Sunday, July 31, 2011

The Country Is falling to Bits and Dave, George and Nick are off on their "Hols"!

The Camerons Are on Their THIRD Foreign Holiday This Year!
I remember the last time that dear little Billy Hague was left in charge it was when "call me Dave" Cameron was out of the country on a jaunt (flogging arms to small Arab countries), with his his Tory financial backing arms dealer mates. At that time Billy totally misread the Egyptian and Libyan crisis and had thousands of our citizens stranded in Egypt and Libya. Little "Billy no mates" Hague barring one mate - (his driver) then went on to make bizarre comments that Gaddafi was on a flight deserting Libya on his way to an undisclosed destination [as he spoke] and Billy boy Hague knew this apparently because "someone told him"!

Also at the time Defence Minister Liam Fox couldn't be asked to bother about any of it and was off down the pub with his mates drinking pints - Osborne the chancellor was off on a freebie skiing holiday as the economy sank, while the deputy PM Nick Clegg had to be reminded he was in charge of the country because he had forgotten, and anyway it didn't really matter because it was nearly his usual knocking off time (3 pm) and then he was off on a half term skiing holiday with the family. so "someone else would have to do it" (take charge of the country).
Meanwhile the Foreign secretary William Hague who no one had actually told was supposed to be running the country while Dave, George and Nick were away enjoying themselves had apparently had enough of it all and he was booked to fly out of the country himself to Washington that very night, which left the UK with not one single person in charge!
But then (as is the case now) we are told shouldn't worry because really "we're all in this together" and call me Dave is in charge, this time from his luxury villa in Tuscany (budget of course - lmao).

Now there is another crisis developing in Libya the Libyan rebels who Hague and Cameron have just declared as the formal government of Libya and just a day after the UK releasing £92 MILLION to these "so-called" Libyan "rebels" (probably the Libyan branch of al-qada)  have just shot dead and murdered one of their own people because they did not trust him! Now as it is the Foreign Secretary's job (William [Billy-boy] Hague) to deal with it and sort it out, I am a bit concerned.  Hague is also supposed to be in charge of the country while the rest of them are out of it playing in swimming pools and drinking refreshing cool drinks while basking in hot foreign sunshine.  Dave is in Tuscany enjoying his THIRD luxury foreign holiday of this year - Nick is in Spain  on his 3rd or 4th f holiday of this year and despite the British economy is almost in free-fall  the chancellor George Osborne has flown out to Hollywood to join his wife and family for a luxurious holiday in one of LA’s smartest hotels, while leaving us behind to grapple with feeding and school clothing our families, struggling with utility bills and scared stiff of filling the fuel tank up. Osborne has forgotten about Britain’s ­economic woes as he relaxes at Mr C’s, a new hotel where rooms can cost as much as £1,000 a night and this is the chancellor's THIRD luxury holiday so far this year. I am rather concerned if "Billy no-mates barring one" is actually up to the job.

 God forbid we are the subject of a terrorist attack because the deputy assistant police commissioner in charge of anti-terrorism, John Yates, was forced to resign the other week over the telephone hacking and police corruption scandal engulfing News International and David Cameron and the Conservative government. Also Britain's top police Sir Paul Stephenson has also resigned, so in effect we have absolutely no one at the helm of this country, although Stephenson apparently is still in his post for a few weeks, but he is busy winding his tenure in charge of the Met up.

So forgive me for asking "just what the bloody hell is going on with this farce of a Tory government"?

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Thursday, July 28, 2011

The Condoning of the Outrageous Slurring of Disabled People In Tory Britain

This is the type of misleading headline that is encouraged by David Cameron and his government
in Tory Britain today!
Do the Tories and their supporters really feel proud of their government? What do people think when they read banner headlines like this? They do not even have to buy the paper it can be read instantly on passing and the damage done almost as instantaneously. Newspapers like the basket cases Express, Sunday Express, Mail, Mail on Sunday and Rupert Murdoch's Sun have been running headlines like this for about a year now, true these papers have always gone from the sublime to the ridiculous with their hysterical headlines which have until a year ago mainly been reserved for "immigrants" but now seem to have a new cause and purpose in their existence - to bash disabled people. What these so-called newspapers have deliberately engaged in for this past year with their headlines which boarder on the hysterical, has been taken to an altogether different level and there is a reason for this.

Ever since this "pretendy" coalition government managed to assume power, cabinet ministers, government ministers and even MPs from both parties have engaged in a systematic attack on the claimants of all benefits, but nowhere has this government from the prime minister, David Cameron down been more vitriolic and vociferous than on its "attacks" on those who claim disabled benefits of any kind.  In my opinion it appears as if there has been some kind of briefing message gone round and MPs briefed to sing from the same hymn sheet and if this is the case then most have stayed "on message" throughout the year.

This Tory government (I make no apologies for calling them that, because this is what it is) right from its "coalition" birth and the ripping up of the Tory and Lib Dem promises in their manifestos and the rapid publication of the "coalition agreement" (which was forgotten about just as fast) declared an all out "assault" on benefit claimants, they have in my opinion made a conscious commitment to divide the nation and set ordinary workers against other ordinary people and they have used the politics of hate, bitterness and envy to do it and disabled people have been caught in this, I believe intentionally, in order to allow this Tory government to get through its draconian welfare reform bill with as little protest and as few lost votes as is possible. they got elected ( or nearly elected) posing as sheep but they had hidden their wolfs clothing.

I am not going to point out the "blindingly" obvious about the state of health of disability benefit claimants, I would not blight their cause by doing so. In this country of the so-called civilised, disabled people should not have to defend themselves against such attacks and justify their needs to people that know "naff all" about what they criticising and opining, let alone be forced to defend themselves to our own prime minister and Department For Work and Pensions and sadly the minister for the disabled Maria Miller- right? Especially because our prime minister had a little disabled son who so sadly passed away. When our prime minister was in opposition he reiterated time and time again to disabled people, to their carers, their parents and relatives and friends, to anyone who would listen, that he knew "personally" the uphill struggle some faced when they have a disabled child/relative/friend, he knew how they depended on the NHS and the "system" and he knew how badly the "system" could let some people down. David Cameron leader of the Conservative opposition maintained this stance right up until May 5th 2010, then a week later when he managed to get himself into number 10 and become the nation's prime minister he seems to have had some kind of attack of amnesia and he has forgotten all he said and promised to disabled people.

Getting back to the rancid headlines in the hysterical rabid right wing press. These headlines are being actively encourage by our prime minister and his cabinet and his government ministers, since becoming prime minister Cameron appears to have declared war on those claiming benefits and has not missed an opportunity to label people as "welfare scroungers" and "benefit cheats" and "fraudsters", here is a quote from the prime minister "There is no way of dealing with an 11 per cent budget deficit just by hitting either the rich or the welfare scrounger," and of course hardly surprising it was published in one of Rupert Murdoch's papers The Times which is behind a paywall (Murdoch wants us to pay for our news).

The situation against disabled people has deteriorated so badly that disabled Labour MP Anne Begg is forced to defend disabled people's rights in parliament when "Benefits assessment firm (Atos) are causing fear and loathing among claimants".  All this stress would have a dreadful affect on able bodied people's lives but to heap this on top of the fear and distress that disabled people suffer day in day out because of their conditions is unforgivable and disabled people are having to fight 24 hours per day and wade through a sea of prejudice actively being encouraged by prime minister, David Cameron, until it gets to this stage where disabled people are being physically and verbally and abused  in our streets and car parks in Suffolk a 60% increase in attacks on disabled people has been recorded since Cameron and the newspapers have embarked on their "attacks" on so-called "benefit cheats" and this is the story across the country. Some disabled people are in such fear of these attacks and of Atos appraisals that they have taken their own lives and others are contemplating such a horrendous move. The government's flagship Welfare to Work policy is inciting hatred and violence towards the disabled by portraying them as cheats and benefits scroungers, an alliance of charities has warned. The Daily Mail is forced to clarify one of their misleading articles, yet still cannot bring itself to apologise and as usual it is tucked away in some obscure part of the paper and online, why doesn't the Press Complaints Commission force them to retract such articles and also apologise in the same banner headlines it misleads people with? See here how minister Chris Grayling has been forced to deny fuelling "attacks on workshy".

