global plantation More people are beginning to realize that in every respect we all live on what can best called a "Global Plantation," social systems in which those who control resources and wealth of the world are perpetrators of large scale legal and government abuse that serves to perpetuate rule by elites.. Finally, what many people do not realize is that aside from the war, pollution, epidemics, and poverty, the social systems imposed upon us by the elites produce emotional sickness. They produce psychological depression, anxiety, substance abuse, sexual problems, obesity, and many other forms of disturbance that plague millions of people across the globe.

The mechanisms for this are quite simple. The stress of living in highly regulated societies, with a predatory legal system results in a population which reflects the mental conditions of wounded, exploited, and bullied people. Moreover, we are tracked and watched through computers, and increasingly the entire industrialized world is being videotaped and monitored constantly. This is the beginning of a dehummanization process to which will alienate us from our individual nature and reduce to cogs of production wheels in their factories, offices and other companies.

The disturbances may come about from being a party in a long, protracted, and ugly lawsuit. This now afflicts millions of people in the United States. The disturbance may come about from a random IRS audit (or several of them!) The disturbance may come about through extortion by a bureaucrat, or false arrest, or "forfeiture of assets", because a stranger used your property for an allegedly criminal purpose. Marriages are torn apart by the stress of coping with the abuses of government and the legal system, relationships with friends, relatives, children, and the ability to enjoy life can be twisted inside out.

Our potential to live happy, productive, and fulfilled lives is being robbed from us every day by a malignant and parasitic class of lawyers, judges, and government officials who are in their essence second tier masters on the Global Plantation. We are the victims.

But too few people realize the victimization becomes a psychological problem, that is, a problem that affects your mind and your behavior. Once they rob us of our peace of mind and dignity, once they make us sick, we need a healing process. I believe, as do a number of mental health professionals, that the most effective therapy for emotional disturbance caused by government and legal abuse is radical and militant activism directed against its sources, wherever that may lead. What do I mean by "radical activism." I refer to picketing, demonstrations, sit-ins, organizing public communications, and in general the kind of conduct that transforms society, produces changes, and puts the wrongdoers on the defensive.

When you suffer in silence, when you allow the wrongs to stand without seeking redress and accountability, when you avoid demanding justice, you have become part of the problem. You have told yourself that you will set aside reclaiming your dignity and demanding justice for whatever reason. But you have essentially betrayed yourself and accepted being a victim. That cannot possibly be an emotionally healthy decision. It is also likely to produce serious physiological symptoms over time Hours of traditional psychoanalysis will not ever be as therapeutic as organizing a picket line. Prescription anti-depressants may help, but they are only masking the source of the problem. Some people feel self-conscious about being in public. Others feel they ought to pray for those that hurt them. These thoughts are, in effect, self-destructive as they serve to perpetuate the victimization..

To where do we trace the origins of our problems?

On a daily basis, the face of the Global Plantation deceives. While a policeman, lawyer, or government functionary may appear to be oppressive, and most certainly act accordingly, the Phaornic pyramidical structure of the " System " leads upwards. But the string pullers behind events are not always transparent. The identification and role of power elites in the United States as well as in all other countries has become a subject of both academic and popular focus. Because the power elites play such a significant and arguably destructive role, and have earned the legitimate wrath of billions of people, the activism we prescribe need be directed, at least in part , at them. They are the foundation heads, media moguls, and political powerbrokers. They are the controllers of multinational conglomerates, financiers of major political parties, and intelligence czars. They are the folks who own and govern the Global Plantation at the highest levels.

They are formidable adversaries and they will break the law and perjure and murder and conspire and never be held accountable except by the people. They , for all practical purposes, own the courts. The policies of local judges are directed through large institutional think tanks in Virginia, Washington D.C., and Santa Barbara, California, not at the grassroots. Those who are here today know very well of whom I speak. To those who shy away from rebellion, I say you are going to miss the greatest of human endeavors, and your illness will remain. To those who want to be healed, get a sign, get a pen or go to your computer or fax machine, and start agitating. There is a process for launching this on a massive scale that the legal reform movement needs to consider, right now, today, to win back our Constitutional freedoms and rights.

I believe large scale awareness training, such as the techniques used in the human potential movement, are of immense value. There is a branch of psychology known as radical therapy which must be utilized where people resolve the psychological wounds to them by becoming activists. I am beginning this process to deal with the retaliation brought to my household for exercising First Amendment rights. The world cannot wait for business as usual to solve these problems and we have a mission, a burden to use evangelical terms. To turn their System upside down. The tools are there, money will not be a problem and we will produce thousands of activists with a heightened consciousness to take on the Establishment. I want to do this project. As the son of a radical psychologist and as a lawyer activist for may years I believe I am qualified.Work with me, and make miracles happen fast.

    Harriet HATEMEN must be the most wicked and devious MP next to Margaret Thatcher. She endlessly pontificates about the law then totally ignores the law when it suits her own circumstances.

    Harriet Harman prosecuted for car offence

    One of Britain's most senior government ministers is to be prosecuted for motoring offences, including using a mobile phone while driving, prosecutors said on Thursday. Harriet Harman, Labour deputy leader and a top lawyer, is accused of driving without due care and attention and using a hand-held phone when she was involved in an incident in Peckham, southeast London, in July. "The Crown Prosecution Service has decided there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute ... Harriet Harman," it said in a statement.

    According to press reports, Harman a former Solicitor General, had collided with a parked car. She stopped briefly at the scene but then drove off without leaving details of her insurance company or her car's registration. If found guilty Harman faces fines of up to 6,000 pounds, could have penalty points imposed on her driving licence, and magistrates could ban her from driving. Publicity surrounding the prosecution itself is likely to be of concern for Harman, generating embarrassment as Labour prepares for national parliamentary elections due by June 2010.

    The opposition centre-right Conservatives are predicted to win the election, with polls putting them well ahead of Labour. The law banning motorists from using hand-held phones while driving was brought in by the Labour government in 2003. Prosecutors have even argued that those found guilty of the offence should be jailed.

    whitehouse Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

    Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

    Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

    Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, Then hired two people.

    Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

    Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

    So they laid off the night watchman.

    NOW slowly, let it sink in.

    Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

    Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.... during the Carter Administration?




    Didn't think so!

    Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency...the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!


    It was very simple...and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

    The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977.

    Hey, pretty efficient, huh???


    Ah, yes -- good ole bureaucracy.

    griffin For anyone not aware of our position yet on the BNP, we do NOT promote any major political party never mind the BNP. We have made this clear on many occasions when we have received BNP articles both within and outwith the group that we do not entertain any of their policies.

    However last nights debacle on Question Time that caused such an uproar has to be dissected and the BBC facade of self righteousness removed to expose the underlying hypocrisy of the three major political parties use of Nick Griffin to make themselves look better when in fact they are almost as devious and dangerous as the BNP leader himself. David Dimbleby as ever ensures he shuts down ANY issue that is not on the BBC agenda . Question Time has for a long time been a propaganda machine for the three major political parties that have all been involved in the massive fraud and corruption emanating from Westminster, not only throughout its history, but most recently in the expenses scandal.

    Others on the panel alongside the BNP's Nick Griffin were

    Lib Dem panelist Chris Huhne
    Labour's Justice secretary Jack Straw
    Tory peer Baroness Warzi
    American playwright Bonnie Greer

    The only panelist who came out squeaky clean was Bonnie Greer a Black American who had far less of a political agenda to attack Griffin for his form of ethnic cleansing policies. Anyone who has studied the propaganda from the BNP will know where they stand so rather than waste this opportunity to further attack a party that is already ridiculed for its extreme right wing views we will focus on how the BBC and the major political goons have used Griffin's presence to give themselves an air of respectability and how the BNP are being used by a complicit media to undermine potentially, other smaller parties , by focusing and promoting the three major political parties that have received so much attention in the British media for to long who are all funded and controlled by the British establishment . They also speak with the same establishment tongue and gives the public very little option on who to vote for come election time thanks to how they are allowed to hog what political time is available on a complicit media.

    The first issue to be addressed is the exposures this week that the BBC is being run by a bunch of cokeheads. We have known for a very long time cocaine use by BBC employees is rife but to have seen this in the public domain removes ANY air of moral righteousness the BBC and Dimbleby tries to constantly make the public believe, in that they are telling us the truth. Question Time has a rigid format that Dimbleby ensures does NOT digress into areas forbidden by their public school boy management who control the BBC output.

    Jack Straw maybe for the first time on national TV mentioned his Jewish background and no doubt can justify his support of an Iraqi invasion when Kuwait was being threatened but turns a blind eye to Israel attacking Gaza . Our group promote jewish writers who are highly critical of Zionist jews who head the banking systems of the world that have caused the latest credit crunch and who believe Jewish dynasties like the Rothschild use masonry to ensure Zionism and Israeli interests are centre stage when political decisions are being made, not only in the Middle East, but worldwide. Straw has proven Zionist leanings as was Lord Goldsmith the attorney general at the time of the Iraq war , who gave the legal position on the invasion. They both show clearly a Zionist view of that war and Straw looked hypocritical in his attacks on Griffin when much of the audience and most of the country continue to be duped about the underlying agenda's and propaganda that continually distracts attention away from the shadow government that is really behind many of the policies of the three main parties who are merely the goffers for those interests.

    Britain unlike America has been completely stripped of its peoples ability to protect itself from a tyrannical government . The growing police state has reduced the population to accepting NOT a democracy but a dictatorship of political goons who despite their apparent DIFFERENCES all eat out of the same gold encrusted trough and who swear allegiance first and foremost to a monarchy who with its vast array of masonic hierarchy dominate every area of our lives . Many of the activists on this group know the repercussions when they dare defend themselves against a ruthless judiciary and thug cops who head this system and some of those activists have been dragged into psychiatric gulags and been forcibly injected while those major parties have been in power and fully aware of how the UK bully boys deal with any dissent. The facade created once again by Question Time and the appearance of Griffin provides the necessary platform for those major parties, to continue to spout the rhetoric that UK citizens have rights and freedoms, when the fact remains that they will carry on with their class ridden policies to ensure the UK establishment and its myriad of hangers on continue to enslave the vast majority of the population who have yet to waken from the masonic slumber the British media propaganda has put them in.


