Earthlinggb's Blog

Michael Adebolajo: Odd? Not at all!

Posted in "Terrorism" by earthling on February 24, 2017

I’m making no further comment on this. I know how it gets you in hot water. 🙂

UK Parliament 7 July 2014

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): It was reported this weekend that MI5 could have stopped Michael Adebolajo committing murder if it had more powers. Is the Minister aware that when the Home Affairs Committee was in Kenya, senior ambassadors at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told us that in all likelihood he would have been in prison in Kenya had it not been for the UK authorities requesting that he be returned to this country?
James Brokenshire: As my hon. Friend will know, the Intelligence and Security Committee is currently completing its review of the investigations related to that case, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment further in that regard. The Home Affairs Committee has conducted a broad review of counter-terrorism powers—indeed, I gave evidence to it. Clearly, we keep powers under review, and we have sought to extend extraterritorial jurisdiction for a number of terrorism offences in relation to the Serious Crime Bill, which is currently before Parliament.

Of course it wouldn’t be appropriate for you to comment further because there really isn’t much you can say to that is there? But nobody asks the question (not even the alleged victim’s family): “Why would ‘authorities’ request him to be returned to the country? What was so special about this particular Kenyan? And under what circumstances was he being asked to be returned? After all, he roamed freely once he did return.”

Ah well, we’ll never know. My educated guess? “We’ve got a job for him”.

lee-rigby

lee-rigby-2

lee-rigby-3

 

It’s an odd world we live in when immense statements, like the above, never get picked up on and people realise that, at the very least, there is something far more sinister behind all of this.

But, of course, it will be put down to negligence I guess. 🙂

Don’t talk to me about “Democracy”!

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling on September 27, 2014

Not that democracy is perfect anyhow but we, in the west and in the UK do not have it!

So if anyone talks to you about our “great democracy” and “Who are you voting for?” or “What are you voting for?” please, do me a favour, laugh in their face! They’re just ignorant bastards.

all-seeing-eye-u-k

Royal Prerogative

HC Deb 21 April 1993 vol 223 cc485-92 485
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

2.20 am
§Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) I wish briefly to explore the scope and limits of the royal prerogative and its present-day usage by the Government, and to put a number of questions to the hapless Minister who has the duty of answering the debate. I want to ask him about the profoundly undemocratic practice that allows a Government to act with royal absolutism.
As I understand it, the royal prerogative denotes what remains of the monarch’s power to legislate without the authority of Parliament. As the monarch acts on the advice of Government, the procedure enables a Government to produce primary legislation without parliamentary consent—legislation which, as was made clear by the GCHQ case, may not be challenged in the courts.

Blackstone’s 18th century “Commentaries on the Laws of England” referred to the prerogative as that special pre-eminence which the King hath, over and above all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his royal dignity”— an arrangement that Blackstone described as in its nature singular and eccentrical”. In the past 10 years, some 1,400 orders have been made under the prerogative. Ministers usually imply that such orders relate to such quaint and innocuous matters as the grant and amendment of charters, and the appointment of visitors and governors of universities. Many do; but the prerogative is also applied to important international obligations and, in particular, to citizens’ rights.

The prerogative is used for the making of international treaties—which may be why from time to time, when it suits them, Ministers tell us that any Commons vote on the Maastricht treaty can be disregarded by the Government. It is also used for the declaration of war and blockade. The Government used it to commit British military forces in the Gulf war—prompting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to observe: this is the first time in the history of this country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the royal prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express its view on any motion other than that we adjourn”.—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 616.] My right hon. Friend contrasted the handling of the matter in the House of Commons with the way in which both Houses of the United States Congress had debated and voted on a resolution on military action.

The Government used prerogative powers to enable the United States military to bomb Libya from bases in England. That was a matter of awesome political importance, in which—once again—the House of Commons had no status. The prerogative is used for the control and organisation of the armed forces. In the matter of civil liberties, under the royal prerogative the Government can refuse or withdraw a passport, and can forbid a citizen to leave the country. There is no legal obligation on the Government to provide a passport, which I should have thought was a fundamental right of any citizen of this country.