 Does Cameron and the newspapers accept their part in the way that people now think it is socially acceptable to abuse and treat disabled people so appallingly? These levels of government "attacks" have only started since this Tory government came to power. The abuse is even happening in our care homes! Do the same newspapers who scream abusive untrue and misleading headlines from their front pages, the headlines that encourage the abuse that is now taking place against disabled people the length and breadth of this country report the assaults and abuse against disabled people that is now taking place which can in large part be seen to be encouraged by this kind of totally spurious and scurrilous misleading reporting? Is this what really passes as journalism in the UK in 2011? So much so that it is now got so serious that it is having to be debated in parliament? Is this really what the British prime minister wants when he utters his careless words in order to appeal to the base instincts of the masses so he can push through his welfare reforms largely unchallenged?

Finally after a year of pure hell disabled people get a response like this "fit to work tests are flawed - MPs say" really?No s*** Sherlock, I guess disabled people would not have known this if someone in Westminster had not finally - *finally* noticed that "Atos kills", yes it does and so does the cheap and nasty comments purposefully put out by prime minister David Cameron, Deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg and our "mystery disappearing man" Tory chancellor, George Osborne, Chris Grayling, Iain Duncan-Smith and Disability Minister Maria Miller (call for Maria Miller to be investigated) and all the rest of them who have gleefully joined in with the Westminster bullies and merrily taken up the new craze sweeping Britain seemingly "endorsed" by the prime minister's careless words and acts and got "benefit bashing". They have bashed and bashed, through TV, radio and newspaper headlines and internet blogs and messageboards until some disabled people have caved into into submission, until some are so weak, so tired and so ill, and so mentally affected by all of this they just stop claiming, *NOT* because they are not genuine, but because they just haven't got the strength left to continue their fight - Welcome to Tory Britain in 2011 - some "civilised caring" and "big bloody society" this country and this government turned out to be!

If this government are doing everything they can for disabled people, then why did thousands of people attend a rally of the "Hardest Hit" in London recently at great cost to themselves and their health? A rally that our "esteemed" prime minister totally ignored, yet he above all should know the true cost to the majority of those who attended the march and rally and how much personal organisation attending such an event had to be undertaken, yet his silence was "deafening". Why are newspapers like the Guardian being forced to run articles like this to try and raise awareness of what is happening to disabled people and the problems they are facing as a direct consequence of this government's actions?

Why have we got a Tory government that allows its MPs to infer that disabled people should work for less money than the national minimum wage because they are less productive than able bodied people and think that it is a perfectly acceptable to portray disabled people as second class citizens? Where were the banner headlines on the Express Group newspapers, the Murdoch Newspapers and the Mail group newspapers condemning such a despicable and outrageous inference as this from Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley? Especially when the same unbelievably hypocritical Tory MP rakes in large amounts of cash for himself.

I don't really want to hear from those that protest about the  cost of welfare, I have heard enough of that particular brand of "sickness" to last me a lifetime and I point out it never seemed to be a problem before the recession hit, when mostly people were happy and content with their lot and before we had a government that blamed a global financial recession on just one man and then proceeded to talk the UK economy down (just to get elected) and before we had a government that is actively using the so-called "deficit" as an excuse to attack us ordinary folk, and it is an excuse, because this country has run on larger deficits than this (and under the Tories) before without a government purposefully harming our economy just so it has an excuse to rid us of the welfare state, the NHS and state education. I would also point out that so-called "fraudulent" welfare claims pale into complete insignificance against the tax dodging Tory financial backers in the shape of individuals and corporations, companies like Vodafone for example, where the chancellor Osborne has waived their £6 BILLION tax bill owed to the UK Treasury and where collectively these elitist  mainly Tory voting, Tory doning people and companies. BANKS and hedge funds owe upwards of £120 BILLION to the UK treasury per year. yet this Tory government does absolutely nothing other than utter a few mealy mouthed words about closing tax loopholes, that NEVER EVER come to fruition. I would like to remind people at this point before we see the complete demise of everything we hold dear in this country, that absolutely none of us know what life has in store, or when we or our loved ones may need the help of the welfare state or the NHS and if people think they can afford the insurance it will take to cover them and their families against such events in their lives, then I say good luck to them and it must be really great to be so well placed as to be able to pay out approximately a quarter of your income each month to some insurance company, that should you claim will do everything in their power to bring your attention to small print that actually voids your entire claim - good luck with that.

When a country has a government that actually cares about its people, it is a true mark of decency and democracy, by and large under Labour we used to have such a government (I fully acknowledge the labour government's total and utter mistake by introducing Atos etc in the first place and hopefully it is something that a new Labour government will immediately correct) but now it is all disappearing in amongst Tory manipulation and deliberate misleading of the general public, for all their faults (and there were many) the previous Labour government were never like this and now to our immense shame our country can be compared with other profoundly undemocratic countries, where there is little or no decency and where corruption is rife and the rich prosper and the poor are just stamped on and kicked out of the way and hidden as an embarrassment. I used to be proud of my country, today, I have never felt more ashamed of  it and believe me, this is a first for me. The way we are allowing ourselves to be influenced by the likes of the privileged elitist millionaire Tory government that now runs our country, the way we are allowing newspapers like the Sun, Express and Mail etc to colour our better judgements and attack those less fortunate than ourselves and the way most of us in pure ignorance sit in judgement on others who we know precious little about, is not only excruciatingly embarrassing, it is truly and profoundly degrading to us as a civilised nation, it is also an exceedingly dangerous position because it literally fosters hatred and the the kind of fascism this country fought so hard against throughout its history and for that we can thank Messrs. Cameron, Clegg and Osborne, Grayling, Duncan-Smith and Miller etc who in barely one year have managed to turn our country from a civilised caring society, to one of narrow minded mean spirited and wholly prejudicial towards disabled people and others less fortunate, and have turned many into people who have it seems lost the ability to reason and logic and see beyond their noses, that is if they haven't yet got around to cutting it off  to spite their faces, because none of us know what is around the next corner! We are fostering a deeply uncaring and dangerous society for our children and grandchildren etc to inhabit and that is just about the most awful legacy we can leave future generations.

Is this government really what the people of Britian actually voted for? Are people really happy to have themselves branded as "haters" of others who are less fortunate? There must be some truth in it because if there wasn't, then many more people would protesting to this government about this sickening abuse than currently is. Or is it that this government are so devious that they have successfully moved to the politics of governing by fear, hatred, confusion and chaos? They have certainly caused chaos, disruption and confusion in every major reform from Welfare, Education, defence, Policing to the NHS and have shown themselves to be totally incompetent and completely out of their depth, yet such is the copious amounts of spin from Cameron's spin doctor and the rabid right wing press, this evil government are just being allowed to get away with it.

The newspapers will only print their prejudicial garbage if they think we will buy their papers to read it. However, what I really would like to know is why isn't the Press Complaints Commission taking action against such despicable behaviour?

What I also want to know is why the Conservative government under the leadership of prime minister David Cameron, DPM Nick Clegg, Chancellor George Osborne, Works and Pensions secretary Iain Duncan-Smith, Minister for the Disabled Maria Miller and Employment Minister, Chris Grayling in what seems to be a concerted effort by the whole government - have decided to turn citizen against citizen and portray all those on welfare or disability benefits as "cheats and scroungers and fraudsters" even though they fully realise that the vast majority of claimants are actually *genuine*? and why has the Tory government apparently actively engaged certain newspapers to run their spurious and misleading reports? Among them the Murdoch press?

It's abuse Dave - pure and simple.

If Rupert Murdoch really, truly and genuinely wanted to atone for what "gutter-press reports" its papers have published for the past 3/4 years, he could do no better than start printing the truth and unbiased reports and start publicising the plight of disabled people and those others who are in genuine receipt of benefits and the way they are being shamelessly used, abused and deliberately singled out for "attack" by the British Conservative government today.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The UK Economy Is In Real Terms Decline and Tory Chancellor George Osborne is in Hiding and Denial

Let's face it 0.2% "growth is not growth at all, in real terms this figure is probably masking a small contraction.
Yesterday we were treated to a whole plethora of excuses from the Office National Statistics (ONS) and George Osborne himself. I was absolutely astonished at the patheticness of the excuses, it wasn't the Conservative chancellor's fault, said the ONS it was erm *the royal wedding - *The extended May Bank Holiday - * The wrong kind of Spring weather - * Unseasonal fall in oil production - * The Japanese tsunami and nuclear incident - FGS this from the people in charge of our economy? Not forgetting that later George Gideon Osborne took to the airwaves to tell us all how wonderful 0.2% "growth" really is and how the UK is a wonderful beacon of stability in a global storm (apparently).

