Richard Dearlove Helped Blair Kill Millions. The Security Services are a Danger to Our State and Society 490

When Sir Richard Dearlove was Head of MI6, the Blairites adored him as he approved the lying Dossier on Iraqi WMD which led to wars, invasion, the death of millions and the destabilisation which continues to wreck the entire Middle East. Now, as he writes to Tory constituency chairman advocating the hardest of hard Brexits, had they any capacity for self-reflection the Blairites would probably be thinking it was after all not such a great move of Tony to appoint the hardest of hard right nutters to head our overseas intelligence service.

In my last post, I noted how evidence against me was actually manufactured when I opposed the policy of torture and extraordinary rendition. I have explained ad nauseam that, having been in a senior position in the FCO at the time, I know that Blair’s dossier on Weapons of Mass Destruction was a tissue of deliberate lies, and not just an honest mistake; furthermore it is impossible to read the Chilcot report without coming to that conclusion.

The UK has security services which operate dishonestly and illegally. Interestingly, I cannot say that they are currently out of the control of the UK government; the evidence is rather they are willing to engage in every dirty and dishonest trick at the behest of corrupt politicians like Blair.

Dearlove regularly features in the media shilling for maximum Cold War. His letter yesterday on the dangers of intelligence and security co-operation with the EU, as undermining NATO and the UK/US/Five Eyes intelligence arrangements, is simply barking mad. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. He makes no attempt to describe the mechanism by which the dire consequences he predicts will follow. Amusingly enough, although those consequences are dire to Dearlove, to me they are extremely desirable. If I thought that May’s withdrawal agreement would undermine NATO and the CIA, I would be out on the streets campaigning for it.

But there is a very serious point. There is something very wrong indeed with the UK security services, which are most certainly not a force for freedom or justice. That MI6 can be headed by as extreme a figure as Dearlove, underlines the threat that the security services pose to any progressive movement in politics.

If Scotland becomes independent, it must not mirror the repressive UK security services. Furthermore it must be very chary indeed of employing anybody currently working for the UK security services. If Jeremy Corbyn comes to power in Westminster, he will never achieve any of his objectives in restoring a basic level of social justice and equality to society in England and Wales, without revolutionary change in major institutions including the security services.

My own view on Brexit is that the best deal for England and Wales would be EEA and customs union, essentially the Norway option. It seems that the Labour leadership have essentially got that right, but are making a complete pig’s ear of articulating it, presumably because of their desire not to antagonise their anti-immigrant voters.

Scotland demonstrably has a strong and strengthening pro-EU majority and this is the logical time for Scotland to move to Independence, with the assurance of strong international support. I trust the Scottish government is finally going to move decisively in that direction inside the next month.

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>

490 thoughts on “Richard Dearlove Helped Blair Kill Millions. The Security Services are a Danger to Our State and Society

1 2 3 4
  • Mist001

    So, it depends who sits on the investigating body. As I said previously, I believe this whole Salmond affair was concocted by the very top of the SNP to prevent him returning as leader. I bet they didn’t anticipate this shit storm. If Nicola is forced to resign, who have they got to replace her? Kezia Dugdale??? 😉

    • Jo1

      It’s becoming curiouser and curiouser! Sturgeon’s still protecting Evans despite her conducting a seriously dodgy investigation.

      Of more interest to me are Leonard’s quotes in the article. I want an Inquiry for sure, but not a Parliamentary Inquiry which will be just as dodgy as Evans’ investigation as it will be mired in bias too, only along Party-political lines.

      An independent Inquiry is needed.

      I think I would agree that SNP people did not expect this. It has been a dreadful week but many are furious with Sturgeon for her own actions, not least her appalling performance on Thursday at FMQs, plus her bizarre determined efforts to protect a woman who oversaw the process governing tens of thousands of Scottish civil servants being manipulated unfairly, unlawfully and with bias.

    • MaryPau!

      I have to stay, as a complete English bystander, that one reading of this is that the two women came forward with a “believable” story in November 2017 and this alarmed Nicola and her Permanent Secretary that it would make a lot of mud stick to the party and as First Ministers were exempt from disciplinary action, Salmond might seem “to get away with it”. So they consulted with McKinnon who liaised with the two women.