Jury vetting guidelines and telephone tapping are authorised by royal prerogative, apparently under an ancient royal right to intercept communications between 486 subjects. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was established by royal prerogative without statutory authority.

Most notoriously in recent times, the royal prerogative was used in 1984 to ban from membership of trades unions the staff of the Government intelligence establishment GCHQ. In a subsequent court case on that subject, the Government argued successfully that not only were their powers not open to judicial review, but that instructions given in exercising them enjoyed the same immunity. This situation derived from the fact that the legal relationship between the Crown and civil or Crown servants is governed by the prerogative, and is unlike any normal contractual relationship between employer and employee. That explains why we in this country have yet to resolve the crucial issue whether the duty of a civil servant is to the national interest or to the Government, and why there is no protection for whistleblowers in the civil service.

In any other country, the civil service would be regulated by a civil service Act that set out in law the rights, duties and constitutional position of civil servants. Here, the civil service is subject to the monarchical whims of some Minister. My first question to the Minister is, why cannot the civil service be governed by a civil service Act, and are the Clerks of this House also governed by the royal prerogative, rather than by legislation passed by the House?

The royal prerogative is used for literally thousands of appointments in the public sector, and it is the fount of Government patronage. In 1965, Lord Reid observed: it is not easy to discover and decide the law relating to the royal prerogative and the consequences of its exercise. He noted that there had been “practically no authority” on the matter since 1688.

The most extensive discussion recently of the royal prerogative was by Professor Colin Munro in a publication in 1987. He wrote: In practice … the supervision of prerogative powers does seem to be attended by greater than average difficulty. The very nature of these powers makes them less readily subject to challenge. He tells us that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, or ombudsman, has no power to examine decisions under the royal prerogative and says: the exercise of prerogatives by the Attorney General may not be reviewed. He also says: The correlation between the matters excluded from the Commissioner’s jurisdiction and the spheres of activity in which governments exercise prerogative powers is striking. We also learn from Munro that the manner of the exercise of prerogative powers lies outside the scope of judicial review, so we are inevitably brought to the conclusion that a British subject may be deported, or refused a passport, or have his or her telephone tapped or mail opened by the state without legislative authority, and that neither Parliament nor the judiciary is entitled to examine the matter.

The Minister will also know that subsidiary powers flow from the royal prerogative. The Crown’s right to have admissible evidence withheld from a court when it claims that the public interest so demands has been known as Crown privilege although nowadays its existence is disputed. Does it exist, I ask the Minister, and what does it cover? Is there still such a concept in British law as Crown privilege which exempts the Crown from justiciable matters?

487 Crown immunity is certainly alive and kicking. The sovereign—and, therefore, the Government—still enjoy a number of immunities derived from the ancient “prerogative of perfection”—that is, “The King can do no wrong.” What it means today is that Government Departments and many public bodies are not bound by a huge range of protective legislation, such as health and safety, food hygiene laws and planning and environmental regulations. I understand that that legislation does not, for example, protect those who work in the parliamentary precincts, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people in other public organisations. Therefore, to be employed in a public building means that one cannot be protected by a wide range of legislation.

Munro concludes: Behind the phrase “royal prerogative” lie hidden some issues of great constitutional importance, which are insufficiently recognised. It seems that the prerogative could be dispensed with almost entirely. The civil service and the military could be governed by Acts of Parliament, as in other countries. Telephone tapping, mail interception, deportation and entitlement to travel should be justiciable. Senior public appointments could be supervised by Select Committee. The Speaker could take over some prerogative powers, such as the dissolution of Parliament and the invitation to the leader of the party with the largest majority to form a Government.

