The Litvinenko Farce - your legal rights are vanishing under your nose

Follow @JohnPlatinumG This is my first blogpost for over twelve months. The reason is I am writing a novel about Russian  emigre poet George Ivanov (1894-1958) and this takes much of my spare time. However, with the Litvinenko Inquiry I am so incensed, I cannot stay silent. A High Court judge, Sir Robert William Owen, has taken it upon himself, with authorisation from David Cameron, against the advice of his Home Secretary, Theresa May, to pronounce judgment on the death of the shady Alexander Litvinenko. Unlike his former boss, the shady Boris Berezovsky, there has been no completed inquest into Litvinenko's death

My colleagues at News Junkie Post, Gilbert Mercier and Dady Chery, have kindly published my thoughts in an article and added some excellent illustrations, so I will not repeat it. You can read it at the link below. Please feel free to share it with your friends and on other sites. And if you like it, give the 'Like' button a nudge. Thanks!

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2016/01/22/litvinenko-inquiry-death-of-justice-in-the-united-kingdom/

Right, it's back to the novel for me.

Something sinister in the heart of government

Follow @JohnPlatinumG In February this year Moazzam Begg was arrested and has been detained in police custody to appear on terrorist-related charges in October. Anybody with an ounce of reason knows this is a trumped-up charge to protect the secret services from allegations of torture against them. Begg was collecting evidence to go with that he already has collected. What is even more sinister is that since his arrest some unknown sources have prevented Cage (formerly Cage Prisoners) from accessing their money or receiving donations.

Thankfully, there are still some good honest journalists, and Peter Oborne, chief political commentator of the Telegraph, together with Alex Delmar-Morgan, has questioned who has this power to stop a legitimate organisation from accessing its own money and continuing to operate in an unimpeded manner. At a time when civil liberties have been, and are being, severely challenged by an uncaring government, when mainstream media concentrate on mundane stories in preference to the real news, it is heartening to know that some journalists like Peter Oborne, Robert Fisk, Glenn Greenwald, John Pilger and a few others pursue the real stories.

The prime minister, David Cameron, Michael Gove (when he was education minister) and Theresa May have all in one way or another demonstrated their hatred of Islam in an attempt to create an enemy that did not exist before on behalf of their US masters. All this hatred of Islam started long ago and a series of Acts has been introduced to remove the rights of, almost exclusively, Muslims. Thus Muslims can be imprisoned without charge or trial, and extradited or deported without evidence. The Gibson Inquiry was halted on Cameron's instructions because it showed our secret services in a bad light. The most recent act, the Justice and Security Act, allows for those complicit in torture to have their identities concealed and for hearings to take place in secret. It is the latest in a cynical set of acts designed to further erode civil liberties and keep the secret services unaccountable.

We need a People's Parliament. Most of those there now are not fit for purpose.

St George's Day promises to be empty

Follow @JohnPlatinumG As well as being St George's Day today marks the death of English playwright, William Shakespeare. To the day it is a month since I last blogged. More importantly it is the first anniversary of Barack Obama's last big promise to close Guantanamo Bay. It was a promise he made at his electoral address which held out hope for those in the world who believe in justice. It was however an empty promise.

Empty promises are the mouthwash of most politicians. They gargle with them, clean out some bacteria and spit them out repeatedly as though tomorrow will be a new day. But the truth is these promises are meaningless and empty. David Cameron cannot get Shaker Aamer home. Barack Obama cannot close Guantanamo. It is necessary to find out who owns our politicians. Then justice might be seen to be done.

Who killed Bernt Carlsson and 269 other people from the Lockerbie mid-air explosion aboard Pan Am flight 103?

Follow @JohnPlatinumG

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died from prostate cancer on 20 May 2012. He had wrongly been convicted of being responsible for planting the bomb that caused the mid-air destruction of Pan Am flight 103, the wreckage of which plunged into the Scottish town of Lockerbie. Including flight staff, and residents of Lockerbie, 270 people died from this act of sabotage on 21 December 1988. Al-Megrahi was convicted alone of having committed this crime. The only witness against al-Megrahi was a Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, who failed to identify al-Megrahi as a suspected customer, and was later, it is said, paid 2 million dollars by the US to keep his mouth shut. Gauci’s first statement was allegedly changed and Megrahi’s defence team were not allowed to see it together with other key evidence which would undoubtedly have exonerated their client. Instead he spent years in prison. Anybody doubting al-Megrahi’s innocence only needs to read chapter 4 of Francis A. Boyle’s “Destroying Libya and World Order (2013). Boyle is an international law lecturer at the University of Illinois. 

