Boris Johnson’s Fake Radicalism 215


We hear much about Johnson coming to power as an iconoclastic figure willing to cut a swathe through the ranks of the Establishment and especially the Civil Service, aided by blue skies thinker Dominic Cummings.

In fact nothing could be further from the truth. There has never been a Prime Minister more entrenched in and deferential to the London Establishment than Boris Johnson.

It may seem strange that Johnson’s very first executive decision on coming in to 10 Downing Street was to cancel the long delayed judicial inquiry into UK involvement in torture and extraordinary rendition. On the face of it, there were political attractions for Johnson in pursuing the issue. The policy of complicity in torture had been established by Tony Blair and Jack Straw, with as ever the active collaboration of Alastair Campbell. A judicial inquiry would hold them to account, and given they are not only New Labour but a leading Remainer posse, you would think Johnson would have pushed forward with the chance to expose them. Plus he likes to pose as something of a social liberal himself. So why was Johnson’s urgent priority to cancel the torture inquiry?

The answer is that scores of very senior civil servants were deeply implicated in British collusion in extraordinary rendition. Those directly guilty of complicity in torture include Sir Richard Dearlove, Sir John Scarlett, Sir William Ehrman, Lord Peter Ricketts and Sir Stephen Wright. It was Johnson’s fellow old Etonian, Sir William Ehrman, who chaired the series of meetings in the FCO on the implementation of the policy of getting intelligence through torture.

I testified on this subject, with documentary evidence, before the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House of Commons in secret session. The Committee’s report commended me because without my evidence that series of meetings, which at Ehrmann’s instruction were held without minutes or record, would never have come to light.

130. This was not unique to the Agencies. Their sponsoring Departments appear to have adopted the same approach. We heard evidence from a former FCO official, Craig Murray, who suggested that “there was a deliberate policy of not committing the discussion on receipt of intelligence through torture to paper in the Foreign Office”.
In July 2004, when he was Ambassador to Tashkent, he raised concerns about the use of Uzbek intelligence derived from torture in a formal exchange of telegrams with the FCO. Mr Murray drew our attention to FCO documents from the same time, which we have seen, one of which referred to “meetings to look at conditions of receipt of intelligence as a general issue”. He told us that the meetings “specifically discuss[ed] the receipt of intelligence under torture from Uzbekistan” and “were absolutely key to the formation of policy on extraordinary rendition and intelligence”.
Mr Murray told us that, when he had given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee about this, they sought the documents from the FCO which replied that the “meetings were informal meetings and were not minuted ”. He went on to say:
“the idea that you have regular meetings convened at director level, convened by the Director of Security and Intelligence, where you are discussing the receipt of intelligence from torture, and you do not minute those meetings is an impossibility, unless an actual decision or instruction not to minute the meetings has been given.… Were it not for me and my bloody-mindedness, … you would never know those meetings had happened. Nobody would ever know those meetings had happened.”

131. We note that we have not seen the minutes of these meetings either: this causes us great concern. Policy discussions on such an important issue should have been minuted. We support Mr Murray’s own conclusion that were it not for his actions these matters may never have come to light.

It was not concern for Blair and Straw that led Johnson to cancel the judge led inquiry. It was the knowledge that Establishment insiders like Dearlove, Ehrman and Ricketts would be forced to give public evidence of their wrongdoing and could be liable to criminal proceedings. The judicial inquiry was promised by Cameron but both Cameron and May blenched at the shockwaves it would send through the ranks of the mandarins who run the country. Johnson has now used the opportunity of his advent, when nobody was paying much attention to anything but Brexit, to try to bury the subject completely and protect the Establishment.

It is essential to the health of our society that the full and shameful truth of this disgraceful episode is told and the guilty are held to account. I hope that once this unconstitutional Johnson regime – which has no majority in the House of Commons for its major policy and was appointed by an abuse of monarchical authority – has fallen, the subject will be brought back both by a Corbyn government at Westminster and in Holyrood by the government of Independent Scotland.

I got sacked for opposing torture and extraordinary rendition. Of those that supported it and abetted it, Lord Peter Ricketts is now Strategic Adviser to Lockheed Martin, so reaping the cash from his role in promoting wars that killed millions of innocents. Sir Stephen Wright is Senior Adviser to Mitsui & Co. Sir John Scarlett is a senior executive for Rupert Murdoch. Sir Richard Dearlove is Chair of the Board of Trustees of the University of London and a member of the far right Henry Jackson Society, among other things.

The wages of sin appear not bad at all. As the only civil servant to have entered at the time a written protest against UK complicity in torture, I remain unemployable.

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments will be closed on August 25, 2019.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

215 thoughts on “Boris Johnson’s Fake Radicalism

1 2
  • Dave

    The psychological puzzle (the ancestral madness) highlighted by rendition, and this was the Bolshevik practice in the old Soviet Union, the torturers would insist on getting a confession from the victim for their ‘crimes’!

    That is the guilty would insist on inflicting torture on the innocent to get a guilty plea, before killing them or sending them off to Siberia.

    But why, other than as a method to get dispensation for their crimes, with a legal confession that absolves the torturers guilt with a legal confession. In other words its serves the same ancestral madness used by the Zionists that allows the guilty to cast themselves as victims.

    This is highlighted by rendition, because none of those tortured have any information to provide about 9/11, (see Craig’s 9/11 thread), but are repeatedly tortured for information already known to the torturers who were responsible for that attack.

    And yet the torture/rendition programme went on as if to give credence to the ‘war on terror’, and yet officially they want to deny it was happening, despite the clear public evidence it was illustrated by the pointless torture of peasants kidnapped from Afghanistan at Guantanamo Bay.

    • giyane

      Dave

      You are asking why the torture was done. The answer to that question is so unacceptable that it cannot be addressed at all. The answer is that the purpose of the torture was not to extract information but to change the personality of the person who was being tortured. USUKIS was able to manufacture psychopaths after chemically attacking their brains. This takes us back to the fascist era where Mengele conducted brain-washing techniques under Hitler.

      The idea that our side, the civilised , liberal west could possibly be so evil as to manufacture psychopathis violence in its cultural and religious opponents is not cool. In general our minds are unable to stretch their limited imaginations into the political machinations of the neo-cons. The bible-bashing zionists fear Islam because Christianity and Judaism have been satisfactorily bent to permit most of what was originally forbidden. The idea that the zionists would go so far as to manufacture a race of Muslim savages in order to prove their religion’s superiority is beyond the pale.