In a recent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said: It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers.”—[Official Report, 1 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 19.] It is nothing less than a constitutional outrage that Ministers should decide whether to withhold matters from Parliament. It should be the Speaker’s job to decide how the exercise of prerogative powers should be reported to the House. It should also be up to the Speaker to judge whether a Minister should answer to the House for the use of extra-statutory power.

The royal prerogative is an anachronism—an example of the overweening and authoritarian power of Government over Parliament. In truth, the purpose of our Parliament is to provide a Government and to scrutinise their actions and decisions, but only to the extent that Government will allow. That is not good enough. The royal prerogative is a chilling manifestation of the way in which our democracy is deficient, and it should be mapped by the Select Committee on Procedure as soon as possible, and then largely ended.

I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about the boundaries of the royal prerogative and the extent to which as, I hope, a democrat he thinks that government by proclamation and diktat could be replaced by a proper legislative process.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1993/apr/21/royal-prerogative#S6CV0223P0_19930421_HOC_685

 

Tony Benn BBC quote

 

THE SECURITY SERVICE

HC Deb 17 January 1989 vol 145 cc180-238

Mr. Benn The amendments touch on the nub of the Bill—what is subversion and what is national security and who should decide what is national security and who 193 should decide what is subversion? Having the Bill means that we have probably had more meaningful discussion on the Security Service than we have had in recent years.
For a long time the general public have been persuaded that it is in their interests that foreign spies and domestic terrorists should be under careful scrutiny. Communists were automatically identified with foreign spies. I imagine that if the Soviet Union had wanted spies in Britain it would not have picked members of the Communist party. However, that was one of the foolish ideas that was current. The whole thing had to be covered by the tightest security and secrecy and judges capitulated whenever they heard the magic word “security”.

The amendment is important because the definition of subversion is a political decision. Who is the enemy is a political question. We do not say that the chief of staff will announce which enemy country he intends to attack. That too is a political question. After all, security is a part of defence. We have an annual defence White Paper in which we are told what resources we have at out disposal and where they are deployed. We have an annual Army order. When I was first in Parliament an Act went through every year. Now it is an annual order. If the House does not endorse that order, the discipline of the armed forces disappears on the day that the old order expires. Why does that procedure not apply to the Security Service?

What is it about the Security Service’s political objectives that makes them different from the defence forces’ political objectives? The answer is that the decision about what is subversive has been taken by MI5, sometimes upon the intervention of Ministers. I say without any disrespect to the Home Secretary that I would be surprised if, like his predecessors, he really knew what was going on. Certainly some of my colleagues who were his predecessors did not know what was going on, because what was going on was an attempt to get the Labour Government out of office. I cannot believe that Lord Jenkins of Hillhead or my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in charge of such an operation.

If one pursues the matter more fully, one finds that if pressed the Security Service would say that it is responsible not to the Home Secretary but to the Crown, a concept that I tried to explore on Second Reading. The Crown is a mysterious idea which implies a continuity of activity. The security services have really been protecting the status quo, which is not the same as parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is supposed to allow one to change the status quo by political action. If one cannot change the status quo by voting, why vote? Immediately we come to the relationship between what is called national security, which is defined as the political and economic status quo, and subversion, which, in the case of parliamentary democracy, is a legal form of trying to change the status quo. The Home Secretary knows that, or his draftsmen have worked on that basis. If one then says that parliamentary democracy is trying to change the status quo by political means, one is caught by the Bill. If one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political actions, one is a subversive. The Home Secretary has put his finger on that. If one interprets parliamentary democracy as meaning that one wants to change anything, one is covered by the Bill because one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action.

194 The Home Secretary may smile and may give as many assurances as he likes, but I am defining how the Bill will work and that is how the system has worked until now.

Another aspect of the matter, which I have raised before, is that the condition under which the Americans allow us to borrow nuclear weapons is that American intelligence supervises British intelligence. The Americans have to check procedures and, for many purposes, they have to check people who are engaged in activities in which they take an interest. In a strange way, the definition in amendment No. 47 covers the Americans. It refers to the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person”. That would deal with James Angleton immediately, but no British Government who wished to retain nuclear weapons could implement such an amendment.