  • Lord Goldsmith's advice on Iraq invasion 'flawed', says former top judge
  • BNP leader Nick Griffin flounders in front of Question Time audience as protesters riot outside TV studios
  • Of all the New Labour toadies, Jack Straw must be the worst
  • The old fascist Lizzie joins MP's attacking BNP to make themselves look respectable


    The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown


    “The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a man too ill to be holding the Office.” This was the conclusion last week of a senior civil servant liaising regularly with Gordon Brown. For reasons which will become clear, the person involved will not go public with the evidence for this conclusion. The same applies to a high-ranking Treasury official who told us “In both a physical and mental sense, the Prime Minister is a very sick man, seriously disabled.” Three years ago, an Opposition MP told nby “He is on extremely heavy doses of cutting-edge anti-depressants, but so far they have made little difference”. And during the last fortnight, another high-ranking government source claimed “He is now on pills which restrict the foods he can eat and what he can drink. He is losing the sight of his good eye quite rapidly. It’s a mess, and nobody knows what to do”.

    Rumours have circulated about Gordon Brown’s health for a number of years. As long ago as 2004, Simon Heffer wrote in the Spectator that he displayed many signs of Asperger’s syndrome: humourlessness, lack of irony and obsessional behaviour patterns. Nby itself ran a long piece in February 2007, predicting fairly accurately how Brown’s rigid responses to given situations would prove to be inappropriate, and his behaviour in the end dysfunctional. We noted at the time ‘If the Labour Party can organise seventy-three signatories to a document of intent named ‘Anyone but Gordon’, then there must be something about the man which might make him unfit to be Prime Minister’. In fact, we had already been advised by then that the PM had been on large doses of SSRI anti-depressants – the class of drugs derived from Prozac. The overall story is well known in lobbyist circles. A senior member of this group told us that “Brown is in a very dark place. Sarah [hiswife, Mrs Brown] has begged him on several occasions to seek help, but he resists most offers of advice.” Yet another popular journalist said “I’m afraid all the stories about him throwing things around and screaming at secretaries are entirely true. He behaves impeccably in public and can really turn on the charm when he needs to in private – but inside the bunker he behaves appallingly. He’s also binging on junk food late at night – you can see he’s gaining weight”.

    However, our investigation suggests that there is a more important reason for the PM’s weight gain: he is now on a different class of drugs, for which ballooning weight is one of the least dangerous side-effects. These drugs are called Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs). Before the arrival of Prozac derivatives, they were the first line of attack when dealing with severely depressed patients. But a senior physician told us last month “A GP would have to be insane to prescribe MAOIs these days – SSRIs are safer, with far fewer side-effects. Apart from anything else, it’s almost impossible to get hold of them”. This is indeed correct. In 2003, SKB withdrew their MAOI brand-leader Parnate because of the dangers it represented, and also because SSRIs had none of the disadvantages. However, at the time several regional mental health units reported that for some patients, SSRIs were nowhere near as effective.

    Thus there is evidence that, having tried and seen no help from the newer generation of drugs, Gordon Brown has now been put onto MAOIs. If this is true, then he is indeed in a desperate state – as we shall explain. This evidence was handed to us inadvertantly. The senior source referred to at the start of this piece mentioned “the latest nonsense – a huge list of things he can’t eat or drink because of the drugs he’s on…most importantly, cheese and Chianti”. Every doctor in Britain would recognise these contraindications instantly: for they are the two great verbotens for people taking MAOI drugs. As long ago as 2001, prescribing psychiatrists described MAOIs as ‘the last resort now we have better drugs’. However, for all their downsides (several thousand people around the world have died as a result of ignoring the dietary advice re MAOIs) this older class of drugs has one huge advantage: for severe depression and obsessive compulsive disorder it remains very effective.

    Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is relatively common. Most of us display some obsessive features in everyday life, but under stress a minority of people become borderline or actual OCD in their behaviour, and need medication to control both this and the depression which almost always presents soon afterwards. The most obvious symptom is a compulsive need to carry out functions such as hand-washing or counting almost incessantly. (The Asperger’s syndrome ‘Rain Man’ personality displays these too, but the two conditions are easily separable on other bases. Our view is that Brown has OCD, not Asperger’s syndrome.) Gordon Brown’s symptoms are obvious when viewed in this light: the constant repetition of phrases, and an almost embarrassing (for his Party) need to spray every Parliamentary answer with statistics. Lifting out of poverty, the Tories are the do-nothing Party, global problems require global solutions – these and myriad others have been repeated over and over ad nauseam. Equally, the six million lifted out of poverty, twelve million helped by mortgage benefits, two million new jobs created: when interrogated, these figures often prove to be illusory, but they – and the constant speech repetition – represent Brown’s unconscious means of controlling the severe anxiety that accompanies depression with OCD. We have no means (as yet) of proving his use of MAOIs, although the ‘long list of forbidden foods’ is the nearest one will get to a smoking gun – short of a written, signed diagnosis or prescription. We also cannot be certain how long the PM has been taking them, but the remark ‘the latest nonsense’ suggests that this is a relatively recent development. On average, a heavy dose of MAOI therapy would start to display some results within twenty days to six weeks. Gordon Brown has reportedly returned from ‘easily his longest break from Downing Street’ feeling ‘very much refreshed and up for it’. It is more than likely he took the uncharacteristically long break on medical advice. And it will be interesting to note whether his behaviour changes.

    One feature unlikely to change is the increasingly obvious difficulty he has finding his way to and from podiums, and lack of peripheral vision. This (according to a senior, medically-trained source) is the result of failing sight in the one eye he has left. We found so many confirmations of this story from so many sources, it seems to us impossible for it to be pure invention. It appears to be universally recognised in the Cabinet and upper echelons of the Civil Service. So: here we seem to have a man (unless huges cadres of non-colluding senior people are liars) on a rarely used, dangerous drug to control his mental state – and getting close to a stage of serious disablement in relation to his eyesight. As this would clearly make any such person wholly unfit to fulfil the Premiership – especially in the dangerous, broken world we now inhabit – why hasn’t the story broken more widely? Why hasn’t the Opposition leapt on it? In answering this question, we need to delve into the murkier waters of Gordon Brown’s psyche – and the cynical guessing-game that passes for public service in the House of Commons….on all sides. Brown rules by fear and smear. He always has done, and it is the main thing he is known (and hated) for in the Labour Party. A former Cabinet Minister told nby in early 2008 “Nobody ran against Gordon because nobody could face the slur, innuendo and blackmail that would go with it. When he gets going, Brown and his little coterie of spinners are animals”. Several similar observations appeared in national newspapers during late 2007. There has also remained the rumour that even Blair himself eventually fell foul of this, and left not of his own volition but as a result of threats from the Brown camp. That must remain as conjecture: but given his alleged track record of not entirely legal actions, Blair would have had a lot to be frightened about.

    The PM evokes a certain degree of loyalty from close confidantes, but the main reason why no Brown staffer has broken ranks is that this would mean the end of the meal-ticket: either Brown would fall, or he would deny…and bury the whistle-blower. Luncheon Vouchers are also behind the remaining silence in the Parliamentary Party as a whole. Two senior Lobby correspondents have confirmed to us in the last three weeks that “even the most anti-Brown camp think there’s no alternative to Brown”. Nearly all Labour backbenchers now expect a rout, but think that if Brown were ousted they would be wiped out. Comically, the exact opposite view pertains in the Tory Shadow Cabinet, where “they’re so terrified of Labour dumping Brown, they’d do anything to leave him precisely where he is”. This bears further examination on a number of levels. Three of our sources confirmed the general view that the parlous state of Brown’s health is well-known among Conservative bigwigs. That they collude in an allegedly dangerously ill man remaining in charge of Government (purely to ensure their own victory) is selfish cynicism of the worst kind – and a damning charge to which, if and when the truth of this matter comes to light, they will have no defence. It also reinforces the electorate’s feeling that senior Cameron Tories are woefully lacking in confidence – or convincing alternatives to what the Government is doing. As to whether Brown is a liability or an asset for voters, the latest poll (30.8.09) in the Guardian showed that Brown’s ratings have actually fallen as ’signs’ of economic green shoots have become apparent. In short, when it comes to the Machiavellian ‘keep him where he is’ strategy, New Labour have called it wrong. As ever, they are probably being too clever for their own good.

    Perhaps more disturbing is the passive political bias (and dereliction of Constitutional duty) represented by the obvious collusion in any cover-up about the Prime Minister’s health problems throughout the senior ranks of the Civil Service. One of the main sources of this story told us, “It’s a farce, and utterly disgraceful. There isn’t a mandarin in Whitehall who’s unaware of Brown’s condition – they tittle-tattle the tale wherever they go, dining out on their inside knowledge, and yet won’t lift a finger to bring it to the public’s attention. We are being let down at every turn by the spineless Establishment running this country”. One can appreciate how a similar situation developed from 1935 onwards in relation to the King’s relationship with Mrs Simpson. But it is hard to understand why the press – especially the right-wing press – haven’t had a harder go at nailing this story in 2009. The tabloids are too busy shouting threats into celeb letter-boxes, and the more liberally inclined papers may well share the New Labour view that loyalty is their duty at this stage of the game; but that seems unlikely – and what of Dacre at The Mail, or the Telegraph, still fresh from its huge success in blowing the lid off the expenses scandal?