Just a minute wasn't it Cameron that informed us all of how wonderful the royal wedding was going to be for the country and how manufacturing was going to benefit from the making of memorabilia etc, and it would have been too if only that pesky sun had not got in the way. (I do mean the sun as in sunshine and not the Sun as in that other Tory story that will not go away). So let's get this straight, when people questioned how much the royal wedding was going to cost us they were told that the millions spent on security for the couple would all be recouped out of the revenue raised for the economy by the event itself - so what happened then?  The royal wedding was trumpeted as a boost for the economy now its blamed as one of the causes for poor performance. Which is it they cannot have it both ways!

Why is this being used as an excuse? Is it because the government does not want us to remove the royal wedding revenue factor from the figures because if we did this then suddenly we see that the service sector is really not doing that well and that it was only the service sector that stopped the figures going into negative territory, so far better to blame the wedding for the poor performance?

Also another little mentioned fact, apparently the financial sector has once again started to recover - why? It isn't for the loans they are giving out to hard pressed struggling businesses is it? Perhaps it could be that as Osborne's austerity measures bite, the income that families have to manage on has fallen dramatically with wage freezes, VAT increases, fuel increases, food increases, utility increases etc that families incomes have dropped so much and they simply cannot manage so they are being forced to borrow on credit cards just to get by? In fact, as a direct consequence of George Osborne families are being forced to borrow a further 14% just to survive and who is the recipient of over priced credit card transactions? Well of course it is the people that caused the problem in the first place the greedy bankers! So their sector is recovering by George Osborne first of all forcing everyone to pay for the bankers greed and then forcing them to pay for the recovery by being forced to borrow yet more money simply to exist. It is pure madness! But don't worry because while we are all being forced to do this by George Osborne the bankers income and profits will go up so "bless 'em" they will still get their golden hellos, their golden goodbyes, their golden pensions and of course their solid gold bonuses.

The income gap between rich and poor is increasing daily and George Osborne's proposals? Is to cut tax for the rich and lower corporation tax and who will this benefit? Oh and apparently they are going to have some scheme for fibre optic cables, but hang on, that scheme is already in operation and has been for the last 4 years and meanwhile Vince Cable is prattling on about forcing the banks to loan to small businesses ( yawwwn again) this is all very well but can Vince Cable please explain what Osborne's "Project Merlin" was supposed to be all about? What has happened to project Merlin by the way? Osborne doesn't even mention it these days.

This Tory government (for that is exactly what it is)  assumed power claiming the country is bankrupt and has no money to pay welfare to terminal cancer patients, or payments to disabled people, or fuel allowances to pensioners and. yet suddenly finds the cash to bomb and bankroll the so-called Libyan rebels. They have cut Sure Start centres, libraries, the police and defence, they are cutting the number of training places for doctors and nurses, despite david Cameron bizarrely claiming in the House of Commons that since the Tories came to power the number of doctors has increased! Unless doctors training now takes place inside one year, I honestly fail to see how he can claim that, once again he is taking us for idiots and misleading parliament and the British people.
The truth is that Osborne's austerity measures are only just beginning, just starting to bite and if they are this bad so early on then what on earth is it going to be like another year or two down the line? There are still the hundreds of thousands more public sector workers waiting to lose their jobs, yet more money to be taken out of the economy as these people will not be spending and this is on top of the further £13 billion yet to be taken out of the economy this year alone.

Unemployment will start to rise, the only reason it hasn't now is because of the disproportionate number of part time jobs that people are being forced to take. I would not be surprised to learn that Osborne has asked companies to offer more in the way of part-time positions so the unemployed figure will not keep rising. There is  definitely some kind of discrepancy occurring there. Why is there suddenly a glut of part-time positions being made and fewer full-time positions? This is the reason why the number of those claiming benefits is now soaring, this is because people are being forced to claim top-up benefits because they cannot manage on part-time wages and this in turn means we are heavily subsidising big companies wage bills as it is cheaper for them to hire part-time workers than full-time and is probably the reason why there is suddenly a surge in the number of part-time positions being made.

All this and the chancellor is blaming external influences, by that he means he is blaming other countries and that really is a big joke! When in opposition Cameron and Osborne insisted that the recession was all Brown's fault brought on by his spending, now they are in government they seem to think they can blame the state of the world's economies for their abysmal stifled UK growth, but they cannot, they simply cannot have it both ways. Fact is that despite all the problems with other countries economies in Greece, Portugal and Spain etc and despite coming out of the steepest recession fro a 100 years Labour still managed to return the country to growth and achieve falling unemployment and because of growth of 1.1% they were able to reduce government borrowing by a huge £43 billion, the Tories were handed an economy in recovery and what have they done with it?

May 2010 (under labour)  growth in Q2 was 1.1%.... The Tories took over growth in Q3 dropped to 0.7%...Q4 contracted by 0.5% and Q1 grew 0.5% which only managed to cover the amount we contracted in the previous quarter and then in Q2 (yesterday) Q2 growth was only 0.2%.

So you can see that ever since the Tories have been in power they have managed to put growth on a downward spiral proving that the Tories have actually managed to slow our economy and because the chancellor and Cameron are in denial and because they have absolutely no idea what to do, this trend looks set to continue and I estimate by next year unless these idiots are booted out of office, then this country will be back in recession.

The chancellor emerged briefly yesterday to deny his measures are actually harming the British economy before retreating into hiding again (so he couldn't be questioned over his many visits to the Murdochs). I fear this is probably the last we will see of him over the summer recess, he has probably gone on another holiday like the prime minister has, Cameron is due to go on his 3rd foreign holiday of the year. Alright for some I suppose! Still they had better take all the freebie holidays while they can, I have a sneaking suspicion they will not be in power much longer!

Liberal Democrats, Coalition Partners or Tory Cheer Leaders?

It's hard to tell exactly what the Liberal Democrat party actually stands for these days, they appear to back everything their new "bestest" Friends say and do. Even when they say they disagree it is only for a short time until Cameron throws them a few scraps and then they come running through the government's lobby like good little MPs, cheering the Tories on as they go.

They have wagered their entire party on a little bit of power and on George Osborne's insane gamble with the country's economy and as time ticks by it looks very much like Osborne's insane economics are not working. There is no way he will be able to meet his own deficit reduction targets they are now blown completely out of the water and at this rate the economy will be back in recession next year. Yet they still back this government! Well they have to I suppose, in Scotland a latest poll puts the Lib Dems on only 3%, a small sample, but apparently even bigger samples and an overall rating of a few polls does not put them much higher. They have gambled everything on Osborne's economic gamble coming good by the time the next election comes around, which they believe will be in 2015.

Nick Clegg said he backs Cameron over the phone hacking scandal and that Cameron "should absolutely not resign". Of course Clegg would say this, he knows very well if Cameron resigned now this leaves him even further up the creek without the proverbial paddle.

Personally I do not think that this government will last until 2015, it is already cracked and divided no matter how much they all protest to the contrary. I believe what has been revealed so far in the phone hacking scandal and what is yet to be revealed will see Cameron forced to resign, what do the Liberal Democrats and the Tories do when that happens? Elect another leader to become prime minister? I don't think so, after all both of these parties constantly accused Gordon Brown of being an unelected prime minister, so it would be very hypocritical if they did this, however, even if they did this would not work as the Liberal democrats would have to walk away from this insane government because the flack that will be flying around would contaminate what is left of their party and then 3% will be like a high in their polling.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

So Sam Cam Smelt A Rat? Not a Nice Thing To Call Your Hubby Sam!

Whatever next is going to s come out of the spin office at number 10? Now we are expected to believe (if we can believe anything that appears in the Mail on Sunday), that apparently  
"Mrs Cameron pleaded with her husband back in the spring to end contact with the so-called Chipping Norton set and, in particular, News International chief Rebekah Brooks. Mrs Cameron, a successful businesswoman, was also dubious about Andy Coulson, with whom she clashed repeatedly after he entered Downing Street as her husband’s director of communications."

I suspect that this story has been made up in order to get David Cameron off of the hook and divert attention away from the ongoing saga of his close associations with Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Andy Coulson, which they thought would now have gone away but show little signs of abating as still more seedy facts seem to emerge daily. It's strange that in retrospect we hear that Mrs Cameron smelt a rat. Samantha Cameron has had since 2007 to make her husband Dave see sense. Andy Coulson, was a previous employee of the Conservative Party, in a government job at Tax Payers expense, a huge salary of £275.000 per year granted at a time when his masters were "gleefully" taking away the benefits from disabled people, the winter fuel allowance from elderly people and allowing utility bills to rise by a huge 19% etcetera...etcetera!

