The Next Scottish Independence referendum.

There are some who think that another referendum is inevitable and will be sparked by the negative outcomes of Brexit negotiations within the next 2 years. If this is to be the case then activists within the pro-independence movement would be wise to start an independence dialogue now. The fight for independence should be directed through the SNP government and wider party but those with views and opinions will need to be heard so that all aspects of the campaign are to be covered. l have compiled a small list for starters encompassing matters that the “yes” campaign were remiss on last time. I am sure others will be able to expand on it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. “Yes” campaign must not rely over much on emotion. Facts win arguments. The “Scottish” card should only be played at time when it can assist the campaign achieving a target.

2. Currency adoption, financial and stock market control systems should be clarified and accepted by the electorate in a sustained campaign set in motion well before a referendum.

3. Insurance, savings, pensions, (addressing the faster ageing population of Scotland) individual and corporate taxation and associated regulatory and consumer protection should be well presented and achievable.

4. A document should be produced by the Scottish government and circulated in the last weeks of the campaign, to every registered voter setting out in a “Q & A” format pertaining to policies such as: media (including newsprint) mail, telephone, the NHS, crime: (organised and ad-hoc), security: encompassing terrorism, defence, foreign policy, (NATO, EU,etc.) and/or any other threats to society.

5. Any negative impact on the imbalance of trade in goods and services, (with England, Wales & N Ireland) and its effect on employment should be researched and remedial measures explained.

6. Whilst the campaign is political and MP’s, MSP’s and pro-independence activists need to be assured and confident in their roles attention needs to be given to the appointment of a highly effective media team well able to counter any attacks (including negative campaign tricks) from the “no” camp.

7. The “yes” campaign will need to gather a substantial “fighting fund” and early attention should be given to this.

8. Focus in the early stages of the campaign should ensure the electorate are reminded of the many unfulfilled pledges of the, “three amigos” and their pipsqueak supporters.

 

 

 

 

The BBC, Drugs and Sex

The world’s largest broadcaster,the BBC, is funded by a compulsory annual TV licence fee. Outputt includes TV, radio, websites and magazines. Its reputation has been badly tarnished in recent years by a series of high-profile controversies involving drugs and sex scandals.

In Scotland, licence fee payers are disenchanted with the corporation, whose news and current affairs programming is heavily biased towards state directed content which, (before the advent of the much wider broadcast media now enjoyed by the public) was accepted by gullible viewers as fact.

Those day’s have gone but the BBC and Whitehall will not relinquish the corporation’s strict control of news and current affairs output which ensures a universal “one message one source”. 

But all is not well within the corporation.

In London and the South East of England a significant number of highly paid salaried staff, together with presenters and producers have been exposed, of being involved in the designer drugs scene, purchasing,  distributing  and consuming cocaine, methamphetamine, mephedrone (meow meow).

Chemsex orgies are prevalent, particularly in the L.G.B.T.Q scene and the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is increasing fast.

Scotland needs to prooduce it’s own media, free from the BBC which is morphing into something akin to Sodom. Facilitating the change requires independence.

21 October 2009: Former BBC producer, Sarah Graham reveals TV executives were praised for cocaine use

Television executives who take cocaine are often praised for their ‘off-the-wall’ brilliance instead of reprimanded, according to former BBC producer Sarah Graham, who has worked for Children’s BBC, Radio 5, and Channel 4’s The Big Breakfast. She said drug use remained rife in the industry and was not isolated to workers in their 20s.

Giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, (chaired by Keith Vaz of all people) she said the erratic behaviour of many broadcast stars is not the sign of creative genius but of addiction to illegal substances. Speaking yesterday, she said she was offered cocaine on her first day at the BBC on a night out with co-workers, sparking a nine-year habit which included using crack and heroin.

Miss Graham, 40, now a drugs counsellor, said: ‘I was working at the BBC and pretty much the first night working on a show my producer and presenter took me to a Soho media watering hole and I was asked if I’d like to go to the toilet and do some cocaine.’ She added: ‘As your addiction progresses, certain behaviour that would not be tolerated in a normal job can be spun as part of your creative genius or extraordinary personality.’   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221850/Former-BBC-producer-reveals-TV-executives-PRAISED-cocaine-use.html

5 March 2010: BBC logs 300 disciplinary cases of which only 9 involved drink or drugs

Critics have claimed that a relatively low number of cases relating to alcohol dependence and substance abuse showed that BBC management were “ignorant” in recognising an alleged “cocaine culture” within the corporation.

The figures, disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, showed that 87 cases – were logged in the “behaviour/conduct” category, compared to 42 for absence, 12 for bullying and harassment, 22 for conflicts of interest and eight for poor timekeeping. But there were only nine cases in the alcohol dependence/substance abuse – a number, a former producer dismissed as “too low” to represent the true picture.

The figures are from April 2006 when the BBC first began to list disciplinary proceedings in a central database to February 2010. They cover more than 17,000 BBC employees, but do not include staff of subsidiaries such BBC World, BBC Worldwide and the World Service Trust. A BBC spokesman said: “The BBC makes clear the standards of behaviour expected of our employees. We take all allegations of misconduct seriously and where necessary will take disciplinary action. We never comment on individual disciplinary matters.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7370670/BBC-logs-300-disciplinary-cases-including-bullying-and-drug-abuse.html

May 2012: Sex, drugs and the BBC’s 70s heyday

At the time it was the broadcasting heart of Britain – the place where comedies, dramas and light entertainment shows watched by tens of millions were made. Yet according to a new documentary we now find that the corridors of BBC Television Centre in the Seventies were a miasma of marijuana smoke, its dressing rooms a hotbed of sex and the club room a haven for drunken parties. It was its own universe sealed off from the humdrum world, where dramas, comedies and eccentric behaviour were tolerated and possibly encouraged on set and off.

A former BBC presenter said many of the acts that were seen on the BBC’s pop shows at the time were also under the influence when they appeared on screen. “Of course they smoked,” she says, “and they didn’t smoke ordinary cigarettes.” This attitude of liberal tolerance extended beyond drugs to include sexual shenanigans throughout the building. Former female Dr Who assistants revealed that the dressing rooms were home to mini-orgies and people were bonking all over the BBC. http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/318214/Sex-drugs-and-the-BBC-s-70s-heyday

Richard Quest
1 July 2012: Former Leeds University graduate and BBC North American business correspondent Richard Quest caught with drugs and a sex toy in New York Central Park

One of US news channel CNN’s most high-profile faces, was arrested after being found in New York’s Central Park, with another man. at 3.40am  The park closed at 1am. He told police: “I’ve got some meth in my pocket.” They found he had the stimulant methamphetamine in his jacket and a sex toy in his shoe. A rope was looped around his neck and privates under his clothes. A qualified lawyer, Quest spent most of the day in jail then walked free from court after he agreed to six months of drug counselling. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/cnn-reporter-richard-quest-caught-974866

16 Nov 2014: Snorting Coke With The BBC

The programme took a wry look at some of the most highly publicised cases of BBC TV and radio celebrities caught using drugs and examines the attitude of the media towards their behaviour, their subsequent fall from grace and, in some cases, their rehabilitation. Frank Bough, Johnnie Walker, Richard Bacon and Angus Deayton are the stars featured as the circumstances surrounding their dismissal from the BBC are examined. Along with their cocaine use, Frank, Johnnie and Angus were caught in various sexually compromising positions, raising questions about the connection between drugs and sex.

The programme looked at the reaction of the BBC, their colleagues and the press to what happened, asking if their response was at times an over-reaction, or if there were inconsistencies in the way that they were dealt with. The programme also considered the issue of whether the BBC should have a consistent workplace policy on drug taking by its employees, or whether each case should be assessed individually on its own merits.

Paul and his brother Jonathon
20 May 2015: BBC presenter Paul Ross ‘is living apart from his wife’ nine months after his drug-fuelled gay romps were revealed

The wife of TV host Paul Ross has moved out of the home she shared with her husband almost a year after it was exposed he was in a homosexual affair with a man he met at a dogging hotspot. Ross – older brother of chat show favourite Jonathan – last year confessed to wife Jackie that he was having a drug-fuelled fling with former English teacher Barry Oliver. The dad-of-five snorted lethal mephedrone as often as six times a day, and was even photographed snorting the drug, which is more commonly known as meow meow, off his 57-year-old lover’s face.

The 58-year-old met ex teacher Barry Oliver in 2013 after attending a well-known dogging site (at the Thicket roundabout in Maidenhead) near his home to watch other couples have sex. When his affair was exposed, he attributed it to financial stress brought on by a sizeable tax bill which left him needing some sort of ‘escape’. He also admitted that he and his wife hadn’t had sex for a year. Upon first meeting Mr Oliver, Ross had sex with him in bushes. They then began a year-long affair, which saw Ross attending his lover’s home before he started his daily breakfast radio show. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095012/BBC-presenter-Paul-Ross-living-apart-wife-nine-months-drug-fuelled-gay-romps-revealed.html

Alan Dedicoat BBC veteran
28 October 2015: ‘Cocaine on sale at BBC’

Sensational claims that a drug dealer is delivering to BBC staff at their desks have been made by Beeb veteran Alan Dedicoat. On a tape, passed to The Sun, he is heard telling a man that the peddler regularly sells ecstasy and cocaine. Dedicoat, 60 — the announcer on Strictly Come Dancing — is also recorded claiming that certain members of BBC security staff were “in on it”.

He says: “The police can do nothing about the fact that he’s delivering desk to desk.” Asked about drugs, he adds: “Well, they are recreational items of interest, I think you’ll find, that’s the way we categorise them.” Dedicoat is heard claiming the dealer would visit the unspecified offices “monthly,” and says: “It’s everywhere, isn’t it?”

When quizzed on how many of the staff would buy from the seller, Dedicoat responds: “Erm, at least 50 per cent.” Asked if the drugs included cocaine and party drugs, he replies: “Yes, Es for the lower grades, then whoever can afford it — goes up. It’s the business we’re in . . . ”

Dedicoat’s unidentified companion says it sounds like drugs are “rife” at the BBC, to which he replies: “You say rife like it’s horrible and wrong. “He only comes in because it stops him being intercepted by the police.”  Dedicoat made no suggestion he had bought or taken drugs himself, nor did he specify where or when the alleged crimes took place. The recording is believed to have been made at his home in Wales.

Dedicoat has worked for the BBC for 36 years — including as a Radio 2 newsreader and as TV’s voice of the National Lottery draw. He is a regular at Broadcasting House, West London, nearby Western House, where Radio 2 is based, and Elstree studios, Herts. Dedicoat last night tried to gag The Sun from reporting his taped claims. But a High Court judge threw out the injunction bid and allowed publication. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/90463/cocaine-on-sale-at-bbc/

9 March 2016: BBC producer, Alexander Parkin admits supplying ‘meow meow’ at a “Chemsex” orgy after a barrister’s boyfriend died of an overdose.

Parkin, 40, appeared in the dock with top barrister Henry Hendron, 35, who denies supplying drugs.

Hendron’s boyfriend, waiter Miguel Jimenez, 18, died from an overdose at London’s Temple, the buildings housing the country’s top legal chambers.

Hendron, (seen as one of the rising stars of the legal circuit) was represented by his brother Richard Hendron, denied two counts of conspiracy to supply controlled drugs. He further denied two counts of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply and two counts of possession of controlled drugs.

Parkin admitted two counts of supplying controlled drugs to another.  defending Parkin,  his solicitor said: ‘He is 40-years-old. An executive producer at the BBC, with one caution for possession of Mephedrone – there’s clearly a background to the abuse of narcotics.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3483923/BBC-executive-producer-supplied-meow-meow-drugs-death-party.html

A previous conviction for drug possession yet he enjoy’s a very highly paid job with the BBC!!!

8 April 2016: Why didn’t BBC mention its drug dealing executive in ‘chemsex’ story?

The BBC was under fire last night for interviewing celebrity barrister Henry Hendron who supplied the drugs that killed his teenage boyfriend, and not mentioning that he bought them from a BBC executive.

Hendron, 35, was given a key interview slot on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. Yet despite an extended interview and a follow-up piece on ‘chemsex’ drug use in the gay community, the journalists did not mention that BBC executive producer Alexander Parkin had sold the lawyer £1,000 worth of designer drugs.

The BBC also faced censure for discussing sexual habits and drug use on the morning radio show, when many families would have been eating breakfast together.

Yesterday, a spokesman for Media watch UK, which campaigns for a safer media, criticised the BBC. ‘We know that drug use is bad because it’s illegal – it’s hard to know what kind of message the BBC is trying to put across over the breakfast table,’ he said. ‘Listeners could have been forgiven for getting confused as they heard a man who has pleaded guilty to supplying drugs that killed his teenage boyfriend that were originally supplied by a BBC producer describing his illegal drug use as a “nice experience” and saying how upset he was at being treated as a criminal. “There’s certainly a judgement issue to be looked at here – it’s one thing raising awareness of the effects of drug use, quite another to be giving a platform at breakfast time to a drug dealer who could shortly be facing prison.”