After al-Megrahi’s death Prime Minister David Cameron, to whom I would recommend the above cited book, was asked if there could now be a full public inquiry into the sabotage of Pan Am flight 103. Not only did Cameron refuse to consider an inquiry he got the endorsement of Ed Miliband, leader of the opposition − if the Labour Party can be called an opposition any more. He also said that in his opinion al-Megrahi should have remained in prison and not been released on compassionate grounds. Although Conservatives are not noted for compassion, Cameron might have very sound other reasons not to want an inquiry. UK prime ministers who have refused requests from bereaved families for a full public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster are Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair. That is all of the UK prime ministers from the time of the Lockerbie disaster. Why? 

On board Pan Am flight 103 was the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson. He was by far the most likely assassination target and if he was that target unfortunately all the other passengers became victims of the phrase so glibly used today in untargeted deaths: ‘collateral damage’. There was extremely big money at stake and Carlsson, a fearless man, hinted in Granada TV’s ‘World In Action’ documentary ‘The Case of the Disappearing Diamonds’ he was about to expose those corporations exploiting minerals, and miners, in Namibia as Namibia was due to be granted its independence. These companies included De Beers, the company which relieved Namibia of perhaps as much of its precious gemstones as the British Empire extracted from India. Another of the UN commission’s target companies was the Rössing Uranium Mine, also in Namibia.  Mention of the Rössing Uranium Mine might jog David Cameron’s memory, since it could ultimately prove to be his undoing. Three months after the Lockerbie bombing the current PM escorted the Prime Minister of the day, Margaret Thatcher, on a visit to this Namibian mine, a visit which filled Mrs Thatcher with immense pride that she had been born British.  Cameron was a Conservative Party researcher at the time but it is quite clear that he was being groomed as a potential future prime minister when Margaret Thatcher’s time at the helm came to an end. URENCO, a joint British/Dutch/West German-owned uranium-enrichment company, was exporting uranium ore from the Rössing mine, but shady manifests made it difficult to trace where the uranium they purchased was coming  from, and URENCO claimed it did not know from where it got its uranium, so when court proceedings were started by the United Nations Council for Namibia (UNCN) in 1985 it took 15 months to get to court and in July 1987 the United Nations finally began action against URENCO.  There is no logical reason but the UN case against URENCO was dropped after Carlsson was murdered on Pan Am flight 103 and has never been restarted. 

In April 2013, David Cameron announced that the UK would be selling off its interest in URENCO. The UK share amounts to a third. Though the price of uranium is falling on world markets it is thought this privatisation might also serve the dual purpose of covering up the misappropriations and illegal activities that Bernt Carlsson had discovered and was presenting to court on behalf of the UN at the time of his murder.  No wonder David Cameron wanted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to take the blame for this act of sabotage. Cameron must be concerned in case some doughty investigative journalist has the courage of Bernt Carlsson to reveal just what the Lockerbie bombing was all about. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing except it took away the last years of his life. 

Prof. Francis Boyle says it was clear that the United States and United Kingdom did not want the trial that convicted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and acquitted his co-accused, Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, to take place in a neutral country “because they had no evidence that would stand up in a neutral court of law” (119). Instead it was investigated by Scottish Police, the CIA and FBI, who hardly looked into the possibility that Bernt Carlsson might have been the target, and the excuse for a trial took place in Holland overseen by Scottish Judges while the prosecution case was presented by Scottish prosecutors on the advice of Scottish Police, the FBI and CIA.   

As Paul Foot pointed out in 2004, the year Foot died, to have released Lamin Khalifah Fhimah and to have convicted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi when the prosecution case rested on the joint activities of the two men to blow up Pan Am flight 103, was ludicrous. Gareth Peirce, who John Pilger has described as the best human rights’ lawyer in England, totally dismantled the Scottish prosecution case in 2010 in the London Review of Books. The only way the families of victims of Pan Am 103 will get justice is through an independent public inquiry. Every time a public inquiry is mentioned, as Gareth Peirce pointed out three years ago, some high-ranking politician blows his top. Huge amounts of money were paid to a prosecution witness (Tony Gauci) at the trial of al-Megrahi. Paul Foot mentioned three prime ministers who refused the families’ requests for public inquiries. David Cameron, after the death of al-Megrahi, when asked if there could now be a public inquiry into the Lockerbie sabotage, was content for an innocent man to have his life wasted in prison. He was supported by Ed Miliband. Dr Hans Koechler, an international observer at the Lockerbie trial wrote to Miliband’s brother David in 2008 about the delaying tactics. There is no public inquiry because the governments of the United Kingdom and United States know more about the murder of a good man, Bernt Carlsson, than they are prepared to admit.