If Samantha Cameron objected so much to the Chipping Norton Set then why did she simply refuse to accompany him on the various social gatherings of that set? I know I would, if I suspected my husband of becoming embroiled in something that was going to prove detrimental to his career, I would have been very vociferous, I simply do not believe this, I think it is a pack of lies made up by Craig Oliver, Cameron's present spin doctor.

Melissa Kite gushes that Sam is a successful business woman? Oh please spare us the guff, Samantha Cameron is a member of the aristocracy and has all the privileges that come with that, including money and connections she had every advantage handed to her on a plate, she has been given succession of jobs by elitist city firms providing goods for other well heeled people. A successful business person is someone who has little or no funding who can scrape together enough money and take risks and make their ideas work and pay, someone who can succeed against all the odds, or someone that is forced to put their meagre home on the line for security for an over priced loan to fund their business. How many members of the aristocracy will buy their goods from someone who lives on a council sink estate? I have already heard and read enough elitist snobbery about the writing of someone called J K Rowling, who was condemned by literary snobs.

The truth of the matter is that Sam Cameron went along with her hubby on free holidays, flown out on private jets owned by Matthew Freud to luxury Murdoch yachts moored in the sun drenched Mediterranean, where she watched her children frolic in the luxury swimming pool and she enjoyed every bit of her over privileged lifestyle. Matthew Freud being the Tory doning husband of Elisabeth Murdoch, daughter of Rupert Murdoch - no less!

Don't make me laugh Sam.

Dodgy Dave Cameron and His Dodgy Tory Government and Sir Gus O'Donnel Cabinet Secretary

Let's face it Britain hesitated on May 6th 2010 and produced a hung parliament, through that hesitation Britain acquired one of the dodgiest prime ministers in the history of this country.

When on the few occasions Britian produced a hung parliament the normal course of action would have been that the largest party form a minority government, govern for a few months and let democracy set the course and another general election would follow within usually a year. During that time several things may have happened to trigger an early general election. Any "pact" made between the largest party and "another" would usually fall apart and this would lead to a vote of no confidence in the government  - Or some other issue would trigger a vote of no confidence in the House, the government would lose and a general election would be triggered - or the largest party would simply chance their arm and go to the country again and try to get a working majority to form a new government. Whatever the combination of things, this would have been the normal course of events. However, that was before the interference of Britain's top civil servant the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, who many believe overstepped his brief to interfere in the formation of the so-called "Coalition government" between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats.

Cabinet Secretary - Sir Gus O'Donnell Britain's Top Civil Servant

May 2010 - Post General Election -  Sir Gus O’Donnell intervened in the dramatic weekend after the General Election to advise the Tories and Lib Dems that they risked market meltdown if there were no stable government in place by the Monday.
Well this may well have been the case (we'll never know), but the country had just travelled an economic nightmare in the form of a global financial recession triggered by the greed of bankers and induced by the reckless greedy actions of these very people the City Bankers, City Analysts and City Financiers that Sir Gus O'Donnell was so "concerned" about, many of which are Tory supporters who bankroll the Tory party to the tune of millions of pounds. How does O'Donnell thinks his interference on behalf of Tory bankers in order to produce what is ostensibly a Tory government now looks to the public?
  • More than half the donations raked in by David Cameron's Tories in 2010 came from City bankers.
  • This Tory party is the richest political party in this history of this country.
  • Financial services firms and individuals donated £11.4m to the Conservative party in the first nine months of 2010, according to figures compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
  • That was 51% of the total £22.5 million raised over the period - up from a quarter in 2005.
Given that the country had just experienced a virtual banking collapse in the financial system and are witnessing an ongoing struggle over its regulation, the scale of Tory party funding from the City must be an extremely pertinent and serious issue. So why was Sir Gus O'Donnell interfering in the workings of our democracy in favour of bankers and the City? Thanks to O'Donnell we now have a situation where Tory donors are heavily influencing policy making and no one could have failed to note the disastrous consequences of this from the failed NHS reforms and Tory doning private healthcare companies, to the way that Rupert Murdoch's News International has been allowed to infiltrate the heart of the British government and influence policy decisions.

Why was Sir Gus O'Donnell so insistent to get the Conservative Party into government and locked into a position that could not be challenged through the normal democratic route that has served Britain so well in the past?  Left alone without O'Donnell's interference it is highly unlikely that we would have what is proving to be a disastrous and wholly incompetent government and the Liberal Democrats would not have been shunted into a position where they are now being used and abused daily by Cameron and his "inner circle" of "Cameroons". By the end of this so-called "coalition administration", the Liberal Democrats will be a spent political party with nowhere to go, led by a weak ineffectual leader who has lied so much that no one now trusts and all that even depends on if Nick Clegg manages to cling on to his Sheffield Hallam seat, which is looking increasingly unlikely.

It appears to me that Sir Gus O'Donnell is hardly the unbiased character that he would have people believe that he is. A small probe into his profile reveals that he was once former Conservative prime minister, Lord John Major's press secretary. Sir John Major took him to Downing Street as his press secretary after working with him as chancellor in the Margaret Thatcher government, where the two had forged a friendship.
Strangely he shared power with Ed Balls, Gordon Brown's long-standing political advisor who became chief economic adviser in 1999, yet when the Tories barrack Ed Balls for being Gordon Brown's adviser, they neglect to mention that Sir Gus O'Donnell held that title at the same time - why?
It seems that O'Donnell has long been involved in the financial workings of this country, so was he really the one to be advising on the formation of a coalition government using the financial markets as a leverage?

Sir Gus O'Donnell and the Inquiry Into Phone Hacking (that never was)

When the News of the World reporter Clive Goodman and the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were found guilty and accused of hacking into the voicemail messages of the royal princes, that was thought to be the end of the matter, it was put down to this one rough NotW reporter and Mulcaire, the two were duly sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment. However, when fresh allegations surfaced again in 2009 then then former prime minister Gordon Brown suspected his phone had been hacked and wanted to hold an inquiry into the matter. Mr Brown said that he had wanted to hold a full investigation into phone hacking in February 2010, when the Culture, Media and Sport Committee reported that the number of victims was more than the handful that had been claimed.
He said he asked Sir Gus to agree to launch a judicial inquiry but had been told that doing so would appear politically motivated. A seven page briefing note issued by the Cabinet Office confirms what Mr Brown said in parliament to MPs on Wednesday 13th July 2011.

In the summary issued by Sir Gus O'Donnell it states that there is limited information available on which to hold such an inquiry, supposedly then he knew nothing of the thousands of pieces of information contained in bin bags at Scotland Yard?
O'Donnell goes on to say that any decisions to hold such an inquiry could be challenged by a judicial review, particularly if the inquiry were extended to the media in general, and it is not inconceivable that such a challenge may succeed.

O'Donnell goes on to list other points.
  • Cost - any inquiry carries costs to the public purse which will depend on the breadth of the terms of reference and the composition of the inquiry panel.
  • Setting a precedent -  creating an inquiry in this case could increase calls for public inquiries e.g. following future adverse Select Committee reports.
  • Timing - the immediate proximity to an election would inevitably raise questions over the motivation and urgency of an inquiry.

Yes Sir Gus deftly points to the fact that to hold an inquiry, or not, is the prime minister's decision, but O'Donnell left Mr Brown in no doubt what he actually thought about the holding of an inquiry at that time and that it would be seen as being politically motivated.
It showed Sir Gus had advised Mr Brown that launching a probe just two months before the General Election would "inevitably raise questions over the motivation and urgency of an inquiry" and that this could lead to a legal challenge.

If Brown had decided to hold that inquiry at that time it would have been extremely doubtful if Cameron would have even been in a position to form a minority government - so once again we have seen Sir Gus O'Donnell apparently "step-in" to save the day for the Conservative party.

John Denham, the Shadow business secretary wrote to Sir Gus asking whether Mr Hunt was a ‘fit and proper person’ to determine media tycoon Rupert Murdoch’s bid for full control of BSkyB, he pointed to what he described as ‘prejudicial statements’ previously made by Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary appearing to support the takeover.
While in Opposition and in government, Mr Hunt made a series of BSkyB friendly statements and has also had meetings with senior executives from the media giant. Jeremy Hunt even flew to the United States where he met representatives of News Corp, as well as other media organisations.

