimed the person who sent the email was a “junior civil servant”, despite his position as head of Scottish Referendum Communications.

In a previous role he was press officer to former financial secretary to the Treasury, Greg Clark. The Treasury also refused to give any details of who approved the email being sent out. Last night, a spokesman for the Treasury said: “As is a matter of public record, the Cabinet Secretary has written to the former [sic] First Minister on this matter, and rejected any suggestion of improper actions by civil servants.”

Jim McKay commented. Heywood stated the Treasury email had been issued following a newspaper report, which quoted an RBS source. He must have reference for that report? Newspaper, date and edition. And what RBS source? Smoke and mirrors. He’s lying.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-treasurys-rbs-email-leak-came-from-westminster-referendum-dirty-tricks-depar.25688878

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

The award, in recognition of the team’s outstanding achievement in making a difference on an issue of national significance, (the Referendum) was presented by the ”Cabinet Secretary and civil service head Sir Jeremy Heywood.”  The proud team commented afterwards;
Paul Doyle; “This award is not just for the Treasury, it’s for all the hard work that was done by all government departments on the Scotland agenda. The reality was in all my experience of the civil service, I have never seen the civil service pull together in the way they did behind supporting the UK government in maintaining the United Kingdom. It was a very special event for all of us.”
William MacFarlane, Deputy Director at HM Treasury, (Budget and Tax Strategy); “As civil servants you don’t get involved in politics. For the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognised [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.”
Shannon Cochrane; “we’ve learned that it is possible for civil servants to work on things that are inherently political and quite difficult, and you’re very close to the line of what is appropriate, but it’s possible to find your way through and to make a difference.
Mario Pisani Deputy Director at HM Treasury, (Public Policy); “In the Treasury, everyone hates you. We don’t get thanks for anything. This is one occasion where we’ve worked with the rest of Whitehall. We all had something in common, we’re trying to save the Union here, and it came so close. We just kept it by the skin of our teeth. I actually cried when the result came in. After 10 years in the civil service, my proudest moment is tonight and receiving this award. As civil servants you don’t get involved in politics. For the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognised [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.”

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

Comment; Any mention of the team members in the New Year honours list would be the ultimate kick in the teeth. Civil Servants are supposed to be strictly apolitical and deployment to duties such as described is illegal. But Sir Jeremy Heywood simply ignores the rules and does as he wishes without challenge.

 
President Obama and New Labour Media Campaigns Contractors “Blue State Digital” Awarded Exclusive Media Strategy Contract by “Better Together.

” Blue State Digital is a USA media strategy and technology company specializing in online fundraising, social networking and constituency development. The Company provided digital strategy and technology services for the Barack Obama presidential and a number of Blair campaigns. The company is directed by co-founders, Joe Rospars and Jascha Franklin-Hodge. The mission statement of the Company is;

“A full-service new media agency, Blue State Digital develops and executes multi-platform digital marketing and online engagement campaigns for non-profit and advocacy organizations, political candidates, causes, brands and businesses. Our work inspires and mobilizes people, increases revenue, and cements lasting support and loyalty.” A Company insider quote; “Future elections will be won not because the candidate was anointed by a powerful party, but because he or she was best at using a Web and new-media strategy to rally the masses.” Just who are these guys?

“http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2009/01/08/the_geeks_behind_obamas_web_strategy/”

What about the New Labour link?

“http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/994174/Blue-State-Digital-creates-TonyBlair4Labour-site/”

“http://www.scotlandnews.net/news/250942551/interfax-russia-to-upgrade-its-naval-air-bases-in-syria”

Religious Demography of Syria
Shiites worldwide are mainly supported and funded, where needed by Iran.Sunni Islam is the largest sect of Islam in the world, and is supported through Saudi Arabian efforts.

The Shiites (about 14% of the population) are viewed as heretics by many Sunni Islamists, and this guarantee’s Assad the support of Shias in Syria who fear, (with justification) a genocide should Sunni’s (about 68% of the population) ever gain power. It is no surprise therefore that Syrian Sunni’s provide unqualified support to the rebel forces reflecting the hostility directed at Assad’s minority Shia Muslim government.