      All I can say therefore is that if our ancestors knew that one day our leaders would impose universal 24/7 spying on its own community they would say they were control freaks , mad and should be prevented at all costs. The neo-cons claim that the public do not mind 24/7 spying. I’m sure they would also claim that they had no part in the savagery of Syria and Libya, not to menbtion the daily savagery of the Taliban in Afghanistan. So long as they control the savages , and the savages are savaging Muslims , not us, 99 per cent of Westerners will turn a blind eye to USUKIS neo-con crimes.

      • giyane

        BBC radio 4 last week serialised a gruesome story immediately after the 10 p.m. News. Set in the 18th or 18th century a wealthy person imprisons his mistress’s husband in his basement and drops a listening tube down to record his rants. I presume the purpose of broadcasting all this gruesomeness at such a prominent time was to normalise the disgusting idea of spying on human weakness by composing a story of spying set in the Victorian age.

        The Ottoman caliphate was rife with spying and thus continues to this day in the spying paradise of mobile phones in political Islam. But so far as I know the English have never incorporated spying into domestic life before, except in Gothic novels. The BBC is always ready to rewrite history in order to make the current state of degradation look normal.

        A Tory MP on Any Questions last night even dared tro use the phrase ‘ social contract ‘ . which normally refers to the limits of decency with which government treats its citizens to describe the scenario of the Brexit referendum being reversed. Aunty sure knows how to pull your plonker on the jolly old british air waves. In my mind the social contract involves caring for the disabled and elderly, but the Modern Tory female MP changed that to the necessity of No Deal.

        Smell that Hovis . Takes me straight back to the good old Thatcher years.
        To be honest I was searching my mind for the word radical the other day, as I’d forgotten that Thatcher slogan for government cruelty. Thanks for jogging my memory Craig. We must be heading for another 17 years of Blair.

      • Republicofscotland

        “The idea that the zionists would go so far as to manufacture a race of Muslim savages in order to prove their religion’s superiority is beyond the pale.

        You have a point there, what about Saudi brainwashing Wahhabism, isn’t that Islamic religious superiority beyond the pale as you say?

        • Dave

          It works like this. House of Saud are an extended family, clan, tribe, who control a very large oil well and they maintain control of the oil well by declaring themselves “defenders of the faith”!

          But their particular brand of the faith is deliberately extreme to ensure no one can actually meet the standard which enables House of Saud to declare anyone who threatens their control of the oil well to be arrested as a heretic.

          But as with Marxism some are more equal than others and House of Saud don’t arrest themselves despite their heresy of visiting the flesh spots of Europe, promoting terrorist groups to kill fellow Muslims (who threaten the oil well) and spending $billions on WMDs contrary to Islamic teaching.

      • Deb O'Nair

        Adam Curtis has documented the US/UK control and creation of fanatical Islamic terror groups during the last 100 years to achieve it’s geopolitical goals, the evidence is everywhere. The other-side of the same coin is the creation and support of the state of Israel and coercing the Christian religion into supporting it, and using Judaism (specifically through the US/UK ‘s stated support of the persecuted European Jews post WW2) as a shield against criticism of it’s geopolitical agenda in the region, which had existed decades before the emergence of antisemitic fascism in Europe. The roots of the creation of Israel and the support of the Masonic ideology known as Zionism are to be found in the clubs, societies and fraternities of the US/UK mid-19th century.

    • .Peter

      The psychological puzzle (the ancestral madness) highlighted by rendition, and this was the Bolshevik practice in the old Soviet Union, the torturers would insist on getting a confession from the victim for their ‘crimes’!

      Interesting that most of the torturers were like most of the leading staff in Bolshevik Russia Jews, and it is also interesting to note there exists no law as of today in Israel regarding torture.

      “Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka,” wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, “stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator.”20 In Ukraine, “Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents,” reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history.21 (Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka) the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.
      https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

    • lysias

      It was necessary to use torture to extract from detainees false confessions that supported the U.S. government’s story about 9/11. Supporting evidence was otherwise unavailable, because the story was false.

    • Shatnersrug

      Dave

      This attempt that you continually pursue to blame everything on ‘Marxism’ a term you clearly have very little knowledge of really saddens me. Why because you and I and most of the people here want pretty much the same things to be happy to enjoy life to have a safe world for the next generation and to see prosperity for all.

      That is what Karl Marx writes of, his early communist manifesto showed a man young with fight in him, who sought to overthrow the existing system with power and solidarity, in his later years he re-evaluated this position and saw that violence merely begets more. His huge study of Capitalism is possibly the most insightful and brilliant works of the 19th century. And at its heart? And indeed the heart of the communist manifesto? A better life for everyone peace prosperity and hope.

      The concept of “cultural Marxism” which is what I suspect you really mean is a term invented by right wing propagandists to slur left wing intellectuals. The idea that Marxists are secretly trying to stealthily corrupt the public into becoming homosexual perverts and child molesters who want to fill the country with immigrants and render the indigenous population paupers. This I absolutely assure you has absolutely nothing in common with Marxism of any type. In fact when you look at it on paper it smacked of a certain type of elite liberalism found on the right of the Labour Party, all of the Liberal Party and large swaths of the centre of the Conservative party

      So when you look at it like that, you might start to realise that blaming Marx, Marxism, and Marxist might be part of a huge misdirection campaign by the establishment to encourage you to place your anger of their misdeeds on some phantom “cultural Marxists”

      • Dave

        There is “Marxism” as a theory and there is the practice. The practice was heavily influenced by the success of the Bolshevik communists in Russia who called themselves Socialists and this admittedly confuses the whole discussion about Marxism and Socialism, which to me are distinct creeds.

        However the “Marxist” theory (not to be confused with popular Socialism) is not to be confused with the practice which is determined by those promoting the creed who deploy double-speak, as explained by George Orwell.

        This practice is also shared by the modern Trotskyites, the neo-con-servatives aka old communists and is due to a shared ethnicity, not shared by “Marxist” Mike Hume who promotes free-speech rather than double-speak.

      • Dave Lawton

        Shatnersrug
        August 4, 2019 at 14:3

        http://internationaltimes.it/karl-marx-was-a-snob/

        Karl Marx was a snob.
        He’d describe the proletariat
        As a “sack of potatoes”.
         He himself lived
        In the West End
        Off the proceeds of gambling
        On the London stock market.
         Marx was funded by Friedrich Engels,
        His foxhunting friend,
        Whose family firm in Manchester
        Made money from child labour.