Astonishingly and despite the above the Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell actually cleared Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt to rule on the controversial BSkyB takeover - why? How did he come to this conclusion? Surely this opens up charges of political bias by Sir Gus? He revealed that prime minister David Cameron had sought his advice about whether there was any legal impediment to the shift in ministerial responsibilities from Vince cable to Jeremy Hunt before making a decision, so far from asking to be removed from any decision making concerning BSkyB, we clearly see that it was David Cameron's decision to give this part of Vince Cable's brief to Jeremy Hunt, which is at the very least a controversial decision, so controversial that O'Donnell felt he had to take legal advice. Who gave the legal advice to Sir Gus? Was it the Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve?
The Cabinet Secretary also made clear that there was so much doubt about Jeremy Hunt’s suitability for this role that they were forced to consult top lawyers.’
‘It is very hard to see how any decision Jeremy Hunt makes will enjoy complete confidence. Yet despite all of this and despite what was known to Hunt, he was within hours of granting permission to Rupert Murdoch for the BSkyB takeover.

So we had a situation where Vince Cable was ousted from his position as final judge over whether Murdoch may buy out the remaining 61% of BskyB shares due to bias against the company. He was then replaced by Jeremy Hunt, who has exhibited astonishing bias toward the company and all in the name of fairness? Fairness to whom? Rupert Murdoch?

It appears to me at that time Rupert Murdoch actually ran the Tory party and had great influence over Sir Gus O'Donnell too and this is something that clearly needs to be debated in parliament.

This is remarkable especially when you consider that all of this has been conducted amid  fears of a Tory takeover at the BBC after party grandee Chris Patten was appointed by the Tories for the ­Corporation’s top job.
Fears about the Tory Peer Chris Patten's appointment appeared to have been realised as the Tory-led Government’s close links to Rupert Murdoch and News International have emerged in recent weeks and suspicions that the Tories had struck some kind of a deal with the tycoon, whose ­newspapers championed the party in the run-up to the May 2010 ­election look to be gaining traction. Yet knowing all of this Sir Gus O'Donnell still allowed Jeremy Hunt to preside over the BSkyB bid?

 Sir Gus O'Donnell also has ducked questions on the controversy over the tax status of millionaire Tory donor Lord Ashcroft in 2007.
Many people believe that the peer has reneged on a commitment to become domiciled in Britain for tax purposes in return for his elevation to the House of Lords. In fact William Hague now the Foreign Secretary famously refused to answer questions out to him by Jeremy Paxman over Lord Ashcroft's status.

On one of his trips abroad with the former prime minister John Major, Gus O'Donnell – Sir Gus, as he is now – intrigued the attendant press corps by claiming to have a system for winning at roulette, which only required a casino foolish enough to have a roulette wheel with no zero for it to be infallible.

It was simple, but required a big pile of chips and a steady nerve. The idea was to make only those bets that had a 50-50 chance of success, such as putting everything on red. If you won, you would keep your winnings and repeat the bet. If you lost, you would double your stake, and keep doubling until you won. If you started by betting a pound, and lost 10 times in a row, your 10th bet would have to be £1,024 – but win that, and you would recover all that you had lost.
How deeply embarrassing for our country that a senior civil servant thinks that this doubling strategy is a winner and this man was once employed as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury! No wonder then that he pulled out all the stops for the Markets when he was forming a coalition government for Britain and overriding the country's democracy in doing so!

In his earlier post as Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, O'Donnell sacked a Treasury official who was too partisan in attacking the Tories. The sacked official was then taken on by Gordon Brown as a political adviser. His name was Damian McBride.

Now recall recently what name has been flowing off of the lips of David Cameron in the form of an "attack" on Ed Miliband? What name was on the "dossier" of ways to attack labour, which was quickly circulated to Tory and Liberal Democrat MPs as a way of "attacking" Labour over the phone hacking scandal? The exact same dossier that asked Tory MPs to cheer from the rafters when David Cameron stood up in the House to debate the developments in the hacking scandal when he was forced by Ed Miliband and Labour to recall parliament? Yes of course it was Damien McBride, who had previously been sacked by none other than Sir Gus O'Donnell.

Early in 2002, O'Donnell  suddenly propelled himself into the limelight by speaking the blunt truth to a student audience, when he told them that the five conditions set by Gordon Brown which had to be met before Britain even thought of joining the Euro, would never be met, and that the decision to join the euro was not economic but political. Again at the time this was gleefully picked up as evidence that Brown's carefully built economic case against the euro was a sham. It wasn't of course and because of Brown we have escaped much of what is happening in the Euro-Zone today.

The question is why? Why is Sir Gus O'Donnell constantly busting a gut in favour of the Conservative party and to such an extent? The very fact that people have to ask the question about the "impartiality" of Sir Gus O'Donnell means there could be a problem and if there is then this needs to be investigated, but in a government so heavily implicated in sleaze and scandal after only just 15 months what hope have we got of seeing the machinations of government in Britian working properly and fairly?

Meanwhile the Phone Hacking Scandal - Dodgy Deals - Dodgy Lobbyists - Dodgy Donors - All Part of a Day In the Life Of Dodgy Dave Cameron's "Tory" Government and Sir Gus appears to do nothing about it - why?

Saturday, July 23, 2011

David Cameron - Lord Justice Leveson - Matthew Freud - Elisabeth Murdoch

Glad that James Murdoch, David Cameron and George Osborne
think the mess they have created and the people they have have hurt
so amusing!
Writing a blog on the subject of the phone hacking scandal is difficult, the news often changes before I have the chance to complete a paragraph. Yesterday I wrote about "How Deep Is David Cameron's Involvement With The Murdochs, Brooks and Newscorp? "  I pointed out how "close" David Cameron is to senior Newscorp employees and mentioned that Will Lewis  formerly of the Telegraph, before it was "Daily Mail-ised" and how when Lewis had no place in the new Daily Maile-esque' Telegraph set-up, a place near the top of the Newscorp echelons as a senior employee was quickly found for him. Will Lewis was also named as a replacement for Andy Coulson when Coulson was forced to resign. It has since turned out that Will Lewis who is now the senior executive of Newscorp is the very person who is now suspected of leaking the audio recording of Vince Cable talking to two undercover Telegraph reporters last November, in which he famously said  he was going to "declare war on Rupert Murdoch". The Daily Telegraph did not want the audio to be leaked because it was contrary to their business interests. However, not so for Newscorp, the leak about Vince Cable would definitely be beneficial for them because of course action would have to be taken on Vince Cable, either he would lose his ministerial position, be moved sideways etc or as it happened he had the part of his brief that dealt with the BSkyB take-over bid removed from him and given to Culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt - how convenient for Newscorp was this?

Obviously Newscorp, James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks and Will Lewis knew that Vince Cable was more than likely going to refer their bid for BSkyB to the Competition Commission, they did not want this and it was no secret that Vince Cable was hostile to the take-over bid, so Cable had to be got rid of or made impotent in some way and this is exactly what happened. The take-over brief was taken from Cable and given to the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt who just happens to be an open admirer of Rupert Murdoch, could it really have gone to a more pro-Murdoch minister than Jeremy Hunt?

This whole take-over business stinks to high heaven and I believe this could be the "smoking-gun" that topples prime minister, David Cameron. Cameron has said that he has asked to be excluded from all decisions regarding the BSkyB bid, this of course is a total lie, for a start it was his decision to take the BSKyB bid away from Vince Cable and hand it to an ultra pro-Murdoch minister, Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt! That was in November 2010 and just a few weeks later Cameron attended a Christmas dinner party at the Oxfordshire home of his neighbour now former CEO of News International, Rebekah Brooks. Also in attendance at this "cosy" party was James Murdoch.

The prime minister has been questioned several times and asked to deny that the BSkyB bid was discussed and he has declined to deny it every single time insisting on only saying "I did not have inappropriate conversations about BSkyB". He was asked eleven times in the House of Commons last week and Cameron was weak, ineffectual, slippery and evasive. The prime minister could not deny he had discussed the take-over bid with Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch because obviously he had discussed it with them!  I also seriously doubt that this would have been thr first time that the bid was discussed, as you will see as you read further, there have been ample time for David cameron to discuss this bid with Rupert Murdoch, james Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks at several social engagements. It matters not that Cameron asked to be excluded from the decision making because everyone knows how close he is to James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks and even Will Lewis.

Lap dog, Jeremy Hunt was always going to grant permission for the BSkyB takeover, oh for sure he played about with the press issuing "false statements" giving the impression that he was going to refer the bid to the Competition Commission but as you will see, he was never serious about doing this,  it was just a huge stitch up from the very beginning and Vince Cable was blatantly set-up and used and yet the silly man and his foolish ego still does not see how he was totally set-up.