    The answer usually comes back ‘there’s no physical evidence, and it’s an easy story to deny – to dismiss as just another anti-Brown smear campaign’. But perhaps the clues about MAOI usage by the Prime Minister make it much harder to deny….and much easier to get written confirmation. For if it’s true, Brown’s entourage must be sending out strict dietary requirements ahead of his regularly catered public engagements; one could even monitor what he eats on such occasions. Not Born Yesterday lacks both the sources and resources to do this job. The sole purpose of this piece is to get matters to a stage where the story is out in the public domain, such that the real people who count in Britain – the voters – can make their own minds up about it. And – who knows? – to create a situation in which the Opposition might at last do its duty, and question the PM’s fitness for office on these well-known (if not as yet well-documented) bases.

    eye Returning to Britain from a summer holiday abroad, you begin to notice things that perhaps escaped your attention before - the huge number of CCTV cameras that infest our public spaces and, much less obviously, the atmosphere of watchfulness and control that has now become a way of life.

    This is the regime that 12 years of New Labour have imposed on Britain, a place of unwavering suspicion, paranoia - and obsessive surveillance.

    We have become the sort of society that we would unhesitatingly have railed against a few years ago. But, because the change has been brought about with such stealth, we are the very last to see it. The latest figures, in a report by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, are truly terrifying. They reveal that a request is made every minute to snoop on someone's phone records or email accounts.

    Last year alone, there were 504,073 new cases of state-sanctioned surveillance, the equivalent of one adult in 78 being watched - and a rise of 44 per cent over two years. Whatever happened to our centuries- old traditions of freedom? Voltaire called England 'the land of liberty'. Until New Labour materialised, with its intrusive and 'character improving' agenda, that description rang true. The English preferred freedom and tolerance to ideological and religious fanaticism. The currency of our society was common sense. No longer. Common sense has been replaced by officially sanctioned mistrust, mistrust that allows anyone invested with the tiniest bit of authority - often in the form of a high-visibility jacket - to throw their weight around.

    Britain is now a place where terror laws have been used by councils to spy on people breaching smoking bans. Police routinely stop anyone who photographs a public building, in one instance deleting the pictures taken by a 69-year-old Austrian tourist who admired the architecture of Vauxhall bus station. And if the authorities are behaving like this today, what will they subject us to in the run-up to the 2012 London Olympics?

    Wardens in Brighton already habitually seize drink from people on the mere suspicion that they plan to consume it in a public place. And in Edinburgh, a swimming pool attendant stopped the 85-year-old mother of TV presenter Nicky Campbell from taking pictures of her grandchildren. These stories have become part of our national life - and there are thousands of them each year. I know this because my researcher trawls local and national newspapers for examples every morning. What they add up to is a depressing account of a nation infantilised by micro-management and fear. We are losing something essential to our national identity. Foreigners who know what is going on here cannot believe that the British show such little regard for their freedoms. Even Americans, the most jumpy people in the world, are unsettled by Britain's paranoia.

    Government policy is largely to blame. Labour has instilled an endemic culture of suspicion in Britain, which is manifest in the 3,500 new criminal offences brought in over its 12 years in office. Labour is also behind a flurry of new databases that either leech personal information from each one of us or require innocent members of the public to go through an endless rigmarole of proving themselves to the state. The scale of this project is vast. 'The state and its agencies are amassing increasing quantities of data about its citizens,' writes Jill Kirby, the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, in a recent pamphlet.

    She lists them as including the DNA database, centralised medical records and the children's database Contact-Point. This data, she says, has 'proliferated to levels previously unseen in peacetime Britain'. An institutionalised pessimism has taken over. The clear message of Government is that we are incapable of managing our lives and must be watched and regulated by ministers and civil servants from dawn to dusk. More sinister is the assumption that we are all in some way guilty of harbouring the worst intentions. Up to 11 million people who work with children - music tutors, babysitters, football coaches and even parents who have exchange students to stay - will now have to join a new database at the cost of £64 and undergo criminal checks.

    Writers such as Philip Pullman and Anthony Horowitz, who regularly visit schools, are among those who have roundly condemned the scheme. You can see why - the other day I heard of a retired canon who was told that he could only baptise his grandson in his local cathedral if the church authorities first saw proof of his criminal records check. But it is the Government's obsession with surveillance that poses the greatest threat to our liberty. Earlier this year, I calculated from published figures that Britain's expenditure on databases and surveillance systems would amount to a staggering £32 billion.

    Thanks to the economic crisis, some projects have been scaled back. But plans still include a £1 billion system that will give the Government access to data from all emails, text messages, phone calls and internet usage - a proposal that has even been savaged by companies expected to collect the information. Additionally, the e-Borders scheme, which will take 53 pieces of personal information from anyone travelling abroad - including phone and credit card numbers, details of an onward journey and history of cancelled journeys - will cost over £1.2 billion. But the absurd amounts spent on these schemes are not the only concern. The threat they pose to our privacy - and the incompetent way in which the Government handles our personal data - are even more worrying.

    We know, for example, that more than 30 million separate personal files have been lost by government agencies. Recently, a Freedom of Information request by Computer Weekly magazine revealed that nine local authority staff have been sacked for accessing the personal records of celebrities and acquaintances. This largely unpublicised breach should warn us that a government obsessed with hoarding our information and watching us cannot be trusted to keep our details safely. A similar security lapse in ContactPoint could be disastrous. But even this doesn't compare to the real possibility of the systems that watch our movements, monitor our behaviour and tap into the communications data linking up into one great apparatus of surveillance.

    This would allow the authorities more or less to monitor our every movement and transaction in real time. Nothing would remain private. If this happens, we can kiss goodbye to a functioning free society in the United Kingdom. We are not there yet - but we can see the seeds everywhere, from the spread of CCTV, and the flood of government regulations to the expropriation of our personal information. We have to consider the distinct possibility that the obituary for the 'land of liberty' is being composed at this very moment.

    usa rigged As in every election we’re now being bombarded with propaganda about how “your vote makes a difference” and associated nonsense. According to the official version ordinary citizens control the state by voting for candidates in elections. The President and other politicians are supposedly servants of “the people” and the government an instrument of the general populace.

    This version is a myth. It does not matter who is elected because the way the system is set up all elected representatives must do what big business and the state bureaucracy want, not what “the people” want. Elected representatives are figureheads. Politicians’ rhetoric may change depending on who is elected, but they all have to implement the same policies given the same situation. Elections are a scam whose function is to create the illusion that “the people” control the government, not the elite, and to neutralize resistance movements. All voting does is strengthen the state & ruling class, it is not an effective means to change government policy.

    If a party wins the elections but implements policies that go against the interests of big business then profits will go down and businesses & investors will withdraw their investments. This capital flight will cause the economy to crash. If the ruling party does not change its policies to appease big business then they'll lose the next elections due to the bad economy. In practice most parties change their policies to appease the corporate elite in order to avoid losing power.

    This is not merely theoretical, it has happened repeatedly. It happened in India a few months ago. The left, lead by the Congress party, won the elections, leading to a coalition government with the Congress party and the Communist party. This caused the stock market to crash because investors feared a change in economic policy that would hurt their profits. Sonia Ghandi, who was originally going to be the next Prime Minister, chose not to take the position and the new government was forced to adopt policies virtually identical to the previous government. Their rhetoric is different, but policy is basically the same.

    Usually the mere threat of capital flight is enough to keep potentially recalcitrant politicians in line (although most politicians never even consider policies that conflict with the corporate elite/state bureaucracy). For example, Bill Clinton won election on a mildly liberal reformist platform. Once in office he was forced to abandon his campaign promises because if he continued them the bond market wouldn’t react well and the economy would go down the tubes. Clinton’s famous statement to his advisers upon realizing this was, "You mean to tell me that the success of my program and my reelection hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of fucking bond traders?" He was thus forced to abandon his program before it even started, instead implementing one virtually identical to Republican proposals. He complained to his aides:

    I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans. We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?

    In theory the government might be able to combat this by nationalizing industry but neither the Democrats nor Republicans (or most prominent third parties) are willing to do this. Even if they were, the Supreme Court would strike it down. If some way were found to get around this then the CIA and/or Pentagon would overthrow the government in a coup (or through less dramatic means). The CIA has overthrown many governments for nationalizing industry, or even just implementing policies not sufficiently favorable to US corporations, including Chile, Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Greece, the Congo and many others. Doing the same on their home turf would be a piece of cake.

    Once elected representatives are isolated from the general public but surrounded by bureaucrats and other politicians. They therefore have a tendency to see things from the perspective of politicians and bureaucrats, rather than from the perspective of the general public from which they are isolated, and are much more susceptible to pressure from government bureaucracies.

    Elected representatives’ dependency on the state bureaucracy for information makes them very susceptible to manipulation by the bureaucracies they are officially in charge of. For example, in the late ‘50s the CIA secured approval to launch an uprising in Indonesia by feeding a series of increasingly alarmist reports to their superiors in the National Security Council, who otherwise might have shot the proposed uprising down. This shows how government agencies (especially secretive ones) can pressure politicians and influence policy in preferred directions. This is enhanced by the fact that individual politicians come and go but the bureaucrats are permanent, which makes it easier for bureaucrats to manipulate information and ensures that politicians have less experience with such manipulation. Because the state bureaucracy is permanent while politicians are transitory state bureaucracies tend to accrue more power than elected representatives.

    State bureaucracies can also manipulate the political process by leaking damaging information about politicians they don’t like or by harassing parties or movements they don’t like (such as COINTELPRO or the recent harassment of anti-war activists by the FBI). This gives an advantage to politicians favorable to the interests of the state bureaucracy.