        • Ken Kenn

          And I bet you’ve just typed that on your Chinese ( sweatshop ) manufactured laptop.

          Capitalism is a dirty and inculcating business – isn’t it?

          I’m going to Wallmart tomorrow.

          I feel grubby already.

    • Antonym

      Torture? I you indulge in it – because you your emotional being is so numbed off that you need extreme stimulus – your count for (Mid) evil in my book. You are an uncontrolled missile, dangerous to all around you.
      Whether in WW I, II or III. You are on the wrong side if you go for that, joining Himmler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, G.W. Bush, Blair etc.
      Any possible info will be potentially compromised too, so unreliable.

  • Brian c

    Dominic Cummings is just the latest rightwing figure to be hyped to the max as an ‘iconoclastic blue skies thinker’, formidable strategic genius, etc .His recent forebears include Lynton Crosby, Nick Timothy and Philip Blond, the brains trust behind the Tories losing their parlianwntary majority and Steve Bannon, who now wanders the earth unmoored affecting to be a key influencer on the course of history. When Cummings follows them into ignominy the media will already have fixed on the next one.

  • Spencer Eagle

    I’ve always puzzled over how they got into the position of rendition and torture in the first place. After all, it’s been long known that torture is a very unreliable vehicle for worthwhile or accurate intelligence. You have to wonder whether it was a case of too many movies watched and videos played by those on the ground and or a total loss of control by the management?

    Torture: Unreliable and Inestimably Costly https://www.justsecurity.org/18207/torture-unreliable-inestimably-costly/

    Jesse Ventura: You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour…….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoqmH49VBC0

    • glenn_nl

      It does get you the answers you want, though. “Water-boarding” was used in communist China under Mao to get the sort of confessions a regime like that needed, and was specifically intended for extracting a confession regardless of its veracity.

      The same is true for corrupt, hideous regimes who want to produce “intelligence” that says Al-Qaeda is an immediate thread, emanating from some country that we would like to invade, and the only way we can possibly save ourselves is to attack and crush the enemy.

      • Republicofscotland

        “does get you the answers you want, ”

        Only if the person/people you waterboard actually know anything.

        The Spanish used it at their Inquisition, as did the Dutch on their English prisoners.

        • glenn_nl

          It ONLY works if the person knows something?

          I wonder how so many people KNEW that Saddam Hussein had links to AQ, and confessed it under such torture in that case. Don’t be such a sap, RoS – you tell people what they’re supposed to confess to, and they will do so.

          Thus you get the answers you want, which is precisely what I said.

          Has your logic been waterboarded, by any chance? (It’s certainly rather tortured, since points to you apparently need to be spelled out rather clearly.)

          • Republicofscotland

            “you tell people what they’re supposed to confess to, and they will do so.”

            I’d say that only works if you know the intel to be solid beforehand. If however you don’t (The known unknowns, and the unknown unknows uttered by Rumsfeld) then what?

            People under great duress will say anything and everthing to make it stop, wouldnt you?

          • glenn_nl

            If “you know the intel to be solid beforehand”, then you have proof – which doesn’t require a confession extracted under torture in order to convict. And you don’t need any information from torture, if you know the veracity of the point extracted beforehand anyway.

            It’s hard to see what point you’re actually arguing against here. Did someone say – did you believe that I said – that torture works or is worthwhile or something? What the heck are you on about here?

            RoS: “People under great duress will say anything and everthing to make it stop, wouldnt you?

            Jeez, RoS – you truly are possessed of mighty insight. Absolutely astounding. You read a LOT of books, right?

            (Actually, I’m kidding of course. You felt obliged to chime in with an asinine “Only if the person/people you waterboard actually know anything”, and have been making even less sense ever since.)

          • Republicofscotland

            “Did someone say – did you believe that I said – that torture works or is worthwhile or something? What the heck are you on about here?”

            You said Glenn, “It does get you the answers you want.”

            I pointed out, only if the person or people know what you want to find out. You added that by torturing/ waterboarding them you can put the words into their mouths that you want, effectively torturing/waterboarding a confession out of them, fair enough.

            I added that’s all fine and well if you know the information you want them to confess to, but if you dont know, and are hoping they tell you, even if they dont know, they’ll tell you anything you want to hear (making it fairly unreliable) to make the torture/waterboarding stop, which Spencer Eagle alluded to via his link.

          • glenn_nl

            RoS: Surely it’s completely obvious that “by the answer you want”, I was talking about admitting to whatever the torturer wants to hear? Why the need to jump in with a non-point like that? The whole subject was about obtaining false confessions!

            It’s a shame – I broadly agree with your political outlook, and feel your heart is in the right place, but – jeez – these conversations are hideously laboured by your insistence on stepping in with entirely redundant objections or qualifiers as if that had added anything at all, as with this sub-thread. Not to mention your interminable wiki/google’d contributions.

    • Dungroanin

      Torture is not about information.

      It is about punishment – from ancient water torture, death by a thousand cuts… hanging and drawing… to the daily bbc output!

      It is about terror of torture for the wide population so they always avert their eyes and never speak ill of their ‘betters’.

      Torture is therefore ineffective if it isn’t well publicised.

      • John2o2o

        Dungroanin’, if I was having my fingernails extracted with a pair of pliers then I might just confess … irrespective of whether anyone else knew about it.

        Torture is ineffective because those subject to it will often tell the torturer what they want to hear in order to get them to stop. And what the torturer wants to hear and the truth may be two entirely different things.

        And excruciating though the BBC output is, you can at least avoid it.

        • Dungroanin

          Lol – yes i have been ducking the beeb drip drip for about two years now – after a few weeks it was like having a restoration of 20-20 vision.

          Infact dumping the TV licence has led to a removal of a whole front of the full spectrum attack and raised my daily appreciation of events and entertainment and society.

          As for the torture your example of pulling finger nails backs my conjecture – it is not about getting information.

          Most people are not liars. Some are trained to lie. Some are born psychopaths. They make the best henchmen and torturers.
          (Funnily surgeons have similar traits!)

  • M.J.

    “I want [criminals] to literally feel terror at the thought of committing offences” – Home Secretary Priti Patel.
    I wonder if that will include complicity in torture? I suppose not. Drug addicts and asylum sekers are much more pickable fruit, are they not?