Just weeks before a decision was due to me made about the BSkyB bid the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt  had said he intended to order a full-scale competition probe. Then out of the blue Hunt suddenly performed a huge U-turn and accepted that a plan by Murdoch to spin off Sky News as an independent company and accepting that it would prevent Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation getting too tight a grip on the British media if the £8billion BSkyB takeover went ahead. Jeremy Hunt, David Cameron and George Osborne were just hours away from approving Rupert Murdoch’s controversial attempt to seize full control of broadcaster BSkyB and this would have happened if the sickening depths of phone hacking scandal had not become public knowledge.

The Tory chancellor, George Osborne, has also attended the lavish parties hosted by Matthew and Elisabeth Freud (Rupert Murdoch's daughter) at their sprawling Oxfordshire mansion. It has also been exposed that George Osborne, flew to New York and had dinner with Rupert Murdoch two weeks before the media regulator was due to decide on whether to approve his takeover of BSkyB.
At the time Ofcom, the media regulator, had until Dec 31 to decide whether to refer News Corp’s bid for the remaining 61 per cent shares in BSkyB to the Competition Commission.

Just how close to the Murdoch enterprises is David Cameron and George Osborne? It has been mooted that when Osborne's links to the Murdochs are revealed he is going to make David Cameron look like a "saint"!
Now today we are told that not only was Will Lewis previously of the Telegraph and now  a senior executive of Newscorp suspected of deliberately leaking the Vince Cable audio tapes at a sensitive time, but the judge that David Cameron has placed to lead one of the *TWELVE* inquiries he has set up is himself connected at least socially to Matthew Freud and Elisabeth Murdoch.

Lord Justice Leveson actually attended two parties in the past year at the London home of Matthew Freud, a PR executive married to Elisabeth Murdoch, the daughter of Rupert Murdoch who is widely tipped to be her father’s successor.
Lord Leveson’s social connections to News Corp obviously raise huge questions about his impartiality and suitability to lead the inquiry.

Matthew Freud is the ultimate networker, whose clients benefit from his close proximity to power and David Cameron the prime minister. His company, Freud Communications, has pocketed hundreds of thousands of pounds in fees from the Tory-led government since the election. . Read more: 
What is it about Oxford?  I am half expecting Lord Justice Leveson to be named as part of the "Chipping Norton Set" next!

David Cameron and former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks are at the heart of what has become known as the ‘Chipping Norton Set’.
Aptly Named Hackers Lane
Near the Prime Minister's and Rebekah Brooks Home
In Oxfordshire.
It is made up of powerful political and media figures who have homes in a tiny triangle in one of the most scenic parts of England – the Cotswolds. The group go to the same house parties, dine together and even ride together.  Bizarrely, Rebekah Brooks lives very near to a road called "Hackers lane"!
David Cameron knows he should *not* have asked Lord Justice Leveson and the Lord Justice  knows he should *not* have accepted, how on earth do these people think this is going to look to the general public?  Whatever David Cameron touches or becomes involved in rapidly descends into one huge farce after another where is it all going to end?

Who do these privileged people think they are? Do they honestly think we are all too stupid to find out or understand what they are doing? Did Cameron honestly think we would not discover this? Or do they all subscribe to the belief that we are totally nothing, just thick "plebish forelock tuggers" who will remove our caps and avert our eyes while in the presence of these arrogant well heeled people and just bow and accept everything they tell us and blindly follow orders? The arrogance of David Cameron is beyond breathtaking, it is totally off this planet and his deceit is appalling, Cameron and his cronies are treating the people of this country with utter contempt.
A year before the now infamous 2010 Oxfordshire dinner party at Brooks House, on December 20th, 2009,  Matthew Freud had thrown another lavish party that had also been attended by  David Cameron (then leader of the opposition) and Elisabeth's father - Rupert Murdoch. I wonder what was discussed at that particular party? Perhaps someone should ask David Cameron if as leader of the opposition did he ever discuss the BSkYB takeover-bid with Rupert Murdoch?

Registered on 15th September 2008 On David Cameron's expenses:

16th August 2008 - David Cameron and his wife and children took advantage of a private plane trip from Farnborough to Istanbul. Then from Istanbul to Santorini, and return to Dalaman. This was provided by Matthew Freud.

Cameron took three flights  flights so he could meet media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. These were all funded by Matthew Freud, the husband of Elisabeth Murdoch. Lord Justice Leveson who Cameron has asked to lead the inquiry into the Murdochs/Newscorp phone hacking scandal has also attended social functions at the home of Matthew Freud and Elisabeth Murdoch.

The judge will be able to call any journalist, politician or proprietor, raising the possibility that Rupert Murdoch could face further questions. It emerged yesterday that Lord Leveson, while chairman of the Sentencing Council that advises the Government on punishing criminals, met Mr Freud at a dinner in February last year in an Oxford University college.

Yet again we are seeing the judgement and competence of David Cameron brought into serious question, his ability to be prime minister and lead this country's government must now be in grave doubt. Cameron must have known that Lord Justice Leveson has connections with the Murdochs, surely the judge himself informed Cameron?

One other question that must be asked of Cameron and answered, just what did Andy Coulson see and was able to ferry back to the Murdochs?  By the prime minister's own admission Coulson was not fully security vetted so any shady links of his in the past would not have come to light, every Director of Communications before Coulson and since Coulson are subjected to the full security clearance so why wasn't Coulson? Was the PM aware of what they would find and so ordered the lesser security checks?

David Cameron is bringing the role of British Prime Minister into serious disrepute, it is hard to envisage that he can survive the next four years without destroying the image of the British government and Britain's reputation abroad.

How Deep Is David Cameron's Involvement With The Murdochs, Brooks and Newscorp?

Reuters reports today that Will Lewis a senior executive of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is allegedly behind the leak that exposed Vince Cable's anti Murdoch comments late last year. Kroll  one of the world's biggest corporate investigations firm, was hired by London's Telegraph Media Group, a competitor of Murdoch's London-based News International, to find out who had leaked unpublished excerpts of a secret audio recording that Telegraph reporters had made of Business Secretary, Vince Cable. He was heard telling two Daily Telegraph reporters who were posing as constituents of Cable's that he was "going to declare war on Rupert Murdoch". The Telegraph hired the investigations firm to try and trace the leak because it is thought that the Telegraph did not want this part of the report to be made public because it could harm their business interests.

When Kroll reported their findings to the Telegraph they advised that if the leak investigation continued it would be highly unlikely to produce a conclusive result because of the number of people that had access to data banks, including employees of BT, whom the Telegraph use to outsource technical support functions.

"However, Kroll investigators say in the report that they have strong reason to suspect that Will Lewis, a former chief editor at the Daily Telegraph and by late 2010 a senior executive at News International, was involved in facilitating the leak, along with another former Telegraph employee who also later moved to News International."

Here is where the story gets even murkier. When the "new" Telegraph order was set up taking in former senior employees from the Daily Mail,  and there was no place for Will Lewis in the new set-up a place was very rapidly  found for him near the top at Newscorp - how? At Newscorp Will Lewis reported to none other than Rebekah Brooks (before her recent forced resignation).
Will  Lewis is also good friends with the BBC's Robert Peston, the same Robert Peston that repeatedly comes up with exclusive scoops.
If this story was not coincidental enough, when Andy Coulson resigned as David Cameron's Director of Communications last January, Will Lewis was immediately in the frame for Coulson's ex- position. David Cameron, Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks were included on the guest list of Will Lewis 40th Birthday party in 2009. However it appears for once cameron listened to the doubts of others (in the way he had failed to listen to them before over Andy Coulson) and he subsequently went on to hire Craig Oliver former editor of the BBC as his new Director of Communications and  Craig Oliver has been reported to repeatedly contact his former staff at the BBC in a effort to control the news.

Over the years Cameron and the Tories have come to depend  heavily on the support of News International’s power, which has led to the huge amount of trouble they now find themselves in. Now they have alienated News International, they must be wondering when the thunderbolt will strike them but they need to be aware - strike them that "thunderbolt" will!

Before the last election David Cameron was accused of making a "contract" with Britain's biggest media company to trade political support before the general election for government favours afterwards if the Tories won.
It was obvious to anyone who follows politics that before the last election the Conservative Party was tailoring its policies on media regulation and the BBC to suit the commercial interests of News International. Did Cameron do a deal with Murdoch?

David Cameron and George Osborne's relationship with news International appears to be far deeper than people realise and if that relationship is above board, why have clandestine meetings over Christmas with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks – what would be the point and why won't the prime minister deny outright that the BSkyB take-over bid was not discussed? David Cameron, George Osborne and Jeremy Hunt came very close to allowing a disproportionate chunk of  the UK's media to be owned by  people (the Murdochs) who are not resident here and do not pay tax here - why? Further, why haven't these questions been picked up and asked by the UK's other newspapers? Why have all the other newspapers barring 2 or 3 kowtowed to Cameron and the Tory party's every whim? If we believe what the newspapers say and how they all value "investigative journalism" then their job was to investigate expose the kind of thing that was happening between David Cameron, George Osborne, the Conservative party and the Murdochs, Rebekah Brooks and Newscorp. yet they fundamentally and systematically failed to do so on virtually v every single count and still today the Telegraph and the Mail are still toadying up to the Tories and Cameron - why?