It is not only the theory of the matter that is interesting but the practice. In Field Marshal Lord Carver’s television broadcast after his resignation as chief of the general staff, he said that for most of history Britain’s armed forces were concerned with domestic security. He pointed out—and this point was interesting to me—that there have not been many foreign wars in which the British Army has been engaged. We fought the French and, a couple of times, the Germans, but for most of our history the armed forces have performed the function of security forces. That is why Parliament, in 1688, resolved that it did not want a standing army. That domestic function has been far greater, in the mind of the security services, over a long period. We have been told that the Russians were planning to invade. I do not know how many people now believe that Mr. Gorbachev is planning an attack on London. According to opinion polls, only 2 per cent. think that a Russian attack is very likely.

The concept of the “enemy within” is central to the issue. The present Prime Minister has made it explicit that the “enemy within” became the dominant consideration of the security services at the time when there was a Socialist challenge to the status quo. Trade unions are, by definition, considered to be potentially subversive by the security services. I know that because my private secretary in one of my Departments tried to take advantage of the scheme for interchange with industry. He said that he did not want an interchange with industry, but that he wanted to go to a trade union for a time. He was warned off because, in the eyes of the establishment that still runs the security services, trade unionism was subversive in itself. I am saying not that the security services believe that every trade unionist is subversive, but that the purpose of trade unionism is subversive.

I want to deal next with the peace movement. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, was able to instruct MI5 to bug the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—the Cathy Massiter case. That shows that anyone whose view of the world differs from the view that peace has been retained by nuclear weapons against the Red Army is a subversive—and that view is still held. No one should imagine that Peter Wright’s story ended with his retirement or with the acquisition of power by the present Government.

 

Mr. Benn The hon. Member may have more knowledge of these matters than I have, as he speaks with such confidence about what happened, and that illustrates my point. We should have known the information to which, apparently, the hon. Gentleman is privy and we should have had a chance to test the matter. I do not believe for a moment what he has said, but I cannot prove that, and he cannot prove the validity of his remarks, because the whole matter is covered by secrecy.
The next category of people who are considered to be subversive are the various types of Socialists. It is funny that the Communist party is held to be subversive now. As far as I can make out, it is advocating electoral pacts, so the security services do not seem to be up to date. But the people in the security services are not politically clever. I was once invited, as a Minister, to attend a conference of the Socialist International, a respectable body which was then presided over by Willy Brandt. My private secretary said to me that MI5 would not let me go. He said that the reason was that the International Socialists were on our list. He did not know the difference between the International Socialists and the Socialist International. That does not show a high level of political intelligence. There may be a need for more chemists in MI5. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if MI5 were also to employ people who understand Socialism and realise that there are many varieties of Socialism.

I remember the case of a woman who was refused employment by the Civil Service because her father read The Daily Worker. We should not deceive ourselves that the amendment will be passed, but we can use Parliament to make available through Hansard—the only publicly owned newspaper that has not yet been acquired by Rupert Murdoch—to those who bother to read our speeches the truth about what is happening.

 

Mr. Winnick Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§Mr. Benn I shall just finish this point.
The security services go to universities and ask teachers about the political activities of particular students who may have applied for a job in the defence industry or the Civil Service. Lecturers have told me that MI5 was sniffing around to find out whether Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith was reliable. If one has a friend who is keen to join the Civil Service, the first advice to give such a young man is, “Don’t go to political meetings, my friend, because if you do, you may not get into the Civil Service.” One reason why the security services and the Civil Service are so ignorant about political argument is that, to join the security services, one must have an unblemished record. One must not even read Campaign Group News or Tribune because that might suggest that one wanted to change the status quo.

