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 4 5 6 7
  • Komodo

    “I thought it was komodo dragons that ate babies! LOL.”
    I’d like to be able to say that was the Murdoch press again, but yes, we do. Our own, even.
    Re. Blears/Blaagh…I’m sure you’re right, but I’m trying to stay close to the topic.

  • Jives

    BBC Radio 4,The Week In Westminster…just been a discussion between Jonathan Powell and Kampfner about FOI…11.20 AM

    Probably be on iPlayer later.

  • Komodo

    Eucalyptus Leaves: both the address you found and the Saxon House one are co-occupied by Fox Associate LLP. Fox is a chartered accountant. It’s just a cutout. Or maybe Fox (probably no relation) is Halfon’s accountant, in which case he’s a very generous man….

  • Jives

    Craig,this is directly from the Information Commissioner’s Office detailing the protocol for refusing a request.Seems to me your refuser has missed at least 4 of the necessary procedures.

    “If you have grounds for not releasing the information requested, you must issue a written refusal notice to the requester. The notice must explain:
    •what exemption applies and why;
    •the public interest considerations you have taken into account;
    •the internal appeals process, if one is offered; and
    •the requester’s right to complain to the ICO.
    The refusal notice must:
    •be in writing (email or letter);
    •state which exemption applies; and
    •explain why the exemption applies – including the public interest test if it is a qualified exemption. “

  • Suhayl Saadi

    ‘Enoch Powell’: As I said to ‘Julian’ on a previous thread, no, Craig is not mentally ill. In any case, better ‘paranoid’ than ‘dead’, wouldn’t you agree? And in this schema of shadow puppets, ‘Enoch’, you most certainly are the latter. Choose another name. May I suggest, ‘Adolf Hitler’?

  • Komodo

    Fair enough, Antelope. Once Blair got hold of the reins, all ethical considerations disappeared forever, and the lefties found themselves sidelined if they didn’t conform. Decisions were made by Blair without reference to the Cabinet, too. But,the FCO revamp wasn’t very highly publicised, and it is hard to see why pretending to do something, and not doing it, would have been preferable to just not doing it. Anyway, back to the topic.

  • Komodo

    Thanks for that, Mary. While we’re on APPC;s, there is, to my surprise, an APPC on Iran, too.Compare and contrast the stated purpose of the Israel group:

    To create a better understanding of Israel and to foster and promote links between Britain and Israel.

    and that of the Iran group:
    To inform and educate members of both Houses about issues surrounding the Islamic Republic of Iran.
    *puts shoes on head and leaves room*

  • craig Post author


    I never delete anything without explanation. Sometimes the software sticks things into a moderation queue – on what grounds it chooses them is sometimes baffling. Then it is a matter of when a meodrator looks – which at weekends can be a long time. There are 11 stuck in moderation at the minute and I am about to look at them.

    Nope, nothing from you, and nothing from you in spam or trash either.

  • Komodo

    Objectives of APPC on Israel:

    To create a better understanding of Israel and to foster and promote links between Britain and Israel.
    Objectives pf APPC on Iran (yes, there is one):
    To inform and educate members of both Houses about issues surrounding the Islamic Republic of Iran.
    See what they did there?

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    Komodo – It is clear to me you have an understanding of the strategy involved however convoluted it appears – deception is the game and unfortunately we are not the masters of this art.
    Clearly however the ‘game’ has to be played in the international arena and rules exist and have to be obeyed. Plunder, pilfering and murder abuse the international covenant of political and tactful discourse. To directly attack a sovereign nation, especially a non-aggressive Iran on weak assumptions, invalidated and unconvincing arguments of nuclear blitzkrieg and implausible threats to world peace is difficult to justify.
    Deception is de rigeur and I will attempt to rupture that deception at whatever costs, but I cannot do that alone, I need help.

  • passerby

    To inform and educate members of both Houses about issues surrounding the Islamic Republic of Iran

    Hence the endless “observations” and trite statements; “Repressive Iranian regime”, as so often seen on these pages. As well as being seen in the beauty parade of the “democratic” miss world contest. Evidently the hijab covered Iran is a darn “dictatorship”, and a poopy pants to boot.
    Heard this from a Prof. ; A Lynch Mob is the best expression of Democracy. After all it is composed of a majority intent on lynching one man!
    So far as the accountability and checks and balances go, don’t talk about the Israeli nukes. Why it is not in NPT? Who gave the nukes to Israel? That is in direct contravention of the NPT (ie the signatories whom supplied the non signatory to the NPT with nukes). Why Werrity an unprofessional carpetbagger has been meeting so many times with ambassador Gould and Secretary Liam Fox? The same bunch attending dinners with the same none NPT Signatory to debate attacking a Signatory to NPT, are just antisemitic tropes won’t you say?
    We all know how repressive Islam is and what poppy pants Islamists are, because we all are so awfully informed; how , by whom, and where? these do not matter, we know that we are in the know, and that is what matters!