    • Republicofscotland

      “I wonder if that will include complicity in torture?”

      I doubt that very much, in any case I recall reading that the British state players don’t actualy torture anyone (Believe that if you like) they just merely have access to the data obtained through torture by other state actors.

      This way they feel they have no complicity in the outcomes. Though that’s not always the case.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46978271

    • nevermind

      Would that be those criminals who, under the disguise of being an unfairly elected(FPTP) representative, propose, after coming out of secret meetings in a foreign country, to use UK taxpayers monies to support and develop the armed corces of this foreign entetity?
      Surely she is speaking about herself, a very dangerous woman, imho. As ambitious and obsessed with power as Alexander Johnson.
      And thank you very much Craig, for your watchful eye, this kind of exonerating bad news merely gets a blip of acknowledgement and no scrutiny from anyone in the rotten media.

    • Bramble

      M.J., it says rather more about Priti Patel than she would like to have revealed (and says the same thing about those who feel like her, who are many I fear). It says she enjoys the thought of terrorising people. She wants them to feel terror. It satisfies some deep need to display power over others that lurks inside her. And she shares this twist of human nature with the torturer. The point of torture is not just to show power over the “enemy”, it is to take revenge on him or her in the name of “us”. And to indulge in the joy of doing so. There are people out there who enjoy hurting others; probably far more people than we are prepared to admit.

  • Deepgreenpuddock

    One can get the measure of the Doris Johnson government by the comments coming from its members. Most notable of these is Pritti Patel’s comments regarding wanting to make criminals feel terror. This is tantamount to saying she wants to torture people.My main fear is that she is too stupid to see how absurd and indefensible her attitudes and comments are
    She also made the truly most feeble-minded defence of a return of capital punishment on ‘Question Time’ where Ian Hislop(to his credit) reduced her, and revealed her as a raving right wing fuckwit.
    https://www.indy100.com/article/priti-patel-death-penalty-ian-hislop-question-time-video-home-secretary-9020006

    • Deb O'Nair

      Priti Patel’s appointment is a sad indictment, and the physical embodiment, of the dysfunctional and dystopian nightmare that the UK now labours under. It is beyond comprehension that a person who was kicked out of the previous cabinet for acting as an agent for a foreign nation (she tried to alter government policy to advance the interests of said nation) has now been put in charge of national security and law and order.

    • Deb O'Nair

      Priti Patel has said that she want’s the police to take a firmer line against cannabis use, while the media are full of stories about cocaine use doubling in the last five years. Street cocaine has also significantly increased in purity.

      This is a ridiculous position; non-toxic, non-addictive, environmentally friendly cannabis use is being decriminalised and legalised around the world, and three MPs recently visited Canada to see the impact of legalisation and have stated that the UK should do the same within 5 years. Compare this to London being Europe’s largest cocaine market and a global centre for cocaine money laundering. Cocaine is a highly addictive and toxic pharmaceutical, the production of which cause massive environmental damage to pristine rain forests in South America and is controlled by murderous gangs.

      Could this be because cannabis is used widely within the BAME communities, i.e. by Muslims (because alcohol is forbidden) and people from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds, whereas cocaine is the drug of choice for corporate media journalists, Tory leadership contenders and white Tory voters?

  • ReM

    Boris Johnson “likes to pose as something of a social liberal himself.” I am still not sure whether his radicalism is fake or opportunistic. He doesn’t have the psychological make-up of an authoritarian nutter, but, of course, I may be wrong. He may have made a pact with the devil until he sees himself safely across the Brexit bridge, little knowing that such pacts usually last for ever.

  • David Otness

    From Alaska, I follow your writings with rapt attention as what you disclose ties so many disparate world events together while outing the miscreants and their accomplices worldwide.
    I’m so glad you remain a thorn in their sides and continue to puncture their self-important and self-serving plans for themselves and theirs.

  • james

    kudos to craig murrary for being a guiding force for something better then what boris and others with political power typically exemplify..

      • michael norton

        Most people think that most Members of Parliament are in it for themselves.
        If you become a turncoat Member of Parliament and show contempt for your Brexit leaning constituency, when the next General Election comes, you will be history, so what is it that drives their lunacy of turncoating?

        • Republicofscotland

          “so what is it that drives their lunacy of turncoating?”

          On this occasion it sounds like having a conscience is the answer. Obviously the MP realises the damage that Brexit will do regardless of his constituents voting positions.

          Is he taking the moral high ground? Or is he jumping ship pre-Brexit before the shit hits the fan?

          I can’t see much of a difference between the Tories and the LibDems, other than the latter is openly remain.

          • Dave

            Money compromises morals depending on how much you have or need. Guessing, but I’m sure there is now a redundancy payment if you stand and lose at a General Election. but not at a by-election of your own making.

        • Tatyana

          In my opinion, elected positions should be occupied by ‘representatives’, not ‘leaders’ or ‘influencers’. If a person is elected, so he should act as a hired employee in the interests of the employer. And not as a freelancer bringing their own creative ideas – for this please have other platforms.
          The population of a country is engaged in the real economy and filling the budget, that’s why representatives exist at all, because the population does not have free time for this important activity.
          Division of labour.

          • michael norton

            Thankyou Dave and Tatyana.
            Dr.Lee is my Member of Parliament, he is a disgrace, he is completely arrogant, thinking that his priorities outweigh those of his stupid constituents. He is not wanted by us, we have told him to go but he will not go
            because he knows best. He is not interested in Democracy, he will be well suited in the Liberal Democrats, they have no time for Democracy, either, he can sit next to Ummuna.

          • glenn_nl

            T: “[…] he should act as a hired employee in the interests of the employer.”

            I agree – with the proviso that those interests should be acted upon, whether the constituents all believe it or not.

            Otherwise, we would have mob rule – bring back hanging, flogging, and probably bear-baiting since that was so popular too. And let the constituents be informed by malicious lies peddled by racists, bigots and rich individuals who buy their ink in barrels (or buy troll-farms for that matter), then the MP is forced to act according to _that_ influence.

            Right?

          • Republicofscotland

            “If a person is elected, so he should act as a hired employee in the interests of the employer.”

            Even if the employers ideology is contrary to the good of the people?

            You see that kind of thinking especially at Westminster is why the UK, is in the state its in. Transferring that mantra to global corporations, is why the world’s in the state its in.