What the W stands for

Follow @JohnPlatinumG For this article in today's News Junkie Post I finish with the paragraph:

Keen observers will have been watching the large letter W which God, in his wisdom, has etched into Tony Blair’s forehead. It is becoming more evident as the years progress. For all his money there is little that can be done short of a “forehead job” to hide this branding. But in fairness, when you are a warmonger your forehead ought to be etched with the letter “W” so that everyone knows how you made your riches on earth. George W. Bush’s branding is in his name. Well, this is my interpretation of what the “W” stands for, although I am aware that others might have different ideas about its meaning. 

For those who missed Blair's 'confession' on BBC Newsnight last night, here is a photograph of the former prime minister being interviewed by Kirsty Wark.

Of course we cannot help how we look but we can help how we act. Nearly all heads of state in their university days belonged to clubs, sometimes dining-clubs sometimes more sinister and secret organisations. David Cameron belonged to the infamous Bullingdon Club (dining) to which George Osborne and Boris Johnson also belonged, George W. Bush belonged to the Skull and Bones (sinister) and Tony Blair belonged to the Oxford University Archery Dining Club. As to youthful indiscretions we probably all did silly things when young, though not many of us have matured into taking a country, which once had a passable reputation abroad, into an illegal war. There is one photograph Tony Blair has reportedly said he would not care if he never saw again. But that is not fair to those who have never seen it. So here it is. It was taken at a gathering of Oxford University Archery Dining Club undergraduates. Blair is the long-haired student centre back making a rude gesture.

Enough said!

The spoils of war

Follow @JohnPlatinumG Cameron allots money for the glorification of war. Charity. This is how much Cameron loves charity. In a few years the canal system of the country which had funding removed this year by the prime minister will be in rack and ruin. But he can find money to fund a centenary for a war for which there is not a living person interested in, except Cameron and his followers. It is not about remembering the dead. It is about perpetuating war on the basis of Horace's massive lie which informs people it is good and glorious to die for your country.

Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori

Can someone please kick Cameron up the butt?

The Big Society – Cameron’s love of charity

Follow @JohnPlatinumG
Atlantic Bridge was a Conservative charity which it seems was laundering money to fund a neo-con Zionist reorganisation of the world order. The Charity Commission closed it down for purporting to be a charity when in reality it was a political organisation and, as we all know now, its money was being used in expenses for the despicable, non-vetted, self-promoting, defence buffoon Adam Werritty, an issue over which the Minister of Defence, Liam Fox, was forced to resign.

With Margaret Thatcher as its honorary president all the leading lights of the Tory party, William Hague, Liam Fox, George Osborne, Michael Gove and Chris Grayling have served on the charity’s board. Cameron himself managed to keep his nose clean but it will be noted that Lord Astor of Hever was on the board and met Werritty at a defence meeting in the Middle East in December 2010. Lord Astor just happens to be Cameron’s father-in-law. It would be surprising, even remiss of him, if Cameron did not know what was going on.

Considering these defence issues brings into the spotlight the circular flow of big money. Charitable donations are made to the Tory party by people, like Tony Buckingham, in exchange for favours in the newly-conquered oilfields of the Middle East. Taking care to protect this circular flow there is nothing in writing to confirm how it works. The super-rich Buckingham, who claims to be a former-mercenary, with his company Heritage Oil, has oil-interests in Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Kurdistan and elsewhere. He describes himself as a former mercenary, but to my mind he is still the aggressive mercenary he was but now having private armies to defend oil interests stolen from the legitimate owners before we (NATO countries) waged war on Islamic regimes.

Goodbye to the canal system

Further demonstrating his love of charities and charitable works this morning Cameron announced that canal waterways of England and Wales were to be handed over to the charitable sector in line with what he calls his Big Society. What the Big Society really amounts to is working for nothing. Over the next 15 years the canals will only get a third from government funding of what has been spent on them previously, and the rest will be paid for by charitable donations and maintenance by dedicated canal enthusiasts, who might start off enthusiastically but when they realise it is just them the enthusiasm will wane. This scheme, like the hot or cold pasty tax, is doomed to failure. The eighteenth century pioneers of our beautiful canal network will be turning in their graves.

