Simple Questions A Real Democracy Would Answer 129

The government could clear up the issue of Fox Gould and Werritty if it answered these very simple questions. They are questions to which in any real democracy we would be entitled to expect an answer, concerning officials paid by us. I have put these questions to them. Consider why the government refuses to answer these simple and obvious questions.

But the truly terrifying thing is not just that the government refuses to answer these questions from me, it is that the mainstream media refuses even to ask them:

How many times in total did Gould, Werritty and Fox meet?
How many of these are listed in O’Donnell’s official investigation?
Why the discrepancy?

Did the meeting between Fox, Gould and Werritty while Fox was Shadow Defence Secretary follow official rules concerning briefing of opposition front bench spokesmen by officials?
Where did it take place?

When did Gould first meet Werritty?
How many times did Gould meet Werritty without Fox present?
How many communications of all sorts have there ever been between Gould and Werritty?

Where precisely was the “Pre-posting briefing meeting” for Gould with Werritty and Fox held?
Why was it not held in the Secretary of State’s office?
Why was no MOD official present?

Who paid for the “Private dinner” between Fox, Gould and Werritty and “Senior Israelis” in Tel Aviv in February 2011?
Who was present?
Was any note subsequently made of the discussion?

Who paid for the “social engagement” to which Fox invited Gould and Werritty in summer 2010?
Who was present?

Was the possibility of an attack on Iran discussed in any of the above meetings, events or communications?

These really are very simple questions and I will happily report any answer in full. Every media outlet should be asking these questions. Remember Werritty had no security clearance. It is therefore not possible that the answers to these questions is classified information.

If the explanations are innocent, why should these questions not be answered?

ACTION Please send reasoned communications to mainstream media journalists and editors, asking them if they will put these questions to the government. You may also like to contact your MP or any other politician you find reasonable, to ask them whether they are not interested to know the answers.

The answer to these questions would not be hidden in a democracy.

Please post in comments all responses you get, including from journalists.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

129 thoughts on “Simple Questions A Real Democracy Would Answer

1 2 3 5
  • Maxter

    This planet is run by persons of pure evil. They have all the guns bombs and jails, do we need any further proof!
    Its about time the useful idiots and stooges took a good look at themselves, they have opted out of humanity and sided with the psychopaths. Hell mend them.

    Good blog by the way Craig!

  • DRE

    If plans are so far advanced for an attack on Iran then would this not fall into the remit of a DA notice, Craig?

  • Ken

    Just like to say that all the people who have spread this story over the net have done a well good job. Thanks.

  • Ken

    Mary, ‘What Democracy’?


    Exactly,no such thing in this country. We have an elected dictatorship as far as I can see.

  • Conjunction

    I have sent links to Rory Stewart and Kris Hopkins, both Tory MPs (and ex-soldiers) who have expressed thoughtful views on foreign policy in the House.

  • Michael Stephenson

    I have written an email to my MP James Wharton.
    Perhaps we should set up a mailing list so we can cc our emails into. That way we can name and shame those that don’t reply.

  • TFS

    Just a thought, but have you thought of amalgamating your website with others like

    Boiling frogs post, George Galloway? Im sure there are many others… that people could suggest.

    It seem to me you voice is somewhat diluted when its a single person brand? i understand your reasons….



  • arsalan

    Supporting Democracy is Anti-Semitism, if the people selected for election are not chosen by Zionists.

    Anti-Semitism is a be all and end all statement. Today it just means, a Zionist disagrees with you.
    When they use it, it just means “Shut up, we Zionists as your superiors order you to shut up”.

  • Mary

    Komodo. There is only one name there I would trust. I know for a fact that Murphy is a staunch member of LFoI and Lucas too –
    His entry here
    Overseas visits
    2-8 September 2007, to Israel and Palestine with Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). Travel and hospitality paid for by LFI. Accommodation paid for by LFI at a rate discounted through the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Some hospitality provided by the Palestinian Legislative Council/Palestinian Authority. Travel within Israel/Palestine provided by LFI. Some travel within Israel provided by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (Registered 2 November 2007)
    Couldn’t be bothered to check out the rest. Too depressing.