Hendron described his arrest as ‘traumatic’ and saying he had been “treated like a criminal” admitted supplying the drugs that killed Mr Jimenez. He had bought £1,000 of designer drugs from Parkin, 41, to sell on to revellers at a ‘chemsex’ party at his flat at his legal chambers. The ‘chemsex’ phenomenon sweeping the LGBTQ community, involves participants taking drugs for up at a week at a time and having sex with multiple partners.

viewers Comment:

The BBC lost its ability to provide rational, balanced and impartial reporting a long time ago, so this kind of conduct should come as no surprise to anyone.  the BBC Trust, an organisation that is supposed to hold the broadcaster to account, went native from the day it was set up. Both organisations are totally unfit, something that has become increasingly obvious to most of us.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3529256/Why-didn-t-BBC-mention-drug-dealing-executive-chemsex-story-Corporation-fire-interview-barrister-supplied-drugs-killed-boyfriend.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scotland – Look to the future but reflect on the recent past

There is every chance the Tory government will call a General Election just as soon as they have completed boundary changes reducing the number of seats at Westminster from 650 to 600. The change will favour the Tory Party greatly and might well result in a permanent Tory government at Westminster. The Scottish electorate, recently confirmed to be the queens subjects living in a region of the UK might be forced by circumstance to change their allegiance’s from SNP to Tory if Scotland is to continue to receive more from the Westminster purse than it contributes. The alternative is independence.

I have added an analysis of the UK 2015 General Election. It was compiled for consumption by the Russian public so in that regard it’s content reflects events as they occurred rather than the usual heavily biased reports issued through the government and right wing press of the UK.  There are clearly political strategy lessons needing to be learned if Scots are to be able to look forward with confidence to the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2015 UK General Election – Summary of a report prepared for the Russian Public Consumption

The report researchers and authors focused both on the national election campaign and the fight for marginal constituencies which determines the outcome of the general battle between the British parties for the majority in Parliament. Particular attention was given to analysing the political methodology and strategies used by all parties.

 

 

 

 

 
Main results and general trends

The first-past-the-post voting system favours parties with strong regional bases. The Conservatives have complete control of the South-East of England, Labour dominate London constituencies, SNP managed to capture whole of Scotland. National parties that struggled to find a regional base – UKIP, Greens and Lib Dems – underperformed in the 2015 General election. Thus, regional fragmentation of British political system became even more pronounced. Moderate left voters in the North of England moved to Labour from Lib. Dems due to their right shift in the coalition government with the Conservatives. Former Lib. Dem protest voters moved to UKIP and Green party.

At the same time, UK voters continue to drift away from the Labour party and from the Conservatives. The big-two continue to lose ground in terms of vote share to non-mainstream and non-national challengers. The vote for minor parties after 2015 campaign is extremely high – 24, 6%. Small parties’ rise hit Labour and Lib Dems the hardest. SNP and the Green Party preyed on the former centre-left electorate. However, apart from SNP smaller parties are yet to make a breakthrough in terms of seats. Tactical voting is still widely practised: some potential voters of the smaller parties do not vote for them hoping to make an impact on future government’s composition by voting for the big-two.

Electorate is still skewed towards older, wealthier and whiter voters. White retirees’ are disciplined voters and thus have disproportionate say in determining political outcomes in the UK. On the other hand, the 2015 General election highlighted a significant increase in the influence of ethnic and religious minorities on electoral outcomes, even though the vast majority of voters still identifies themselves as White British (82%). Increasing power of minority voters affects London the most, because over 40% of voters in the capital belong to ethnic minorities. In 2015, Muslim voters had direct influence on the outcomes in 25% of English, Welsh and Scottish constituencies (159 of 632). At the same time interviewed experts believe that the role of the minorities is unlikely to be such a significant factor as it is in the US because they are fairly symmetrically distributed between the key parties – Sikhs and Hindus tend to support the Conservatives, natives of African and Muslim countries – the Labour.

The growing influence on the outcome of the elections of immigrants from countries with relatively weak parliamentary traditions leads to an increase in the number of violations and fraud. Serious and systemic problem with voting by mail has been revealed on the eve of the election, cause voting by mail is a fragile institute based largely on trust. Fraud is unlikely to seriously affect the outcome. But still greater growth of such cases during local elections can probably force the UK government to reform the system of voting by mail, and even prohibit it again.

2011 fixed-term parliaments act that set 5 year fixed terms for the House of Commons MPs and drastically restricted the possibility of the parliament’s early dissolution changed the nature of electoral campaigns. It gave the parties an opportunity to build a long-term political strategy. In particular, the Conservatives took advantage of this to prepare in advance detailed database of voters, which allowed them to campaign with great precision both on the ground, in the constituencies, and in the air, on the national level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Political Strategies

The Conservatives won the fight for the elite support. To be more precise, the Labour Party did not partake in it at all. They were pretty sure of their victory (over several years prior to the campaign, they were in the lead according to the national polls). The vast majority of the representatives of big business has made a bet on the Tories, who supposedly have provided economic growth and stabilization of the public finances. The Labour Party was not able or did not want to challenge this narrative. Even though the coalition government’s macroeconomic record is rather unsatisfactory compared to Britain’s post-WWII governments.
Nevertheless, the Conservatives advantage in elite support did not create an unbridgeable gap between them and their adversaries in terms of campaign finance. In the UK, election expenses are severely limited by law and there is a ban on direct political advertising on TV and radio. Public funding (tied to the results of previous elections) and support of trades unions provided Labour’s campaign with solid financial basis. However, good relations with media-owners gave Tories an upper hand in creating and spreading important narratives. The press overwhelmingly supported the Conservatives. Due to neutrality of the TV and the radio, privately-owned newspapers are free to formulate and control electoral agenda in the UK. TV traditionally followed the newspapers in the coverage of major events, and Labour’s attempt to give an alternative interpretation in the social media failed. As a result, the Conservative narratives dominated the media agenda for 5 out of 6 weeks of the short campaign.
The Conservatives managed to put the economic development and the public finance stability into the centre of the campaign debates. The Conservatives in the opinion of the elites and the population outplayed the Labour Party on this field. Media described a possible rise to power of the Labour Party as the inevitable chaos for the UK economy.
The Conservatives managed to survive throughout the campaign chosen content line due to the consolidated and well-structured work of their HQ. One-man management style became possible due to the good relations between the party leaders and also because of high level of trust towards campaign general manager Lynton Crosby. Labour’s HQ lacked coherent command structure and thus failed to articulate uniform and clear grass-roots strategy and overall national narrative.
Labour campaign attacked the Conservatives as “the party of the establishment”. That, on the one hand, strengthen the sympathy of the elites to the Tories, on the other hand, inflated in the public eyes a threat of “a class war” in case the Labour Party won the election.
Labour had an advantage in terms of the ground war – they had more activists and direct contacts with households. But they were impaired by several factors. Volunteers lacked professionalism in dealing with the voters (it is forbidden to pay for this work by law). Party’s resources were thinly spread among hundreds of constituencies, instead of being concentrated on crucial ones. As well as that, Labour voter data bases were of poor quality. At the same time the Conservatives created detailed databases, which were continuously updated and improved throughout the campaign. Tories chose a 40/40 strategy (to protect 40 marginal constituencies, to win 40 new ones). Volunteer activists received special training and were deployed strategically across these key constituencies. Targeted mailing lists and contacts through the Internet including social networks assisted activists in crafting individual messages for key groups of voter, like middle-aged mothers and military veterans.

Coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats has been recognized within the Conservative Party as a failure. Therefore, the Tories have relied on getting the majority or even the minority Government in the hung Parliament. This strategy allowed Tories to target the disaffected electorate of their coalition partners – Liberal Democrats. Tory credited all the economic achievements of the government for themselves, and any unfulfilled promises were explained by the Lib Dem resistance. Former Lib. Dem. electorate was mostly divided between the Labour party and Conservatives (20% went to the Tories, 24% to the Labour), but not in the proportion that the Labour Party had planned (they hoped to capture two-thirds of the Liberal Democrat votes). In terms of seats, it looked even more painful for the Labour Party. Liberal Democrats lost 27 seats to the Tories and only 12 to Labour.
In Scotland Labour and Lib. Dem.’s were hit by association with toxic brand of the Conservative Party, because in 2014 Scottish independence referendum, all national parties campaigned for the preservation of the region as part of the UK together. Thus traditionally strong Scottish Labour was damaged beyond repair. This, along with successes of nationalist regional government, helped Scottish National Party to concentrate in their hands the vast majority of parliamentary seats in Westminster from Scotland (56 of 59). SNP is a unique phenomenon, because it operates as a classic mid-20th. century mass party in the 21st. century.
The rise of the SNP was a trump-card for the Conservative campaign. Conservatives made tactical voting work in their favours by offering voters a choice between a stable conservative government and ‘a coalition of chaos between left Labour and even more left SNP. Tories managed to re-attract English Nationalist vote that gravitated towards UKIP. Hence they divided Labour core vote in Scotland, but consolidated their electoral base in England. Conservatives tried to exploit the image of ‘Red Ed’ – a weak, infantile politician, who isn’t up to the prime-ministerial role along with the image of future destructive pressure from aggressive left populists from the SNP. Control over agenda allowed conservatives “to glue” Labour to the SNP. The counter argument from the Labour Party about the possibility of a coalition of conservatives and the UKIP had no such effect, because none of the analysts, despite the growing number of supporters of this party, did not forecast more than four seats for the UKIP. Eventually the UKIP won just 1 seat.
The growing popularity of UKIP, which won the third largest share of popular vote in 2015, did not translate into parliamentary seats, because the party lacks concentrated regional base and large groups of potential UKIP electorate chose to vote tactically for Conservative Government and against the possibility of Labour-SNP coalition. It is worth noting reckless attitude of the Labour Party to the UKIP – they saw them only as a spoiler of the Conservative Party, but later learned that Farage likewise takes away their own voices.
The increased financial support for the “Green party” creates an additional burden on the electorate of Lib. Dem and Labour. Some observers believe it favoured of the Conservatives.
Prime Minister David Cameron won the leadership contest against Ed Miliband. His personal rating and rating as a potential Prime Minister exceeded ranking of Conservative party, while Miliband’s personal rating was lower than Labour party rating. The negative campaign against Miliband began long before the election, and it only intensified during the actual campaign. With this campaign, Conservatives mainly targeted former Liberal Democrat voters and wavering middle class, concentrated in the marginal constituencies of England’s South. Positive dynamic of Ed Miliband’s rating during the short-campaign were not enough to give him any advantage, because this dynamic as driven by traditional left-wing electorate. These groups were concentrated in Labour safe seats and thus could hardly help the Labour party expand in the marginal constituencies.
The chosen TV debate format favoured Conservatives. David Cameron managed to avoid direct confrontation with Ed Miliband, who was inter-mixed with six other vocal opposition politicians. Two head to head Q&A sessions put Cameron forward as a better communicator with clear positioning. At the same time, the seven leaders’ debates format were extremely well for SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon. She outflanked Miliband from the left and thus strengthened nationalists’ electoral credentials in Scotland. Such turn of events also created a sense of anxiety among English
voters and supported Conservative “coalition of chaos” narrative.
National opinion polls got the trends wrong. They showed Conservatives and Labour going head to head until the polling day, and also highlighted high probability of a coalition government. The probable cause of the mistakes was an incorrect methodology for surveys (focus on nationwide sample instead the focus on the marginal constituencies, refusal to use candidate names in polling etc.). Conservative closed polls conducted by Crosby’s team proved to be more accurate. However, Tories did not publish the results, because uncertainty, predicted by the national polls, increased the likelihood of tactical voting for the Conservative party by the undecided voters.

 

 

 

 

 
The day after

After the win, the Conservatives started a campaign to broaden their base by absorbing parts of the electorate of their demoralized opponents. New Conservative rhetoric borrowed from their opponents’ manifestos. For instance, Tories try to rebrand themselves as the «real party of the working people.

If the Conservative party manages to broaden its base, the coming reduction of constituencies from 650 to 600, can lead to a transition from current two-party system to long-term Conservative Party domination.  http://www.minchenko.ru/netcat_files/File/UK/20 General Election 2015(1).pdf
Report prepared by Minchenco Consulting with the support and co-operation of the Moscow based non-commercial foundation “Institute of socio-economic and political researches” (ISEPR Foundation

 

 

Ruth will save the Union

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oor lovable wee ken to be the newly created – Director of Nations and Regions – howzat that for a title???

(The title is to be formally challenged  and shortened since presenters on “Pointless” and William Hague at the time of the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow advised the UK viewing public that Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland were Regions NOT Nations.)

