Gould-Werritty: A Real Conspiracy, Not a Theory 209

There is a huge government cover-up in progress over the Werritty connection to Mossad and the role of British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould, and their neo-con plan to start a war with Iran.

Yesterday at 22.15pm I submitted by email a Freedom of Information request for:

All communications in either direction ever made between Matthew Gould and Adam Werritty, specifically including communications made outside government systems.

At 23.31pm I was astonished to get a reply from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The request was refused as it was

“likely to exceed the cost limit”.

Now it is plainly nonsense that to gather correspondence between two named individuals would be too expensive. They could just ask Gould.

And a reply at nearly midnight? The Freedom of Information team in the FCO is not a 24 hour unit. Plainly not only are they hiding the Gould/Werritty correspondence, they are primed and on alert for this cover-up operation.

Even more blatant was the obstruction of MP Paul Flynn, when he attempted to question Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell on the Gould-Werritty connection at the House of Commons Public Administration Committee. These are the minutes: anybody who believes in democracy should feel their blood boil as you read them:

Publc Admininstration Committee 24/11/2011

Q<369> Paul Flynn: Okay. Matthew Gould has been the subject of a very serious complaint from two of my constituents, Pippa Bartolotti and Joyce Giblin. When they were briefly imprisoned in Israel, they met the ambassador, and they strongly believe—it is nothing to do with this case at all—that he was serving the interest of the Israeli Government, and not the interests of two British citizens. This has been the subject of correspondence.

In your report, you suggest that there were two meetings between the ambassador and Werritty and Liam Fox. Questions and letters have proved that, in fact, six such meetings took place. There are a number of issues around this. I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories, but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist and he has previously served in Iran, in the service. Werritty is a self-proclaimed—

Robert Halfon: Point of order, Chairman. What is the point of this?

Paul Flynn:> Let me get to it. Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran.

Chair:> I have to take a point of order.

Robert Halfon:> Mr Flynn is implying that the British ambassador to Israel is working for a foreign power, which is out of order.

Paul Flynn:> I quote the Daily Mail: “Mr Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran and has made several visits. He has also met senior Israeli officials, leading to accusations”—not from me, from the Daily Mail—“that he was close to the country’s secret service, Mossad.” There may be nothing in that, but that appeared in a national newspaper.

Chair:> I am going to rule on a point of order. Mr Flynn has made it clear that there may be nothing in these allegations, but it is important to have put it on the record. Be careful how you phrase questions.

Paul Flynn:> Indeed. The two worst decisions taken by Parliament in my 25 years were the invasion of Iraq—joining Bush’s war in Iraq—and the invasion of Helmand province. We know now that there were things going on in the background while that built up to these mistakes. The charge in this case is that Werritty was the servant of neo-con people in America, who take an aggressive view on Iran. They want to foment a war in Iran in the same way as in the early years, there was another—

Chair:> Order. I must ask you to move to a question that is relevant to the inquiry.

Q<370> Paul Flynn:> Okay. The question is, are you satisfied that you missed out on the extra four meetings that took place, and does this not mean that those meetings should have been investigated because of the nature of Mr Werritty’s interests?

Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I think if you look at some of those meetings, some people are referring to meetings that took place before the election.

Q<371> Paul Flynn:> Indeed, which is even more worrying.

Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I am afraid they were not the subject—what members of the Opposition do is not something that the Cabinet Secretary should look into. It is not relevant.

But these meetings were held—

Chair:> Mr Flynn, would you let him answer please?

Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I really do not think that was within my context, because they were not Ministers of the Government and what they were up to was not something I should get into at all.

Chair:> Final question, Mr Flynn.

Q<372> Paul Flynn:> No, it is not a final question. I am not going to be silenced by you, Chairman; I have important things to raise. I have stayed silent throughout this meeting so far.

You state in the report—on the meeting held between Gould, Fox and Werritty, on 6 February, in Tel Aviv—that there was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK ambassador was present. Are you following the line taken by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who says that he can eat with lobbyists or people applying to his Department because, on occasions, he eats privately, and on other occasions he eats ministerially? Are you accepting the idea? It is possibly a source of great national interest—the eating habits of their Secretary of State. It appears that he might well have a number of stomachs, it has been suggested, if he can divide his time this way. It does seem to be a way of getting round the ministerial code, if people can announce that what they are doing is private rather than ministerial.