It seems to me that the Murdochs and News International were trying to buy government and police protection from the hacking scandal, the private dinners, the phone hacking that was all but ignored by the Met and somewhere mixed up in that was some kind of deal for Cameron and his Tories (especially when they were in opposition) and no matter what the next twist and turn is revealed to be in the hacking scandal, somehow all roads lead back to David Cameron and Newscorp - every single time! Now we have Sue Akers of the Met investigating the Met and to date the idiotic British government who is panicking has set up at least 12 different inquiries into this scandal. If that doesn't confuse the issue entirely I really do not know what will. Why so many inquiries? it is utterly ridiculous, but what else do you expect from and inept, incompetent government run by fools who are completely out of their depth? And it is this kind of government that Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks have helped inflict upon the people of this country and all because they wanted to get their hands on BSkyB to make themselves even richer - greed- power - greed and corruption.

When questioned by MPs in last Tuesday's select Committee hearing Rebekah Brooks said she did not advise David Cameron to hire Andy Coulson, that it was George Osborne who persuaded Cameron to hire Coulson, in that case I would have asked Brooks if it were her that asked George Osborne to persuade the PM to hire Andy Coulson. In any event Rebekah Brooks is such a proven liar that I simply do not believe anything she says and I would not be surprised to learn that she did urge cameron to hire Coulson in a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" kind of thing.
However, initial discussions with Mr Coulson are believed to have taken place with Mr Osborne and Steve Hilton, Mr Cameron's chief strategist, who also moved to Downing Street with the Prime Minister. It was Francis Maude who negotiated Mr Coulson's £275,000 salary. Coulson's huge salary went on to be paid by the taxpayer at a time when the government he was "helping" was slashing the benefits to disabled people and others struggling on low incomes.

 Earlier in this report I mentioned BT.  This is something of a puzzle to me because I recall  BT was being mentioned at one time as a possible source that supplied unlisted telephone numbers and other information to the journalists involved in the hacking scandal which enabled journalists to access people's voicemails and possible email accounts and I have not seen mention anywhere that this obvious irregularity and possible criminal offence committed at BT is being investigated by the police.

Add the untimely and highly "coincidental" death of Sean Hoare who's honesty helped this deeply buried hacking scandal escape.  his body was discovered at approximately 10.30 am and within the hour the police were saying his death was "unexplained but not suspicious", if it unexplained how do the police know it was not suspicious. How could the police issue such a statement when a post mortem had not even taken place and no toxicology results known? Until Mr Hoare spoke out last September, pressure had eased on Mr Coulson, I bet Andy Coulson is not shedding any tears! How strange that the one man that was willing to speak up and out about Andy Coulsons's alleged lies over phone hacking died alone in his flat in the middle of the increasing furore over phone hacking!

Now Scotland Yard has possession of cryptic financial records and emails said to suggest that Andy Coulson did know about phone hacking, just like Sean Hoare said he did. Cash records are said to tally with payments suggested in an email discussion between Coulson and the newspaper's disgraced royal correspondent, Clive Goodman. Every day this scandal is coming still closer to David Cameron who appears to be in this up to his "crimson neck"!  If he did not know about Andy Coulson then Cameron is one of two things, he is either stupidly incompetent or a blatant corrupt liar!

Friday, July 22, 2011

Cameron - I Did Not Have Inappropriate Conversations With That Woman

Last Tuesday the prime minister, David Cameron said no less than 11 times that he "did not have inappropriate conversations with that woman" [Rebekah Brooks], then perhaps he should be forced to reveal just what conversations he did have and has had with Rebekah Brooks and the rest of the "Chipping Norton Set".

Last Christmas the pressure was mounting on Cameron and and his then chief of communications, Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks over alleged phone hacking at the now defunct Sunday newspaper the News of the World. When Rebekah Brooks was editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson was her deputy editor and they were said to be "close" and inseparable. They both (and David Cameron) expect the public to believe that they did not know about the papers despicable phone hacking of the Dowler family, the relatives of dead soldiers and the relatives of victims of the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London. Hacking was so widespread at the paper, that as editor Rebekah Brooks would have been signing off the large cheques to private detectives for "services" rendered to the NotW on a regular basis, does she really expect people to believe that she just signed those cheques without once questioning where they were going and what the paper was paying for? As editor, Brooks's reporters were coming back to her with sensational stories on various people and again, Brooks and Coulson are asking the public to believe that they never asked the source of those stories? Despite them having to be cleared by the paper's legal department in case of any libel accusations?

There are two possibilities, 1).Rebekah Brooks and her sidekick Andy Coulson did not know, in that case she was the world's worse and thickest editor who let her journalists do and write what they want without checking up and thus putting the Murdoch empire and the paper in serious jeopardy with all the legal implications that holds, and if so, what was Murdoch paying her for? and why did he promote her to CEO of News Corp? Or 2)..Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson knew all along what was happening and they are now lying through their back teeth.

Vince Cable the Business Secretary was then duped into believing that two reporters from the Daily Telegraph were his constituents, during their taped conversation Cable said that he "was going to declare war on Murdoch" the result of this was that Cameron removed the BSkyB take-over bid from him and gave the brief to Jeremy Hunt instead. Hunt's impartiality was questionable right from the start as Hunt is a known admirer of Rupert Murdoch.

With all this going on the prime minister, David Cameron attended a dinner party at the Oxfordshire home of Rebekah Brooks last Christmas and among the other guests was James Murdoch, strangely enough, Andy Coulson the friend of both Cameron and Brooks was not present at that party. The prime minister has now been asked 11 times if he discussed the BSKyB deal with Brooks and Murdoch and as he will deny outright that he did not discuss the deal and will only say "I did not have inappropriate conversations" with Rebekah Brooks we can safely assume that the prime minister did in fact discuss the BSkyB deal. Cameron says he asked to be removed from all the decision process of that deal, well sorry that is not good enough, we need to know if he discussed this deal with Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch at her home. Since the last election Mr Cameron met with executives from News International 27 times. Among those meetings was two in four days with Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive. What was so important that Cameron had to meet with Brooks twice in four days and was Coulson and or the BSkyB bid discussed?

 The prime minister should also reveal if he has ever discussed the BSkyB deal with his Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt.

 Jeremy Hunt has said:

"Rather than worry about Rupert Murdoch owning another TV channel, what we should recognise is that he has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person because of his huge investment in setting up Sky TV, which, at one point, was losing several million pounds a day.

We would be the poorer and wouldn't be saying that British TV is the envy of the world if it hadn't been for him being prepared to take that commercial risk. We need to encourage that kind of investment."
After saying that how on earth could Cameron give the decision to Jeremy Hunt to make? Obviously his impartiality was under great question-ability. Jeremy Hunt said  he was going to refer the deal to the Competition Commission which would have taken some time, however, he then suddenly decided to take assurances from the Murdochs over the deal and then suddenly Jeremy Hunt changed his mind and was actually within hours of giving the go ahead for the Murdochs to purchase the remaining  BSkyB shares which would have given him a monopoly on news in this country.

It is obvious that Cameron has spoken to Hunt and Brooks and Murdoch about the BSkyB bid and the public must be told what exactly it was that he discussed, he said the discussions were not inappropriate, well any mention at all of the BSkyB bid would have been deemed as inappropriate.

The prime minister's integrity, honesty and judgement is at question and either the prime minister, David Cameron has appalling judgement or he is a liar, or maybe he is both, whatever he is, he is doing great harm to this country's reputation because under cameron's stewardship we have seen Britain's top police man Sir Paul Stephens resign and also his deputy John Yates after both men become embroiled in the phone hacking scandal. From the prime minister down no one seems to want to accept blame or responsibility for their own actions and we have a reached the ludicrous situation when the prime minister, or the the country's top police officers do not seem to be able to tell right from wrong then we are in dire trouble.

 Since he became PM he and his chancellor have caused confusion and mayhem, every single reform they have tried to introduce from the NHS to education, to welfare, to the police, defence or forestry has resulted in utter chaos. When problems have arise abroad neither the Pm or Foreign secretary, William Hague have been able to get a grip on them which has resulted in our citizens lives being put at risk abroad and Osborne has the country's economy on a collision course with absolute catastrophe and now we have the country's top police resigning and people being arrested all over the place. 