But I expect the Scottish television Region viewing public will be well pleased by the response of the BBC undertaking to honour the pledge to devolve television programming to the regions, (with special attention to Scotland). The corporation keeps its word and as before doesn’t dither before presenting the new way. I’ll bet Scots would be ecstatic except that the change means the onlything new will be the seat occupied by Wee Ken will be somewhere in England. Very possible faulty oops BBC Towers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But why cant we revert back to the successful format that was in place before?

A well respected and truly impartial journalist was asked if the perception that BBC Scotland was anti-SNP was, in his view, justified. “Put it this way,” he said. “It probably comes more naturally to them to attack the nationalists than to attack the union.” But how is this the case? A wee bit of history. From 1946 to 1991 media affairs in Scotland were subject to the moderating influence of the, BBC Scotland Controller who effectively reported to the, “Broadcasting Council for Scotland”, on which many distinguished Scot’s served over the years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Centralised control is not devolved programming

The way in which BBC Scotland is run at present, the quality of care it shows for the many good people who work for it, the standard of what it does, the public service in Scotland ethos it supposedly represents are some of the more important questions facing the Scottish nation but they cannot be successfully addressed within the control systems that prevail at the present time not those being proposed with the appointment of MacQuarrie.

The BBC will continue to fail Scotland. Mind control is the primary blockage since those at the centre will retain absolute control of media output:  The BBC is part of the glue that holds together the very idea of Britain. Take it away and the whole package will  start to fall apart and we will be left to wonder at the fragility of the paste. The BBC is how we talk to each other, where we go in the morning. We need to trust it and to feel a personal investment in it. Otherwise it’s lost – and part of us with it.

 

 

 

 

 

MacQuarrie and his sidekick,Labour Party supporter of long standing bully boy Blackman refused to appear before  the Scottish Education and Culture Committee at Holyrood stating that the BBC in Scotland was not accountable to the Scottish Government. They were finally ordered to appear the the Chairman of the BBC Trust. They did so but stonewalled every question put to them. Boothman was later removed from his post as Head of News and Current Affairs.

 

 

THE BIGGER THE LIE – Media Bias in the Scottish Independence Referendum:  Professor John Robertson produced a damming report exposing BBC biased reporting positively for the Better Together campaign and almost always negatively against  the Yes campaign.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19 October 2015: BBC vows change as survey finds less than half of Scots think it is good at representing them

Ken MacQuarrie told MPs on Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee that the corporation is “concerned” about the finding and is working to understand it. But he dismissed claims that the BBC demonstrated “unconscious bias” during its coverage of last year’s Scottish independence referendum.

Questioned on research by Professor John Robertson, author of a University of the West of Scotland report on BBC and ITV coverage of the referendum, which concluded there was evidence of coverage “which seems likely to have damaged the Yes campaign”. MacQuarrie said he did not accept the suggestion that there was unconscious bias in the BBC’s coverage. He said: “We have engaged with Prof Robertson’s research. We have some criticisms of, if you like, some of the methodology that Professor Robertson used, but I think the important thing is that we are going to listen and do listen very carefully to our audience in terms of any aspects of dissatisfaction.”

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13879732.BBC_chief_vows_change_as_survey_finds_less_than_half_of_Scots_think_it_is_good_at_representing_them/

 

 

 

Ken Maquarrie

 

 

 

 

 

22 September 2016: BBC Scotland director Ken MacQuarrie, takes up new position as director of nations and regions

MacQuarrie will be responsible for bringing together and enhancing the BBC’s offer to the nations and regions of the UK and will sit on the BBC’s new Executive Committee.

The role was created by the director general, Tony Hall in July 2016 to ensure that the corporation represented the changing nature of the UK and the calls for more autonomy from individual nations.

MacQuarrie will take up the post with immediate effect and will be responsible for representing the voice of audiences outside London as well as taking on editorial responsibility for all of the content produced by the BBC’s nations and regions teams.

Announcing the news Hall said: “I am delighted to appoint Kenny to this important post. Reflecting the nations and serving them well is vital for the BBC and a key part of the new Charter. There is no one better than Kenny to get this right. He is a supremely able leader and manager and is hugely respected, not just within the BBC, but outside as well. I know he’s the right person to give the Nations and Regions a strong voice across the BBC.”

MacQuarrie added: “I’m looking forward to beginning this new role. I know how much audiences value the BBC reflecting their own communities. From the Isles of Scilly to Shetland there are some great stories to be told. We want to represent and report all corners of the UK and everybody should feel that the BBC offers something for them. I’ll enjoy championing our excellent nations and regions teams at the top table.”

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/09/22/bbc-scotland-director-ken-macquarrie-takes-up-new-position-director-nations-and

 

 

 

 

MacQuarrie and his cohorts at BBC Scotland stitched up the broadcast media in Scotland in favour of the Labour party. If the new BBC board of management had been serious about devolving responsibility, with authority they would have removed the entire management team from Scotland, including MacQuarrie.

The next link accesses around a dozen articles posted by myself in the last 3 years. All detail the corruption and bias of the BBC in Scotland. If only it were possible to ask the EU to investigate and instruct Westminster to properly devolve the media.

https://caltonjock.com/2015/08/28/bbc-wages-total-war-against-scotlands-march-towards-independence-scotland-needs-a-media-free-of-westminster-oppressive-control-this-is-a-human-rights-issue/

 

 

 

James Purnell:  To be director of BBC Radio without any idea how it works

 

 

 

23 August 2016: And the abuse continues – BBC warned not to promote former Labour Party minister Purnell to Director of BBC Radio post

Former Tory Party Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has urged the BBC to rethink reported plans to appoint a former Labour minister as its new director of radio. He told the Times of his “severe doubts” about Purnell’s suitability for the role, given his past political allegiances.

Purnell, currently the BBC’s head of strategy, has been tipped for promotion to a more senior role.  A BBC representative said: “We wouldn’t comment on speculation and do not think that holding public office should bar someone from having a career afterwards.” Purnell joined the BBC in 2010 after a career as a Labour cabinet minister under Gordon Brown, including a spell as Culture Secretary. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37164700

 

 

 

 

 

 

The BBC is to look to appoint an experienced radio executive (£120-140K) under Purnell to run the operation day-to-day to make up for his lack of hands-on experience. With add ons- the cost to the licence fee holders of providing an executive to provide radio services will be win excess of £500K. A joke that isna’ funny.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/30/bbc-james-purnell-radio-helen-boaden

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What attraction does the Tory Party, London and Westminster hold for young gay men? 

London is a cesspit of crime, vice, drugs, sex and politicians of all ages and sex who prey on immature and impressionable youngsters. The churn factor is high with many reported deaths and casualties primarily drug related or otherwise linked to a hedonistic lifestyle much enjoyed by a financially favoured elite who live their entire lives funded by the taxpayer entering politics direct from university taking up political advisor posts by neponistic or cronyism arrangements.

Henry Hendron is a bright young gay man (one of many) whose background was entirely suited to a political career with the Tory Party. Indeed, (shades of a young William Hague) he addressed and wowed the Party conference as a teenager. Many party members earmarked Henry for high political office possibly even Party leader.

In the next 10-15 years Henry’s career blossomed in the city and he became the barrister associated with the Party. He networked in important political circles and was often in the public  eye rescuing politicians and aristocracy from difficult legal situations.

But Henry’s other lifestyle took him into a cesspit of drugs and hedonistic sex orgies where he and his boyfriend would engage in “Chemsex” with multiple partners of all ages and “upper class” professions including BBC executives, producers and politicians. It was this that brought about his demise.

I sincerely believe that Scotland needs to break free from Westminster so that we Scots, as an independent nation once more would be able to ensure our politicians remained free from the excesses  of the Union that has done so much harm to Scotland for over 300 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 October 1998: Tory Party Conference – Schoolboy Henry Hendron urges the Tory Party conference to consider the reintroduction of corporal punishment.

In the debate on law and order, Hendron, from Ealing North, urged tougher penalties for those who deliberately flout the law. ”The next Conservative administration should consider more forceful methods of crime punishment and look at the reintroduction of corporal punishment,” he said, to cheers. ”I believe it acts not only as a punishment but also as a great deterrent against crime. I also call for the introduction of longer prison sentences. Every man, woman and child has the basic fundamental right to be able to go out into the community without fear of becoming a victim of crime.”

After his speech, Henry, who is studying English, politics and economics A levels at Gunnersbury Catholic School, Brentford, said it was his first conference address. A victim of crime himself, having twice had his bike stolen, he said: ”We should have punishment that fits the crime and in some circumstances corporal punishment does fit the crime.” Henry, whose biggest audience before speaking at the conference was about 100 people, said he harboured ambitions to become an MP and would like eventually to enter Parliament.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12337000.Schoolboy_calls_for_corporal_punishment/

 

 

 

 
4 October 2013: Conservative MP and former deputy speaker of the House of Commons Nigel Evans to appear in court accused of sex offences against seven men

Evans, the MP for Ribble Valley in Lancashire, will make his first appearance in the crown court at Preston accused of two counts of indecent assault, five of sexual assault and one of rape. Evans resigned as deputy speaker of the House of Commons after he was charged last month. He made a personal statement in the House of Commons the day after he was charged, claiming that facing the allegations was as hard as dealing with the deaths of his mother and brother in the past few years.

The Swansea-born MP, who lives in Pendleton, Lancashire, was one of three deputy speakers elected in a secret ballot of MPs in 2010. Later that year he came out as gay, saying he was “tired of living a lie”. Evans was a vice chairman of the Conservative Party from 1999 to 2001.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/conservative-mp-nigel-evans-appear-6137433

 

 

 

 
10 April 2014: Many MPs, staff and hangers-on work, drink and sleep together and the cycle is fuelled by the availability of cheap alcohol

Britain’s 900-year-old seat of government, the historic Palace of Westminster is home to a subculture of booze-fuelled revelling that puts many a university campus to shame. Long accused of inhabiting a “bubble” removed from the outside world, many MPs, parliamentary staff and political hangers-on not only work together but socialise, drink, and sleep together too. It is a lifestyle pattern made even easier by the cheap alcohol offered in parliament’s taxpayer-subsidised bars.

It was in this environment, as well as the haunts of nearby Soho, that the Tory deputy speaker Nigel Evans fell into the trap of what his defence barrister called “drunken overfamiliarity” with researchers at the heart of Westminster’s thriving gay scene. “Parliament is a very easy place to be openly gay,” one Westminster researcher said. “And there are also MPs who are publicly heterosexual but covertly gay, some of whom make passes at men in parliament.” Double standards did not only apply to gay MPs masquerading as straight, he said, but also to senior politicians who were publicly happily married but who had a predatory approach to young female staff.

Another researcher reeled off a list of “infamously sleazy” MPs from all parties that women in his social circle actively avoided. “It’s not just the odd remark, it’s the wandering hands as well,” he said. “Some seem attracted to the power thing or think it’s part of getting on in a party, so it’s definitely not the case that the advances are always unwanted.”

Drinking hangouts have spread to nearby Whitehall pubs and some of the parliamentary gay scene has expanded to Soho. For researchers, the heart of much of the shenanigans is the cheap booze available at the Sports and Social Club. This is still home to a rowdy Thursday karaoke night after the bosses have returned to their constituencies.

There is also a steady stream of free beer and wine provided by lobbyists at receptions in the Commons and Lords, says one staffer, with the most raucous nights ending up in the nearby Players Bar. “You could have free drink every night of the week if you wanted to gatecrash all the parties. Many do,” he said. “You can criticise the researchers for taking advantage, but if you didn’t network with colleagues you’d be dead. It’s part of the job.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/10/nigel-evans-alcohol-drinking-westminster

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 November 2015: Addicted to Chemsex – The horror Story

An increasing number of gay men are taking part in multi-day, drug-fuelled orgies – despite the health risks.  Chemsex is identified as the habit of engaging in weekend-long parties fuelled by sexually disinhibiting drugs, such as crystal meth, GHB, GBL and mephedrone. These parties involve multiple people and are mostly facilitated online. People involved in the subculture directly link chemsex to alarming rates of HIV infection. In London four new positive diagnoses are currently made daily linked to the practice of  “pozzing up”,  knowingly becoming infected with the virus. Meth, meph and G create a potent cocktail enabling extremes of behaviour, which carries significant risks for the sexual and mental health of habitual users.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/addicted-to-chemsex-gay-drugs-film

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 April 2014: Henry Hendron a barrister friend of Nigel Evans allegedly jeopardised the trial committing a very serious contempt of court posting an “irresponsible” blog on the Internet.

Prosecutor Mark Heywood QC said the online comments had caused at least one of the alleged victims to consider pulling out of the trial. Although the comments – claiming to be news from “Camp Nigel” – were taken down, the court heard that they had been tweeted and retweeted on the eve of the trial.