    State bureaucracies, especially the military and intelligence services, have a considerable degree of autonomy from elected representatives and so aren’t truly controlled by those representatives. When New Zealand intelligence began secretly participating in Echelon, an international electronic spying system, New Zealand’s Prime Minister didn’t even know about it. Most of the CIA’s covert actions (including coups) were done without Congressional approval and some, like CIA participation in Ghana’s 1966 coup, didn’t even have Presidential approval. Entire wars have been fought in secret, including Russia 1918-1920, Laos 1965-1973 and Cambodia 1970-1975. When Congress cut off funding for the Contras (US-backed terrorists in Nicaragua) in the mid-80s the CIA (and other parts of the state bureaucracy) just kept doing it in secret, disregarding Congress’s wishes.

    The Pentagon can’t even produce auditable books and regularly “loses” billions of dollars every year. Auditors for the Office of Management and Budget found that “unsubstantiated balance adjustments” for financial year 2000 totaled 1.1 trillion dollars. In other words, elected politicians (and especially congress) have no real control over Pentagon spending. The whole process of Congressional hearings and budgetary oversight is just an elaborate charade - they appropriate money and the Pentagon spends it however it wants to. Plus there’s the “black budget” whose contents are kept secret, allowing the national security establishment to effectively do whatever they want with it.

    All of this puts many state bureaucracies (especially the military and intelligence services) beyond effective control of elected representatives, let alone the general public. Their secrecy, manipulation of budgets and complexity (there are too many bureaucrats for representatives to effectively keep track of them all) gives government bureaucracies a considerable degree of autonomy. They go off and do whatever they want, either keeping things secret from elected politicians or pressuring them into going along with it.

    blair This gaping hole calls for a new party. Let's call it Labour

    The party I joined as a gullible student has been dismantled by Blair and Brown, and with it any voice for those on the left I know what this country needs. It needs a Labour party. The old one is not fit for purpose. What finally convinced me was Labour MPs voting on Monday for John Bercow as Speaker. It was a dollop of cynicism on what has surely been the worst parliament of modern times, a tawdry somnolence of sleaze and squandermania, authoritarian in its law-making, reckless in its warmongering and immoral in its self-regulation.

    Leaders and frontbenchers of both main parties have paid back money filched from taxpayers under a regime that would have prosecuted those taxpayers if they had done the same. This patent admission of guilt left them blandly claiming that they had "done nothing wrong". In that case, why pay it back? Had the house-flipping and tax-dodging been isolated, the culprits would have been drummed from office. Instead, wrongdoing cleansed itself by strength in numbers. Hardly a member of this parliament will depart next year untainted by fiddle or fraud.

    As a doubtless gullible student, I purchased a Labour party card, gulping at the notorious clause four on its reverse. Even when, disillusioned, I crossed the floor to a similar flirtation with Conservatism, I retained a respect for Labour as custodian of a fine genetic strain in British politics, an ambition for social liberalism, fairness in wealth distribution and ethical dealing in public life. That party was dismantled, ideologically and constitutionally, by Tony Blair and his circle, to prevent it impeding his freedom of action in office, as it had done so many of his predecessors. He wanted no trouble from that quarter. He was right. The exigencies of power led him in directions far removed from the wellsprings of his support. There were reasons for the U-turn on labour law and progressive taxation in the 1990s. There were reasons, albeit weak, for the wars of liberal interventionism. There were reasons, downright bad ones, for passing 14 repressive and illiberal curbs on personal freedom in the name of national security.

    There were even reasons for accelerating Tory privatisation and for increasing the disparity between rich and poor. There were reasons for responding to the credit crunch by re-enacting the last chapter of Animal Farm on the sofas of Downing Street, with ministers carousing with bankers, lords and ladies until you could not tell them apart. As the money men traipsed through Whitehall protecting their backs and their pockets, the high streets and the factories shut and the job queues lengthened. What has been astonishing is the silence with which the Labour party has received all this. So thoroughly had Blair destroyed Labour as a movement ­independent of its place in power that hardly a peep has been heard from what is supposedly a party of the left. Labour's national executive is a broken reed. There have been no savage motions of censure passed on the conference floor. There has been hardly a resignation from the government or from the party in parliament, whether from conscience or forced on MPs by constituency associations. It took a Tory, David Davis, to resign and fight a byelection over the government's ­detention without trial.

    In the long years of Tory ascendancy in the 1950s and 60s, Labour produced a welter of self-examination. The writings of Crossman and Crosland, the wars between left and centre-left, were argued out at conference and think-tank, weekend retreat and Trafalgar square rally. Today the interesting debates are within Conservatism, between the "Red Tories" and the neo-Thatcherites running riot through health and education policy. Labour's theoreticians are still twitching under the effects of Blair's anaesthetic, muttering about triangulation and the third way. The chief sign of life, outside such London coteries as Compass and Progress, has come from the old left, gloating over the supposed "demise of capitalism". Who could have predicted that the most coveted ­conference speaker in 2009 would be Eric Hobsbawm? The traditional virtue of British ­politics is its bipolarity, based on the Greek ideal of dialogue, of truth­ ­emerging as a synthesis of opposites. This is embodied in the historical ­separation of two parties and the ­adversarial layout of the houses of parliament and of every broadcasting debate. From Newsnight to Any Questions? there can be just two sides to any argument, left and right, with a Liberal Democrat to supply a chorus.

    Dialectical politics needs left and right to represent an identifiable coalition of interests and opinions. Those on the left who are against the current wars, the drug laws, an authoritarian Home Office and a centralised state have no voice. Nor do those who want to see bankers taxed and local council housing surge. Parties should in some sense be accountable for their mandate to the electorate. Yet today's party of the left is as rightwing as that of the right. Never in Labour history can the whips have enforced more blatantly anti-labour legislation at the bidding of the executive. I used to assume that one day the Liberal Democrats would find a leader and a cause to seize the political ground on the left opened up by Blair's neo-Thatcherism, as the SDP tried and failed to do on the right. After 2001 and again after 2005 that was clearly a strategic option for the Lib Dems. They emphatically rejected it in electing Nick Clegg as their leader. They were beguiled by the magnetism of the vacuous centre.

    The new politics fashioned in the mid-90s by Blair and Brown, with the aid of Philip Gould and Peter Mandelson, ­removed the framework by which the Labour party might renew itself from below. The withering of the party apparatus and of its base in the unions and local government left nothing to which future reformers might grasp. Those who now seek to rescue the party and its programme, before the next election or more plausibly after it, have nothing to rescue apart from power itself. Supposed luminaries such as Alan Milburn, Alan Johnson or James Purnell have nowhere to take their ­alternative to Gordon Brown, other than to an ever fickle media. Even the politics of charisma needs somewhere to ground its anchor. Democratic equilibrium needs an opposition, not just one set of careerists or one club pitted against another. It needs an argument and an opposing one. It needs a structure for its debate and a formal relationship between leaders and led. At present it needs a Labour party. Someone should found one.

    end child poverty
    labour friends of israel “Mucking out” British politics

    Stuart Littlewood argues that the expenses scandal engulfing British Members of Parliament is nothing compared to the fact that supporters of Israel are embedded at all levels in the fabric of British political life and at the heart of the government, including at the core of the security establishment.

    UK politicians are currently reeling from a public lashing for fiddling their expenses big-time. Such is their arrogance that many, when confronted with their crimes, don't see that they have done anything wrong. The guilty ones who step down will be further enriched with a lavish resettlement allowance and a big pension pot.

    To appease voters’ anger Parliament and government are now promising anti-sleaze reforms. They are calling on the impressive-sounding Committee on Standards in Public Life to investigate and make recommendations. Conservative leader David Cameron, who has expectations of becoming the next British prime minister, talks of purging his party of its cheats and racketeers. But swindling the taxpayer over MPs' expenses is nothing compared to other corruption that's rife in Westminster. It is said that becoming a Friend of Israel is a necessary stepping-stone to high office. As a result, supporters of that foreign power are embedded at all levels in the fabric of British political life and at the heart of the government.

    Eighteen months ago a group of concerned academics wrote to the Standards Committee complaining about Israel’s “deep penetration” of our political system and how it prevented Britain from taking a principled stand on Middle East affairs, including the Iraq war and the never-ending violations of Palestinian human rights. They asked the committee to consider the activities of the Friends of Israel as a matter for urgent investigation. The chairman, Sir Christopher Kelly, refused. Why? He wouldn't say. But some members of his committee were found to have close links with Friends of Israel. Even this inner sanctum of British correctness and fair play is compromised.

    Integrity is lacking

    One of the Seven Principles of Public Life, and perhaps the most important, is integrity – "Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.” That’s plain enough for even a schoolboy to understand. Yet the authorities turn a blind eye to the various Israel Lobby organizations, which go to great lengths to influence not only those in power, but those wishing to achieve power in the future. Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) claim that, with over 2,000 members and registered supporters, alongside 80 per cent of the Conservative MPs, it has become the largest affiliated group in the party. Its website states that the CFI, in the run-up to the last general election, supported candidates up and down the country.

    As candidates are now being continuously selected for target seats, CFI has developed a special programme of weekly briefings, events with speakers and a chance to participate in delegations to Israel. CFI encourages all members to help campaign for parliamentary candidates and also for local council, London and European elections. It also “fast-tracks” candidates fighting target marginal seats. Senior Conservatives try to justify the turning of would-be MPs into Zionist stooges by insisting that Israel is “a force for good in the world” and that in the battle for democratic liberal values against repression “Israel's enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together...” A top Conservative Friend of Israel confidently predicted there would be no investigation by the Standards Committee, his cocksure attitude adding to the view that his like are a protected species within the Westminster village.