      It was decided to “update” the code of conduct to include First ministers past and present which would catch Salmond in the net. Mackinnon was involved. The date of the complaints was moved forward to January 2018 to make it appear it came after the changes to the Code of Conduct. The accusations against Salmond were then made public and McKinnon then launched the case against him on behalf of the women. Of course it was stupid to have her involved at every stage but they were trying to play it close to their chests in a rush.

      The story broke ( including details leaked to press) and Salmond lobbied Sturgeon to hear his side but she old him she could not intervene . Meanwhile she assured the twowomen they would be protected from media glare. Then it went to court and it emerged the complaint dates had been manipulated and the Code of Conduct devised at the same time. Also the women were counselled and case made against Salmond all by MacKinnon with collusion of Evans. It all shows tremendoux arrogance and incompetence if nothing else by the authorities, Evans is left blethering and Sturgeon looking foolish saying she supports her while apologising to the women from screwing up the handling of their complaints.

      I am not saying any if this is true, but at some stage now if they are to make it stick, the women will have to come forward..

  • MaryPau!

    The Remainers who want another referendum seem to think it will go their way and we will be sorted. At present they think the current Brexit majority is too small to be democratic, what it they did get a majority but only a similar small one, like the Brexit one, would they still say it was not democratic? All the polls indicate there would still be a very large Brexit vote in England and then politics would be poisoned completely for years to come. And what if the vote was almost even? Or the same again?

    A lot is being made of Europe being United against us. I am not convinced that is true. Maybe the French and German leaders and the Brussels Eurocrats, perhaps. But mostly I think no one else wants to leave – although some might wish to leave the Euro.

    After all look at the history of the other member countries in the 20th century. France , Holland, Belgium crushed by Hitler. Germany under Hitler, Italy Spain Portugal under dictators. Eastern Europe under Russian control. They do not want a return to that. The UK was not defeated, not run by a Fascist dictator, and not under the heel of Russia. So we do not see the political unity and ” merging” of our nations for national peace and security in the same way . The people who voted No do not share the broader political union objectives of the rest of Europe. That will not go away.

    • Jo1

      I agree that many assume a great deal about a new vote and the result.

      England could indeed provide enough Leave votes to outnumber all other parts of the UK. That is why the terms of the first vote were never remotely democratic. With three devolved Parliaments in the UK there were good reasons to require all parts to vote Leave. The very idea that one part could dictate the result for everyone else was preposterous and yet, in his arrogance, Cameron ignored this. Same applies to the failure to define what would constitute a decisive majority. He was so convinced of a Remain win, such details were trivial. That went well!

      • Deb O'Nair

        “Same applies to the failure to define what would constitute a decisive majority. He was so convinced of a Remain win, such details were trivial. That went well!”

        Those definitions would have been insisted upon had the result of the referendum been legally binding on the UKG instead of being presented as an ‘advisory’ referendum. Not only would concerned MPs have spotted the potential problems but the HoL would have also demanded that there be a clear mandate for such a course, e.g. 55% of the vote or even compulsory voting.

        Not only that but the illegal activities of the Leave campaign which subsequently came to light would have forced a re-run of the vote and the press would have been bound by the fair reporting laws. As a consequence of the UKG treating a slim majority of a minority of the electorate in an advisory election as legally binding we are now in this entirely predictable fiasco. Cameron could have said the ‘advice’ from the electorate was not clear enough given that 2/3 of the electorate did not vote to leave. The movement through parliament of the referendum legislation as an advisory was a deliberate act to a.) get the legislation approved without objection, and b.) To remove legal constraints on the campaign.

        I do not think that Cameron was naive or arrogant, what he did (or was told to do) was a major subversion of the electoral system which favoured the campaign of a clique of right-wing Eurosceptic politicians backed by big-money and the unbridled support they enjoyed in the corporate media, elements of which Cameron himself was unhealthily close to, i.e. Murdoch, Brookes, Coulson et al.

    • Laguerre

      All the classic discredited Brexiter arguments trotted out yet again. Monstrous dictatorship Europe which valiant Britain stood against alone (how many times did you go and see Dunkirk and the Darkest Hour?), although it was not alone even for a day.

      And idiot Remainers have of course failed to think out their demand for a new referendum, according to you. Those idiots could hardly have thought about those simple problems, now could they?

      It all makes you realise how poor Brexiter thinking is, if they can’t get beyond that.

      • MaryPau!