Evans own QC Peter Wright described it as “irresponsible and jeopardised the trial process.” The judge reported him to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve, saying “this is a prima facie contempt of court and it could influence jurors too. This is a very serious contempt.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nigel-evans-barrister-friend-jeopardised-trial-with-online-blog-9251762.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 November 2014: Barrister Henry Hendron hit with fine for slagging off MP trial witnesses in blog

The regulator has slapped Hendron with a £2,000 fine for professional misconduct. In a recently-released finding, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) found that Middle Temple member Hendron had: “behaved in a manner which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity and diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in the profession”.

The eight-year call junior at London’s Strand Chambers got into hot water for publishing a blog last March that contained “disparaging statements against witnesses” in a trial that was scheduled to kick off the next day. That trial — heard at Preston Crown Court — involved the high-profile case of former Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, Nigel Evans MP, who was ultimately acquitted of nine counts of sexual offences.

Hendron, who was a chum of Evans, blogged: “I am a barrister, but I shall not be representing Nigel at court. My involvement is one of providing advice, assistance and support in this difficult time. Criminal law is not really my thing. It doesn’t usually pay for a start. Don’t get me wrong. I have done my share of Crown Court trials, but my practice has, inexplicably, meant that I have tended to represent the well-heeled and the well off in civil and family courts.

Most of the complainants’ (who cannot be identified for legal reasons) are known largely as self-serving, with their own political agendas, with a manipulative and selfish streak. A number of them that I know of are connected to each other, and indeed only a week prior to Nigel’s arrest, he was socialising with some of them.

In my view, knowing what I know, some of these people are not victims but duplicitous individuals, acting together in a pack like mentality to bring down a well-respected and well-known politician; I suspect in the fullness of time some of them will waive their right to anonymity to cash in their ‘stories’.”

http://www.legalcheek.com/2014/11/barrister-hit-with-2000-fine-for-slagging-off-mp-trial-witnesses-in-blog/

 

 

 

Ex Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans and his friend Henry Hendron

 

 

 

 

 

24 January 2015: Lawyer Henry Hendron arrested after boyfriend dies of suspected drugs overdose

A top London lawyer has been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter, after his boyfriend died of a suspected drug overdose. Henry Hendron, a 34-year-old civil barrister, was arrested after the sudden death of his boyfriend, 18-year-old Miguel Jimenez. It is understood a Sunday newspaper plans to run a story because of Mr Hendron’s close friendship with senior Tory MP Nigel Evans.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/24/lawyer-arrested-after-boyfriend-dies-of-suspected-drugs-overdose/

 

 

 

BBC executive producer Alexander Parkin Drug Dealer

 

 

 

 

 

9 March 2016: BBC producer admits supplying ‘meow meow’ after a barrister’s boyfriend died of an overdose.

Alexander Parkin, 40, appeared in the dock with top barrister Henry Hendron, 35, who denies supplying drugs. Hendron’s boyfriend, waiter Miguel Jimenez, 18, died from an overdose at London’s Temple, the buildings housing the country’s top legal chambers.

Hendron, (seen as one of the rising stars of the legal circuit) was represented by his brother Richard Hendron, denied two counts of conspiracy to supply controlled drugs. He further denied two counts of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply and two counts of possession of controlled drugs.

BBC executive Alexander Parkin 40 pleaded guilty to two counts of supplying controlled drugs admitting handing out party drug meow meow at a bash where a celebrity barrister’s teenage boyfriend died of an overdose.  His solicitor, defending Parkin, said: ‘He is 40-years-old, he’s an executive producer at the BBC, he has one caution for possession of Mephedrone – there’s clearly a background to the abuse of narcotics.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3483923/BBC-executive-producer-supplied-meow-meow-drugs-death-party.html

 

 

 

8 April 2016: Why didn’t BBC mention its drug dealing executive in ‘chemsex’ story?

The BBC was under fire last night for interviewing celebrity barrister Henry Hendron who supplied the drugs that killed his teenage boyfriend, and not mentioning that he bought them from a Corporation executive.

Hendron, 35, was given a key interview slot on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. But despite an extended interview and a follow-up piece on ‘chemsex’ drug use in the gay community, the journalists did not mention that BBC executive producer Alexander Parkin had sold the lawyer £1,000 worth of designer drugs.

The BBC also faced censure for discussing sexual habits and drug use on the morning radio show, when many families would have been eating breakfast together. Yesterday, a spokesman for Mediawatch UK, which campaigns for a safer media, criticised the BBC. ‘We know that drug use is bad because it’s illegal – it’s hard to know what kind of message the BBC is trying to put across over the breakfast table,’ he said. ‘Listeners could have been forgiven for getting confused as they heard a man who has pleaded guilty to supplying drugs that killed his teenage boyfriend that were originally supplied by a BBC producer describing his illegal drug use as a “nice experience” and saying how upset he was at being treated as a criminal. “There’s certainly a judgment issue to be looked at here – it’s one thing raising awareness of the effects of drug use, quite another to be giving a platform at breakfast time to a drug dealer who could shortly be facing prison.”

Hendron described his arrest as ‘traumatic’ and saying he had been “treated like a criminal” admitted supplying the drugs that killed Mr Jimenez. He had bought £1,000 of designer drugs from Parkin, 41, to sell on to revellers at a ‘chemsex’ party at his flat at his legal chambers. The ‘chemsex’ phenomenon sweeping the gay community, involves participants taking drugs for up at a week at a time and having sex with multiple partners.

Hendron pleaded guilty to two charges of possessing drugs with intent to supply and will be sentenced on May 3. Parkin also faces jail after admitting two counts of supplying controlled drugs.

 

A viewers Comment:

The BBC lost its ability to provide rational, balanced and impartial reporting a long time ago, so this kind of conduct should come as no surprise to anyone. Charter renewal is fast approaching but our spineless government will cave in as usual because it suits their purpose to do so. And the BBC Trust, an organisation that is supposed to hold the broadcaster to account, went native from the day it was set up. Both organisations are totally unfit, something that has become increasingly obvious to most of us.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3529256/Why-didn-t-BBC-mention-drug-dealing-executive-chemsex-story-Corporation-fire-interview-barrister-supplied-drugs-killed-boyfriend.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 May 2016: Celebrity barrister Henry Hendron, who bought the designer ‘chemsex’ drugs from BBC producer, Alexander Parkin, that killed his teenage boyfriend is spared jail

Henry Hendron, 35, bought £1,000 of Mephedrone and GBL from BBC producer Alexander Parkin, 41, to take to parties and sell on to friends. On the morning of January 20 last year, after yet another orgy Hendron woke to find his Colombian boyfriend Miguel Jimenez, 18, lying dead next to him in bed at his exclusive flat in London’s Temple, the collection of chambers where Britain’s top lawyers and judges are based.

Hendron’s conviction may mark the end of a glittering career for the Tory lawyer once tipped to lead the party. As a 17-year-old schoolboy Hendron addressed the 1998 Conservative Party conference calling for the re-introduction of corporal punishment. He acted for Tory MP Nadine Dorries when she was accused of smearing a rival during the 2015 election campaign and other clients include the Earl of Cardigan and The Apprentice winner Stella English. He was sentenced to a community order with 18 months supervision and 140 hours unpaid work.

On his arrest Parkin claimed he bought the drugs from a Brazilian man in the Harrow Road, keeping 250ml of GBL for himself and selling another litre to Hendron. ‘He later admitted to officers he was struggling with addiction to drugs,’ said Mr Bowyer.

Parkin, who has a previous caution for possession of Mephedrone, presented references from the controller of BBC Radio 3 and the British Embassy in Dubai to the court. His barrister, Dominic Bell, said that since losing his job he ‘is devoting all his attention to DIY’.

Mr Bell highlighted letters in support of Parkin, including from the Controller of BBC Radio 3 and presenter Max Reinhardt from the radio station’s Late Junction show. On the defendants’ lifestyle, he said: ‘It is quite a close-knit scene and you have to be known to be a member of that scene.

In a later interview Hendron gave a strong warning about drug use, which he said was growing on the gay scene. He said ” There are a large number of men, in their 30s and 40s, who’ve come to drugs late and are now doing it regularly. Drugs in the gay scene have really taken off. Recent studies show that gay people are three times more likely to take drugs than their straight counterparts. It seems to be the acceptable face now of recreation in the gay community. Most of the people who do these gay sex high parties are in full-time employment. It’s not a picture that most people aren’t part of that scene would recognise.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3580931/Celebrity-lawyer-bought-designer-chemsex-drugs-BBC-producer-killed-teenage-boyfriend-spared-jail.html

 

 

Miguel Jimenez & Henry Hendron
9 May 2016: Chemsex, drugs and death: The lawyer who lost his lover

Hendron (a high-profile barrister who has represented MPs, aristocrats and reality TV stars) said the couple, would take the drugs together during group sex sessions — called “chemsex”. The drugs, along with crystal meth, are often associated with chemsex due to their ability to induce heightened arousal, sexual stamina, and reduce inhibition. Sex sessions may last anywhere from a few hours to a few days, and Hendron estimates he was spending “anything up to £1,000 a weekend” on drugs.

Up until the age of 30, Hendron, who came from a conservative Catholic family and was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year with the prestigious Strand Chambers law firm, had never touched drugs in his life. But after trying them at a private event, he quickly became hooked, engaging in chemsex sessions most weekends. He said they offered an escape from a high-pressure job with 18-hour work days — and he wasn’t alone. “In the London gay chemsex scene, a lot of people that do that are actually doctors,” he said. “They’re professionals, they’re lawyers. “And a lot of them manage to juggle this lifestyle — weekends of drugs — and then they go to work perhaps a bit worn on Monday, but they manage.”

Apparently, learning nothing from the death of Jimenez’s death Hendron embarked on a series of chemsex binges that at one point saw him overdose on GHB — and end up in intensive care.

http://udonews.com/chemsex-drugs-death-lawyer-lost-lover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Scottish Tories increasingly restless about Brexit

In the months following the outcome of the European Union referendum Ruth Davidson and her Tory party colleagues in Scotland have been significantly reticent about getting involved in the political scene in Scotland. It appears to be the case that many MSP’s and Party activists in Scotland are maintaining a low profile until a decision on the form “Brexit” is to take is decided. A “hard Brexit” might well trigger a rebellion in Scotland with the Scottish Tories giving their backing to a referendum on Scottish independence, preferring to promote their policies in a Scotland free from Westminster.

The party membership and leaders in Scotland are well aware Scotland and its needs are not given a high priority by Westminster and the natives are becoming restless. The content of this article provides evidence it will not require a deal of pushing of the party membership before their tolerance of Westminster politics ends in the withdrawal of the party in Scotland from their UK controllers.

 

 

 

 

 

5 September 2011: Murdo Fraser divides opinion with ‘radical’ plan for Scottish Conservatives

Fraser said he had received an “extremely positive” response since making the suggestion and particularly welcomed the support of former Scottish Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind. who said “I think that what Murdo Fraser is saying is very refreshing. In broad terms, I welcome it.” Several other senior Tory MSPs also backed the proposal. Alex Johnstone, North East Scotland MSP, said: “This is the type of imaginative thinking we need and I will be supporting Murdo all the way.”

But the plan also drew criticism from some high-profile Conservatives and opposition politicians and prompted Glasgow MSP Ruth Davidson to confirm she would contest the leadership and defend the present Scottish party. Davidson, who grew up in Fife, is considered his biggest rival in the leadership contest and has the backing of David Cameron. “I am proud to be a Scottish Conservative and Unionist. This is a destabilising distraction” she said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 March 2016: Scotland, the UK and the European Union -This is an extract from Mundell’s address as the Secretary of State for Scotland

“It is a feature of our times that people no longer give unquestioning, deferential support to political constructions in the way they once did. It is right that those of us who are elected to positions of responsibility and who support these political institutions should be put on our mettle to defend them. Whether it is the United Kingdom or the European Union or whatever – if we believe sincerely that they are in the best interests of our country and our people, we should make the case for them with clarity and honesty.

The benefits which Scotland and the rest of the UK gains from EU membership are clear. Stepping away from the EU would be backwards step. We would be forfeiting our genuine freedom for a false freedom, which would impose real risks and dangers. In the end, it makes sense to be a part of the things which influence you. So let’s make the case for the real freedom which Scotland in the UK, and the UK in the EU gives to us all. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/david-mundell-scotland-the-uk-and-a-reformed-european-union-speech

 

 

 

 

 

 
21 June 2016: Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson will declare independence from her UK party if Boris Johnson becomes its leader.

Some at Westminster are predicting a coup in the aftermath of Thursday’s EU referendum. The prospect of Johnson replacing Cameron as Prime Minister is caused such concern in the Scottish top team that going solo, in a move mirroring Murdo Fraser’s failed leadership campaign tactic, is now seen as a viable option.