The Kurds are spread along the northern border of Syria and Iraq. They comprise about 10% of the Syrian population. Within Syria and Iraq they have largely been afforded a large measure of autonomy within the government’s of both countries. Whilst the “civil war” has presented opportunities for the Kurds to join forces and create a new Kurdistan they have avoided the pitfalls of embarking on a dearly loved path of self governance in preference to attacking ISIS forces in Syria and Iraq. Kurdish independence aspirations can only be deferred and at some future time in the near future the UN will need to give precedence to the Kurds and their passionate wish to become an independent nation. Assad is very likely to give support to the creation of a Kurdish state along the border with Turkey since this would establish a border/buffer. Assad has no love for Turkey which in turn would be vehemently against the creation of an independent Kurdistan since there is a very large Kurdish population in Turkey which has been brutally suppressed for many years.

The Druze, (who make up about 3% of the population) are regarded by all sides as a bit weird and friendless. They live in close, often isolated communities and are treated badly by Muslims, of all sects.

The Assyrians, descendants of one of the oldest civilisations in the world (make up around 4% of the population) Assyrians are Christians and as such have been attacked by the varying Islamist sects in the course of the war. Their loyalties are split between Assad and the Kurds.

The Syrian Turkmen (make up about 1% of the population). The occupy an enclave in the North of Syria. They speak Turkish and enjoy full Turkish support. Effectively the area is Turkish but perhaps recognising their position is tenuous they are extremely militant in the protection of their identity. They are anti Assad and just about any other group/sect.

October 2015: Golan Heights oil discovery. Reports of a huge Golan Heights oil discovery played down by Israeli press. It is confirmed however that a robust oil-bearing strata has been identified but more tests will need to be completed to establish if hydrocarbons are extractable and usable. ‘

May 2016: Reinforcing Israel’s off stated claim to a part of Syria. Netanyahu stated “Israel will never give up the Golan Heights. Damascus had the region for 19 years, but we’ve had it for 49.” The response from Syria’s Foreign Minister was swift and direct. He said “We’re ready to retake the area by force. Syria is prepared to use military means to recapture the Golan Heights.”

October 2016: The Syrian army has been greatly strengthened by the addition of Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. It is now a formidable fighting force and is well placed to win the war against rebel groups. What comes next? Russia and Iran have proved to be unshakable in their support of Syria and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Recovery of any part of Syria not under the control of President Assad and the Syrian government will be given top priority. The Golan Heights, illegally occupied for many years by Israel is very likely to be targeted by Assad, supported by his allies and this is a potentially catastrophic event since any involvement of Russian forces against the Israelis in support of Syria would bring about a confrontation with the USA.

 
Friday 12 January 2017: Israel launches unprovoked attack on Syria. Rockets struck at Mezzeh Military airport south of Damascus in the early hours of Friday morning. The airport is a major strategic asset used by Hezbollah, the Syrian elite, military officials and troops for munitions storage, resupply and as a transit complex. The death toll from the attacks has yet to be determined but the air-strikes “may have taken out some Syrian commanders. Syrian state TV said that the missile attack was launched, just after midnight from a site near Lake Tiberias in Northern Israel . The Israeli military declined comment, but the Syrian Army spokesman warned that Israel would face repercussions.
The attack by Israel adds confirmation that the forces of President Assad and Hezbollah are being deployed from Aleppo to the border area south of Damascus, to take action against anti government Sunni Muslims (based around the town of Dawa) that have enjoyed control of the Syrian-Israeli border, (along the Golan Heights) from the start of the unrest in Syria.
An Israeli – Syrian Sunni Muslim alliance (which Israel claims is entirely humanitarian) has been in place throughout the period of unrest and Israel has attacked Hezbollah forces (in support of the anti-Assad Sunni Muslims) deployed along the northern part of the Golan Heights on a number of occasions. Logistics support arrangements (weapons, food, munitions, medical supplies etc) are also in place.
Syrian Sunni Muslim casualties of war are collected at the border each night, (by arrangement) by Israeli medical units and transferred to Israel for treatment, hospitalisation and rehabilitation before being returned to Syria. The lives of over 2000 Sunni Muslim Syrian fighters have been saved by Israel to date.
Speculation is that the Israel – Sunni Muslim alliance was brokered by the US, UK, Saudi Arabia and Jordan weakening the impact of the influence of Hezbollah and Iran, by result hindering their deployment against Syrian Sunnis communities bordering Israel. The expected payback is a permanent truce and mutual development of oil fields located to the West and in the vicinity of the Golan heights.