  • JaneGrey

    Sorry, I’m bringing this onto here because the previous post has so many comments it takes forever to load on my slow connection.
    I put up a WIkipedia page for Gould. I don’t believe there ever was one before. I need a reference for his being at St Paul’s School. Komodo I think came up with that info – do you have a source? If so perhaps you could add it, or post it here and I or someone else can.


  • DonnyDarko

    I think Mhairi is a gaelic red herring.
    Rather having your blog smell of fish , step Mhairi gaily on her way to her weddin.

    Great article, even managed to find it on google news today. There must be some people in power that can push this back into official discussion.
    It’s unbelievable that Belligerent Britain could be pushed into a war by a foreign power with moles in the key ministries where even their boyfriends have access to money and people.Just how deep is the sewer at Westminster ?

  • Mary

    After St Paul’s
    The presence of Old Paulines in public life is very marked: George Osborne MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Ed Vaizey MP; Matthew Gould, PPS to David Miliband at the Foreign Office and the first Jewish British ambassador to Israel; Lord Razzall of Mortlake, Liberal Democrat spokesman on Trade and Industry; Lord Baker of Dorking CH PC.


  • MikeD


    Letter to my MP – Paul Burstow

    Foreign Office Transparency? The Anglo-Israeli Plot to Attack Iran

    You might remember the questions I raised about UK use of DU a while back & the response from the FO you forwarded to me? I was sceptical with that reply then, and this has only been reinforced by today’s news that the minister for armed forces had to apologise over misleading statements he made regarding the legality and dangers of depleted uranium weapons.

    Harvey admitted he “inadvertently misled MPs” about a Ministry of Defence review that he said had concluded the weapons were permissible on humanitarian and environmental grounds under the Geneva conventions. It subsequently emerged that the review had never happened.” It seems reasonable to assume the dangers of DU are not a subject worth him taking time to get his facts straight.

    This request is different question which again goes to the heart of Foreign Office transparency.

    In case you are unaware, you may care to read the following by ex ambassador Craig Murray which was effectively censored by the UK mainstream media …and not because it failed any fact check!

    The Anglo-Israeli Plot to Attack Iran
    The Role of Matthew Gould, British Ambassador to Israel

    The Foreign Office refuse to provide information that should be publicly available. What have they got to hide?

    Craig Murray poses questions below that you will understand if you read his article on the collusion between Gould, Werritty, and Fox in their dealings with Israel. It is worth your time as it involves a potentially disastrous war of aggression against Iran. Note Werritty had no security clearance. It is therefore not possible that the answers to these questions is classified information.
    INSERTED your questions here

    The issues Craig raises are literally life and death ones – both for our armed forces and the people of countries we might choose to invade.
    So please ask the FO to answer these questions, and should they decline explain why – as once again it is not possible that the answers to these questions is “classified information”.

    As with DU, I fear I will be “fobbed off” with the official response you eventually send me. But at least I know that you now know this and will act as a man on conscience. Don’t let them fob you off too.

    I look forward to your reply.

  • Michael Stephenson

    Letter to my MP, I expect I’ll be fobbed off or receive no reply.

    Recently Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and whistleblower Craig
    Murray revealed on his blog that Liam Fox and Adam Werritty had been
    conducting secretive meetings with “committed zionist” and ambassador to
    Israel Matthew Gould and the Israeli government.
    Allegedly making plans for a future attack on Iran, and that Fox and
    Werritty was coordinating with Israel while Labour was still in
    Any level of subterfuge and secretive planning for a war will not be
    received well by the majority of the British public.
    I for one do not want a repeat of Iraq where the government conspired to
    fool the public into going to war, and this certainly appears to be what
    is happening in this case.
    The questions posed by Craig Murray here:
    And the full account here:
    Need to be properly addressed and investigated.
    The public deserves a full explanation, not a complete whitewash, as
    your party will doubtless attempt to do.
    I expect that you as my MP will ask these questions in parliament, and
    demand that your party be open and honest about when these meeting were
    conducted and what the purpose was.
    The public do not want to go to war with Iran, we operate in a democracy
    where you serve the interests of citizens of this country, not of
    America and not of Israel.