Davidson, who saw off Fraser five years ago and guided the Tories to second place in May’s Holyrood election, considered the radical action ahead of a televised showdown on the EU referendum with Boris. A source close to Davidson said: “If Boris becomes leader we’ll do a Murdo. We’ll have to break off.”

Supporters of Mr Fraser’s plan argued that forming a new party would be the “next logical step” for her, whether Johnson entering Downing Street or some other factor was the catalyst. Party insiders said she had distanced the Scottish party from the UK Tories in several key policy areas and they campaigned in the recent Holyrood election under the banner “Ruth Davidson for a strong opposition” rather than the Conservative name.

Davidson recently savaged Johnson arguing a Leave Vote would be “a conscious decision to make Britain poorer” which “would hurt the poorest the most”.

She added: “Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage would be OK; the wealthy are always able to fall back on their pension pots and savings. It would be ordinary workers who would suffer: the easyJet air hostess who could lose her job because, after Brexit, the airline would be priced out from flying within Europe; the dad on the factory floor at one of our many car-makers whose job disappears because Europe has slapped a new tariff on British-made motors; the single mum on a zero-hours contract whose job is extinguished to cut costs.” https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/210365/scottish-tories-split-uk-party-boris-johnson-becomes-leader/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 June 2016: Willie Rennie believes support for independence is at ‘a record high’.

Rennie said the Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson should be “embarrassed” over rising support for independence since her party became the second largest group in Holyrood after May’s election. His concerns were expressed at the last session of First Minister’s Questions before Holyrood moved into summer recess. The Lib Dem leader said: “I don’t know if Nicola Sturgeon felt the same but I found it difficult to believe that Ruth Davidson showed no signs of embarrassment at all when she claimed to stand up for our place in the United Kingdom. “Within weeks of becoming leader of the – apparently official – opposition support for independence is now at a record high.”

Rennie went on to reiterate he personally continued to “oppose independence” but he is at odds with his party membership who recently voiced their support for a second independence referendum to him and his fellow Liberal Democrat MSPs at a meeting in Edinburgh. Membership of the European project has been a fundamental strand of British liberalism since the mid 20th century. http://stv.tv/news/politics/1359194-god-help-the-union-willie-rennie-slams-scottish-tories/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 July 2016: Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, increases the pressure on Theresa May to tell the three million EU nationals living in the UK that they can remain after Brexit.

Davidson, who backed Ms May in the Tory leadership election, urged her to move quickly after taking over as Prime Minister to allay fears among the EU nationals that they might be forced to leave the UK. Ms May refused to make such a promise. Davidson briefed Westminster journalists that the status of the EU nationals should be guaranteed. “That’s an assurance that I want from the Government, and I want it pretty quick. It’s not enough to say to people who have come here and made a home here, and have made their life here, that we want your labour, that’s all we want,” adding “We have got to be able also to say we want your brains, we want your culture, we want your passion, we want you in our country, making our country better, and giving these people security.” She further admitted “The result is testing this country’s sense of unity. In Scotland, where people voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, the result is testing the binds of the Union as well.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-eu-vote-theresa-may-scottish-referendum-ruth-davidson-t-a7133271.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

And now for a wee bit of fantasy. What if Ruth Dreamed a Dream???   Ruth has an epiphany – reflecting on the implications of Brexit for Scotland (a fantasy but?)

Ruth Davidson’s sudden and striking realization that her party’s political viability in Scotland following Brexit would be much weakened if it were it to remain as part of the UK forced her to consider other more radical options. With independence there would be the prospect of a shake-up of a party system presently dominated by the SNP and Labour party’s:

1. Ruth reflected first on the prospects for the Tory party at Holyrood elections. She calculated that under existing devolution there would never be another government of Scotland that involved her Party. Unlike in Wales, there seemed no prospect of the Conservative Party going into coalition with any of the other parties in the Scottish Parliament. Thus on the big devolved domestic policy issues facing Scotland (education, health, social justice), it would be unlikely in the immediate future that Conservative ideas would ever have any influence. If you are in politics because you want to represent your constituents and occasionally influence a minority government’s policies, then this may not be a problem. If you are in politics because you want to be in power, the present arrangements are deeply unsatisfactory. If Ruth cannot envisage an improving situation, then she might be tempted to opt for more radical change. Her other option is simply to join the SNP.

2. Ruth also formed the view that winning a Tory majority at the 2015 UK general election was a hollow victory without significant gains in Scotland. She is tired of arguments about legitimacy and what she sees as the Scottish Government’s tendency to blame Westminster for problems. Increasingly, she thinks that the UK without a truly statewide Tory Party is difficult to defend. Ruth began to consider whether it was worth the effort.

3. Having reflected on the prospects for the Tory’s, Ruth turned to the best way to see centre-right policies in Scotland. She thought that the best way to reduce the size of the Scottish state in the long term was to make it responsible for the taxes it spent. She saw no better way of imposing fiscal discipline and an incentive to think about productivity in public services. The buck would once and for all stop in Edinburgh. She calculated that the UK government would not devolve the extent of powers necessary to have a sensible debate in Scotland about the proper role of the state and the market. But, after independence, the link between money raised in Scotland and money spent in Scotland would no longer be blurred. At a stroke, politicians could only raise spending if they taxed, borrowed or grew the economy. As a Tory, this is ground on which she felt comfortable debating.

4. Lastly, Ruth speculated about the party system in an independent Scotland. The centre-right would stand the chance of breaking free from the past and reinventing itself. In particular, removing the centre-periphery cleavage from Scottish politics would encourage members of other parties (particularly the SNP) to consider joining a new party of the centre-right because their main goal has been achieved. In any event, Ruth concluded that, politically, things could hardly get any worse in Scotland for people holding her ideological views. With independence there would be at least the prospect of a shake-up of a party system dominated by two parties (broadly) of the centre-left.

Tories in Scotland are separated in part by an assessment of whether the political possibilities for the centre-right within the British state are still attractive. Is the price being paid for very limited influence or power at Westminster worth it? A UK Tory majority with no increase in Tory MPs from Scotland places the Scottish Tories once again in an awkward position. Faced with steady decline or (perhaps) steady recovery, it is not irrational for a Tory to consider more radical options.

The Original article (modified for the purpose of the article) was written by:Alan Convery: Lecturer in Politics in the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/four-reasons-a-scottish-conservative-might-vote-yes-in-2014/

 

 

 

 

 

 
A Scottish Tory backs Independence

Former Tory MSP and activist Michael Fry left the Tory Party in 2007, to explore the tensions in centre-right thinking about independence. He later launched “The Wealthy Nation Institute” which consolidated into a single group a strand of thinking about independence that had hitherto not received much attention. http://www.wealthynationinstitute.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So This is What Harmony Looks Like!!!!

 

Evidence Kezia Dugdale and the Labour Party in Scotland are not singing from the same song-sheet. The under-noted 13 local Councillors backed Owen Smith in the recently run Labour Party leadership contest. Revealing where her small power-base is located and how much out of touch she is with the Scottish membership.

Kezia today self appointed herself to the National Executive Committee of the Labour (Unionist) Party. So much for democracy!!!  Other members are nominated by the party membership. But not it seems Labour in Scotland.

In cognizance of her much publicised previously stated negative views of Jeremy Corbyn, his leadership style, lack of political acumen and unqualified support of Owen Smith she has a brass neck, faffing about at the Labour Party conference offering Corbyn the hand of friendship and support.

Latest indications are that she commands support to her policies of around 10% of the Labour Part in Scotland membership so her newly acquired membership of the National Executive is very clearly a subterfuge, organised by Mandelson and his ilk who intend to rope Corbyn in by means of the Executive.

There will be trouble ahead for years.!!!
Aberdeen Cllr’s:  Angela Taylor, Barney Crockett, George Adam, Jenny Laing, Scott Carle, William Young, Kenneth Earle

Clackmannanshire Cllr:  Maureen Henry

East Dunbartonshire Cllr’s:  Rhondda Geekie, Jim Fletcher

East Renfrewshire Cllr:  James Adams

West Dunbartonshire Cllr:  David McBride

Glasgow Cllr:  Martin Neill
The SNP need to get their act together and challenge the incompetent Aberdeen Labour Councillors on their record. I wrote a couple of articles recently exposing their gross abuse of power

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ken Livingstone

 

 

 

 
20 April 2016: Ken Livingstone leaves the Labour Party in turmoil after claiming Hitler backed moving Jews to Israel

When Jeremy Corbyn finally suspended Naz Shah, a Labour MP, for anti-Semitic comments on Wednesday afternoon he had hoped to draw a line under the furore engulfing his party. By Thursday morning, however, his friend and close ally Ken Livingstone had single-handedly reignited the row after deciding to mount an extraordinary defence of Ms Shah live on BBC Radio London.

Mr Livingstone, who sits on Labour’s National Executive Committee, claimed that Ms Shah’s suggestion that Israel should be “relocated” to the US was not anti-Semitic. He said that she had been “smeared” by the “Israel lobby” and even invoked Hitler to support his position. “There’s been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as anti-Semitic,”

he said. “I had to put up with 35 years of this. It’s completely over the top but it’s not anti-Semitic. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy was that Jews should be moved to Israel. “He was supporting Zionism – this is before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/how-ken-livingstone-left-labour-in-turmoil-after-claiming-hitler/

 

 

Adolf Hitler

 

 

 

 

But Is Judaism and Zionism the same thing? Well: “All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.” Ken Livingstone, with his long track record of supporting Palestinian human and political rights, was entirely correct in his assertions at interview with Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio London.

But the row has rumbled on for 6 months bringing with it mass resignations of MP’s from Corbyns Shadow Cabinet and a challenge to his position as Leader of the party. Which the rebels duly lost. But will the large group of Labour Lords and Labour MP “Friends of Israel” now back off and allow Corbyn to get on with his job? Early indications are that Mandelson and his ilk will re-group and take another tack. Could be an interesting year ahead.

But in any event there are differing views of world events in the period 1918-1945. Ken voiced his and was castigated as being Anti-Semitic which is a load of nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

 
Zionism

But the facts, (as presented by Cheryl b. Who is Jewish and contributes articles to care2.com) are indisputable and worth a good read.

From its’ inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that Jews should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregates and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism was a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which had absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities.

 

 

Jewish couple

 

 

 

 

 

1900: Leading Jewish religious authorities predict great hardship befalling humanity generally and the Jewish people particularly, as a result of Zionism.

To be a Jew means that either one is born to a Jewish mother or converts to the religion with the condition that he or she make no reservations with regard to Jewish law. Unfortunately there are many Jews who have no inkling whatsoever as to the duties of a Jew. Many of them are not to blame, for in many cases they lacked a Jewish education and upbringing. But there are those who deliberately distort the teachings of our tradition to suit their personal needs.

It is self understood that not just anyone has the right or the ability to make a decision regarding the philosophy or law of a religion. Especially matters in which that person has no qualification. It follows then that those individuals who “decided” that Judaism is a nationality are to be ignored and even criticized.

It is no secret that the founders of Zionism had never studied Jewish Law nor did they express interest in our holy tradition. They openly defied Rabbinical authority and self-appointed themselves as leaders of the Jewish “nation”. In Jewish history, actions like those have always spelled disaster. To be a Jew and show open defiance of authority or to introduce “amendment” or “innovation” without first consulting with those officially appointed as Jewish spiritual leaders is the ideal equation to equal catastrophe.

One can not just decide to “modernize” ancient traditions or regulations. The spiritual leaders of contemporary Judaism better known as Orthodox rabbis have received ordination to judge and interpret matters pertaining to the Jewish faith. These rabbis have received their rights and responsibilities and form a link in the unbroken chain of the Jewish tradition dating all the way back to Moses. It was these very rabbis who, at the time of the formation of the Zionist movement, foresaw the pernicious outcome that was without a doubt lined up.

 

 

 

 

 

Grand Rebbe Teitelbaum, zt’lIt was a man possessing outstanding Judaic genius, and a level of uncontested holiness who enunciated the Jewish stance regarding Zionism. This charismatic individual did not mince his words.  Straight to the point he called Zionism “the work of Satan”, “a sacrilege” and “a blasphemy”.

He forbade any participation with anything even remotely associated with Zionism and said that Zionism was bound to call the wrath of God upon His people. He maintained this stance with unwavering bravery from the onset of Zionism whilst he was still in Hungary up until his death in New York where he lead a congregation numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

Grand Rabbi Teitelbaum, scion to a legacy of holy mystics and Hassidic Masters unfortunately had his prediction fulfilled. More than six million Jews were horribly murdered. All in punishment for Zionist stupidity. The Holocaust, he wept, was a direct result of Zionism.