  • Komodo

    Mark: I’m learning what to look for, on the basis that deception is a core principle – “by deception shalt thou wage war!” -as they say in Tel Aviv. The enemy of deception is the truth in conjunction with publicity. We all need help…don’t let its absence stop you, however. A loose association of individuals is harder to suppress, even by rumour and innuendo, than an organised group. The minute you mass under a common banner, it is possible to demonise the banner. If individuals happen to agree on an issue, they have to be chased individually. Almost certainly, I disagree strongly with you on other issues (I may have met you on a Russian forum – if so, make that “certainly”)….and that is a strong point as far as our zone of agreement goes. It is very difficult for Them to identify your views and mine as belonging to a single targetable stereotype (“hippies”, “Islamists”, “doglovers”) and attack the stereotype.
    Sorry about the OT, Craig. I’ll shut up for a bit now.

  • Jives

    @ Mark Golding

    “deception is the game and unfortunately we are not the masters of this art.”

    Mark,who are the masters of the art if they are so predictable and poor at the deception that most people can see through it? I’d say they are less masters of the art more chancers,cack-handed and entirely predictable.

  • Franz

    “Mark,who are the masters of the art if they are so predictable and poor at the deception that most people can see through it? I’d say they are less masters of the art more chancers,cack-handed and entirely predictable.”
    But Jives, most people /can’t/ see through it: they don’t realise there’s anything to see through. What are two dozen regular commenters on Craig M’s site compared to the millions who swallow everything they’re told by the mainstream media? I’ve been ridiculed and called a conspiracy theorist by educated friends for suggesting that the agenda of the powers that be is not what it seems and that they /are not on our side/.
    I am pessimistic that the Government’s real agenda can be brought to light, and even more pessimistic as to what good it would do anyway. In an energy-constrained and economically devastated future, Britain has alarmingly few cards to play except joining the USA in its adventures and hoping it gets thrown some bones.
    Sorry if that sounds excessively negative, but it’s just how things look to me.

  • Jives


    I understand what you’re saying but you shouldn’t be pessimistic,
    Consider the numbers who marched against the Iraq war etc. Ok it didnt stop the war going ahead but i think,particularly in the internet age the numbers are growing.Consider the Occupy movementetc.There’s alot more people out there who deride/ignore the MSM and that number is surely growing.

    Be positive!

  • anno

    You have developed a poetic brevity which leaves things half-explained. I have heard the snipers in Syria described as mossad, co-religionists of Assad, Iranian, and Saudi-backed AlQaida.
    I feel safer in the zone of ‘a plague on all your houses’ and to assume for the moment at least that all sources are lying.
    Logically, I agree with Assad when he says that an attack inside his country will set the Middle-East on fire, because people in the region have experienced the ongoing ‘fitna’/anarchy in Iraq and everyone is united against the USUK should they interfere as they have done in Libya.
    But anything to do with Zionism and Israel has to be viewed through the religious kaleidoscope as well. Jewish tribes had moved to near Mecca in anticipation of the Great Prophet who is to come’ King James Bible talking about Muhammad SAW.
    They also know that Jesus pbuh is destined soon to return to this earth in Damascus. Is it conceivable that the Zionists actually believe that they can con Jesus pbuh and God that they are really good guys, much maligned? Maybe they will allow a relatively peaceful exchange of power to an Islamic government to collect Brownie points against all the squillions of their other sins. Orthodox Islam is increasingly looking like Orthodox
    Judaism. Not just neighbours, but good friends?