Whitewashing, laundering and retirement

Follow @JohnPlatinumG

It may come as a surprise to some that there is a policy of commandeering establishment figures to oversee uncomfortable inquiries, get these figures  to deliver the outcome required by the establishment, and then pension them off. Or in at least one case, ‘retire’ them even before they can preside.

When the weapons inspector who revealed that the famous ‘dodgy dossier’ had been ‘sexed up’, to use the epithet most widely applied to it,  was found dead in the countryside, Prime minister, Tony Blair, instructed the soon to be retiring Lord Brian Hutton to hold an Inquiry into Dr David Kelly’s death. There should have been an inquest. Indeed an inquest had been started but that was abandoned, the coroner was almost instructed to quickly find a verdict of suicide, and the Hutton Inquiry ‘whitewashed’ the case. Thames Valley Police have still not released photographic evidence in their possession, despite freedom of information requests. Having done his duty to the establishment that had supported him throughout his life Lord Hutton retired.

There was some very seedy stuff going on at the highest level when Liam Fox was forced to resign. The devious dealings were conducted through a bogus charity which Fox founded, Atlantic Bridge, through which neo-con/Zionist funds were being laundered, if that is the right word. This so-called charity, of which Margaret Thatcher was honorary president, included in its rank some of the old boy network at the very heart of government. Before the Charity Commision shut it down for malpractice other cabinet and government members as well as Liam Fox served on its advisory panel. Among these were George Osborne, William Hague and Michael Gove. Lord Astor of Hever, father-in-law to the prime minister, David Cameron, was a trustee of Atlantic Bridge and was himself involved in defence discussions which included Adam Werritty, a friend of Fox, and best man at Fox’s wedding.

Werritty’s involvement, and the whole seedy defence affair, was whitewashed with a big two-handed brush by Gus O’Donnell (commonly referred to as GOD because of his initials and not due to any divine gifts). Almost immediately after he cleared the guilty of any serious misdemeanour  Gus O’Donnell retired. However a rather more devious retirement took place connected as a result of the whitewash which was only discovered by response to a letter from Paul O’Flynn, a doughty M.P. representing Newport West. As well as questioning Gus O’Donnell’s ‘inquiry’ O’Flynn hinted ‘that the Prime Minister may have broken the ministerial code’ in not engaging Sir Philip Mawer to conduct the Inquiry presided over by Gus O’Donnell.

Sir Philip Mawer himself believed he should have led this Inquiry as he was the ‘sole enforcer of the code’. So why did GOD preside over it? The prime minister alone dictates who presides over an inquiry and O’Flynn suggests:

‘There is powerful evidence that using Sir Gus O'Donnell to carry out the swift investigation was a decision taken to hide the whole truth in order to satisfy political expediency and avoid political embarrassment to the Coalition.’ 

The whitewash was particularly sketchy about the number of meetings at which Werritty was present and sketchy too about the presence of other figures at many more meetings, including the Israeli ambassador Matthew Gould, substantially more than the O’Donnell Inquiry said had taken place − more than twice as many in fact. But the retirement of Sir Philip Mawer was done so surreptitiously that most people were unaware it had taken place, and it was only when a letter from Paul O’Flynn to Sir Philip was responded to by Sir Alex Allen that it was apparent that Sir Philip had been replaced. 

Another inquiry is being called because of the O’Donnell botch-up. A House of Commons public administration committee presided over by Mr Bernard Jenkin is asking for issues to be readdressed. Reading between the lines it looks like Sir Philip Mawer was ‘pushed’ and the cynical among us might consider the reason for this is to replace him with someone as compliant to the establishment as Gus himself.

This ‘deliver and retire’ policy applies not just to inquiries. High Court cases which are seen to be of detriment to the establishment are dealt with similarly. One such case is that of Babar Ahmed. He has been held in prison without trial for 8 years and now faces extradition to the United States thanks to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. Ahmed was beaten by police and in a civil case awarded £60,000 damages for his injuries. A criminal case was brought before the courts and those policemen who beat Ahmed up walked free. The jury had not been informed of the damages award and the Judge, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, retired the month after this verdict was announced. Draw your own conclusions,