 

 

 

 

 

Zionist leaders made a point of displaying abysmal contempt for their Jewish brothers and sisters by inciting the Angel of Death, Adolf Hitler, and then actively participating in their extermination. They took the liberty of telling the world that they represented World Jewry. But who appointed them leaders of the Jewish People?? It is no secret that these so-called “leaders” were ignoramuses when it came to Judaism. Atheists and racists too.

These are the “statesmen” who organized the 1933 trade boycott against a Germany, already on its knees, in the aftermath of WWI and the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, particularly the reparations that Germany had to pay to the Allies, which prevented the German economy from recovering and a World still in the grips of the 1929 economic crisis.

The boycott brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and Britain were at peace with mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist “statesmen” forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their trade boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy encouraging him to implement the “Final Solution”, ( already part of the Nazis’ racist ideology). Genocide began, but the leaders of the World Jewry sat back and did nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
1933 -1938: The Jewish problem drifted down the list of political difficulties

 

6-15 July 1938: President Roosevelt convened the Evian conference, to deal with the Jewish refugee problem.  A Jewish Agency delegation headed by Golda Meir (Meirson) ignored a German offer to allow Jews to emigrate to other countries on payment of $250 a head. But the Zionists made no effort to influence the United States and the 32 other countries attending the conference to allow immigration of German and Austrian Jews.
1 February 1940: Henry Montor, executive vice-President of the United Jewish Appeal refused to intervene for a shipload of Jewish refugees stranded on the Danube river, stating that “Palestine cannot be flooded with… old people or with undesirables.”

1941-1942: German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France and on condition that:

a) none of the deportees would travel from Spain to Palestine; and

b) all the deportees would be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and

c) $1000.00 ransom, payable for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.  The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:

a) Only Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.

b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a “Jewish State” at the end of the war.

c) No ransom to be paid

 

The response to the Gestapo’s offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative was the gas chamber. The treacherous Zionist leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A perfidy! A betrayal beyond description!

 

 

 

 

17 December 1942: Both houses of the British Parliament declared readiness to find temporary refuge for endangered persons. The British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany. Within two weeks the motion had attracted a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures in support. But on Jan 27 1943 when the next steps were being pursued by over 100 M.P.’s and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion because Palestine had been omitted as a destination.

 

1943: The British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The “Jewish Agency” leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.

 

16 February 1943: Romania offered 70,000 Jewish refugees of the Trans-Dniestria the opportunity to leave at the cost on payment of $50 each. On Feb 24 1943 Stephen Wise, President of the American Jewish Congress and leader of the American Zionists issued a refusal (published in the New York papers) to the offer and declared no collection of funds would seem justified.

 

 

 

 

 

18 February 1943: Yitzhak Greenbaum, Chairman of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency, addressing the Zionist Executive Council in Tel Aviv Feb18 1943 said, “when they asked me, “couldn’t you give money out of the “United Jewish Appeal” funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said NO! and I say again, NO!…one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance.”

During the course of the negotiations, Chaim Weizman, the first “Jewish statesman” stated: “The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important”. Weizman’s cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe”.

And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist “statesmen” lured the broken refugees in the displaced persons camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.

 

1944: At the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved. The same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).

 

1944: The Emergency Committee to “Save the Jewish People” called upon the American government to establish a War Refugee Board. Stephen Wise testifying before a special committee of Congress objected to the proposal.

 

 

 

 
1947: Congressman William Stration sponsored a bill to immediately grant entry to the United States of 400,000 displaced persons. The bill was not passed after it was publicly denounced by the Zionist leadership.
23 February 1956: The Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, Minister for Immigration was asked in the Canadian House of Commons “would he open the doors of Canada to Jewish refugees”. He replied “the government has made no progress in that direction because the government of Israel….does not wish us to do so”.

 

 

 

 

 

1972: The Zionist leadership successfully opposed an effort in the United States Congress to allow 20,000-30,000 Russian refugees to enter the United States. Jewish relief organizations were being pressured to abandon the refugees in Vienna, Rome and other European cities. The pattern is clear!!! Humanitarian rescue efforts are subverted to narrow Zionist interests.

The foregoing facts are written here with consternation and unbearable shame. How can it be explained that at a time during the last phase of the war, when the Nazis were willing to barter Jews for money, partly because of their desires to establish contact with the Western powers which, they believed, were under Jewish influence, how was it possible one asks that the self-proclaimed “Jewish leaders” did not move heaven and earth to save the last remnant of their brothers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
January 1941: Zionists propose a Military Alliance with Hitler

It would be wishful thinking if it could be stated that the contribution of the leaders of the Zionist movement was confined to simply sitting back and ignoring the plight of their dying brothers and sisters. But, not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime. In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany.

The offer was made by the radical underground “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”, better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist “National Military Organization” (NMO) over the group’s attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism. This remarkable proposal “for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation of Zionists in the war on the side of Germany” is worth quoting in full:

 

 

 

 

 

“The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people.

Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry. The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.

This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the “Jewish” men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO.

They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed. The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

The co-operation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England”.

 

 

 

 
On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests. This is just one example of the Zionist movements’ collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine.

And to top it all up, brainwashing! How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousandfold cry: “Traitor,” “Enemy of the Jewish People.” Credit Cheryl b who contributes articles to: care2.com

 

Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947) pp. 315-317). The Wall Street Journal December 2, 1976

 
Other informative Links:

http://www.realnews247.com/brutal_zionist_role_in_holocaust.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/04/denying-nazi-zionist-collusion/
https://rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/did-you-know-about-zionist-collaboration-with-the-nazis/
http://aldeilis.net/english/category/zionism/c90-zionism-and-the-holocaust/
http://www.israelversusjudaism.org/holocaust/victims.cfm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brian Wilson

Brian Wilson former Labour party minister at Westminster and in Scotland has been at the forefront of Scottish and Westminster politics for nearly 40 years.

He is an accomplished author and Journalist responsible for many hard hitting articles almost always attacking the SNP government. He is always vociferous in his defence of the Union and consistently voted against any form of Scottish home rule.

He retired from front line politics at the age of 55 taking up a new career in business concentrating on re-establishing Nuclear power as the main source of electricity supply in the UK.

He fully supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and active in the Labour government as the trade minister successfully negotiated a small number of rebuilding projects to a total of around £1bn. The value of the contracts was a pittance when set against the total for all reconstruction contracts thought to be in the region of £300bn, all of which went to USA based companies. So much for the “special relationship” which brought death and injury to many fine young servicemen and women. The main company benefiting was AMEX (remember the name it features again and again in this article.

Wilson holds directorships in a number of energy related businesses and continues to publicly comment on UK government energy policy, particularly on the subject of nuclear power, which he is a supporter of, and has written opinion pieces in national newspapers as well as appearing on television news programmes to air his views.  He has called for Britain to retain a balanced energy policy with contributions to our electricity needs from nuclear, renewable’ s, clean coal and gas.

Wilson took a great deal of interest in Cuba which (when Trade Minister in the Labour government) he visited on a number of occasions in an effort to improve political and trade links. He recently set up a new company and is Chairman of Havana Energy Ltd; Developing  Renewable Energy Strategies for Cuba and the Caribbean. The company was recently awarded a lucrative renewable contract by the Cuban government.  Read over his recent conference speech: “http://www.havana-energy.com/downloads/WWEC2013HavanaEnergySpeech.pdf”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other executive positions held:

Non-executive director of Amec Foster Wheeler   Appointed, 26 October 2005, non-executive director of AMEC Nuclear Holdings Ltd, the nuclear services arm of AMEC plc. The announcement boasted that the firm was the UK’s largest private nuclear services business. Wilson said “It is vital to have a British company of AMEC Nuclear’s standing involved in every aspect of the industry. There is a huge amount of essential work to be done at both home and abroad, including clean-up and decommissioning, and I want to see the maximum level of participation from the UK in that process”.

non-executive director of Celtic plc

Chair of the UK Operations Board of Airtricity:  UK arm of an international renewable energy company developing wind farms in Scotland and  the UK, USA and Europe. Supplies renewable energy to over 43,000 customers in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Chair of Flying Matters:  A lobbying organisation supporting the aviation industry. It was wound up at the end of April 2011 following the withdrawal of four founding members including BA, BAA and Virgin Atlantic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A closer look at  notable events in which his involvement is evident. The first, in 1996 condemns Wilson for his actions after leaving government

1996: Former Tory transport minister Steven Norris is set to take a job heading a private bus company, it emerged yesterday as Labour condemned a “jobs- for-the-boys” scandal.

Brian Wilson, Labour campaigns spokesman, said: “This is a public scandal. Common decency dictates he should not walk out of government and start taking money from one of the beneficiaries of his policies. This will heighten the public impression that Tory ministers legislate for their own futures rather than the national interest.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ex-minister-accused-of-job-scandal-1351066.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997: Labour was last night at the centre of a fresh home rule row after one of the party’s senior campaign strategists, Brian Wilson claimed a future Scottish parliament would not be allowed to hold a referendum asking the people of Scotland if they wanted independence.

Opponents say Wilson, who heads Labour’s rebuttal unit, had gaffed and was completely wrong when he told an Irish radio programme that a Scottish parliament could not hold an independence referendum stating that the Scottish government did not have the powers to legislate and only Westminster could approve such a move. Daily mail April 22, 1997

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1998: A number of Labour MPs face “yellow cards” over their poor voting record in the Commons. Party leaders are to “name and shame” laggards in a drive to tighten discipline and end revolts. They are believed to include Scottish Minister Brian Wilson, Local parties are to be sent voting records and persistent offenders will even risk being dumped as Labour MPs. A senior whip claimed that Mr Wilson, could not be relied on to turn up for votes.  The Mirror June 5, 1998

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2001: Amec, in partnership with British Energy is to be awarded a contract to build the largest wind-farm in Europe (up to 300 wind turbines) on Lewis, at a cost of £600m .

The project was unveiled by construction and energy minister Brian Wilson on Lewis last Thursday.

British Energy and Amec are already working in partnership to build an offshore wind farm of 30 turbines near Skegness. http://www.building.co.uk/amec-to-build-%C2%A3600m-scottish-wind-farm/1014547.article

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2001: Foreign Office Minister Brian Wilson embarrassed the Labour Party yesterday by calling for the construction of a new nuclear power station in his constituency.

Wilson wrote to the chairman designate of British Energy, Robin Jeffrey, urging him to think about replacing the ageing Hunterston B nuclear power station in North Ayrshire.

But the Minister’s desire for a new nuclear plant runs counter to Labour’s last election manifesto, which claimed there was no case for new reactors.

No one from the Labour Party would comment officially yesterday, insisting it was a constituency matter, but party managers will not be happy Mr Wilson has given such strong support to nuclear energy when the party is split on the issue. …The Mail March 15, 2001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2001: It is an open secret in the closed and murky world of Scottish Labour. To say that Brian Wilson and Henry McLeish do not see eye- to-eye is an understatement.

In the name of keeping Tony Blair’s commitment to devolution on track, the two men buried their deep-rooted antipathy in the wake of Labour’s first general election landslide in 1997.

Mr Wilson stifled his conviction that delivering a Scottish parliament was like handing a badly wrapped gift to the Scottish National Party, while Mr McLeish took delight in his role as devolution minister at Westminster.

But under the deceptively calm surface, dangerous currents of dislike between the two MPs continues to swirl . …The Scotsman June 9, 2001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2002: So now we know. John Birt, former director general of the BBC, spilled the beans about a conspiracy at the highest levels of Government to prevent Scotland having a normal broadcasting service.

During 1997 and 1998 almost everyone in Scotland was in favour of what was called ‘The Scottish Six’ – a 6pm BBC TV news programme run from Scotland by BBC Scotland and reporting the events of the world through Scottish eyes.

Supporters included the Church of Scotland, which criticised the broadcaster over its ignorance of Scottish affairs, BBC Scotland staff themselves and the public at large.

Only two members of a specially gathered audience opposed the move to a ‘Scottish Six’ – Labour’s Brian Wilson, now Energy Minister, and Lord ‘Gus’ MacDonald, former boss of Scottish Television. By everyone else, it was seen as a natural development which would match the devolution of some powers to a Scottish parliament. Daily Mail October 21 2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2002: AMEC has secured a major petrochemical contract in South East China to work on the design and construction of a new US$2.7 billion petrochemical facility in Shanghai “- one of the largest overseas investments yet to be made in China.

AMEC’s role, as part of the owners Integrated Project Management Team (IPMT) – is central to the successful management of the design, construction and commissioning phases of the project.

This first phase has a value of around $US 60 million and is expected to grow substantially as the project progresses.

The Minister for Industry, Energy and Construction, Brian Wilson said “This is a magnificent result for AMEC and British industry.

I recently visited Shanghai and was hugely impressed by the opportunities available to UK companies”. http://archive.amecfw.com/news/2002/amec-in-major-chinese-petrochemical-win

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2002: AMEC and 50/50 joint venture services partner Fluor Daniel will participate in South Korea’s first offshore gas development following the signing of an initial £6 million two-year services contract with the Korean National Oil Company (KNOC).