Stare at the black dot in the centre and in a few moments the grey area surrounding the dot will disappear.

“Gaslighting” is an evil form of trickery introduced to the world of espionage by the CIA just after the end of WW2. It gained its name and notoriety from the 1944 film Gaslight in which an evil character played by Charles Boyer very nearly convinced Ingrid Bergman that she was insane and had never witnessed the murder of her aunt (which she did).

In the devious, corrupt and degenerate entity that is US and Westminster politics “gaslighting” is the force that drives success. Any honest politician or interested party that dares to “rock the boat” seeking the truth of any matter is “gaslighted” to distraction and compliance, being attacked and character assassinated for being paranoid, bigoted and/or in need of counselling.

Independence in 2014, was denied Scotland by a Luddite establishment of “gaslighters” determined (regardless of right or cost) to maintain order in a World being moulded to an agenda decided by US and UK politicians (past and present) which did not include freedom for Scots to decide their own future.

Donald Trump was ruthlessly attacked by the same faceless group of “gaslighters” throughout the recent US presidential campaign with result that his election remained uncertain up to and beyond the deadline date and events since provide evidence that the full range of weapons of misinformation and other full frontal attack measures in their armoury are being deployed with the purpose of manipulating the minds of the US and UK public against the President Elect.

 
The Scottish electorate is routinely “Gaslighted” by Westminster governments and politicians of all persuasions, supported by Westminster controlled televised media and newspapers delivering an agenda of misinformation and propaganda leaving many confused and increasingly angry over the heavily promoted state of financial crisis in the country requiring their acceptance of ever increasing burdens of increasing taxation, austerity, reduced incomes and welfare cuts.

The propaganda leaves many unable to distinguish fact from fiction, in part in spite of austerity a massive increase in defence budgets, to be used for a “hire purchase” of hugely costly but useless nuclear weapons and delivery systems and building of aircraft carriers incapable of operational use due to the fact that a purchase of suitable aircraft will not be achieved until 5 years after their launch.

There is an additional, as yet unpublished problem that the carriers have (as yet) no effective escort and support vessels and without a carrier fleet in support they will remain in dock unused for many years. There is talk of converting the carriers into huge hospital ships but the financial loss to the Scottish economy will be enormous.

It is frustrating that Scotland sends politicians to Westminster tasked with an impossible mission to hold to account governments promising fair rule , reduced government financial excesses, low inflation and a growing economy, effective law and order policies with a reducing crime rate.

But nothing changes. Campaign promises are not kept and each successive government (Tory or labour) maintains policies broadly similar to that of the former administration regardless of any previous attacks on said policies whilst in opposition. The reason? The BAP!!!!

The British American Project (BAP)

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) once said “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
The British-American Project is a fellowship of over 1,000 leaders and opinion formers from a broad spectrum of occupations, backgrounds and political viewpoints, drawn in equal numbers from the United States and the United Kingdom. The Project was created to renew and continue the close relationship among leaders of the two countries that was established by an earlier generation during the Second World War; for that reason, it was originally known as the British-American Project for the Successor Generation.
The Project meets annually for a four-day conference on topics of current concern to both countries: ideas and experiences are exchanged, and friendships developed and strengthened. Each year, 24 new participants are selected from either side of the Atlantic, on the basis of service to their communities and professional achievement, and sponsored to attend the conference as Delegates. At the end of each conference, Delegates are elected Fellows of the Project. Fellows from past years attend the annual conferences at their own expense, with many returning in successive years. “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British-American_Project”

Follow the movement of the rotating pink dot with your eyes and the dots will remain only one colour, pink. But if you stare at the black + in the centre, the moving dot will turn green. (by Jeremy L. Hinton)

 
An eminent professor at the Liberal Establishment’s academic Mecca of Princeton said of the BAP

“Yet and again over the last 60 years, the same BAP individuals appear at the centre of political disasters and the conclusion is that there “is an organization of pyromaniacs at work in the world.”

“The purpose of the BAP is nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This power mad clique wants to control and rule the world. Even more frightening, they want total control over all individual actions. Individual freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that individuals will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through their educational training, public service, tax contributions, health and medical requirements, and final retirement and death benefits. It wants control over all natural resources, business, banking and transportation by controlling the governments of the world. In order to accomplish these aims the conspirators have had no qualms about fermenting wars, depressions and hatred. They want a monopoly which would eliminate all competitors and destroy the free’ enterprise system.”