196
§Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South) Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn Let me finish going through the categories of subversives.
Another category is those who are known to be politically active on an issue that may appear to be harmless. People may be against vivisection, for example, but it is always possible, in the minds of those who sniff around, that such people might take part in other activities that could be threatening. What is misleading is to pretend that the activities of the security services in the past, or the way in which they will operate in future, has anything to do with protecting the people’s democratic rights. They are designed to protect the status quo.

 

Mr. Benn That is absolutely right. We have not yet discussed the question of vetting. The employees of the BBC are vetted. One cannot get a senior job at the BBC until one has been cleared by the security services. Do they imagine that a lot of terrorists are about to be made head of news and current affairs? The Clerks in this House are vetted. I know that from the evidence given to the Committee of Privileges. Members’ research assistants are vetted. What has that to do with terrorism or espionage?
§Mr. Tony Banks Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn I do not want to detain the House. I am merely trying to put a few fruits on the harvest festival altar so that people may observe them later.
The next question is, “What is parliamentary democracy?” It has been defined in many different ways. Last summer, we celebrated the tercentenary of 1688—apparently the year of the birth of parliamentary democracy. I should have thought that William of Orange would have been regarded as one of these foreigners trying to disturb parliamentary democracy, but it turns out that he was in at its birth. I am reminded of the saying Why does treason never prosper?

Here’s the reason:

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. The other day I went through the Second Reading of the Reform Bill. The Conservatives of the time were opposed to the Reform Bill because they thought that it would undermine parliamentary democracy. Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, opposed votes for women on the ground that that proposal would upset parliamentary democracy.

Parliamentary democracy has been defined to mean the status quo at the time. What is it in practice? The Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the powers of the Crown—except for the power to dissolve Parliament or to ask someone to form a Government—are not personal to the 197 sovereign. Every Prime Minister—I do not differentiate between the present Prime Minister and her predecessors in this respect—uses the powers of the Crown to do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with Parliament and nothing to do with democracy. The Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. What has that to do with Parliament or democracy? The Prime Minister appoints the judges and the chairman of the BBC. She appoints Lord Chalfont to the IBA. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting Parliament or sign treaties without consulting Parliament. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession to the Common Market before it was even published. All such activities are undertaken under the Crown prerogative.

Suppose that we say that we do not like the use of that prerogative. Is that an attempt to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action? I have long been a republican and I believe that the Queen should be the head of the Commonwealth. Is that subversive? Is it subversive to want to abolish the House of Lords, which has no democratic base in society? Many Liberals have argued for a single Chamber or two elected Chambers. Is that subversive? Is it subversive if I say that the Church should not be established? The other day, I looked up the coronation oath and found that the only pledge that the Queen gives is that she will uphold the rights of the bishops. That is most interesting. It was clearly not applied in the Viraj Mendis case, but that is another matter. There is no democracy in the sense that in a democracy the electorate has the final say. The truth is that the status quo covers a semi-feudal system which is not subject to normal public means of accountability under the Bill.

In a democracy, the ultimate responsibility for deciding the interests of the state lies with the electorate. That is what democracy means. If the electorate is to decide what is in the interests of national security and what is subversive, the electorate must know enough to know what goes on. This Bill tries to entrench in statute a rotten little directive of Maxwell Fyfe, who told them to get on with it and not bother him and a rotten definition by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who used virtually the same phrase as appears in clause 1. On that basis, the Home Secretary hopes to entrench in statute powers that have been exercised under the Crown prerogative for years, and dress it up as the entrenchment of the protection of parliamentary democracy against subversion.

The Home Secretary will not be affected by my arguments, but I hope that people outside will realise when they read them that the Bill is not what it is made out to be. It is not an advance. It is the entrenchment in statute of powers that no democratic Government have the right to exercise.

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1989/jan/17/the-security-service#S6CV0145P0_19890117_HOC_315

 

hitler

on behalf of

 

Salmond fishing

 

Tony Blair, D notices, Princes, Popes, Politicians, “Pop pickers”, MI5, AND PAEDOPHILIA!