Brian Wilson, UK Minister for Energy, attending the contract signing ceremony in Manila, Philippines, said: “It is an extremely exciting concept that operations of this kind can effectively be supported remotely from Aberdeen and other centres in the AMEC network, as necessary.

This is an extension of the principle that expertise developed in the North Sea can now be utilised on a global basis, while securing jobs at home and valuable contacts for British companies worldwide.” http://www.contractorsunlimited.co.uk/news/030113.shtml

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2004: Amec has won a contract worth £300m forming part of a $1bn (£550m) contract to rebuild water and sewerage networks in Iraq.

The deal is the biggest so far by a UK company for reconstruction work in the war-torn country, but otherwise British firms have lost out.

The combined successes sent Amec’s share price up 3% to 305p. It is still in the running for two more pieces of work, one in transport, the other related to justice and security, which could be worth up to $1.2bn.

Brian Wilson, the prime minister’s special envoy in Iraq who lobbied in Washington said: “This is a US-funded contract and I have no doubt that, as funding sources diversify, British companies will play an even bigger part in rebuilding Iraq.” https://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/mar/25/politicsandiraq.iraq

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2004: More nuclear power stations must be built if Britain is to meet its energy needs, a former Labour minister said yesterday. Brian Wilson, MP for Cunninghame North, denounced a policy of running down the nuclear industry as “irrational and irresponsible”.

He told an energy conference in Glasgow, organised by the Scottish TUC, that new figures showing Britain was failing to meet its own greenhouse gas reduction targets “put the tin lid” on the argument for building new nuclear stations. …The Herald December 14, 2004 Wilson lobbying for the nuclear industry. There’s a surprise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005: Amec and Fluor team have approached the government about buying the Sellafield-based British Nuclear Group (BNG) offer to take ailing British Nuclear Group private. This would complete the break-up of fuel and reprocessing operator BNFL.

In April, the ownership of Sellafield and a further 20 nuclear sites passed from the control of BNG to the newly created Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), along with the liability for dismantling them.

The state-controlled NDA will enter into contracts with private firms, (such as AMEC) to decommission the sites from 2008, when an interim arrangement allowing BNG to continue managing them will run out.

Amec, which last week paid £38 million for nuclear services consultancy NNC Holdings, is expanding aggressively into the nuclear market, having made acquisitions in France, Canada and the US. It wants to buy all or part of BNG and is hoping that a sale process will begin soon. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/jun/26/energy.business

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2006: The minister in charge of approving wind-farms in Scotland was accused last night of a blatant conflict of interest over his links with two private companies bidding to build the turbines.

Allan Wilson is Labour’s deputy enterprise minister in Scotland and is ultimately responsible for deciding if wind-farm projects should be given the go-ahead. But it has now emerged he also spent several years as election agent for Brian Wilson – the former Labour energy minister who recently became a director with two energy companies bidding to build wind-farms.

Last night, the revelations sparked an outcry among anti-wind-farm campaigners, who argued the close relationship between the men represented a conflict of interest and could breach the strict ministerial code. …Daily Mail January 26, 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–

2007: Richard Caborn, the former trade minister, has been approached to become director of a nuclear alliance bidding for the £5bn-plus contract to clean up Sellafield.

He is just one of many high profile Labour politicians to join the nuclear industry’s payroll as a lobbyist. He is understood to be ready to accept the non-executive post with the alliance formed by Amec of the UK and fellow nuclear clean-up specialists Washington Group of the US and France’s Areva. It is thought the job could be worth up to £96,000 a year.

Former energy minister Brian Wilson is a non-executive director of the nuclear division of Amec and more recently, another former Labour trade minister, Ian McCartney, was recruited by Fluor of the US.

Of note is that the Washington Group already employs Lord O’Neill, the Labour peer and former chairman of the trade and industry select committee, as a consultant. O’Neill is also chairman of industry body the Nuclear Industry Association.

Companies are competing for a slice of the £73bn decommissioning market in the UK, with the clean-up of the sprawling Sellafield site representing at least half this sum.

If, as expected, the government sanctions the construction of new nuclear reactors later this year, more lucrative contracts will be up for grabs.

Having on board politicians with inside knowledge of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Berr), trade unions and regulators is a great asset for bidders. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/nov/11/amec.nuclearindustry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2007 Labour Party hypocrisy exposed. Peter Mandelson’s spin doctor Derek Draper was fired after his links with nuclear industry lobbyists was revealed by the press. The lobbyists regrouped and flooded the media conducting a sustained and sophisticated public relations campaign, using climate change, using energy security, saying that nuclear was cheap and safe.

There are certainly no shortage of links between the nuclear industry and the New Labour establishment. Former energy minister Brian Wilson is now a non-executive director of Amec Nuclear, a client of BNFL, the government-owned nuclear reactor operator.

Since 2004, BNFL has used lobbyists Weber Shandwick to help it push the case for new nuclear plants. Weber Shandwick’s UK arm is headed by Colin Byrne, the Labour Party’s former chief press officer.

French energy giant EDF has also been at the forefront of the campaign to change perceptions of nuclear power. Chancellor Gordon Brown’s brother, Andrew, is EDF’s head of media relations in the UK.

The company, operates 58 nuclear reactors in France and is already a big player in the UK electricity market, has said it is ready to invest in a new generation of plants in the UK, provided it gets the go-ahead from government. It has successfully lobbied ministers to introduce a fast-track planning process to make it easier to build new plants without lengthy public enquiries.

Yvette Cooper, housing and planning minister, and wife of Mr Brown’s closest political ally Ed Balls, also has links to the nuclear industry. Her father, ex-trade union official Tony Cooper, is the former chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, and is currently a director of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. He has been one of the most vocal champions of the industry’s green credentials.

One of the most well-connected nuclear lobbyists is Alan Donnelly, former leader of the Labour group in the European Parliament. Mr Donnelly’s company, Sovereign Strategy, represents US engineering giant Fluor, one of the world’s biggest nuclear contractors, which is currently vying for a slice of the UK’s £70bn nuclear clean-up market – but like other US firms, such as Bechtel, also has an eye on future nuclear build.

On its website, Sovereign Strategy, offers among other services, “pathways to the decision makers in national governments”. Its board members include Tory peer Lady Maitland and pro-nuclear Labour peer Lord Cunningham, Tony Blair’s former “cabinet enforcer” and the ex chairman of the Friends of Sellafield campaign.

Lord Cunningham is also “legislative chair” of the Transatlantic Nuclear Energy Forum, an organisation founded and run by Mr Donnelly, that aims to foster “strong relationships” between nuclear power companies and governments.

Tony Blair has spoken at events organised by Sovereign Strategy, including 2005’s North East Economic Forum in his Sedgefield constituency, where he was reportedly introduced by a Fluor executive.

Friends of the Earth Chief said “Labour has often castigated the old boy network, the public school tie and so on, but they have a similar network. It depends who you know in the unions or ex-Labour ministers. People may accept that as the way things are, but there needs to be more transparency.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5149676.stm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2009: Parkmead Group bank in false market claim. A company that numbers Tom Cross, chief executive of Dana Petroleum, and Brian Wilson, the former energy minister, among its non-executive directors has come under fire for creating “false market” in its own shares after putting misleading information into the market.

Ken Olisa, former chairman of Parkmead and now a non-executive director of Thomson Reuters and founder of Restoration Partners, alleges that the Aim-listed boutique investment bank, which specialises in the oil and gas sector, “has repeatedly failed to properly communicate with the market.” He also alleged that the company created a “false market” in its own shares.

Olisa commented further saying “Everyone who put money into Parkmead, including widows and the orphans, has lost money as a result of this and other corporate governance abuses by the company, but they don’t seem to have any recourse, The people whose job it is to enforce the regulations don’t see enforcement as particularly important. They are too preoccupied with systemic risk.”

What matters  said Olisa “is that Parkmead’s shares fell by 20% as a result of the second announcement, so there had clearly been a false market for over a year.” Regulatory authorities stand accused of failing to intervene. http://www.ianfraser.org/corporate-goveranance-abuse-at-parkmead/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2012: This is an example of the “spoiling” role of the Scottish Office who conspired with the Unionist parties in Scotland to defeat the wishes of the Scottish electorate in the independence referendum.

The UK Treasury used public finances allocated to Scotland to recruit a suitable individual located within Scotland in order to counter the campaign for Scottish independence (There were no UK Treasury employees based in Scotland).

The role, which was advertised by the UK government department, committed to pay the successful applicant £50,000 of public cash in order to promote the benefits of the Union.

The role was to become redundant in December 2014, immediately after the independence referendum. Now there’s a surprise. Might be a unionist businessman will apply.

Well, well, well. Shortly after, “The Scotsman” published the following:

“Brian Wilson charged with promoting Scottish enterprise both at home and abroad. His role will see him use his expertise to promote the Scottish economy and business environment, and encourage more firms to engage in international business, with the view to growing Scottish exports. He said “I am very willing to make whatever contribution I can to supporting Scottish and other UK companies overseas, and by encouraging more of our businesses to become exporters.”

How is this to work? Wilson will need to cooperate with the Scottish Government, a Government which he does not think should exist and endlessly disparages. He also represents Irish commercial interests in green technology. How can he represent Scottish interests in this field?  He also has financial interests in Nuclear power which the Scottish Parliament ( not just the SNP ) opposes.

He is a British Nationalist who has done nothing to further Scottish interests. Part of the Westminster government campaign against Scottish independence. But using Scottish funds for the purpose is yet another insult foisted upon Scots. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/former-labour-mp-brian-wilson-appointed-business-ambassador-for-scotland-1-2499843

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2013: Celtic FC getting sucked into the Labour Party Co-operative Bank Scandal. As well as the evolving local Glasgow scandal of Celtic receiving cheap land deals from a Scottish Labour controlled Glasgow City Council and Greater Glasgow Health Board.

Celtic have been using the land as security to obtain cheap interest rate loans from the Labour riddled Co-operative Bank, most likely through former Chairman John Reid and Director Brian Wilson, both Labour party heavyweights. Now that’s what you call doubling up on corrupt leverage.

The Co-operative Bank, due the drug dealing antics of ex-chairman, ‘Crystal Methodist’ Paul Flowers, a Labour ex-councillor, is soon to experience a forensic examination of it’s ‘policy’ of giving risky loans at low interest rates to Labour party connected entities.

In 2006, when the Labour party was close to bankruptcy, the Co-Op Bank bailed the party out and in March this year gave them a loan of £1.2 million at the preferential low rate of 4%.

Compare this with Celtic’s Co-op Bank debt facility of £34 million at 1.5%. Celtic’s interest rate is ridiculously low and market loss-making.

Here we have the alignment of Celtic and Labour benefiting from the same low loans corruption. Hmmm, a coincidence?

Well Celtic’s loans were obtained while John Reid, ex-minister of the Blair Labour govts and Brian Wilson, who was Labour Energy Minister were on the Celtic Board.

John Reid was chairman of Celtic from 2007 until 2011. Brian Wilson joined the Celtic board in 2005 where he remains a Director.

Note: All of the Co-operative Bank – Celtic mortgages were created during their tenures therefore so were the loans based on those securities. https://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/celtic-fc-getting-sucked-into-the-labour-party-co-operative-bank-scandal/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2013: Mike Small of bellacaledonia wrote of Brian Wilson:

“Wilson in standard mode this week: apoplectic. The sense of self-importance and enshrined right-to-rule is most evident with Unionist politicians like Wilson but the sheer hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Last week he used his regular platform in the Scotsman to pour disdain on the Scottish Government’s use of consultants to give expertise on defence, referring to “paying consultants substantial sums of public money” as if such a thing was anathema.

This week he is bemoaning the fact that the nuclear industry doesn’t have the feather-bedding it does in England. He cheers for the idea of a Hinkley C and calls Scotland’s energy policy “Salmond’s nuclear fatwa” (memo to Brian, it’s called a mandate).” http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/10/23/nuclear-meltdown/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2014: George Monbiot, published a scathing analysis of Brian Wilson (extract below) and his ilk just before the referendum (The Guardian 9th September 2014)

“Of all the bad arguments urging the Scots to vote no – and there are plenty – perhaps the worst is the demand that Scotland should remain in the Union to save England from itself.

Responses to last week’s column suggest that this wretched, snivelling, apron-strings argument has some traction among people who claim to belong to the left.

Consider what it entails: it asks a nation of 5.3 million to forgo independence to exempt a nation of 53 million from having to fight its own battles.