          • Tatyana

            I’m not sure I understand your point well, glenn_nl.
            I advocate that representatives represent their community correctly, they must be an honest reflection of their electorate. I believe that only in this case real compromises and agreements are possible.
            If leaders or influencers are empowered to make decisions on behalf of their constituents, you will inevitably find the population protesting against the decisions. And you will be a long time to go through the processes and long to understand why such a good solution is not widely supported by the population.
            To the question of leaders and influencers – education is a very different issue than chosing a representative, general level of education needs to be completed before an individual gets the right to vote.

          • Tatyana

            ROS, actually, I meant “employer” is a voter.
            I noticed one interesting thing, maybe it’s just a coincidence, but it catches my eye. There is a curious prejudice that the population is made of stupid/cruel/uneducated people who should be governed by some special “chosen” ones.
            Don’t you communicate with your compatriots at all?

          • glenn_nl

            Hello Tatyana:

            What I mean is people don’t always vote in their own interests, as has been demonstrated by just about every election for the last century. What people may think is their own interest is often actually the interests of the wealthy, and not of ordinary people at all. The popular press in particular promotes the far-right who represent the interests of the investor class. Foreign governments represent their own interests.

            Of course, all this propaganda is dressed up as populism, with a bit of xenophobia and general bigotry thrown in.

            Say the John Birch Society actually manages to persuade people that treating drinking water with chlorine and fluoride is a communist plot, and enough people believe this nonsense. Should water be left untreated? After all, the MP should do what the voters say, right?

            Should an MP accept every whim of the majority, no matter how under-informed or mal-informed those constituents might be? Perhaps no MP should be blamed for having voted to go to war with Iraq for no good reason, just because the press had whipped up enough jingoism to make it a broadly popular move.

            Should the anti-war protestors be condemned for being undemocratic, as the Brexiteers claim the Remainers to be?

            So with respect, I don’t think it’s anything like as simple as your blanket statement that an MP is bound to carry out the electorate’s wishes regardless.

          • Republicofscotland

            Okay Tatyana, in that case, I agree.

            “There is a curious prejudice that the population is made of stupid/cruel/uneducated people who should be governed by some special “chosen” ones.”

            On the contrary, I think people may be uninformed, (You can add a lack of interest in politics to that) you just have to look at the media bias to see who’s agenda is being pushed. However there are others that are as you say, are predujice.

            “Don’t you communicate with your compatriots at all?”

            Who might they be Tatyana?

          • Tatyana

            yeah, actually. If the population is uneducated, then the representatives should be honestly the same. Then the whole society has a good opportunity to see all its weaknesses and catch up to the level.
            It is a bad practice to pretend that the entire population is as well informed as the elected representatives. You could easily see this in the Soviet Union, where only elected party members had all the information and made decisions, and ordinary members of society were forced to blindly submit to the authority.
            It takes some effort to get true factual information, so why adding to the difficulties by hypocrite ‘representatives’?

            “Who might they be” you ask, RoS. Well, your compatriots, no? I daily communicate with a lot of people in shops, in post-offices, in the streets, babushkas on the bench near my house provide me with precious info about their politic views 🙂 recently I even had a talk with the delivery man, we jumped into discussing politics in a couple of sentences! We have long talks with my friends and relatives. So I don’t understand why are you asking, sorry.

          • lysias

            The force behind water fluoridation in the U.S. was not Communists but the military-industrial complex. The production of nuclear weapons also produces fluorine as a byproduct, and it has to be put somewhere. Plus, health authorities have ignored the evidence that fluorine is a health hazard.

          • glenn_nl

            Jesus H Christ, lysias.

            Fluoride needed to be disposed of, so the military has been just dumping it in the water supply, all around the world. For generations. Uh-huh.

            Good thing _all_ the health authorities are committed to keeping this on-going disaster to human health secret, pretty much worldwide. No doubt the dental industry is in on it too.

            You have several advanced degrees at the most prestigious institutions, not to mention extensive military intelligence insights as a result of your fascinating career, if we’re to take your word on your pronouncements here over the years – right?

            To be fair, they are appreciated. These past claims of yours certainly help make it easier to evaluate how seriously to take this latest one concerning fluoride.

          • Republicofscotland

            Second point first Tatyana, you mean family, friends neighbours etc by compatriots. Well Scotland has been alive with political discourse for years, never more so than from 2012 onwards in the build up to the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

            At this moment in time Scotland is divided politicaly on the independence issue, though it beginning to shift towards leaving the union, even more so over Brexit and Johnson as PM.

            You see Tatyana because Russia isn’t in union of over 300 years with another larger nations which controls the media, and ergo sways the attitudes of some Scots around 50% or so, it can be difficult to mention politics to those who dont see your point of view, let alone persuading them to jump ship.

            However I do have conversations with those who support an independent Scotland, including family and friends, and even mild tempered no supporters sometimes talk on the subject.

            First point, uneducated on politics, can quite easily be not interested in politics. For those who have had it shoved down their throats especially with Brexit over the last three years. The whole things a three ringed circus, at Westminster anyway.

            Its is folly to believe that politicians will carry out the will of the people to the letter, human nature is in most flawed. However I agree that politicians should work hard for their voters and constituents, but they’ll always be those who put self interests first.

          • Justin Hustwitt

            Wowsers! Your English is extraordinarily more fluent than the last time I peeked and poked around on here. This blogging malarkey is working wonders for your written English, I’m impressed!

            There is utility in the apparent futility, after all!

          • Justin Hustwitt

            (That comment a compliment to Tatyana, specifically her contribution at 23:00 Aug 3)

          • Ascot2

            This to glenn_nl to answer his misconceptions about the practice of public water fluoridation.
            It’s not the military pushing for adding fluoride but rather big agriculture. The byproduct of the processing potash to create fertilizer creates Hydrofluorosicilic Aacid (HFSA) which costs thousands to dispose of. But, since HFSA contains fluoride ( not to mention nasty stuff like arsenic ), municipalities buy it from the agriculture companies and put it in their public water. Needless to say agriculture companies are big financial supporters of dental schools and professional organizations.
            The supposed beneficial effect that fluoride is that it hardens tooth enamel, and thus cuts down on cavities, but this only comes from fluoride’s topical application on the a tooth’s surface. Putting toxic waste into public water, especially when there is good evidence that there are harmful side effects, is a spectacularly stupid way of treating a health issue.

            Fluoride in toothpaste is natural fluoride, and since it is applied topically, it provides all the protection needed.