    Michael Stephenson

  • Mary

    unable to connect to murray’s blog
    Posted by jjboulas on November 15, 2011, 2:26 pm

    Hoepfuly just a glitch
    Me also for last ten minutes. Traffic or interference?

  • wendy

    of course one could set up an e petition and force a debate in parliament .. you only need 100 000 supporters to get it onto the political agenda ..
    i suspect via twitter/alt media this could be achieved ..

  • Komodo

    Mary – as Murphy is one of the very few MP’s who has consistently pressed for answers on Foxwerritty, I’d say he’s not to be dismissed lightly. If it embarrasses the Tories, it’s grist to his mill….never mind the central issue. Forget the FoI angle for the moment – half of them are only in it for freebies and privileged access.

  • Jon

    Down for me for 15 mins, but probably cock-up rather than conspiracy!
    ** Craig, please check your email. The Morning Star is interested in carrying a shorter version of your piece **

  • Suhayl Saadi

    1) MattW, good idea! Go for it! You are his constituent; he represents you. If you want, you could even go to meet him at one of his constituency surgeries. Now that he is no longer a member of the cabinet, he is likely to have more time to attend these in person. Be polite, speak quietly, but be doggedly persistent. Remember the iconic TV moment of Mrs Thatcher and the ‘phone-in re. the Belgrano? Good luck! Tell us all what the outcome was.
    2) Craig, re. the MSM organs, that is likely to be because the truth of their relationship with power resides not in the answers, but in the questions.

  • Paul Whitehouse

    re No 10 petitions
    The Yanks have a similar system – more than a certain number of signatures and you get, not a debate, but a reply from the White House. They used to ask for 5,000 signatures, but after a few petitions actually got that many they bumped it up to 20,000 (or was it 25,000). There weren’t that many petitions with 5,000 – a few tens – they could easily have fobbed them off but they don’t like the idea of having to engage with real people. If too many of the British ones start getting 100k they’ll start asking for more, probably.

  • Herbie

    Jonathan Cook has reviewed your article on Medialens. He makes some good points:
    “Regular readers will know well of Jonathan Cook’s insightful journalism on Israel-Palestine. ( )
    He kindly sent us some comments this morning after reading Craig Murray’s piece:
    i thought it was rather disorganised the way he wrote it but easy enough for a paper to tidy up or rewrite entirely – they have lots of people who specialise in doing that. there seems to be both significant information and interesting speculation there that at the very least a paper ought to be following up themselves.
    a) the fact of an additional four meetings between the trio of gould, fox and werritty.
    b) the failure of o’donnell to include this in his report – was this because he was lied to, or because he didn’t make full disclosure? and why?
    c) gould’s extremely undiplomatic behaviour – the media have a good source in murray who is prepared to criticise gould for breaking the rules
    d) the possibility of israeli / mossad involvement in these meetings.
    e) the iranian obsessions of all three.
    i would have thought a paper would at the least run a news story based on the first three points, with a possible related oped by murray based on the last two.
    several papers have already intimated that fox-werritty were running a “parallel” MoD policy – presumably based on their own conversations with insiders. they just haven’t suggested what that alternative policy was. murray has given some vital extra clues. the problem, i fear, is that the papers don’t want to go down this path because a) the parallel policy may have been more official than it looks (plausible deniability?); and b) it implicates israel in meddling in our foreign policy and that’s a no-no still for our media.
    all best, jonathan
    Then a short time later, Jonathan added:
    btw, murray also made a fascinating aside about how, until gould’s appointment, it was always british foreign policy not to appoint a jew to the post of ambassador to israel for fear of creating any impression of a conflict of interest. interesting for two reasons:
    a) the british media has never had such qualms – in fact they treat even mentioning this issue as almost proof of anti-semitism.
    b) the foreign office policy was relaxed / violated presumably for a reason. was gould, with his self-declared zionist sympathies, seen as more amenable to bending the rules and his diplomatic training to become effectively pointman for this parallel policy? that would suggest it was more official than we are being led to believe.”

1 2 3 5

Comments are closed.