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    Antelope Grazer,
    Maybe we are all responsible for the genocide in East Timor, the US/UK sanctions on Iraq, the ’98 Iraq bombing and the ’99 bombing on Serbia. I cannot justify these actions, they were plainly wrong. These horrors have been revealed to us. Our actions at the time were seized by ignorance, hidden by propaganda and entombed by priority. Yet I believe we are not judged by our actions and neither should Robin Cook RIP. It is our reactions that expose who we are and explain our self.
    The ‘falling towers’ changed everything, the ‘war on lies’ changed everything; our *reaction* to these abominable realities testifies to our humanity; we can see through a window opening on hell.
    How do you react? Do you now close the curtains, turn on the lights and illuminate your own diminutive world protected in your own limited box?.
    If we do then I suggest our house burns down around us, in the flames of sedition exposing a scorched and lifeless world.

  • Franz

    “Is it conceivable that the Zionists actually believe that they can con Jesus pbuh and God that they are really good guys, much maligned?”
    I’ve met quite a few religious people who believe that their religion justifies all their acts. In fact I’ve come to the conclusion that this kind of arrogant self-delusion is the norm in human beings. And so yes, I think they probably do believe they will be “saved”.
    I’m not religious myself, but I believe there is some kind of truth to the dictum that the meek shall inherit the earth – not in the literal sense, but on some spiritual level.

  • Rob

    I don’t know much about D. Milliband but one incident has stuck in my mind. During his period as Foreign Secretary, he gave an interview on BBC radio in connection with a massacre of Jews that occurred during WWII. I was surprised to hear him becoming almost hysterical in his responses and have subsequently wondered about where his loyalties lie in relation to British interests vs. Israel’s

  • anno

    Jonathon Cook is mainstream UK intelligence. He believes that Shi’a Islam is less dangerous than Saudi, what he calls, Wahabism, because the latter is more intellectual and more of a challenge to Western ideology. I’m sorry I don’t have a reference but I heard/read him say that just the other day.
    He is part and parcel of the UK special forces sniping from rooftops in Syria, and not even remotely objective. He is part and parcel of the catastrophe of UK divide and rule policy in Northern Ireland, where the divisions sown will take many generations to overcome.
    UK policy is to torture its enemies mercilessly with indiscriminate false flag violence that causes sectarian pain.
    The plan in Syria is the same as Libya, for the ultra-political groups of all parties, Mossad, UK intelligence, war- and prison-hardened Islamists, to create chaos and an opportunity to sieze power from the diplomatic tentacles of all other interested parties, Iran, Saudi, Turkey, Iraq, Israel.
    The UK hosts the troublemakers of the whole world, on the pretext of political asylum, but in the hope of fashioning future colonial power through their discontented guests.
    It’s an expensive operation, but well worth it in their eyes because they retain influence in places they should have lost influence in at the end of the last world war.
    If your driving licence has expired, you have to renew it. Power in the world has to be phoenixed in the same way, through regular destruction of civilians by fire.

  • Methuselah Now


    Craig, as a former ambassador, surely you aren’t so naive.

    It’s always been the plan. If this were to be revealed, then so what, the people are lazy and stupid, their consent can be manufactured any which way, even the once mighty anti-establishment C4 News has got lost up its own twittering arehole, more ready to feed the narrative of the establishment, from Syria, Libya, iran, uk terrorism, et al.

    You’ve been beavering away on this story for some time now, yet not only has it not been touched by the mainstream media, but all those self-involved naval gazers on the internet, who are so ready to pounce when there’s a story about a celebrity having additional relationships, or who get stuck in lifts, and would claim to be soh so liberal and believers in truth and justice, are equally no where to be seen.

    Keep going, keep the fight and the light alive – the MP’s expenses story took Heather Brooke’s many years, where she faced intimidation/cost in one form or another, almost as an individual, before it was revealed fully, and with the Telegraph getting much of the credit; Their were rumours about the Hackgate crisis going on from quite early on its execution, becoming a story about 4 years ago, and almost completely ignored, with the editor of the guardian still being restrained in seeing the worst of the perpetrators, but eventually with enough determination, the truth will out.

    Good Luck!

    In the meantime, here’s an interesting video of how this is all part of one unstoppable force and plan.


    Yours kindly,


  • Arsene Wenger

    The Milibands’ family name is Adolphe.
    Do you mean this sentence?
    His father Ralph changed his name from Adolphe when he arrived in England
    I think you’ll find it was his given name which he changed. He was not called Ralph Adolphe.

  • Antineocon

    So Gould, not only an Israeli agent, but also a Conservative one. The Conservatives most likely had all kinds of agreements in place, most likely gave Fox free reign. Werrity a go between, a middleman between Anglo-American zio-con agents plotting against Iran. Traitors

1 4 5 6 7

Comments are closed.