47 thoughts on “Gould-Werritty Cover Up Revealed

1 2
  • numberstation

    Craig – things get all to easily ‘lost’ in the post. If it is that important can you not get on a train and go and collect in person from King Charles Street?

  • John Goss

    Can’t wait. I believe it before I read it. How is it that when I read a newspaper I cannot say the same thing, and sometimes even after I’ve read it?

  • craig Post author

    It didn’t come in today’s post. My guess is they are timing it to avoid the Independent on Sunday, which has been the only newspaper prepared to run with this stiry.

  • havantaclu

    I would have to agree with your last comment, Craig – though perhaps they’re also hoping the Chris Huhne story will override the importance of what you’re revealing.

  • larry Levin

    When is the next episode, I am on the edge of my seat. What is the royal mail like these days?

  • larry Levin

    Re: the Chris Huhne thingy, I have heard that Huhne has asked Danny Alexander to resign on his behalf

  • Jives

    Tantalising indeed.Were they having an affair?
    .
    Anyway well done on this story Craig but a couple of thoughts.
    .
    Firstly,be wary that they might be setting you up with disinfo by which to make you look stupid or legally exposed with what you print.If they’ve fought to conceal for so long WHY are they preared to disclose now?
    .
    Secondly,and without wishing to be alarmist but i must echo other commnets here.Be wary Craig.These people can be very dangerous when they feel threatened by exposure.
    .
    Best wishes to you.

  • nuid

    Have been doing a little bit of Wiki reading. I didn’t know Werritty’s mother was American. Or “US-born” as they say.

  • kashmiri

    Hehehe, @Mary, it now looks like Israel will be going to war with UK’s full moral and material support.

    BTW, Iran was able to launch long-range missiles for quite some time (it doesn’t take long to re-program a space missile to hit targets on Earth, plus Iran shared some missile technology with Pakistan). It has long been known. The issue is, Iran is well entrenched in its natural borders and has not needed to start an offensive military action in, uhm, some 2,000 years if I am not mistaken nor has ever indicated its will to do break with this tradition (unlike some other countries of the region). All “revelations” about Iran being set to launch a military attack anywhere are sponsored by… well, some Middle Eastern countries 😉 (Libyan oil is ours, Syria’s is about to be, now let crude prices go up – it’ll make us rich, and our friends in Riyadh happy, too.)

    This is not to say Iran hasn’t had a clandestine nuclear programme at least for some time in the pas. But many other countries you would normally not suspect possess limited number of nuclear bombs and everybody stays silent.

    From what it looks like now (consistently with historical British interests in the Middle East anyway), UK should now be setting the scene so as to make the most out of possible Israeli (mis)adventure in terms of political and economic gains, maybe even encouraging the Israelis with promises of diplomatic and military support once the scene is ready (but I would be genuinely shocked if it starts already this spring).

    I hope I am wrong and common sense would prevail. Unfortunately, politicians are usually on corporate payroll.

  • Young One

    @Mary,

    Thanks for the link. Can’t beleive how things repeat themselves. In a fair world, those making the threats against countries would have been punished a long time a go. But it is a one man’s world, and they run it as they see fit.

  • mr jones

    Of topic again you tube red flagged me,disqus moderators are control gang,this contains footage and radio coms of 9/11 pre air attack calling for bomb squad etchttp://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/01/challenge-is-america-the-new-axis-of-evil-videos/,

  • Iain Orr

    Craig

    Well done (and well done your allies stuck in the system). No harm in waiting until next week when, if there is less dramatic news to mull over, the IoS can give it full coverage, with time to add their own double-checking and amplification. It’s a classic case-study of rearguard action in Whitehall.

    .
    Is it worth a separate question to the FCO: “Did you ask Matthew Gould for his own records of meetings with Adam Werrity and/or Liam Fox, regardless of the subject of the meeting and whether it was formal or informal?”

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    ‘Nodding dog’ Clegg is of course creating a smokescreen while the State of Israel continues expanding in defiance of UN resolutions, a fact that agent Cameron ignores.
    .
    “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu announced, on Sunday, that 557 rural areas would receive government subsidies that could reach upwards of 70% of the cost to develop these areas. Included were 70 settlements in the West Bank.
    .
    The Israeli government stated that their intention is to encourage migration to these areas.”
    .
    http://www.imemc.org/article/62936

  • ingo

    Thanks for that Mark, this means that contingencies and oil logistsics are being readied for war. Sweet Libyan crude could replace Irans output and be used almost straight away in tanks and other military engines, with little cracking.
    Other logistic trails will probably also running on fast tick over.

  • Mary

    Reassuring news here about the readers’ reaction to that D Mail piece I posted earlier.
    .
    From the editors on Medialens
    .
    The Daily Mail’s readers have got stuck in on Iran
    Posted by The Editors on February 3, 2012, 7:35 pm
    .
    I wish I could get this article in the ‘The Daily Mail’ out to everyone on the internet and encourage all to comment on it, for a miraculous thing has happened: A mainstream media newspaper has permitted free comment in its normally closely monitored site.
    .
    Why this should be is anyone’s guess: Reaction against this sample of Israeli chutzpah which, in its childishness, out-chutzpah’s even the blatant lying of Israeli spokesman Mark Regev, so perhaps the editor, with an eye to the inevitable post war leaking of some truths, wishes to distance the paper from war propaganda?
    .
    Whatever the motives, and ignoring the actual article, which I have only scanned briefly, I am really proud and pleasantly surprised at the reader’s comments, which demonstrate that my fellow, peasant, countrymen are not fooled by the torrents of hate pumped into them by the media, and retain their sense of fairness, humanity and self-preservation, showing that we are willing to speak out, albeit, in our un-tutored, illiterate fashion, against this monstrous conspiracy.
    .
    John Bayldon
    .
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095722/UK-range-Irans-missiles-Clegg-says-worried-war-break-out.html

  • Azra

    Mary, Thanks for the comment and the link for Daily Mail article, I could not believe my eyes reading these. I have sent the article to many friends and have posted in on my FB.

  • nuid

    “I am really proud and pleasantly surprised at the reader’s comments …” (John Bayldon)
    .
    Gosh, it’s heartwarming! Thanks for posting that, Mary. Cheered me up no end.

  • Arthur Askey

    @Mary re: Daily Mail and Clegg’s ’45 minute’ warning.

    Listening to Clegg you wouldn’t think that the UK has a nuclear DETERRENT capable of hitting any place on the planet with multiple, independently targeted war-heads, all of which are 100’s of times more powerful than the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs.

    The politicians justify the spending of billions upon billions year after year by claiming that these weapons protect us because no nation will be stupid enough to attack a nuclear armed UK because it would guarantee their own annihilation.

    If that’s not the case then shouldn’t the UK be sending warships up the Yangtze and Volga as well as to the Persian Gulf and saving a shed load of money by scrapping the nuclear arsenal? After all, according to Clegg’s logic it is no longer a deterrent.

  • Anon

    “The answer is absolutely stunning” – why because it proves that your tenuous conspiracy theory is just that – or is it because it is sufficiently vague that it allows you to add yet another tenuous supposition to the lengthy chain that you have already constructed? My guess is the latter knowing your ego.

1 2

Comments are closed.