    Security and defence are undermined

    But there are deadly serious consequences. The Israel lobby is even more heavily represented at the centre of Britain's security establishment since the appointment of Kim Howells, formerly minister in charge of Middle East affairs and a one-time chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, to the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. This committee has oversight of the Security Service (MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Intelligence and Security Secretariat, which includes the Assessment Staff in the Cabinet Office. The committee also takes evidence from the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS), part of the Ministry of Defence. These people have access to highly classified material. How can we trust them? Another member of the committee is Sir Alan Beith, president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, whose aims and objectives are stated thus:

    To maximize support for the State of Israel not only within the Liberal Democrats but within Parliament itself.
    To influence the party’s Middle East policy.
    To liaise with Israeli politicians and government.
    To provide parliamentarians with briefing material for parliamentary debates, questions to ministers and public appearances.
    To rebut attacks on Israel in the media, Parliament and the party.
    To arrange and accompany Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel delegations to Israel.
    To keep in regular contact with the Embassy of Israel. Other pro-Israel groups have similar objectives.

    British citizens would horrified to know that Zionist tentacles have spread everywhere in Westminster and that our most important security bodies – the Intelligence and Security Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee and Defence Committee – are all chaired by Israel flag-wavers. They inhibit a proper British response on issues such as the cruel and unlawful blockade of Gaza, and more recently the 22 days of lethal terror unleashed by Israel in an attempt to crush the trapped and half-starved men, women and children of the Gaza Strip. Cameron has painted himself into a corner by declaring he’s a Zionist, leaving one to wonder if he actually knows the meaning of the word and all the nastiness it implies. His ideas about the situation in the Middle East seem confused. Take this gem: The West has to understand that there isn’t an equivalence between a democratically elected government of Israel, a state of Israel that is a democracy, that’s a member of the United Nations, that has a totally legitimate right to exist and defend itself – there is no equivalence between that and a group like Hamas...

    Hamas was democratically elected in 2006. Why not acknowledge and respect that? Israel, of course, is no Western-style democracy but a racist ethnocracy. It flouts dozens of UN resolutions and defies international law. Its every act is designed to make the illegal occupation permanent and realize the Zionist dream of a “Greater Israel” at the expense of world peace. The Israeli cabinet has just approved a draft law to ban Palestinians from marking the Naqba – the "catastrophe" of 1948 widely regarded as the Palestinians’ holocaust, when the state of Israel was declared and some 700,000 were subjected to an Israeli campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing, and subsequently lost their homes and lands, including the land on which the much-mentioned town of Sderot was later built. To this day, they and their descendants, an estimated 4.5 million, have been denied the right to return to their homes. And the Israeli gestapo this week closed down the Palestine Festival of Literature, sponsored by the British Council. Does any of this sound like the work of a democratic government, Mr Cameron? Do you seriously think your party is fit to govern if it aligns with an apartheid regime that has no regard for the rights of others or for the sanctity of human life, and uses depleted uranium and white phosphorus bombs against civilians in densely populated areas?

    Did you and your colleagues learn nothing from Gaza 2009?

    And how does it look, standing shoulder to shoulder with religious fanatics who horribly persecute the Christian communities in the Holy Land? Why do you condemn Palestinian resistance when Israelis are killing Palestinians at the rate of nearly 12 to 1? Why insist that they “recognize” Israel while Israel’s boot is on their necks? Prime Minister Gordon Brown's conduct is equally odd. Brown, like Blair before him, also seems indifferent to the 90 years of British betrayal and the Palestinians’ present plight. He was "delighted" when invited to become a patron of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) in the UK. Set up to help establish a Jews-only state in Arab Palestine, the JNF is a principal tool for Israel's programme of land theft. The JNF’s constitution requires it to benefit Jews exclusively; therefore, it promotes and implements policies that discriminate against the Arab population of Israel.

    The JNF stands accused of ethnic cleansing, the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages and the expropriation of Palestinian land on a massive scale – war crimes in anyone’s language. And yet – can you believe it – Cameron too has become a patron. It is not enough for party leaders to sack a few scoundrels, reduce a few perks and claim to have cleaned up the system. There’s a mountain of mucking out to do before the British parliamentary system can call itself “fit for purpose”.

    Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit

  • http://www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk
  • Obama ‘Czars’ - A Zionist Shadow Government
  • Anthony Steen 'to step down' as MP over fraudulent expenses claims
    Purnell 007 James Purnell knifes Gordon Brown

    Gordon Brown was dealt a potentially fatal blow on Thursday night as James Purnell dramatically quit the Cabinet and called on the Prime Minister to resign to save Labour from an inevitable general election defeat.

    In a devastating resignation letter, the Work and Pensions Secretary told Mr Brown to stand aside to give Labour “a fighting chance”. His departure followed those of fellow Cabinet ministers Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears this week and left Mr Brown’s premiership hanging by the thinnest of threads.

    It opened the floodgates to other MPs openly demanding the Prime Minister’s resignation. With Labour braced for its worst performance at the polls in a generation in the local and European elections, the Prime Minister's position could soon be untenable. Mr Purnell, 39, told The Daily Telegraph his move was not “a plot” and that he had not told other Cabinet ministers of his intention. The Telegraph understands that Mr Purnell was canvassed for the job of Schools Secretary in the coming reshuffle and indicated he would be interested, to maintain his cover. It is the strongest hint yet that Mr Brown plans to replace Alistair Darling at the Treasury with Ed Balls.

  • James Purnell - the 'sideburned schmoozer' who milked his expenses
    jackboot smith Evil crook hatchet face Jackboot Smith disastrous home secretary finally gets the boot

    Jacqui Smith is expected to stand down as home secretary in a reshuffle, Whitehall sources have told the BBC. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is expected to reshuffle his cabinet after Thursday's elections. Ms Smith has been criticised for listing her sister's London house as her main home for expenses - and her husband's claim for an adult movie. It is understood she does not intend to quit as an MP and plans to defend her Redditch seat at the general election.

    Mr Brown confirmed to the BBC he is planning a reshuffle but refused to be drawn on individual ministers' roles. It has been reported that Ms Smith, 46, told him two months ago that she wanted to step down as home secretary.

    Her expenses claims were revealed weeks before the Daily Telegraph began its series of stories about MPs' claims based on leaked receipts. She agreed to pay back allowances claimed for pay-per-view television services, which included two adult films apparently watched by her husband. She had also been under pressure over other issues including the decision to ask police to investigate Home Office leaks - which resulted in the arrest of Tory frontbencher Damian Green.
  • The depth of corruption at Westmonster(No spelling error)
  • Condescending and crooked Darling on last legs
  • Brown fights back on TV over his ministers criminality
  • If this charter for corruption is the answer, MPs are asking themselves the wrong question
  • Is Brown taking us for fools?
  • MPs' expenses: The taxman doesn't like collusion – what will he make of MPs' identical explanations?
    guy fawkes Tales of tax evasion and phantom mortgages conceal a more profound venality in our political monoculture

    The theft of public money by members of parliament, including government ministers, has given Britons a rare glimpse inside the tent of power and privilege. It is rare because not one political reporter or commentator, those who fill tombstones of column inches and dominate broadcast journalism, revealed a shred of this scandal. It was left to a public relations man to sell the “leak”. Why?

    The answer lies in a deeper corruption, which tales of tax evasion and phantom mortgages touch upon but also conceal. Since Margaret Thatcher, British parliamentary democracy has been progressively destroyed as the two main parties have converged into a single-ideology business state, each with almost identical social, economic and foreign policies. This “project” was completed by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, inspired by the political monoculture of the United States. That so many Labour and Tory politicians are now revealed as personally crooked is no more than a metaphor for the anti-democratic system they have forged together.

    Their accomplices have been those Westminster journalists and their editors, who have “played the game” wilfully, and have deluded the public (and sometimes themselves) that vital, democratic differences exist between the parties. Media-designed opinion polls based on absurdly small samplings, along with a tsunami of comment on personalities and their specious crises, have reduced the “national conversation” to a series of media events, in which the withdrawal of popular consent – as the historically low electoral turnouts under Blair demonstrated – has been abused as apathy.

    toff cameron What follows is an expanded version of an account I wrote (for the Mail on Sunday of 24th May) of David Cameron's supposed open meeting with the voters on the subject of the Commons scandal. I don't live in Mr Cameron's constituency, but I do live close enough to it to have bicycled to his Friday meeting in Witney, which is being portrayed, in my view misleadingly, as David Cameron braving the people on the subject of MPs' expenses.

    Here's the article:
    ‘You might think that David Cameron had subjected himself to the wrath of the voters on Friday and come away unscathed. Reports and pictures have appeared of Mr Cameron facing an allegedly open meeting in the Witney Corn Exchange. The Leader of the Opposition - unlike Andrew MacKay - escaped without any angry heckling. This is despite the fact that Mr Cameron is far from being in the clear. He admits to having wrongly claimed £680 to clear wisteria from the chimney of his spacious country home. And he got us taxpayers to pay the interest (£1,700 a month for most of the last eight years) on his £350,000 mortgage, a mortgage he may not actually need. But why spend your own money when the public will pay for you to have an interest-free loan? Well, I was there and I can tell you how Mr Cameron managed to get such a smooth ride. First of all, the meeting was at noon on a Friday, a time when most people with jobs haven't time to go to meetings.

    Second, the local Tories did what they could to hold a supposedly public occasion in private. I only knew of it because of a brief mention of it in my local paper, the 'Oxford Mail'. The website of Witney Conservatives seems to be frozen in time, and doesn't deal with any of Mr Cameron's engagements since 24th April. When I turned up on the doorstep, it was guarded by various apparatchiks sitting at desks with lists, and making it look as if it was in some way a members-only function. An inexperienced person, new to politics, might easily have been put off. The aides gulped visibly when they saw me, but had more sense than to try to keep me out. A freelance TV truck was parked outside, but nothing from Sky or the BBC. When, I wonder, were the big broadcasters informed of the event? And who decided which clips of the occasion they saw? Mr Cameron had a mike clipped to his tie, so anything he said could be recorded, but questioners were not offered a microphone and any heckling or hostility - had it happened - would have been indistinct on videotape.