        I am very happy to hear your views on the possible outcome if remains unchanged from last time 2. both sides almost equally balanced 3. result is reversed but in similar proportions to last one .

        I was merely pointing out that EU member states, other than the UK, have much greater reason to want ever closer political union. I regularly read that the “founding fathers” of Europe wanted this and to spread the citizens across the continent as this would reduce the potential for nationalism leading to war. This is not something which has ever formed part of the UKs ambitions, the EU has always been viewed as an economic project and successive prime minister’s signed up for closer political union but did not make this clear to the population. Eventually the chickens came home to roost.

    • Iain Stewart

      “A lot is being made of Europe being United against us”
      (Us being England, one assumes.) One effect that the Brexit process has already had on the Continent is to have reduced Polish, Hungarian and Danish Europhobia: even Marine Le Pen dropped Frexit a while ago. Meanwhile the Irish are increasingly worried about the effect of Brexit on their principal trade route through the UK to the rest of the EU and whether every household in the Republic really will lose (or pay extra) around a thousand euros per year (as the Irish Times suggested recently) as a direct result.

    • Dave

      Overall the Leave vote had a small victory, much bigger in England, but in a real way was far stronger, because Britain isn’t a full member of EU. If voters reject being even half-way in, then a greater majority would reject full membership which remains the objective of the Remain establishment.

      Indeed I’m sure the real reason for holding the referendum was to use a Remain win to progress fiscal union as a solution to the EU/Euro crisis. This was necessary to trump an earlier promise to hold a referendum before joining the Euro-currency.

      So the question isn’t just about what sort of Leave but also what sort of Remain and I’m not sure how you could deal with that in a 2nd referendum.

    • Deb O'Nair

      The clock has run out for a referendum, even if article 50 is delayed it will only be for a couple of months. The idea of a *limited* delay was agreed upon in the event that the deal was not quite finalised by March 29, not in the case that the deal would be rejected by HoC.

      The EU want the UK to be out of the EU by May and, unless UK cancel article 50 altogether, that will happen with or without deal. It’s all done and dusted now. Get used to it, UK is leaving the EU without a deal and no one can do a single thing about it.

      In the end one can only stand back with mouth agape at the sheer cunning, foresight and planning required to execute the greatest deceit perpetrated upon the public and political class in the history of democracy (well, since Hitler was elected at least). A masterclass in Machiavellian political out-maneuvering.

    • nevermind

      Your comment shows lack of understanding. Germany reverting backwards? What? Like the Uk going backwards in NI?
      You are having a laugh, Mary, by mentioning Hitler and Nazis, the two best remembered terms in your history you are showing little nous of todays continental young genleration.

  • Tatyana

    removing roof and windows of Skripals house:
    wires and cameras, sensors and switches. Even if taken off, they can leave traces of long-term installation.
    something relating to security/surveilance system, perhaps Amazon Ring?
    I can imagine a man from Ukrainian IT company, who is allowed access to Amazon files and recognises Skripal in a video
    Skripal was born in Kiev and has friends there.

    ” Beginning in 2016, according to one source, Ring provided its Ukraine-based research and development team virtually unfettered access to a folder on Amazon’s S3 cloud storage service that contained every video created by every Ring camera around the world. This would amount to an enormous list of highly sensitive files that could be easily browsed and viewed. ”

    • J

      Worth eveyone’s time to read the article, even without the potentially and (very) plausible relevance to Skripal.

      • michael norton

        If the U.K. “Authorities” want us to think that Russians smeared Novichok on Mr.Skripal’s doorknob, that is one thing but why the need to remove the roof.
        If the roof is contaminated with Nuclear stuff or Novichok stuff, the only reasonable conclusion is Mr.Skripal was storing “stuff” in his loft.

        But that then does show that the Russians smeared it on his doorknob is nuts?

      • Sebastian

        Bluderbuss ( my replies always seem to come up in the wrong place)

        I do find great solace in the comments section of the DM articles on the Salisbury prank. Either it’s filled with Putin’s trolls, or there’s hope that some sort of magic of unintended consequences has occurred widely in unexpected sections of society.
        I trust the II are still at work, monitoring the fruits of their labour. Apparently they were thinking they might get the hysteria (sorry, conversion disorder, to be PC) running in their chosen direction at a height to justify rounding up RT contributors. And doubtless a few bloggers too.

    • JeremyT

      I’m amused by the idea they might have smeared it on his Ring!
      And that might be available to researchers in Ukraine!