Posted in Paedophilia by earthling on October 27, 2012

Search Hansard for statements relating to paedophilia in the Cabinet and provide “assurances”?

Cameron! Are you off your fricking nut as well as a criminal acting for the very bankers that want this stuff to happen? Cameron, you’re a dead man walking as are all the Lords and MPs in this establishment. This country will eventually come to the point of also decapitating the royal family.

But that is exactly playing into the hands of the bankers who want this to happen while you think they’re the people who are going to keep letting you play this game. Once you’re of no further use mate, they will hang draw and quarter you. Mark my words!

The following is JUST the Labour Party. You can be sure that just as many reside in the Conservative and LibDem ranks. Edward Heath was a paedophile yet that still hasn’t “come out” while Tom Watson suggests paedophilia reaches into the core of the British Government. Was it Thatcher’s aide? Or was it Tony’s? It doesn’t matter in a sense because this country is now waking up to the FACT that this country is a corrupt, steaming pile of shit with paedophilia lurking in every dark recess and corner of the street as well as in the dark corners of Whitehall. Westminster, the Houses of Lords and Parliament AND, what shall never come out (although it is obvious to those of us who have researched this in any depth and who are not in the slightest surprised by the facts now being brought to the country’s attention and to those of the population who would simply call us “mad conspiracy theorists”) is that this paedophilia stretches into the core of the British Monarchy.

It is not a “Big Society” we have in this country, it is a sick society!

The Labour Party’s Convicted Paedophile List.

1. Liam Temple Labour Councillor Inciting a child into ‘gross’ indecency
2. Stewart Brown Labour Party Lord Mayor Child Pornography
3. Sam Chaudry Labour Party Lord Mayor Elect & Labour Party Councillor Child Rapist
4. Nicholas Green Labour Party Lord Mayor Labour Party Councillor 13 rapes & assaults on Children
5. Keith Potts Labour Party Councillor Junior School Governor
6. Alan Prescott Labour Party Councillor Molesting Children in a ‘Care-Home ‘Where he worked
7. Terry Power Labour Party Councillor Sex attacks on boys
8. Joseph Shaw Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography
9. George Harding Labour Party Councillor Indecent assault on a child
10. Lee Benson Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography
11. Raymond Coates Labour Party Councillor Child rape
12. Les Sheppard Labour Party Councillor Sex attacks and rapes on Children
13. Martyn Locklin Labour Party Councillor Rape & Indecent assault on boys
14. Nelson Bland Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography
15. Greg Vincent Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography Films
16. Alec Dyer Atkins Labour Party Councillor Member of the ‘Shadows Brotherhood ‘Peadophile Ring. 42,000 images of Children being abused
17. Keith Rogers Labour Party Councillor 2,000 images of child pornography
18. Paul Diggert Labour Party Councillor Grooming children & child pornography
19. Peter Tuffley ( worked also for NSPCC & Barnardos ) Labour Party Personal assistant to Hazel Blears Caught in bed with a 13 year old boy
20. Mark Trotter Labour Party Member & Super Activist Child rapist with Aids
21. Yusef Azad Labour Party on the Greater London Assembly Computer seized in anti-Child Porn Operation
22. Gilbert Benn Labour Party Councillor Molesting a boy
23. David Spooner Labour Party Councillor Master…ed in front of Two little Children
24. Mark Tann Labour Party member & Activist Repeatedly raped Two girls under Eight years old.
25. Iestyn Tudor Davies Labour Party Councillor Repeatedly raped a Child