    Once the meeting started, it was clear that the local loyalists had been summoned to fill most of the 200 seats. The average age was well over 50. Mr Cameron recognised almost every questioner by name, and most of them addressed him familiarly as ‘David’. Every trick in the Tony Blair Fake Sincerity Handbook was used. There was no lectern, so Mr Cameron looked defenceless and vulnerable. He took off his jacket as soon as questions began, and he deployed his (absent) wife as a human shield when awkward questions - about how rich they are - came up. Do we have a £30 million fortune? Chuckle. Samantha must have spent it all, ha ha. No specific answer, though. Apart from me, the only seriously troublesome questioner was a lone Liberal Democrat. And after Mr Cameron eventually allowed me to ask my question (which he didn't answer), the final say was given to a fervent Cameron fan, who decried any suggestions that Mr Cameron had done anything wrong. The Tory leader knew he was safe. He was so sure he was among friends that he used a rude word beginning with 'a', and offered, rashly to work for half the pay.

    If Mr Cameron really wants to find out what the people of West Oxfordshire think about him, his mortgage and his chimney, I suggest he hires a bigger hall, advertises the event both to local people and the national media, and holds it when normal men and women won't be at work.’ And here are some extracts from what he said, with my thoughts on them. I can't provide a complete transcript and don't claim this is one. But I have selected some parts which I think were specially interesting. He insisted he needed two homes, even though he admitted it was possible to commute the distance (many in his constituency do, and it is about 75 miles each way). He said that his children were educated in London (which is true) and that Parliament still sits late on Monday or Tuesday night.

    Well, yes, but I would say that a constituency home is a convenience rather than an absolute necessity. If his children are at school in London, then he will in any case be in London on Monday or Tuesday, the only days when the Commons usually sits late. He only really needs to be in his constituency all day on Fridays and perhaps Saturdays - a need that could be met, in my view, by a comfortable bed and breakfast or at most a small house or flat. I am still unconvinced by the idea that MPs with seats outside London need two homes as a matter of course. Members with remote constituencies obviously need a toehold in London, an expensive place to live. MPs with seats in or very close to London obviously don't need two homes at all. I do wonder, if Mr Cameron sat for a less picturesque part of the country (and west Oxfordshire is delightful), around the same distance from Notting Hill, whether he would be so keen to have a weekend home there, and take his family there so often.

    I've put in the occasional 'er' or 'erm' where I think it adds to the account, ie in showing hesitation, but not all of them. And I've also mentioned audience laughter, to illustrate the general sympathy of the curiously assembled audience with Mr Cameron, which I believe is explained above. I've also inserted some commentary of my own. Mr Cameron explained his rules: ‘What I claim for, I always tried to ask myself 'What is it reasonable to claim for ... not what the rules say, but what is reasonable?’

    He then set out what he regarded as reasonable. ’From 2001 to 2007 the only thing I really claimed for in respect of my second home was the interest on a mortgage, not the repayments but the interest. It was a very large mortgage, it was £350,000 worth of mortgage, it was about £1,700 a month that I was claiming. That was quite close to the maximum you could claim at the time but I did not at that stage claim for anything else...’ My comment: To me, £350,000 seems to be a colossal mortgage, especially for someone on a Parliamentary salary, as he was when he first took it on, or even the Leader of the Opposition's salary, which he is now drawing. We do not know whether this sum paid in full for the Camerons' country home. I would suspect that it probably didn't, since large properties in pleasant Oxfordshire villages generally went, even eight years ago, for rather more than that. Several questions arise. Could he have paid for the property out of his own resources? Did he need such a large house? Did he, before the current scandal, assume that he was bound to benefit in the long term from the likely increase in the price of the house during what promised to be a long political career? Now, of course, this is ruled out, but was it then? And £1,700 a month, tax free, is a lot of money, more than the total that comes into quite a few households. How urgent would the need be to justify this?

    Mr Cameron continued: ’....In 2007 I was able to pay down the mortgage a little bit, so it was a £250,000 mortgage, paying about £1,000 in mortgage interest every month, and so I also claimed for what I would call some pretty straightforward household bills, council tax, oil, gas, erm, and other utility type bills and insurance on the property. And that has been the case from the beginning of 2007 right through to now. I now claim less than the maximum allowed, I don't claim all of those utility bills, I claim a percentage of them, because I think that's right and fair.’

    My comment: He 'paid down' the mortgage' a 'little bit'. That 'little bit' turns out to be £100,000, once again a very large sum by most people's standards. And also, if you choose to run a second home, shouldn't you accept that it's up to you to insure it, pay the fuel bills and council tax on it? And wouldn't it be prudent to choose such a home on the basis that you would want to keep such bills low, rather than expect others to defray them? ‘But I have claimed one bill that I thought was questionable, and so I decided to pay it back. This is the infamous wisteria bill (laughter) as it will now always be known. It was actually a maintenance bill. It was a bill for £680 and it was a bill I claimed at the time because I judged it was about maintenance not about decoration or improvement. It was to mend a leaky roof, it was to put some outside lights on the property for security and mend some ones that were broken and it was to remove this infamous wisteria which was nothing to do with pruning a plant. It was because I have a chimney with a fan on it to get the smoke out so I can light a fire. It had stopped working and the wisteria needed to be removed from it. I claimed for that bill because I thought it was maintenance not decoration but I think MPs have got to show a lead and have got to show some responsibility and have got to take any bill that is frankly questionable or borderline and pay it back. So that is what I am going to do. I am not aware of any other bill for my second home that is inappropriate or should be paid back but were one to emerge in this great process I will happily do that.‘

    My comment: It is not clear from this whether Mr Cameron really thinks he ought to have paid back the wisteria money. It sounds to me as if he thinks he was justified in claiming it but announced he would pay it back for the sake of appearances. Otherwise, why the long, long justification? Why should we worry about whether he can light a fire or not?

    He gave a long explanation in defence of MPs' office expenses, and promised to look through his office expenses in case there were any questionable payments, which he promised to pay back. He made it clear that he had done no 'flipping', switching the designation of his 'second home' so as to maximise claims. And he added: ‘I always try to ask what is reasonable to claim, not what can you claim. I have never claimed for cleaners, gardeners, furniture, food, decorations, duck houses (laughter), moats (laughter), swimming pools or anything like that. I am not putting up my hand and saying I am whiter than white - that didn't get Tony Blair anywhere (laughter) or saying I am better than anybody else but it's just a judgement I took that there were sensible things to claim - that I did claim even though I am relatively well off because the claim was there if you needed to maintain a second home - and I think to do my job properly I need to maintain a second home.’

    My comment: How do these rules apply? If this is right for him, what about other MPs, especially Tory frontbenchers, who have claimed for some or all of the things above? Should they go, without exception? If not, what does it mean that Mr Cameron thinks it is wrong to claim these things? Also, his statement that he is ‘relatively well off’ raises the question of how well off he is. He has brushed aside the suggestion, made by the wealth expert Philip Beresford, that Mr and Mrs Cameron together are worth £30 million, and said it was untrue on the Andrew Marr programme. Very well then. I think he's entitled to reasonable privacy on this, and doesn't have to reveal the exact contents of his bank accounts. But can someone please put to him the question in a public place: ’Could you have afforded to pay for your Oxfordshire home yourself?’ Listening to my tape of the Question and Answer session I notice that almost all the questions are general, addressed to Mr Cameron as Opposition Leader or political pundit, not as an individual MP who might himself have gone too far in living on the public payroll. That's not surprising, if my analysis above is right. I've also begun to notice that Mr Cameron now makes much of the fact that Parliament has lost much of its power to ‘Europe’ and the Judges. He speaks as if he plans to correct this. But he knows perfectly well that unless Britain leaves the EU, most of our legislation will be imposed on us by the European Commission. So this seems to me to be just talk. A small digression here. Vikki Boynton posted last week that the Tory position on Lisbon is: ’If the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force at the time of the next general election, and a Conservative Government is elected, we would put the Treaty to a referendum of the British people, recommending a 'no' vote. If the British people rejected the Treaty, we would withdraw Britain's ratification of it.’ Seems clear.‘

    Yes, it does *seem* clear. It is meant to seem clear. But it is not. A British withdrawal of ratification would be followed by immense pressure from the EU to change that position. There is a great appetite in Brussels to get on with ratification. How would a Cameron government respond to that pressure? I believe it would 'negotiate' a 'compromise' that would end with Lisbon coming into force more or less as it is. That is the key question, and one you won't get an answer to. Only a government which clearly wished to leave the EU could possibly escape from this bind. One other small point about Mr Cameron's performance. At one stage he spoke repeatedly about how many peers (or rather how few) he had 'created'. So far as I know, it is the Queen who creates political peers, on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition, by convention, may usually suggest names, but (as happened to William Hague over one controversial nomination) the Prime Minister may decline to take his advice. It passed me by at the time, numbed as I was by the general sycophancy, but the person sitting next to me (a distinguished commentator who shall remain nameless) pointed it out and I thought I would share it with you.

    brown bounce When it comes to tricking the people, British (two party) democracy is one clever system; which is precisely what we would expect when we consider how long it has been around for.

    Do you know what is so clever about it?

    It pretends to pit one side against the other when really it exists solely to ensure the perpetuation of both for as long as the agenda needs them. The only way ‘democracy’ can survive in its British format is to have two apparently opposing sides; the remainder of the parties just ‘making up the numbers’. Here is a little known fact: It matters not which side is actually in power; the party in ‘opposition’ dictates government decision-making, and vice versa. But the decisions made always serve the agenda, the ultimate goal of which is world government (which has nothing to do with Britain per se). So we can conclude that the Conservatives and Labour are on the same side.