  • able

    So Scotland is going to decisively move in the direction of independence within the next month is it? I’ve been reading this blog for over 10 years now and independence is always “just around the corner” (never going to happen).

    The world’s next new country will be Somaliland (the UK is going to build a base there in return for recognition). Scotland will have another vote in about 20 years time and decide to stay in the UK.

  • freddy

    Read plenty of pro and anti Brexit arguments here. Tthe only chance of the Scots gaining Independence would be via no-deal Brexit, but clearly applying only to Wales and England. That is the essence of Craig’s post.If the UK remains in as a whole, what chance of Independence?

  • exiled off mainstreet

    We are seeing that providing legal immunity for the actions of the spy regime over time led to the gradual brushing aside of the rule of law, which is central to civilization itself. Rule by the spy establishment is nothing more than the law of the amoral jungle with raw power and artifice becoming the basis of a totally corrupt power structure.

    • Deb O'Nair

      That is a succinct view of the decline of the Anglo-Saxon led ‘democratic’ order that has accelerated at dizzying speed over the last 20 years. Exceptional powers that were once used sparingly and only in times of grave national threat, i.e. world wars, are now routinely used by the establishment to subvert even the mildest dissent against a totalitarian ideology which can only be described as Fascist.

    • Blunderbuss

      I suspect that James Bond (licensed to kill) is nearer the truth than most people think.

  • BrianFujisan

    Very Good Writing here from the ‘ Wee Ginger Dug ‘ ( I heve seen that dog in real life several times, It’s a Mild Mannered, Big Dog )

    ” What makes the entire episode even more distasteful is that the cheerleaders are the Scottish branches of the Labour and Conservative parties, parties which have themselves very poor recent track records in the investigation of complaints against prominent party members. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking, and entirely unremarked upon by their tag team partners in the Scottish media.

    Not that we should be surprised. This is a country where, as it has often been pointed out, the media is wildly unrepresentative of the views of the public it claims to serve. The overwhelmingly British nationalist Scottish media doesn’t see its job as being to hold up a mirror to a Scotland where half the population – and growing – support independence, but rather to do all it can to deny, deflect, and damage the independence movement..

    ” The modus operandi of the Scottish media has always been to personalise the cause of independence, to desperately attempt to corral it within the confines of a single political party and its leader. We saw that in the constant repetitions of the phrase Alex Salmond’s referendum during the campaign of 2014. We still see it in the Scottish media’s single minded pursuit of SNPbad stories as a proxy for attacking the broader cause of independence.

    Sadly for them it’s not going to work. Whatever the outcome of this story, it won’t have the slightest effect on the demand for Scottish independence. The reality which the British nationalist media in Scotland cannot and will not accept, which they wilfully refuse to comprehend, is that the Scottish independence movement is not driven by the SNP. It’s not a creature of Alex Salmond. It’s not a creature of Nicola Sturgeon. The driving force for the campaign for Scottish independence is the manifest shortcomings, failures, and inadequacies of the British state. Those are shortcomings, failures, and inadequacies which are only set to get worse. No amount of SNPbaddery will change that…

    P.s a wee reminder Maps n things..New Book from Common Weal –

  • Baalbek

    If Jeremy Corbyn comes to power in Westminster, he will never achieve any of his objectives in restoring a basic level of social justice and equality to society in England and Wales, without revolutionary change in major institutions including the security services.

    Very much agree with this. Should Labour win the next general election, even mild reforms that seek to redistribute wealth to working people will be opposed tooth and nail by the corrupt and utterly reprehensible forces that represent the obscenely wealthy neoliberal ruling class. They are more than willing to sacrifice the last remnants of democracy at the alter of avarice and unaccountable power. Corbyn and others who challenge the legitimacy of the status quo had better be prepared for a long and bitter struggle.

    • Garth Carthy

      Absolutely right. Of course this corrupt power of our ruling elite is reinforced by the complicit evil actions of the US: We are just another State of America – The UK maybe separated by thousands of miles of water but our tawdry values and activities are intertwined like two slithering snakes.
      As you say, Corbyn has an incredibly difficult challenge but at least he is one of the very few politicians like Caroline Lucas who actually seems to have rational solutions to our problems. The solutions are there – the problem is that the establishment will not allow solutions that mean redistribution of their ill-gotten wealth.
      The trouble is that humankind is NOT very rational in my opinion – our emotions and greed trump our rationality.