A close study of the BAP and the careers of its members reveals that the incredible exists and exercises a heavy influence over our lives. Information is sufficient to convince Scots of the existence of a conspiratorial clique of neo-con liberal activists who manipulate the Westminster government policy at all levels.The truth really is stranger than fiction and the activities of the BAP are worthy of study and public exposure.

But exposing the conspiracies is not an easy matter since the the BAP controls the media and anyone intent on exposing “gaslighters” will be subjected to a sustained battery of poisoned invective from television, radio and newspapers and, faced with the destruction of their social acceptability many withdraw from the fray. Sadly, In politics social position is more important to some that the survival of a free and independent Scotland.

A nice visual illusion using perfect squares.

 
The Gaslighters

Psychological brainwashing induces a pre-conceived view of any evidence concerning “gaslighters.” People are very comfortable with the “status quo” . (Witnessed at the time Columbus returned to Spain from America and said the world was round only to be ridiculed and abused verbally and physically by flat earth believers “gaslighters”) who had a vested interest in maintaining the universe as it was.)

It is also difficult at times, to be comfortable exposing the abusive behaviour of “gaslighters” who are often members of the “ruling class.” They are invariably very wealthy, highly educated, well connected and sophisticated and a significant number enjoy enhanced reputations for philanthropy complicating further any accusation by “whistle blowers” of conspiracy to curtail the freedoms of their countrymen, but facts are not for setting aside.

Many business and professional people are particularly vulnerable to the “don’t jeopardize your future” argument advanced by those who do not wish their conspiracy exposed. The “gaslighters” , (well assured that businessmen and members of the professions will not take a stand to save private enterprise) will be able to further process their socialism agenda through which they intend to control the world.

Two of the most effective weapons used by “gaslighters” against accusations of conspiracy are ridicule and satire. They are very potent and used cleverly avoid a need for any honest attempt at refuting the facts. Nobody likes to be made look a fool and rather than face ridicule most people will remain silent.

Another potent tactic used by the “gaslighters” is to greatly enhance the conspiracy so that it becomes absurd, e.g. A BBC news presenter will off-handedly announce that the corporation is not “Conspiracy Headquarters” and as such cannot be expected to respond to unsubstantiated claims of conspiracies.

Another proven attack profile used by “gaslighters” is the assembly and release of tit-bits of legitimate evidence incorrectly presented as fact allowing conclusions to be drawn supporting their particular prejudice. Most abused are the Jewish, Catholic, Racist and Masonic groups since “gaslighters” thrive on manipulating the minds of the public to believe that anyone exposing conspiracies must be “certifiable nutcases”.

I live in hope that the the outcome of another independence referendum will prove that the BAP “gaslighters” underestimated the patriotism of Scots of which a majority ignored the spoiling tactics of the establishment controlled media preferring to identify the facts, reaching their own conclusions and putting country before person.

Both green lines have the same length. This Ponzo illusion uses the fact that human brain interprets the image with perspective, however, it’s just a simple 2D image.

The under noted blogs provide information including names of BAP members fully supporting the foregoing. Reading highly recommended.

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/11/truth-and-respect-words-anathema-to-the-bbc-the-british-american-project-decides-the-agenda/
https://caltonjock.com/2015/09/30/the-bbc-scottish-press-and-other-media-exist-to-further-the-policies-of-the-westminster-elite/
https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/12/the-new-world-order-part-three-americas-man-selected-indoctrinated-placed-at-the-heart-of-british-politics-gordon-brown/
https://caltonjock.com/2015/05/18/ultra-right-wing-liam-fox-returned-to-power-with-his-neo-con-colleagues-attached-is-a-comprehensive-expose-of-misdeeds-in-public-office-ill-wills-of-change-are-being-foisted-on-scotland-with/
https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/12/the-new-world-order-part-four-britain-now-a-client-state-of-the-usa-labour-politician-speaks-out/
https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/12/the-new-world-order-part-five-the-influence-of-the-cia-on-the-labour-party-1984-2015/
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/
https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/16/the-british-american-project-bap-the-bbc-and-new-trust-chairman-rona-fairhead/
https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/13/the-british-american-project-the-corrupting-secret-alliance-hidden-from-the-public/

Which soldier is taller? This is a variation of Ponzo illusion which suggests that the human mind judges an object’s size based on its background.