    If we look at the current situation, we see Labour is nearing the end of its governmental reign. This being so, whatever the Tories say happens to have more credence in the political arena. As we are about to find out, the Tories can even criticise Labour policy (based on a lie) and make it look as if it only goes halfway towards dealing with the ‘problem’ (a lie in the first place). When it comes to tricking the people, British democracy is one clever system.

    From the BBC website

    UK ‘at risk of sea-borne attack’

    Britain is vulnerable to terrorist attack from the sea because no single body is responsible for protecting the UK’s coast, MPs have warned. The only terrorist attacks are those planned by the people who already know what measures they will then impose on the people under the guise of dealing with the ‘terrorists’. Just nine Royal Navy ships along with a “motley collection” of police and coastguard boats guard a shoreline more than 7,000 miles long.

    And? What evidence is there of an impending terrorist attack?

    There is none! ‘Terrorism’ has become a term as generic as it is meaningless. Of course, there is nothing meaningless about Terrorism as far as pushing the agenda on is concerned. And the agenda is always very concerned! Very serious! (You are not supposed to laugh at the agenda - that makes it very angry). The Commons defence committee suggests developing a “deterrent capability” to ward off sea-borne attacks.

    What evidence is there of the remotest possibility of a sea-borne attack?

    The Ministry of Defence has insisted clear procedures are in place. Ah! Here’s the necessary counterweight to the argument put forward by the Commons defence committee. The argument needs ‘opposition’ to give it the right to exist, just as the Tories and Labour need each other to prevent their otherwise inevitable collapse. Concerns over the UK’s preparations for dealing with a maritime terrorist threat were raised by the committee.

    A ‘maritime terrorist threat’.

    Readers, are you worried? Are you laughing?

    Reactive forces

    Its statement said: “We are concerned at the level of action being taken to address threats to aspects of national infrastructure such as ports. What are you basing your concerns on?

    “What assets are available for maritime security tend to be reactive forces.” What are you basing your concerns on?

    The statement continued: “There is a strong case for developing a deterrent capability in relation to threats to civilian maritime targets. There is no ’strong case’, so what are you basing your concerns on? “We are not satisfied that an intelligence-led approach is sufficient.”

    What are you basing your concerns on?

    At present the Royal Navy has six warships, two patrol vessels and a support tanker protecting UK waters. They are backed up by 120 police boats, five coastguard patrol boats and five UK Border Agency vessels. But the Conservatives have called for a full review of the defensive capability.

    The Conservatives! Here, this party - soon to take the reigns of government - is making it clear the British people are only going to get more-of-the-same government they already despise. More of the same means a continuation and extension of the agenda’s illusory grip of control. It’s a downward spiral, based on a FEAR FACTOR to stop people from expressing themselves. Fear makes people contract inwards, becoming ever more dependent, rather than expanding with creative thought. Indeed, fear can shut down the independent thought process altogether.

    That the Tories are able to get away with suggesting a full review of Britain’s ‘defensive capability’ (they are saying more control is necessary) shows how the system of politics, although it is gradually being manipulated into breaking itself apart, remains almost as effective as ever with regards to achieving its aims. They say the November 2008 Mumbai attacks - during which gunmen arriving by boat killed more than 170 people - could be replicated in the UK. Ah, now we know what they are basing their concerns on!

    Those attacks were an inside job and they will never be replicated in the UK. The point is not to replicate them but to use them as the Problem which creates the Reaction (from the public) which leads to the Solution put forward by politicians. It takes time to plan these attacks, and each time the risks of exposure are greater, so the elite want to keep terrorist incidents to a minimum - as long as they achieve their purpose: to push on the agenda. Whoever or whatever manipulates our reality totally lacks any sort of empathy.

    Lack of clarity

    Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: “It is clear from this report the government has not given sufficient attention to the role of the armed forces in its domestic security policy. Liam Fox will soon be stepping into the limelight alongside his boss David Cameron. Public relations man Cameron will be crowned Prime Minister and Fox will become Defence (War on the People) Secretary. “The lack of clarity about the role of the MoD in terms of maritime security needs to be addressed.

    Politicians are oh-so-good at addressing. They are absolutely useless at encouraging happiness in their citizens. “This is why we need a Strategic Defence Review to identify the roles the armed forces will be needed for.” So to the nitty gritty. The Strategic Defence Review he is talking about has a hidden purpose behind it.

    It is the excuse which will be used to tighten the grip of the military over its own people. The committee also called for the role of the Army during natural emergencies such as floods to be clarified and the Territorial Army to be used more regularly. This is nothing new. We already have the templates of Communism and Nazism to show us the effects of military rule.

    But an MoD spokesman said: “There are clear procedures in place for the armed forces to provide military assistance to other government departments both in times of national crises. Although it stops short of saying it is helping to maneuver absolute military rule into existence, this is the bit where the current regime tells us what a fine job it is already doing on that front. “How dare the opposition suggest we are not doing well enough!”

    On and on goes the charade.

    Orwellian Translation Unit says: “in times of national crises” = national crises are coming. “Work is under way to provide other government departments with guidelines on how to request military assistance in areas such as counter terrorism.

    Of course it is!
    “We regularly take part in counter terrorism exercises.”
    Of course you do!

    JP, I aim to expose the truth. Please wake up!

    revolution The anger in the air is palpable. The ordinary people hold the political class in contempt.

    The government is failing, as war and economic catastrophe are dealt with in increasingly unconvincing fashion by second-rate public servants. There is, for the first time in a generation, a sense of revolution brewing. This is not today's Britain. It is England in 1381, the year that witnessed one of the greatest popular risings in our history: the Peasants' Revolt.

    Lessons of the Peasants' revolt

    Between May and November that year, England was seized by spasms of popular rebellion, provoked by poll taxes and a disastrous war, and underpinned by the common belief that the government was a pack of scoundrels. Towns and villages from Somerset to Scarborough rose against their rulers, beating and sometimes killing MPs, lawyers, landowners and politicians, tearing down their homes and vandalising their land.

    Bloody revenge

    At the heart of the rising was a march on London on Corpus Christi weekend (Thursday 13 to Saturday 15 June). Traditionally this was a time of mystery plays and festive processions. In 1381, the main procession consisted of villagers from the Thames estuary marching along the pilgrim road between Canterbury and London, burning houses and taking political prisoners as they protested against their venal, incompetent masters. The peasant's revolt ransacked London before it was put down

    When the protestors, led by their general Wat Tyler and the maverick preacher John Ball, reached London, they found they had significant common cause with the townsmen. The London populace bore long-held grudges towards their own ruling elites - which included the oligarchic, super-rich merchant traders in the City as well as the hapless courtiers who governed in the name of 14-year old King Richard. Common fury with the state of lordship bound rural and urban rebels in a compact to clean up government. So the town mice opened their gates to the country mice, and together they all set about the cats. At first there were organised protests, attacks on specific, symbolic landmarks: the Savoy Palace, home of the powerful and unpopular duke of Lancaster, was burned to the ground; the Temple, home of the legal profession, was sacked. Prisons were broken open and the Tower of London, where the government had holed up, was besieged. Demonstrations became riots. A chopping block was set up at Cheapside, where the street ran sticky with the blood of the condemned.

    Kind Richard II was only 14 years old when faced with the rebellion

    The Archbishop of Canterbury had his head hacked off on Tower Hill. The Treasurer was murdered, as - in Suffolk - was a Chief Justice. Some 140 Flemish merchants and their families were butchered on the banks of the Thames, in a shocking xenophobic massacre.

    But for the luck of the young king, Richard II, and the fortitude of a few good men around him led by Mayor of London, William Walworth, the City would have been burned to the ground. Tyler and his mob were eventually defeated at Smithfield, but it took nearly six months to calm the rest of the country.

    Political revolt

    The summer of discontent left a profound mark on the English political consciousness. A few lines written, prior to the rebellion, by the Kentish poet John Gower, were suddenly recognised as an important tenet of government. "There are three things of such a sort that they produce merciless destruction when they get the upper hand," he wrote.

    "One is a flood of water, another is a raging fire and the third is the lesser people, the common multitude; for they will not be stopped by either reason or by discipline." I have thought many times during the past months that our politicians would benefit from revisiting the events of the Peasants' Revolt. In many ways it is a tale of mutual misunderstanding: the ordinary folk thought the worst of their politicians, and politicians saw their people as an economic resource, to be taxed and tormented as the necessities of government demanded. The Black Death was a major factor in fermenting anti-government feeling

    This government, like the government in 1381, has been caught out by a global crisis of unprecedented severity. In the fourteenth century it was the Black Death, which killed 40% of Europe's population. The government's reaction - to impose labour laws that stifled economic recovery but preserved the social hierarchy, was vastly unpopular, for it prevented ordinary people from improving their lives.

    Now, it is the collapse in global credit which has brought a different sort of misery to millions. No doubt there are many differences between 1381 and 2009. They were medieval, we are modern. And history never repeats itself as exactly as historians sometimes wish.

    But if I were an MP today, I would make it my business to learn the course and the lessons of 1381 by heart. Then I would give thanks that there are no longer any chopping blocks at Cheapside.

    Dan Jones is the author of Summer of Blood.

    chaytor morley Here once again we have Britains masonic coppers who for years have been investigating dodgy MP's and let them away with MURDER. We should not hold our breath when MASON cops investigate MASON MP's and then say they "MAY" charge them.
    Anytime MP's know they have committed something criminal they will use two legal quotes, it was done in "GOOD FAITH " or it was an "HONEST MISTAKE".

    We can't see the local neds getting away with their crimes using GOOD FAITH or HONEST MISTAKE or even giving back goods they have stolen when they go before British judges.