Sir Gus O’Donnell:> The important point here was that, when the Secretary of State had that meeting, he had an official with him—namely, in this case, the ambassador. That is very important, and I should stress that I would expect our ambassador in Israel to have contact with Mossad. That will be part of his job. It is totally natural, and I do not think that you should infer anything from that about the individual’s biases. That is what ambassadors do. Our ambassador in Pakistan will have exactly the same set of wide contacts.

Q<373> Paul Flynn:> I have good reason, as I said, from constituency matters, to be unhappy about the ambassador. Other criticisms have been made about the ambassador; he is unique in some ways in the role he is performing. There have been suggestions that he is too close to a foreign power.

Robert Halfon:> On a point of order, Chair, this is not about the ambassador to Israel. This is supposed to be about the Werritty affair.

Paul Flynn:> It is absolutely crucial to this report. If neo-cons such as yourself, Robert, are plotting a war in Iran, we should know about it.

Chair:> Order. I think the line of questioning is very involved. I have given you quite a lot of time, Mr Flynn. If you have further inquiries to make of this, they could be pursued in correspondence. May I ask you to ask one final question before we move on?

Sir Gus O’Donnell:> One thing I would stress: we are talking about the ambassador and I think he has a right of reply. Mr Chairman, I know there is an interesting question of words regarding Head of the Civil Service versus Head of the Home Civil Service, but this is the Diplomatic Service, not the Civil Service.

Q<374> Chair:> So he is not in your jurisdiction at all.

Sir Gus O’Donnell:> No.

Q<375> Paul Flynn:> But you are happy that your report is final; it does not need to go the manager it would have gone to originally, and that is the end of the affair. Is that your view?

Sir Gus O’Donnell:> As I said, some issues arose where I wanted to be sure that what the Secretary of State was doing had been discussed with the Foreign Secretary. I felt reassured by what the Foreign Secretary told me.

Q<376> Chair:> I think what Mr Flynn is asking is that your report and the affair raise other issues, but you are saying that that does not fall within the remit of your report and that, indeed, the conduct of an ambassador does not fall within your remit at all.

Sir Gus O’Donnell:> That is absolutely correct.

Paul Flynn:> The charge laid by Lord Turnbull in his evidence with regard to Dr Fox and the ministerial code was his failure to observe collective responsibility, in that case about Sri Lanka. Isn’t the same charge there about our policies to Iran and Israel?

Chair:> We have dealt with that, Mr Flynn.

Paul Flynn:> We haven’t dealt with it as far as it applies—

Chair:> Mr Flynn, we are moving on.

Paul Flynn:> You may well move on, but I remain very unhappy about the fact that you will not allow me to finish the questioning I wanted to give on a matter of great importance.

It is shocking but true that Robert Halfon MP, who disrupted Flynn with repeated points of order, receives funding from precisely the same Israeli sources as Werritty, and in particular from Mr Poju Zabludowicz. He also formerly had a full time paid job as Political Director of the Conservative Friends of Israel.

But despite the evasiveness of O’Donnell and the obstruction of paid zionist puppet Halfon, O’Donnell confirms vital parts of my investigation. In particular he agrees that the Fox-Werritty-Gould “private dinner” in Tel Aviv was with Mossad, and that Gould met Werritty many times more than the twice that O’Donnell listed in his “investigation” into this affair.

Of the six meetings of Fox-Gould-Werritty together which I discovered, five were while Fox was Secretary of State for Defence. Only one was while Fox was in opposition. But O’Donnell has now let the cat much further out of the bag, with the astonishing admission to Paul Flynn’s above questioning that Gould, Fox and Werritty held “meetings that took place before the election.” He also refers to “some of those meetings” as being before the election. Both are plainly in the plural.

It is now evident that not only did Fox, Gould and Werritty have at least five meetings while Fox was in power – with never another British official present – they had several meetings while Fox was shadow Foreign Secretary. O’Donnell is right that what Fox and Werritty were up to in opposition is not his concern. But what Gould was doing with them – a senior official – most definitely is.

A senior British diplomat cannot just hold a series of meetings with the opposition shadow Defence Secretary and a paid zionist lobbyist. What on earth was happening?