In return for this self-denial, the five million must remain yoked to the dismal politics of cowardice and triangulation which have caused the problems from which we ask them to save us. Brian Wilson, the sage of Scottish politics claimed in a recent article published in The Guardian:

“A UK without Scotland would be much less likely to elect any government of a progressive hue. We must combine against the “forces of privilege and reaction” (as he lined up with the Conservatives, UKIP, the LibDems, the banks, the corporations, almost all the right-wing columnists in Britain and every UK newspaper, (except the Sunday Herald) – in the cause of “solidarity” http://www.monbiot.com/2014/09/09/england-the-brave/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2014: Rev. Stuart Campbell is no fan of Wilson, (with good reason) He wrote an article highlighting, (not for the first time) another one of Wilson’s flights of fancy:

“Alert readers will already be aware that former Labour MP, minister and nuclear-power lobbyist Brian Wilson is one of our least favourite figures in the independence debate.

A man utterly consumed by tribal hatred of the SNP – even by the standards of Scottish Labour, which is no mean accolade – his Scotsman columns are some of the most mendacious, bilious propaganda to be found in the country, to the extent that we don’t even link to them in our “Zany Comedy Relief” section.

Today, however, he’s outdone himself in spectacular style. His latest newspaper article is a foaming-mouthed diatribe (poorly researched) about postal charges, based on the price of sending a letter from Northern Ireland to the Republic. http://wingsoverscotland.com/brian-wilson-is-a-liar/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2016: The content of this article is mind blowing, exposing many Labour politicians that have climbed on board the gravy train piggy-backing financially on knowledge and influence gained at the expense of the electorate. http://www.countrydoctor.co.uk/politics/politics%20-%20Government%20corruption.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2016: on April 29th, we bade farewell to a great Scottish comedy talent. For the journalist, political commentator and former Labour MP Brian Wilson penned his final column for the Scotsman newspaper.

When I call Wilson a Scottish comedy talent, I’m thinking of a particular strain of Scottish comedy. I’m thinking of Walt Disney’s Scrooge McDuck, and John Laurie’s Private Frazer in the much-loved wartime sitcom Dad’s Army, and the Reverend I.M. Jolly, one of the characters essayed by the late Rikki Fulton in his sketch show Scotch and Wry.

Like those three, Brian Wilson is dour and crabbit and negative, traits commonly attributed to the Scots, but is so over-the-top about it that he becomes hilarious.

Though there’s a slight difference. The actors and animators who created Scrooge McDuck, Private Frazer and the Reverend I.M. Jolly weren’t being serious.

When the glowering, gurning, face-like-a-skelped-arse Wilson sits down at his computer and thumps out another thousand-word missive of misery and more misery for the Scotsman, he is being serious. He means it. That’s the real him. Which usually makes me fall off my perch laughing.

Seriously though, he’s had a sane attitude to energy policy, favouring a combination of renewable’s and nuclear power. I don’t like the idea of nuclear power, but I think with global warming hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles we don’t have any choice now but to continue using it. Mind you, I suspect Wilson’s opinions on the subject are coloured by his private financial interests.

From 2003 to 2004 he was director of a company called Virtual Utility Limited, which supposedly was involved in wind-farms.

While in 2005 he was appointed non-executive director of AMEC Nuclear Holdings Ltd, the ‘nuclear services arm’ of AMEC.

Oh, and while he was special envoy to Iraq, who won part of a half-billion-pound deal to reconstruct the country’s water and sewage systems? Why, AMEC did!  Funny, that.

http://bloodandporridge.co.uk/wp/?tag=brian-wilson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
2016: Hinkley C Nuclear Plant: Britain’s Biggest Political Scandal.  Why would Britain or any supposedly sane country sign the world’s most insane energy contract ever? There is only one answer – deep scandalous multi-million pound systemic political corruption.

The international corporate nuclear industry has bought all three of Britain’s political parties. It is the most scandalous classic example of The Corrupted Political System Pillar of The Prostitute State.

Senior figures or members of their families from Labour, (including Brian Wilson) the Lib Dems and the Tories all are political prostitutes working for the notoriously corrupt nuclear industry. They are lining their pockets to push through the biggest heist ever perpetrated on the British people.

A list of nuclear industry lobbyists across the four pillars of The Prostitute State including politicians, journalists, academics and lobbyists is listed here:

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Category:Individuals_linked_to_the_push_for_nuclear

https://www.permaculture.co.uk/news/%5Bdd%5D%5Bmm%5D%5Byy%5D%5Bnid%5D/hinkley-c-nuclear-plant-britains-biggest-political-scandal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Braes of Doune wind-farm disaster

Airtricity Brian Wilson (later chairman) executive member applied to build a 50-turbine wind ‘farm’ on the Braes of Doune, near Stirling, in 2002. The site was to prove contentious not only on account of its visual prominence but because of its peatland habitat and its proximity to the River Teith. This had recently been designated by the European Union as a Special Area of Conservation to protect important populations of salmon and lamprey.

For the most part, those that opposed the development were people for whom ‘the environment’ was not the abstraction of the urban middle class but the place where they lived and worked, often in the footsteps of parents and grandparents. Some were experienced conservationists, others, farmers, anglers and the like but all had a lifetime’s wisdom as countrymen and a deep knowledge of the locality. They were folk who tolerated rather than welcomed the rules and regulations that underpin modern rural life, for whom the river had been a steady part of that life, its special qualities perhaps taken for granted but its well-being never hitherto in doubt.

It certainly never crossed their minds that it would fall to them to defend its ecological integrity against the actions of a powerful developer and the confused and supine response of the environmental authorities. However, despite the strutting assurances of the developer, the bland prose of the ‘statutory bodies’ and brash politicians’ talk of ‘targets’, ‘job opportunities’ and so on, they spotted that something was wrong with the project almost the moment it got underway.

 

 

 

 

Early in 2004, news emerged of a destructive peat-slide at a wind farm at Derrybrien, Co Galway, a site also featuring deep peat soils and nearby protected waterways.

Probing alleged planning irregularities, the EU’s Environment Commissioner called it ‘an environmental disaster’ and began legal action against the Irish government. Shortly after, the Scottish Executive called on Airtricity to assess the risk of a similar event on the Braes. Expert advice was that the assessment, which downplayed the risk, was inadequate.

Without consulting either the public or SNH on the issue, the Executive (in breach of the EIA Directive) consented the project and explicitly postponed full assessment to a later date. This. The habitats Directive lays down strict rules for developments that might damage areas like the River Teith. In short, a project must not damage a protected area and, if there is any ‘reasonable scientific doubt’ on that score, planning consent must be refused.

A purportedly new peat-slide risk assessment submitted after consent was only a re-hash of the old one and did not rely, as the Directive requires, on the ‘best available scientific knowledge’. The risk had never been properly assessed even though it was known to be serious:

At a hitherto undisclosed meeting with the Executive in March 2005, (in recognition of the risk of peat-slide) the developer agreed to drop 13 turbines from the scheme, all scheduled to be sited on deep peat. The peat-slide contingency plan was shown to be well below standard and reliant on a technique that failed at Derrybrien.

As construction proceeded, competent observers reported widespread pollution of hitherto pristine waterways to SNH and SEPA. The response was at best indifferent and at times dismissive so they circulated a pictorial report and expert commentary on environmental Issues at the Braes of Doune. Politicians who followed up this report were assured that there were no significant ecological issues which was not true.

It is an indictment of the planning and supervisory regimes that members of the public had to invest so much time and spend, literally tens of thousands of pounds of their own money to try and get the Scottish Executive to fulfil its international obligations and the environmental authorities to do their job.

 

 

 

 

 

The Follow up

A complaint alleging that the Scottish Executive had breached European Directives in consenting the Braes of Doune wind-power project was submitted to the European Union’s Environment Commissioner in April 2006.

The Ardoch Burn owner complained to the EU’s Environment Commission that the conduct of the Scottish Executive over Airtricity’s planning application breached both Directives in the way it consented the project and the Habitats Directive in the substance of the consent. Endorsing an authoritative report challenging the official line on the incident, he noted inter alia that:

1. Floating roads were sinking into the bog and destroying its acrotelm, creating potential rupture points and a risk of future land slips;

2. Check dams erected to halt the peat slide were ‘totally ineffective’;

3. Drainage essential for site operation was increasing the turbidity and silt load of streams;

4. Straw-lined silt beds designed to filter run-off were demonstrably failing;

5. The intense precipitation incidents that characterise the SW Grampians would render them equally ineffective at the Braes of Doune and put the River Teith at risk.

 

 

 

 
Stirling Council Failures

Despite the foregoing proper (and expertly informed) concerns the official response was peremptorily dismissive and the dialogue soon petered out. This was unsurprising since, by the time Stirling Council made its final or implementing decision on 16 December 2005, work had been underway on the site for over five months. There was little prospect of an official rethink on environmental grounds.

As a condition of the consent, Stirling Council had to approve a plan for coping with a slide should one occur. In June, McAlpine (the contractor) submitted a draft of its Peat Slide Contingency Plan that in effect combined assessment, mitigation and contingency planning. A second draft, dated September, provided the first acknowledgement in the record of the cut in turbine numbers: 11 turbines were omitted from the list.

A note to Airtricity shows frustration with progress as late as October, a year after consent and nearly six months since construction started:

“The plan lacks a sensible logic . . . this plan is fundamental to protection of water courses in the worst case scenario. At present, a range of potential causes of instability are identified but the plan does not go on to identify the risks associated with them and the implications for this site. In my view, the plan should address: causes of instability, risks associated, prevention/minimisation/mitigation for each cause, identification of residual effects and associated risks, in that order.”
Another note the following week complained that:

” It is not fair to expect consultation authorities to keep reviewing and repeating the same comments, comments we have in some cases been making since June . . . I would be grateful if
Airtricity would take a role in reviewing and approving methods statements before they are issued

Airtricity promised to do just that but stressed the urgency of its situation:

“Our project is nearing a critical stage in terms of financial close and achieving additional funding from the bank and it is really important that I have the support of all the consultees to achieve method statement approval”

Given that it was poor work by its own contractors, that was delaying approval, it is not clear what support the writer felt entitled to. In any case, the company was boasting of a favourable political climate in which to negotiate with bankers. It had just set up a ‘UK Operations Group’ with former energy minister Brian Wilson as non-executive chair.

A press release explained that:

One of the Group’s functions will also be to set up a strong communications link with the UK Government, the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office . . . Eddie O’Connor, Chief Executive of Airtricity, said: “It is a pleasure to operate in the UK where the Government is committed to the growth of the renewable energy sector . . .Brian Wilson is a keen advocate of renewable energy . . . His industry and political insight will be invaluable to Airtricity as we undergo ambitious expansion in the UK.”

 

 

 

 

 

 
The Scottish Executive Failures

The Scottish Executive called for a peat-slide risk assessment of the Braes of Doune but:

1. Consented the project without considering that risk. It deferred it to post-consent evaluation even though it was
indubitably a ‘main effect’ of the project;

2. Did not consult on it before the ‘principal’ consent and never consulted the public on it.

 

And yes!! there was at least one massive peat-slide which needed in excess of 5,000 tonnes of rock creating a 10 meter bridge to bring it to a halt.  Take time to read the full report:

http://www.windsofjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/scandalonthebraes-lores1.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the Andrew Marr show on Sunday 18 September 2016 Work and pensions secretary Damian Green said he would not reverse Iain Duncan Smith’s devastating welfare cuts which have unfairly targetted the poorest members of society creating hardship and increasing the levels of poverty beyond that which is unacceptable in a developed society. Giving advance warning that pensioner benefits would be next, he made it clear major changes in support, all to the detriment of pensioners is in the Tory government future plans.

He said “I can clarify that whilst the government has no immediate plans for further cuts in the current parliament it is giving attention to targetting pensioners at a future date. Over time we need to look at the issue of inter-generational fairness.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Experience has enlightened me to the vagaries of the Westminster government, to which Scottish pensioners have ever been vulnerable. But a few platitudes ensures pensioners acquiesce which makes them a useful tool of politicians.

The 2014 Scottish referendum was the “nadir” of the pensioners who were eagerly gullible, grasping at the straws of acceptance of the retention of a United Kingdom that had served them so badly in the past.

I published two informative articles, before the referendum hoping they would persuade pensioners to vote “Yes”. Evidently my words fell on deaf ears. But hopefully pensioners will have learned their lesson providing support to the bid for independence next time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/28/gordon-brown-and-the-labour-party-friends-of-scottish-pensioners-not-on-your-nellie/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/09/01/scotlands-old-age-pensioners-driven-to-poverty-sacrificed-on-the-alter-of-bankers-greed-and-an-uncaring-government/

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/15/pensioners-beware-this-has-not-gone-away-the-snp-would-have-no-part-in-policies-such-as-this-westminster-unionists-would/

https://caltonjock.com/2016/02/21/scottish-state-pensions-rip-off-scots-nearing-retirement-who-voted-to-stay-with-the-union-read-this-and-weep/