            Fortunately only a handful of countries still add fluoride to their water. Needless to say, the overall number of cavities in their people’s teeth is no better than the majority of the rest of the world, where officials recommend good dental hygiene ( and sometimes even an occasional fluoride mouthwash ).

          • lysias

            There’s a book on the subject of fluoridation, “The Fluorine Deception,” by Christopher Bryson.

          • glenn_nl

            @Ascot2: Just let me make sure I’ve got this straight.

            Hydrofluorosicilic Acid (HFSA) is an unwanted by-product, and costs an awful lot of money to dispose of – because it’s so dangerous, right? Couldn’t just bury it, or pour it down a mine-shaft, that would be insane! It might leak out somewhere and harm people.

            But municipalities solve this by _purchasing_ it, and dumping it into the water supply. Because nobody will ever notice it there, and that’s the most subtle way possible of disposing of toxic waste after all.

            I sincerely hope you realise just how silly that would be.

            *
            Maybe this utter crap is just a distraction? I was having a nice chat with Tatyana, for instance, before you & Lysias stepped over it with this nonsense. Perhaps the John Birch Society had similar intentions, with their BS along the same lines as your own?

          • lysias

            It’s possible to learn the gist of Bryson’s book from reading Amazon’s page on the book. Title: “The Fluoride Deception”. And yes, his book connects the Manhattan Project with the institution of fluoridation of public water. The book is largely based on documents of the Manhattan Project to which he was the first to get access.

        • nevermind

          It is political ineptness that drives them. Following a new fresh yellow tory, does not mean the grave mistake of not resigning the coalition over the wretched referendum, will be forgotten. The Lib Dems had the chance to stop the referendum in its infancy and failed.

          Apart from that Mrs. SWINSON HAS VOTED FOR EVERY TORY REPRESIVE MEASURE proposed.

      • Vivian O'Blivion

        I wonder if Jo Swinson made the 7 hour drive from her “Bearsden home” to appear at the 09:00 victory rally for the cameras in Brecon? That’s dedication for you.
        Perhaps she made the 2 hour trek from her Chippenham home?
        The point being that when asked whether she lived in her East Dumbartonshire constituency, she relied; “I have a house in Brearden”.
        Why the disingenuous reply? There is a perfectly reasonable alternative; “My husband is the MP for Chippenham, we have a very young child, we need to maximise our time together so we elected to live in Chippenham”. No one in East Dumbartonshire could take exception to that reply, but Swinson like Trump automatically reaches for an unnecessary lie when the truth would suffice. That tells you a lot about character.

        • Sharp Ears

          I missed that her husband is Duncan Hames, MP for Chippenham, as you say. It’s a miracle that they were able to get together to have their child. He is Director of Policy at Transparency International and previously was Clegg’s PPS from 2012 to 2015.

          Hames must be faimiliar with Clegg taking the whip away from Jenny Tonge for her criticism of Israel in 2012 and further and her support for the Palestinians using the smears that Corbyn and members of the Labour party are experiencing currently.

          ‘Critical of Israel and vocal in support of the Palestinian cause, controversial acts and comments led to accusations of antisemitism and to her eventual suspension from the Liberal Democrats group in the Lords in 2012, then her suspension and resignation from the party itself in October 2016. She has sat as an independent in the Lords since 2012.’

          That quote is from a Guardian piece, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/27/jenny-tonge-quits-lib-dems-after-suspension-for-alleged-antisemitic-comments by Harriet Sherwood, latterly their correspondent in Jerusalem, and incidentally the author of a piece in the Observer today on the same theme.

          So much for the distortion on Wikipedia there. Jenny Tonge did not make any anti-semitic remarks. It was a member of the audience at a meeting which she hosted. From the same Guardian piece.

          ‘Thursday’s move came after Tonge hosted a meeting at the House of Lords this week at which Israel was reportedly compared to terror group Islamic State and Jews were blamed for the Holocaust. The remarks were made by an attendee at the meeting, which was organised by the Palestinian Return Centre, which live-streamed the event on its Facebook page. (In a subsequent statement, the Palestinian Return Centre said it did not tolerate any form of antisemitism or Holocaust denial statements.)’

          Similarly David Ward also had the whip withdrawn in 2013. He was the MP for Bradford East and lost to Labour in 2015.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ward_(British_politician)

          .

      • giyane

        What a self-contained couple . like a sausage made from pink-dyed fat in a MI6 roll of flaky pastry.
        The only person Johnson has ever backed is Tory groupies on whom he grazes regularly to anchor his ambition to the reality of politics. His is a pure fantasy world in which The EU is going to agree to remove the backstop and the commons is going to back May’s deal.

      • michael norton

        Tom, in the recent by-election of Brecon and Radnorshire, the same expense fiddling Tory M.P. was put to the voters, who had just been de-selected by the voters, consequently, the Tories lost the seat to the LibDem candidate.
        So, if as you suggest Dr. Lee was attempting to threaten Boris into backing him against de-selection, recent history would show that the constituents
        would not buy it.

  • Alf Baird

    I know the feeling Craig, quite a number of academics have lost posts since 2014 due to our support for independence. Scotland remains stuffed full of unionist led institutions, which the SNP Scottish Government has done nothing to change, e.g. Lord Smith’s appointment as Chair of Scottish Enterprise being the most recent example.

    • Rob Royston

      Indeed Alf, it’s as if they have had any thoughts of a new, free Scotland removed from their brains. I was very impressed with your work on the plans for a Scapa Container Transhipment hub but it seemed that the SE’s hold on our imports and exports was their priority.
      I always saw the Peel Ports, Hunterston plans as a diversion to what was really required. Then we had Gordon Brown supporting the Arab money trenching of the Thames and the development of twin screw ships of shallower draft to get into these man made waterways. Anything, at any cost, to keep the status quo.

  • Hatuey

    Giyane: “the purpose of the torture was not to extract information but to change the personality of the person who was being tortured…”

    You make a few interesting observations in the comment the above quote has been taken from, Giyane, and it’s good to see you back, but this is wrong.

    The purpose of rendition and torture is neither to extract information or change personalities. If those things happen, they’re bonuses.

    Rendition and torture are clearly forms of terrorism, in essence, psychological warfare. The prospect of having a bag put over your head and being spirited away (Kamikakushi) to be tortured and ultimately thrown into Guantanamo has, we can imagine, massive value in terms of population control.