The absolutely astonishing cover-up and lack of honesty from the government about the Fox-Gould-Werritty relationship is being maintained with cast-iron resolve. Not only is Gould a self-declared fervent zionist, he was born in the same year as Chancellor George Osborne and attended the same private school – St Paul’s. At least some of the time he was meeting Fox and Werrity while they were in opposition, Gould was Private Secretary to New Labour Foreign Secretary David Milliband. That opens up the question of whether David Milliband, another fervent zionist, was part of the discussions with Mossad and US neo-cons on how to engineer war with Iran, for which Werritty was the conduit.

That would help explain the completeness of the cover-up. The government appears able with total impunity to refuse to answer MPs’ questions on Gould/Fox/Werritty, and they will not respond to Freedom of Information requests. It is now proven without doubt that O’Donnell lied blatantly about the number of Gould-Fox-Werritty meetings, and that Mossad was involved. And yet every single British mainstream media outlet still refuses to mention it.

I know from a mole that the plot involves a plan to attack Iran. For the cover-up to be so blatant and yet so comprehensively maintained, the secret at the heart of this conspiracy must be great, and those complicit must include a very large swathe of the British political and media establishment.

UPDATE: access to this blog is now blocked from FCO and Cabinet Office terminals. Very wise – truth can be contagious.

209 thoughts on “Gould-Werritty: A Real Conspiracy, Not a Theory

1 2 3 4 7
  • Komodo

    Robert Halfon (see Mary’s post above) is also funded by Auckland Shipping Ltd. Alan Bekhor is a director of this. He also funds Philip Hollobone MP (who he?) and Michael Gove MP.
    He gets around, too. I’ve seen the name in another, related context, but can’t remember where. Maybe one of Fox’s old donors?
    Here’s where he is politically, anyway.
    He is Jewish, and described by some commentators as a staunch Zionist. Standpoint Magazine, which he funds, is described thus by Anthony S. McCarthy in Culture Wars:

    “Then I read Standpoint.

    It is written, though not exclusively, by a motley bunch of anti-Christian neoconservatives who, like Paul Johnson, seem to prize Israel, demonise Muslims and boast of their ‘hawkish’ approach to the “War on Terror”. As if this isn’t bad enough, there are cultural articles by people like the ‘philosopher’ Alain de Botton….(snip)”

  • Julian J

    RE: FOIA requests

    I have made many FOIA requests. Often the tactic is to refuse them at first. The ultimate handbook on this is Heather Brooke’s Your Right To Know, however I have lent it to someone else, so I can’t tell you what she says on the costs argument.

    1) It is important to be persistent, and try again and appeal etc.

    2) Cut your request down to a minimum, and submit several individual requests

    eg: a) outgoing comms between werrity and gould through ministerial channels, b)outgoing comms beween w and g
    non-ministerial c) incoming ….etc etc

    3) Does your refusal offer you an internal review?

    If so go for it

    4) If not appeal to the ICO

    I hope this helps. I’ll try to get my book back and consult Ms Brookes, the oracle of getting **our** info out of **our** functionaries.

    btw thanks for all your commitment to proper government conduct and justice over the years



  • Komodo

    “I can’t help thinking we’re missing something in this story in that Werritty visited Iran a number of times. Surely, if he were linked to anti-Iran groups in the UK, as well as to Israel, he was putting himself in serious danger (he has no dip. immunity). The Iranians certainly have their own spies in Israel and the UK. Now, I wonder what he was doing there? Meeting anti-regime elements? Could he be such a fool? Not very likely.”

    Wonder if he was in Iran between 2003-2005? When Gould was charge d’affaires there? Wouldn’t need immunity if he met the dissidents in the Embassy, would he?

  • Stephen

    Might I suggest Craig resubmit his request to ask for all communications between Werrity and Gould within Government systems. My guess is that the FCO have something of valid point about the cost of searching all systems and not just their own.

    I don’t think that the latest round really adds very much – apart from demonstrating the reluctance of the FCO to have details of its conversations with foreign governments/security forces aired in public – but this is something you can see all over the place if you care to look. It also provides some support as to why GOD may not have been lying as previously claimed – given that someone else is responsible for Gould as a member of the Diplomatic Service.

    As for the continuing argument that all these meetings had the express purpose of engineering war against Iran we are still relying solely on Craig’s mole as the unsubstantiated source. Not proven as they would say in the Scottish courts.

    Cue loads of troll comments and other related garbage from those who have formed their view regardless of the evidence – but I still remain to be convinced.