In just over one year this country has been reduced to a complete mess by Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and all the rest of them, they have made a complete hash of running this country. This is what happens when we have weak ineffective leadership from incompetent people trying to punch above their weight placed in a position of government, this government did not win the election, Cameron and Osborne just got lucky.The PM has no idea what it is he is doing and allows people like Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks and other assorted businessmen many from the banking sector (who caused this country's problems) too much influence over the formation of policy and the running of the country. Cameron is discovering that you cannot run the country by popular public opinion and every action he takes has further consequences and seems completely oblivious to the messes he is creating. David Cameron is simply not up to the job, he has no head for detail and has no idea what is happening in the country half the time. Everything the man does is questionable at best and dowright incompetent at worse.

David Cameron's position has become untenable and before further revelations emerge he would do well to resign and call an immediate general election because there is now no way out for him and he knows it, what is about to emerge from Coulson about Cameron will finish him off so he may just as well go now and save this country further grave problems of his making. He is in this hacking scandal right up to his crimson ears!
Cameron can say he "did nit have inappropriate conversations with thet woman" all he likes, the truth will come out and prove otherwise, he should go and  go now, he is a walking disaster waiting to happen, the man is a buffooon and a liability.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Cameron Adds Insult To Injury Over Bombardier Contract

This Tory-led government have pinned all hopes on the recovery of the British economy on manufacturing and exports, they have taken the most extraordinary gamble on manufacturing growing like it has never grown before even in the height British manufacturing at its best. Some have not forgotten that former Conservative prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, obliterated the steelworks, ship building, the car industry and closed nearly all the coal mines, decimating the manufacturing industry, while deregulating the City's financial sector forcing Britain to become virtually dependent on the financial sector, the result of this was the credit crisis and banking crash coupled with a global financial recession which has caused the majority of the recessional problems in the UK. While the Labour government did try to revive British industry it still did not do enough to stop the Tory rot eating into manufacturing and we were still too dependent upon the City. Now since 2010 we have a Tory-led government that has placed all their eggs in the manufacturing sector basket and yet the past two sets of statistics show the manufacturing sector is slowing down dramatically and with it the hopes of the British economic recovery, knowing this it's most strange that the government have acted in such an enigmatic way on at least two occasions which could have proved fantastic for British manufacturing right at a time when the country needed it the most.

  1. I refer back to the mess that this government made of  a promised loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, which incidentally is in the Sheffield Hallam constituency of Nick Clegg the Deputy Prime Minister.  In 2010 the incoming Tory government reneged on an £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters promised to the company by the previous Labour government. The company had also secured a further £100 million loan from a European bank which was promised to the company on the proviso that the British government also loaned £80 million, without the loan from the British government Sheffield Forgemasters also lost the promise of the loan from the European bank, leaving the company over £180 million short of the money it required for new technological investment. The loans were to help Forgemasters install a high precision piece of equipment that would have enabled the company to make parts for *green* nuclear energy. When installed, this machine would have been the only machine in the world to make precision parts of a certain size and would have put this British company right at the forefront of green nuclear energy technology. It would have supported the local Sheffield Hallam economy, it would have supported the UK economy as a whole, it would have provided extra jobs and apprenticeships, in fact it was  a pretty good deal for just an £80 million loan yet the Tories renege on that promise - why?  Well the government tried to give several reasons none of which stood up to scrutiny. One such reason given by Clegg was that this would have been a cheap loan which would have benefited the company directors and shareholders and that the company should look to the private sector for the loan, neglecting to inform parliament that the company had already secured £100 million from the private sector, Clegg went on to deliberately mislead parliament as he knew that the shareholders were in actual fact employees of the company and they had never take a bonus from the company preferring instead to plough profits back into investing in their company, Clegg was found to have mislead the House of Commons, yet  one year on the country is still waiting fr or him to acknowledge this. The second reason the government gave is because the country could not afford the loan which is another deliberate deception!  Not least because  the Tory chancellor George Osborne was pinning hopes of an economic recovery for the country on British manufacturing and exports and it would have been hard to find a more suitable business proposition than Sheffield Forgemasters, which fitted that description perfectly. If all had gone to plan and the present government had kept to the loan promised by the previous Labour government then British company, Sheffield Forgemasters would have been exporting all over the world. This being so along with all the other advantages of the loan surely it would have meant that the country couldn't afford not to grant the loan? A loan that was due to be repaid to the government and which made perfect business sense. Also if the country could not afford it why did prime minister David Cameron, give over a £100 million to Nick Clegg to waste on his vanity AV referendum project which was a complete and total waste of money?  Add to this the Andrew Cook factor and the whole thing takes on a more sinister and shady reason for the Tory government not granting the loan. Andrew Cook is a Yorkshire businessman who has made several failed attempts to buy out Sheffield Forgemasters. Cook also boasts to being the largest single donor to the Conservative party in Yorkshire. Andrew Cook - Mr Cook donated £500,000  to the Conservative party, along with the £54,000 worth of plane flights to David Cameron largest donor in Yorkshire and caused uproar when it emerged that Cook had successfully lobbied to prevent Sheffield Forgemasters from getting a government loan, which remains a highly controversial issue - Nick Clegg deliberately mislead the House over this issue.
    The man who donated almost £750,000 in cash and flights to Cameron's campaign started an email "I am the largest donor to the conservative party" and then went on to call for the loan to Forgemasters to be axed.

    Downing Street are unable to confirm if Cameron was personally lobbied.
    Question; Why? It is in the public interest, possible corruption of our government always is!

    Six more questions spring to mind

    a). Why was Forgemasters loan cancelled when other loans to business weren't?

    b). Was Cameron lobbied by Andrew Cook, the owner of a rival company to Sheffield Forgemasters and who has made several unsuccessful bids to buy the company in the past?

    c). And was Mr Cook, the Tory donor,  present on any one of the 23 flights David Cameron accepted from him?
    d). Why was the loan refused, when it so obviously more than met the criteria Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and Vince Cable (remember him?) set to try and grow British manufacturing jobs?

    e). And what an earth was Nick Clegg doing allowing this to happen in his own back yard?

    f). Nick Clegg has still not  been reprimanded for deliberately misleading the House of Commons - why not, why has  he not gone to the House to apologise for this matter?
  2. DAVID Cameron sacrificed British jobs by awarding a contract to supply high speed trains not to Bombardier here in Britain but to Siemens in Germany and the to add insult to injury he bumped Bombardier off his recent trade mission to Africa. Colin Walton, boss of the Derby-based train manufacturer, was booked to join the Prime Minister on the trip aimed at drumming up business for UK companies.But on Friday, just 48 hours before he was due to set off for South Africa and Nigeria, Mr Walton was told he wasn’t welcome by the Tory government. Mr Walton had hoped to use the African trip to win work for Bombardier, which faces making massive cuts to its 3,000-strong workforce after losing out on a £3billion contract to Germany’s Siemens, yet after the Tories awarded the contract to Siemens David Cameron was to embarrassed to face Mr Walton on the trip. Why did this government do this to British manufacturing when our economic recovery is depending on manufacturing and exports? When quizzed about why the contract was awarded to the German company the PM claimed the tendering process forced ministers to give the work to Siemens, but the Mirror has produced a document showing they are free to award the work to the Derby firm, if they choose. David cameron and the Tory government have treated the Bombardier workforce with utter contempt and if that wasn't bad enough they then lied to each and every one of them, what a despicable way to behave, I hope they remember this come election day.
So much for encouraging British manufacturing, it's all lies, this government is all lies, it is corrupt at the very heart run by an arrogant conman ex spin doctor spiv, this government have reneged on virtually every single promise it has ever made, especially when it promised to be open and transparent, that is lies too.

David Cameron and the Tory government should no be allowed to get away with this blatant lying and deliberate misleading of people and they should be forced to explain the real reason why they gave away a contract that would have safe guarded thousands of British jobs. How can we expect the prime minister to effectively govern when he hires corrupt crooks and places them at the heart of government? There must be a reason why they gave the Bombardier contract to a German company and Cameron should be forced back to the House of Commons to answer to the workers of Bombardier the British people what he has done it is nothing short of a disgrace. No doubt at some time we will probably discover more sinister and "corrupt" reasons why the Tories decided to rob British workers of a contract that could have secured thousands of British jobs.

Yet again it is simple to uncover shady deals of a corrupt nature regarding this Tory government, the government who promised to be "open and transparant" and "whiter than white".