    In the early days of empire, the British often cut heads off and displayed them on sticks where villagers would see them. US backed death squads did stuff like that in Central America quite recently too. Rendition/torture, it is the same sort of thing.

    If you scare the life out of people they tend to be more passive and cooperative. That’s one of the fundamental keystones of western civilisation and the historical basis upon which western dominance has rested for the last 500 years. It’s actually just about the only thing we have brought to humanity’s table that comes close to original, and it’s definitely something we are good at.

    Most of our science, technology, and even medicine derives from this underlying terrorism and tendency towards violence too. It’s basically all we have.

  • David

    but at least the Sunday/Daily Telegraph does name names in the story about the darker side of the establishment. Prince Andrew. And they print one of the pictures.

    Buckingham Palace has categorically denied any misconduct on the part of Prince Andrew, who was pictured with Virginia Giuffre, then Virginia Roberts, and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2001

    Though of course they start the article with a the Donald and Jeff & Ghislaine pic. Subtle.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/03/celebrities-royals-politicians-brace-court-orders-release-explosive/

  • George

    Well – we’ve been subjected to the “Conservatism is the new Radicalism” meme for some time now. But isn’t it an old device to present some wild upstart who will “stand up for the people” and “speak truth to power” but who turns out to be a manufactured tool of that very power? Still – I never thought I’d see the day when Boris Johnson was portrayed as a rock ‘n roll rebel.

    • Bramble

      Punk rebel. According to John Harris, anyway, that lugubrious, Jeremy Corbyn-hating, traveller who ventures into the darkest working class areas of the country to bring back the “voice of the People” that it may be heard in the Guardian.

      • George

        Thanks for alerting me to the penetrating excavations of John Harris. I assume the following article is representative?

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/14/labour-positive-change-faction-fighting-antisemitism-brexit

        Apparently the “shambling monster” that Corbyn has turned Labour into longs for a “political restorationism lately manifested in nostalgia for the Tony Blair years” (?!) Ah but all is not lost for it seems that honest down-to-earth folks are seeing some downright sinister “closed-off strand whose roots go back into the mists of the British left’s past” which shows an ominous “affinity with the old Soviet Union that is now manifested in sympathy with Vladimir Putin” and “a supposed anti-imperialism that doesn’t only criticise US foreign policy and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, but sees those things as unsurpassable evils.” – this latter resulting in a “tendency of some anti-imperialists to associate with or endorse anti-Semites”.

        Clearly there’s no point in dredging through all this hackery but here are the signals: “… a tangle of conspiracy theory …. far-left veterans ….doctrinaire British communism … fringe ideas that only speak to a tiny minority of people … all this weird stuff…”

        But all is not lost. Just as “last week’s Panorama about Labour and antisemitism aired” John was “in the basement of the HQ of the trade union Unite” speaking with an assorted crowd of deeply concerned people “about the modern working-class experience in London” and “developing the central idea of the drastic redistribution of power into exciting, trailblazing work”.

        John is concerned that “the political right will do its utmost to snuff out whatever residues of collectivism and solidarity we have left”. I wonder what “we” he is thinking of?

  • Dungroanin

    For anyone interested in what the Brecon voters decisions implies, I got bored watching the cricketing supremacy of the Aussies, so did a bit of analysis. Bear with me mods it does have a passing relevance to the main article.

    Looking at the last 3 elections in in 4 years in the Brecon seat is a lot more informative than the pollsters.

    Turnout – 2015,17,19 respectively
    40k(73.8%), 41.3k(76.9%), 31.8k(60%) -all notable for being high, well done these voters.

    Comparing the various years and looking at absolute numbers (some rounding)

    1. 2017 to 2015
    1.3 k increased turnout.

    Tories gained 3.5k
    Libdems gained 0.7k
    Lab gained 1.4k
    = 5.6k
    Plaid lost 0.4k
    Ukip lost 2.8k
    Greens lost 1.2k
    = 4.4k

    It would seem fair to conclude:
    that most ukip went back to their traditional parties;
    Some plaid and green went libdem.
    New voters mostly likely went to Tories and Labour in that order.

    2. 2019 compared to 2015
    8k decreased turnout

    Tories lost 4.1k
    Lab lost 4.2k
    Ukip lost 3k
    Plaid lost 1.7k
    Greens lost 1.2k
    = 14.2k

    Lib dems gained 2.5k
    Brexit gained 3.3k
    = 5.8k

    It would be fair to say all ukip went to Brexit;

    It would also seem that most of the no-shows are Labour and Tory and some greens and plaid;

    Some labour, tory and most plaid and green made up the Libdem gain.

    3. 2019 compared to 2017
    10k reduced turnout.

    Cons down 8k
    Lab down 5.6k
    Plaid down 1.3k
    Ukip down 0.25k
    = 15.15k
    Brexit gained 3.3k
    Libdem gained 1.8k
    = 5.2k

    So the 2015 kippers who went elsewhere in 2017 (back to their traditional parties) this time went to Brexit.

    Most labour and many Tories didn’t turnout.

    Where did that extra 1800 vote for libdems come from?
    Mostly from plaid and greens obviously, from their electoral pact.
    So only a few hundreds from Lab and Tories.

    ——

    In my opinion a general election now would most likely follow the same pattern as scenario 1.

    Most Brexit will revert to their traditional vote.

    Most stay at homes will revert to their traditional vote.

    Libdems will only benefit from the local representatives popularity.

    The outcome will be determined by turnout. A high turnout will favour Labour. A lower one will favour Tories.

    The Cabinet Office and our unelected Crown Spook Lords will have come to such conclusions a long while ago, and have no doubt, been directing the msm via their Integrity Initiative networks to attend to the threat of a Labour surge – as in the 3 week general election of 2017.

    Ironically their DS rabble rousing that encouraged a record turnout of voters for the referendum , politicising many for the first time and re-politicising many who had been ‘switched off’ through the Blair era, is now their achilles heel.

    • Dungroanin

      Btw – i just checked CM latest tweet from yesterday, not a follower, it seems that the bastards don’t like being named and shamed!

      • michael norton

        Apparently the Liberal Democrats are going flat out to take out Zac Goldsmith from Richmond Park, he only pipped the LibDem candidate by 45 votes at the 2017 General Election.
        It is thought there will be a General Election before Christmas.

      • Ken Kenn

        Interesting analysis.