    “When it comes to real issues the likes of Hitchens and Monbiot are nowhere to be found”

    In the case of Hitchens it may well have something to do with him having probably terminal cancer and suffering from pneumonia – but don’t worry I think Hitchens has already made his views on the subject of Iran pretty clear – look here for a start, which is even more relevant today than it was back in August 2010.


    Hitchens may be many things put he is certainly not a coward when it comes to expressing his views on the subjects that matter.

  • peterclip

    Louise Ellman MP, the member for Israel, sorry Liverpool Riverside .
    Ellman’s Political Advisor in the Parliamentary Office is Zeev Portner.
    As well as advising Ellman, look what he does in his spare time:
    Israel Advocacy Skills Training Day Israel Needs You! Ever feel lost for words when defending Israel?

    Join us for this Israel Connect Training Day, as part of our Training Programme. For all young professionals aged 20-35.

    Sunday 11th January 2009, 3.00-6.00pm, NW London venue (message for details).

    Session 1: ANALYSIS – Everything you wanted to know about the Israeli Elections, and more! By Shmuel Ben Tovim, Embassy of Israel
    Session 2: SKILLS – Putting your point across, and how to impact on the media. By Rafael Broch, Director of Strategy for JustJournalism
    Session 3: ACTION (optional) – “But what can I do?” – lobbying. By Zeev Portner, Political Advisor in the Parliamentary Office of Louise Ellman, MP

    Is Zeev Portner getting a wage from Louise Ellam expenses? if so, we the taxpayers are paying for the above Israel Advocacy Skills!!!

  • Komodo

    Thanks to John Goss for pointing out that Robert Halfon is a participant in the Friends of Israel Initiative, along with Lord Trimble, Lord Weidenfeld, Robert Bolton, and Jose Maria Aznar
    The role of the last two in fomenting the Iraq war of 2003 may be conveniently ignored….

  • Mary

    Good digging everyone. Keep those spades polished and sharp edged.
    Still about Gould. Is there a word that says hypocrisy but more strongly?
    Here he is with wife Celia in the ghastly ‘hat’ at a Service of Remembrance at Ramle.




  • ingo

    “Wonder if he was in Iran between 2003-2005? When Gould was charge d’affaires there? Wouldn’t need immunity if he met the dissidents in the Embassy, would he?”

    What about before that time, Komodo, because these plans have existed for a very long time, since Reza Pahlevi took his leave, and very openly in 2000 in Vienna, when the CIA tried to foist a fake nuke blueprint on Iran.
    This resolve by the west to topple Irans mullahs has been a goal for a very long time, I’m sure Craig one day will tell us what then was normal brief. Saddams stooge days will fill libraries, a wanten tool to crack the Iranian nut, despite the many cultural and religious ties that exist between these two countries.
    If our speculations are in any way correct and these two have had enegagements in Iran, then I expect it was as part of a prep exercise, making connections, meeting people…. setting up the pieces and reliants. That is the only plausible suggestion that I can come up with, unless there are powerfull accomplices within Ahmadinejads inner circle who can demand security for this trio.
    If Werritty was unhindered in Iran, was allowed to travel freely, then I very much suspect that he has been watched, intensely.
    What is very uncomfortable about this affair is that it has not blown yet, like a wettish fuse, fizzlin’ along, how come our security services are allowing such crass interference in foreign policy, what is it that they don’t understand about this sordid undermining of our mainstream political parties, or those BICOM’s money sloshers, favours to be called in later?

    Gould should be recalled now, not that it would change much, the damage has been done.

  • Komodo

    Ingo, I’m sure our security services are at least partially aware of what’s going on. It’s their business to know. I just wonder at what point they will realise that secrecy is not the patriotic option, if ever.

  • Mary

    Do you mind Komodo! My blood temperature is high enough already.
    The provision of photos and announcements of activities is so in your face. More chutzpah.

    Stephen’s quiet. Given up and gone away?

  • ingo

    Very enlightening Komodo, especially the history of that organisation, very much engrained into society.

    here is a fairly accurate situation analysis from Noam Chomsky, no relations. It accurately shows who the agressors to Iran are. We must not forget that Iran was a democracy before 1953, I was shuffling around on my potty, barely a year old. Sadly, the west could not keep their grubby hands out of Irans affairs, just as with Iraq, it was not our kind of democracy, we wanted mallable leaders who sold us oil.


  • craig Post author


    My tolerance for you is now over, you are plainly a deliberately misleading troll and no more. Plainly the FCO do not have to search all communications systems outside the FCO for communications between Gould and Werritty, they just have to ask Gould for it. He is their employee.