    CPS may charge MPs with fraud

    A probe by Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service into Commons expenses is expected to centre on the two Labour MPs who claimed money for mortgages they had already paid off. Former Environment Minister Elliot Morley and David Chaytor have both been suspended by the party and face being de-selected by their constituency parties.

    A panel formed by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer will meet on Monday to decide whether MPs should face criminal charges. It could lead to Mr Morley and Mr Chaytor being prosecuted under the 2006 Fraud Act or the 1968 Theft Act. Although the CPS and the Metropolitan Police are independent bodies, they are expected to come under pressure from Downing Street, which has described the 'phantom' mortgage claims as 'a very serious matter'.

    A statement by the Met and the CPS said Sir Paul Stephenson had instigated meetings with the CPS before the exposure of MPs' expenses in the media 'in relation to a number of allegations made to police'. It added: 'Due to the increase in subsequent allegations, the Commissioner and Director of Public Prosecutions have decided to convene a panel to assess allegations in order to advise on whether criminal investigations should be started.'

    QUEEN You have to laugh when the biggest scrounger in the UK with her massive wealth and despite what the corporate media say, the wealthiest despot by far across the globe. Then discusses MP's dodgy expenses that PALE next to the multi-billion pound empire she personally owns. While scrounging vast amounts of money from the public purse for the upkeep of her properties, her travel and her security. Also the massive amount of money spent on her entourage and extended families that also place an enormous burden on the public purse.

    The Queen has told Gordon Brown she is worried that the scandalous revelations about MPs' expenses could damage Parliament. She discussed the explosion of public outrage over the scandal in what is understood to have been a candid exchange of views when she met the Prime Minister for their weekly audience at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday.

    Details of their conversation - which covered the vital need to restore trust in Parliament - came to light as: The identities of the shadowy figures who leaked the MPs' expenses were revealed. Speaker Michael Martin told friends he is ready to quit.

    A shock new poll put the anti-EU UKIP on course to overtake Labour in next month's European elections. Public demands for criminal charges against at least five expenses-cheat MPs grew. Labour's overall poll rating fell to yet another all-time historic low - just 20 per cent.

    A Labour MP was discovered to have claimed £125,000 expenses for a run-down garage via his 'office' expenses. Another Labour MP was suspended for claiming £13,000 for a mortgage that had been paid off. Writing in the News of the World today Gordon Brown said he was 'appalled and angered' by last week's expenses revelations. He also apologised, on behalf of all parties, to those ‘striving hard in these difficult times’ that the political system had let them and the public down.

    The Prime Minister said he was brought up to believe ‘you did the right thing – and that trust, integrity and honesty are the most precious assets of all.’ He also said: ‘I want to assure every citizen of my commitment to a complete clean-up of the system. Wherever and whenever immediate disciplinary action is required I will take it. ‘The bottom line is that any MP who is found to have defied the rules will not be serving in my government.’ Gordon Brown said Westminster could not operate like a ‘gentleman’s club’ where MPs or parties alone decide whether tax payers money should be paid back.

    Neither Buckingham Palace nor Downing Street would comment on the conversation between Mr Brown and the Queen, insisting that it remain confidential. However, well-placed sources say the Queen is 'deeply troubled' by the scandal and had made it clear that she feared it could inflict 'long-lasting damage' to the Commons. 'She won't discuss individual MPs but she feels this scandal has done a lot of long-lasting damage,' said the source. 'She is aware the public feel repulsed by this sort of thing. She is conscious there is a recession on.' An entirely separate source told The Mail on Sunday that the Queen had expressed her 'disappointment' at the expenses disclosures.

    Both insiders stressed that Her Majesty's comments were neither politically partisan nor aimed at any particular MPs, but came out of concern for the standing of Parliament. Gordon Brown called for ‘transparency to the public’ in his News of the World column today sighting it as the ‘foundation of properly policing this system.’ Looking to the future the Prime minster wrote there was a need for ‘even more fundamental change.’

    He said: ‘I have asked Parliament to ensure – and MPs have agreed – that outer London MPs cannot claim a second home allowance.’ He also admitted that the revelations of the past week would have a ‘lasting impact on our politics.’ Some observers have compared the backlash against MPs with the anger directed at the Queen in the aftermath of Princess Diana's death. The future of the Monarchy as an institution appeared briefly in jeopardy after the Royal Family's initial low-key response prompted unprecedented hostility towards the Queen. On that occasion, Mr Brown's predecessor Tony Blair played a key role in advising the Queen on how to react to public opinion. This week, amid a similar volatile and rebellious public mood, it appears to have been the Queen's turn to counsel the Government, advising Mr Brown on his own efforts to guide Parliament through the expenses crisis that threatens its entire future.

    The Prime Minister's spokesman refused to comment on their meeting, saying: 'Their discussions are private and we have no comment.' A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman stuck to the same strict official line, saying: 'We never comment on what is said between the Queen and the Prime Minister during their private audiences. The Queen and the Prime Minister were alone. No one ever discusses what they discussed.' Tory MP Nicholas Soames, a friend of Prince Charles, said: 'This business has done grave damage to the standing of Parliament and it will take a long time for it to recover trust and confidence. You can smell the stench of death about this Government.

    'Parliament is paralysed, the whole place has effectively closed down when there are dangerous issues that this country must deal with, whether it is Afghanistan, Al Qaeda or the Middle East peace process. 'The expenses system must be reformed but we must not become obsessed with it, Parliament has important work to do.' A BPIX poll for The Mail on Sunday emphasises the strength of public anger over MPs who abuse their expenses. If voters had their way, five politicians - ex-Minister Elliot Morley, Tory MP Andrew Mackay, Employment Minister Tony McNulty, Transport Minister Geoff Hoon and Communities Secretary Hazel Blears - would face criminal charges.

    The Queen has had good relations with all 11 occupants of Downing Street since she came to the throne in 1952. Most came to value her vast experience of State affairs. Apart from death of Diana, the closest to a constitutional clash between Buckingham Palace and No10 came during the Thatcher years, when it was reported that the Queen expressed sympathy for striking miners and fears that Mrs Thatcher's policies were fuelling social unrest. Although the Queen's role in Parliament is now largely ceremonial, it is the Monarch who dissolves Parliament, and it is only convention that dictates that she should do so only on the advice of the Prime Minister. She also retains a key role in the passage of legislation. The Crown is expected to act with 'the advice and consent' of the Commons and Lords, but again, it is only convention which states that she will give Royal assent to Bills passed by the two Houses.

  • Queens own family have their hands deeper in the taxpayers' pockets than any MP
    trough If you view the recent events of how suddenly the corporate media have been exposing MP's dodgy expenses claims as a type of Problem, Reaction, Solution you can see the scenario at how at the next election voters can be swayed and may refuse to vote for the UK's political mafia.

    The corporate media at election time ONLY support the major political parties that are ALL controlled and funded by masons. They know Thatcher did so much damage to the Tories that voters wouldn't dare try and return them . The British people do not have ANY viable political parties who aren't up to their neck in corruption to vote for.

    Despite all of this, the corporate media still give platforms to them time and again providing the facade that they are the only parties WORTHY of our vote. So the question is how do they get the Tory's back into power?

    Simply use the expenses scams to undermine the lot of them, even though they are the only visible political parties that continue to get the media platforms that ensure any other minority party has no chance when the vast bulk of political comment remains with the major parties and their sleaze. Who will that ultimately assist? Well logically if less people vote, for the obvious reasons explained above, the TORIES will be the only party that will have an increased percentage of votes as those who vote tory are all part of the same toffs club and up to their necks in sleaze themselves FLEECING their way into their mansions and vast wealth.

    Tories voters are NOT put off by tory sleaze as it is that very sleaze that mirrors their own rise to wealth in a nation that creates a system were the more EVIL you act the more financially better off you become thanks to being part of the MASONIC clubs of the UK.

    Most of the toff millionaire and billionaires assets are protected by masonic judges in courts that ensure the ordinary public get fleeced while the establishment are protected using masonic judges ,hence the vast inequality between rich and poor. The corporate media are doing the tory voters a big favour by ensuring more voters wont vote in protest at these fraudulent claims which will ensure another TORY government and is just the same type of manipulation the toff and masonic owned and controlled corporate media have been doing for centuries.

    They continually report the UK is a democracy while they control who gets the advertising platforms for the voters to decide on. NO OTHER political party has a hope in hell of breaking this corrupt cycle while the corporate media concentrate all their attention on the hooks and crooks that masquerade in Westminster as some sort of greater good instead of the shower of evil fraudsters that have deceived UK citizens for far to long. There is METHOD IN THEIR MADNESS from a corporate media who ensure DEMOCRACY is a facade that the editors and owners manipulate to get into power who they want, not who the voters want , which is an overhaul of the political mafia that has a massive grip over all our lives to the detriment of us all, apart from those rich toffs that this system protects.

    Why SUDDENLY do the corporate media start attacking all sides at Westminister? Is it to distract attention away from the massive criminality of the judges who are being controlled by Lizzie and HER corrupt and crooked crown? Lives are being destroyed on a grand scale and judicial corruption makes the MP expenses claims pale by comparison. We reckon a multi-billion pound scam is being created everyday in British courts thanks to a complicit crown, its masonic lackey judges , lawyers all part of the bar associations and chief constables conspiring with bailiffs to throw victims of injustice onto the streets of Britain in a scam unparalleled in British history.



    House of Lords: claimed £54,441 in allowances for 94 days attendance (£579/day)
    Earns £36,000 as a Parliamentary Consultant to Eversheds LLP for 36 days work (£1000/day)
    Claimed £3061.17 in allowances from the Scottish Parliament between April 2008 and March 2009
    Salary for a Member of the Scottish Parliament £56,671.