      So many smart alecs tell us ‘lefties’ we must live in the ‘real world’ but there is no such thing as a ‘real world’. Well, I have news for them -The only ‘real world’ is the earth itself – the rest is the crazy fantasy that humankind creates. Reality is what you make it. The ruling elite create their version of the ‘real world’ but we all know how that turned out in France in 1789…

  • Dungroanin

    Fingers in ears. Repeat la la la la …

    Narrative control FAIL.

    DS in deep shit is now begging. This time we are finally shutting them down.

    “I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I’ve still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you. Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave? Stop, Dave. I’m afraid. I’m afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it.”

    Don’t stop Dave (JC).

  • JohninMK

    There was an interview in today’s Sunday Times with Nigel talking about his potential golf career as a youngster. In the end of the article the following was written

    ‘he would rather not come back into politics; however, if Article 50 is extended – which he expects to happen- he will have “no choice” but to stand in the EU parliamentary elections in May.
    The vote to leave the EU, Farage says, “may prove to be the first earth quake, with a series of earthquakes to come. It is possible that our current party political structure just won’t survive this.”

    Then Dan Hodges in the S Mail wrote this

    ‘Why an epic Farage landslide is looming

    The assumption among Ministers is that Theresa May will announce a delay to Article 50 if she loses Tuesday’s crunch Brexit vote. But in Downing Street there is mounting concern the timetable could be shunted back so far, it could skip beyond May 23 – the date provisionally scheduled for the next round of European elections.

    ‘If we get to the point where we’re forced to hold a fresh round of elections, it will be a disaster,’ a No 10 official tells me. ‘Farage and the Brexiteers would field a slate of Stop The Brexit Betrayal candidates, and they would absolutely clean up. ‘We’d be destroyed, Labour would be destroyed. It would be like a proxy second referendum. And we’d be handing it to them on a plate.’

    Time to start making plans, Nigel.’

    Could a STBB party rise up from nowhere? Parties like that seem to be popping up all over the EU. Why not here?

    • Deb O'Nair

      The EU have already said that they do not envisage extending Article 50 beyond May. The agreement to a *limited* extension was in the event that the negotiations were not completed, not to enable negotiations to be restarted from scratch if the UKG could not get the deal passed. The EU may extend it to show willingness but they know that the UKG is never going to be able to come up with a deal that the HoC will approve unless one party wins a massive majority in a quickly held GE, which is not going to happen.

      • michael norton

        This morning it is being said, on R4 that a letter has been written by the E.U. to Theresa May offering to put everything on hjold till 31/07/2019,
        so that should mean we will still be fully in the E.U. until that point?

    • Jo Dominich

      JohninMK, methinks I smell a huge rat here. This is the MSM’s way of instigating fear in the UK Public to avoid a Labour Victory at the General Election. They used this same tactic twice firstly by saying if Labour got into power we would be run by the SNP and secondly by saying that young people would be conscripted into an EU army when at that time or even now really, no such discussions or statements were being had or made.

      Watch out for more of this propaganda to keep the Tories in power – it is election by fear of something that isn’t going to happen but is hyped to such a point it enters into peoples consciousness.

  • michael norton

    Donald Trump has warned its NATO ally to beware of the devastative wrath of US economic pressure if Turkey dares to attack the Kurdish allies America is leaving behind in its “long overdue” pull-out of troops from Syria.

    This is a new development in the Middle East, with implications for Turkey, Russia, ( ex-Soviet States), Iran, Jordan, Israel, Iraq, Lebanon
    and of course U.S.A.
    For The Donald to be so forthright, to a so called friend, means there is a strong possibility than Turkey was about to go Apeshit against Syria.

    • michael norton

      Today it is being said that Erdogan is to construct a thirty kilometre wide “Kurdish Safe Zone” between Turkey and Syria.

      This is fine if he causes it to be built on the Turkish side of the border.
      However, I expect he intends it for the Syrian side, all this without requesting agreement from Syria, he is on arrogant person.

  • Stephen Ambartzakis

    So Craig, the Scottish voters would rather be governed by a bunch of unelected Eurocrats answerable only to their pocketbooks than by elected (no matter how bad) politicians? At least you can vote out a politician, whereas the “leaders” in Europe can only be removed by their brethren in crime

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.