    The argument that Gould should not be included in the Cabinet Secretary’s report into the Gould-Werritty affair, because O’Donnell has no line management responsibility for Gould, is plainly nonsense. On those grounds, Werritty should not have been included either.

  • Daniel

    Mr Murray

    Have you considered taking this issue up with George Galloway? Surely a story as hot as this would be right up his street and he would almost certainly run with it. I believe that his friday evening programme on talksport garners quite a sizeable audience. I assume that he has full editorial control.

  • Azra

    Iran Mullahs are not big favourite in Iran, but Iranian are looking at Iraq and Afghanistan and are taking heed. I remember 15 years ago, people would openly say, let the west come here and rescue us from these mullahs. Now ask Iranian in Iran including Jewish ones and all they say is “curse the Zionist west, we will solve our own problems, and will get rid of the mullahs eventually” and a great majority are in favour of Nuclear Iran, even if it is Nuclear weapon.

  • larry Levin

    Perhaps you could structure your request differently, limit the time frame, or ask about specific dates,

    Paul Flynn is a decent MP, I suppose it might explain why I have never heard from him before on the media.

  • Carlos

    Stephen’s response to Craig’s accusation of trolling is classic trolling, picking out half a sentence and ignoring the rest. Talk about proving a point!
    Take a hike Stephen. You may not like what people talk about here, but until you actually have something to add, go argue about sport in the pub.

  • Mary

    Medialens Messae Board
    The Werrity Affair: Concerns about Matthew ‘Third Man’ Gould expressed in Parliament
    Posted by The Editors on November 25, 2011, 8:38 am
    November 24, 2011
    Did Sir Gus breach the code?
    Total of British soldiers killed in Afghanisatan = 389

    Below is the full uncorrected verbatim account of my clash with Gus O’Donnell impeded by the Committee Chair and MP Robert Halfon. This morning Halfon’s constituency party was named as a recipient of £5,000 from one of the NeoCon backers of Werritty. Halfon declares £22,000 of donations to his party from individuals. He previously was prominent in the Conservative Friends of Israel.
    I raised the matter at Business Questions in the Commons today.
    Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Witnesses before a Select Committee have said that the inquiry into the Werritty affair was rushed and inadequate, and possibly in breach of the ministerial code as it was not conducted by the only person who is the enforcer of the code: the independent adviser on ministerial affairs. As the inquiry was conducted for reasons of political expediency to avoid embarrassment for the Government, and as new evidence is available, should we not have a full legitimate inquiry conducted by the only person authorised to undertake it: Sir Philip Mawer?
    Re: The Werrity Affair: Concerns about Matthew ‘Third Man’ Gould expressed in Parliament
    Posted by johnlilburne on November 25, 2011, 9:25 am, in reply to “The Werrity Affair: Concerns about Matthew ‘Third Man’ Gould expressed in Parliament”

    See Craig Murray:



  • larry Levin

    We should organise, expose these Zionist puppets pretending to work for their constituents and work to expose them and support their opponents. The law of treason I think is giving aid and comfort to a foreign nation, does it apply in the UK? Halfon only got 44% of the vote, we should create pamphlets highlighting his connections and his attempt to prevent legitimate enquiries by another MP as evidence that he does not work for his constituents. The lives of innocent Iranians depends on toppling these puppets. Every zionist MP will know the people will be organised against them at the election. Shame we can not recall these agents of a foreign power.

  • Komodo

    They don’t let toxic dragons join Facebook. Let him come here.
    @ConHome:@Halfon4HarlowMP:The​ BBC cannot continue as a kleptocracy. We need to put licence-fee payers in charge
    (Halfon, facebook, today)
    No objection to letting the Conservative Party continue as a kleptocracy, I imagine.

  • Uccello

    Keep fighting the good fight Craig. Be spurred on by the trolls and the establishment smokescreens. They are proof that you are on to something. Don’t let this drop, we all need to bang the drum as loudly as possible. If Private Eye are on to it, get Hislop to go public with it, he’s identifiable enough to generate momentum. Can we all badger individual journalists and editors with demands until they have no choice but to publish? Bombard their twitter accounts with demands for publicity. I’ll try to post a list of some prominent journos and MPs twitter accounts, they will fear how quickly the fire can spread I reckon.

1 2 3 4 7

Comments are closed.