        Johnson is an MP with a 5k plus majority and if turnout in Uxbridge and Ruislip is big there is a danger he could lose his seat.

        Labour chasing him up.

        The Brexit Party won’t stand against him ( thieves sticking together ) but as you say re: Brecon the two tribes will fight it out and hopefully ( despite the BBC’s efforts ) the GE won’t be all about Brexit.

        Now if you were Johnson would you risk your seat?

        It’s going to get hairy in September.

        Bercow will have his work cut out.

        • Dungroanin

          Cheers Ken – prof Richard Murphy posted it on his site! Gulp!!

          Amongst these Tories in the frame are IDS (Tebbit and Churchills seat at one time in Chingford) and Amber Rudd, there are many others.

          The problem for the Establishment in the FPTP system is, the higher the turnout, the larger the number of swing seats.

          So it is not just the Labour NuLabInc incumbants who face deselection that is their only problem; It is that the swing seat opposition are ‘clean skins’ un-parachuted, local candidates.

          The only option left to the Establishment is to not have an election.

          Then, ganging up their controlled opposition with the controlled govt and sell it to the country as some national emergency centrist coalition in a national emergency using Crown powers and HMQ’s imprimatur.

          Tom Watson leading the split from Labour, along with the LibDems and various independents. The Tories will say they will ditch their ‘hard right wing currently on their front bench as a excuse for the ditching of the Labour front bench labelled ‘hard left’.

          Hey presto!
          “A centrist sensible middle of the road Parliament for all my people, just as we had in wartime”

          An election to be held when they feel it is safe enough to risk it… could be never!

          We must resist.

  • Peter

    “It was not concern for Blair and Straw that led Johnson to cancel the judge led inquiry. It was the knowledge that Establishment insiders like Dearlove, Ehrman and Ricketts would be forced to give public evidence of their wrongdoing and could be liable to criminal proceedings. ”

    In other words, Johnson is protecting crooks from justice.

    Does this not make Johnson a crook, and further demonstrate that we are currently being governed by a criminal class?

    Dominic Cummings, whatever his shortcummings (sorry), has pitched himself fairly and squarely against the backroom mandarins and I for one commend him for that.

    We need a new, written democratic constitution and a process of thoroughgoing democratic renewal that would contribute to enabling these criminals to be properly dealt with.

    Jeremy Corbyn/Labour should/must put democratic renewal at the heart of their next general election campaign.

    • John2o2o

      It is a separate chamber Tatyana. The Prime Minister has no control over it.

      From wikipedia:
      “While the House of Commons has a defined number of seats membership, the number of members in the House of Lords is not fixed. The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament in the world to be larger than its lower house.

      The House of Lords scrutinises bills [for new laws] that have been approved by the House of Commons. It regularly reviews and amends Bills from the Commons. While it is unable to prevent Bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances, it can delay Bills and force the Commons to reconsider their decisions.In this capacity, the House of Lords acts as a check on the House of Commons that is independent from the electoral process. Bills can be introduced into either the House of Lords or the House of Commons. While members of the Lords may also take on roles as government ministers, high-ranking officials such as cabinet ministers are usually drawn from the Commons. The House of Lords has its own support services, separate from the Commons, including the House of Lords Library. “

  • Mike

    The enquiry would also expose those Right-Wing Blairites still in Labour therefore boosting Jeremy Corbyn’s popularity. Can’t have THAT.

  • Dave

    Blair’s landslide in 1997 was due to a pact with Ashdown on the promise of voting reform that led to Labour and Lib Dem voting for each other, in enough numbers, to knock out the Conservative. It didn’t need candidates stepping aside, coupon election, to work – but once in Blair, surprise, surprise, reneged on the manifesto promise.

    Therefore if Corbyn were to promise voting reform again, it would be enough to work, without a coupon election, (being promoted by Paul Mason) as all non-conservative groups/voters would think fair votes will give them representation next time – and Corbyn is more trustworthy than Blair.

    And he could sweep up the Leave and Remain vote with a Brexit compromise that keeps the country together. Namely honour the referendum result by leaving the political institutions of ever closer union (keeps UK out of Euro and restores state aid), leave the single market (restores control of borders), but remain in the customs union (maintains soft border in Ireland and protects “jobs and growth).

    This British Brexit compromise would sweep the board and balance out some of the madder labour policies.

  • Gary

    If we can’t get justice for those murdered on Bloody Sunday, a much smaller but just as deadly event, then the chances of justice for those tortured and murdered at our government’s behest seems ‘vanishingly small’ as Boris would put it. On which subject I note that the attitudes of some Tory MPs (Johnny Mercer for example) is one of contempt for the victims’ families and indeed justice itself. Whilst there is clear evidence of at least one case of deliberate murder by a soldier on that day they still call for servicemen to be exempted from attempts to bring them to justice, especially some years after the event. I know I’m off on a tangent but if they go to that extreme for what would be a few soldiers then I can only imagine how far they would go to protect those who actually hold power and could actually damage the state should they testify on what they know.

  • michael norton

    Republic of Ireland getting twitchy

    Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar said Britain’s exit from the European Union without a deal looks increasingly likely — but that a referendum on Northern Ireland’s future would be “divisive.”
    https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/07/irish-pm-no-deal-brexit-increasingly-likely-border-poll-would-be-divisive
    Asked about a potential referendum on Northern Ireland splitting from the United Kingdom,Varadkar said he remained against the idea.
    “We believe that there is a high probability that it would be defeated and it would be divisive, I think, here in Northern Ireland,” he said.

    Much of RoI trade is with the United Kingdom, they will be the biggest losers from Cliff Edge Brexit.

  • Arby

    “It is essential to the health of our society that the full and shameful truth of this disgraceful episode is told and the guilty are held to account. I hope that once this unconstitutional Johnson regime – which has no majority in the House of Commons for its major policy and was appointed by an abuse of monarchical authority – has fallen, the subject will be brought back both by a Corbyn government at Westminster and in Holyrood by the government of Independent Scotland.”

    As Alexander Mercouris, at the Duran, pointed out, the wiley Johnson is trying hard to forestall elections before the end of October Brexit in order to both save the Conservative Party (which voters have already indicated that they will punish for ignoring their decision to Brexit) and, by extension, his own career. Let’s see.

  • michael norton

    The Tory Remainer M.P.’s seem to be back-peddling today and no longer intend to back Jo Swinson and Jeremy Corbyn in their cunning plan to scupper Boris.

1 2