PLUS+

26. John Friary Labour Party Councillor Grooming a child on facebook
27. Steve Carnell Labour Party Councillor Downloading Child and Animal Porn
28. Toren Smith  Labour Party Councillor Found Guilty of 94.000 Images of Children Being Abused
29. Johnathan Phillips  Labour Party Councillor Downloaded Child Porn on His Memory Stick. It Was Found in The Town Hall After a Labour Party Meeting
30. Phillip Lyon Labour Party Aide to Tony Blair His House of Commons Office Was Searched And He Was Found Guilty of Child Pornography
31. Mark Burton Labour Party Councillor Sexual molestation of child. Trial continues..
32. Neil Redrup Labour Party Councillor Found Guilty of opening sexually explicit content in front of child.
33. Timothy Edmeads Labour Party super activist and events organiser to Labour Lord Mayor guilty of sex assaults on 3 children.
34. Adrian Cirket Labour Party councillor and GMB union official downloading hundreds of sickening images of child abuse in his family home where he lived with his wife and three children..35. Darren Geoffrey Pedley Labour party councilor and chairman of the board of governors at Sandbrook primary school found guilty of downloading and distributing child pornography…36. Labour Councillor for Leicester Manish Sood found guilty of Grooming School kids for sex…37. Evil Labour Party Councill  Candidate & Junior School  Governor Richard Harris  Found guilty of offering  Junior  school children ÂŁ500 for sex.

.

38. Ex Deputy Labour Party Lord Mayor John Johnson was charged with downloading hundreds of images of child molestation. Some of the images depicted sadomasochistic rituals with children being tortured and raped by multiple adults.

.  Tory Party General election candidate, Michael Powell – Convicted and jailed for 3 years for downloading hardcore child porn.

.  Tory Party Councillor (Wickbar/Bristol) Roger Talboys – Convicted and jailed for 6 years for multiple sex attacks on childre

.  Tory Party MP (Billericay) Harvey Proctor – Stood trial for sex offences of a sado-masochistic nature against teenage boys, and    was forced to resign.

.  Tory Party Councillor ( Stratford-upon-Avon ) Christopher Pilkington – Convicted of downloading hardcore child porn on his PC. Placed on sex offenders register and forced to resign.

.  Tory Party councillor ( Coventry ), Peter Stidworthy – Charged with indecent assault of a 15-year old boy.

.  Tory Party Mayor ( North Tyneside ), Chris Morgan – Forced to resign after being arrested twice in 2 weeks, for indecent assault on a 15-year old girl, and for suspicion of downloading child porn.

.  Tory Party Liaison Manager on the London Assembly, Douglas Campbell, who’s job includes running the Tory GLA website – Arrested for allegedly downloading child porn. He is currently suspended while the Police investigation continues.

.  Tory Party Councillor (Folkestone – in Leader, Michael Howard’s constituency), Robert Richdale – 41 year history of crime, involving 30 convictions and 5 prison sentences. Richdales enormous criminal record, which covers 10 pages of A4 paper, includes convictions for assault, theft, causing death by dangerous driving, forgery, drugs offences, possession of an offensive weapon, and sex attacks against underage schoolgirls. The Tory Party election campaign literature described Richdale as “a family man” who had a “compassionate personality”

.  Lib-Dem Council candidate (Tower Hamlets), Justin Sillman – Convicted and jailed for 2 years for sexual abuse of young boys.

.  Lib-Dem Councillor and Mayoral Candidate ( Sheffield ), Francis Butler- Prosecuted for indecent assault of a young boy.

.  Lib-Dem Councillor ( Stockport ) Neil Derbyshire – Sexually assaulted a 16-year old boy in a public toilet. He was caught with a plastic bag containing lubricant, plastic surgical gloves, a condom, and underpants.

.  Lib-Dem Councillor ( Preston ), Bill Chadwick – Charged with: Making an indecent photograph of a child, Incitement to rape, Incitement to murder, Incitement to kidnap, and Incitement to torture. Chadwick’s gay lover – Alan Valentine, is also a Lib-Dem councillor.

The Dunblane massacre:

Lord George Robertson (ex UK Defence Secretary 1997/98 and Sec Gen of Nato) was the referee on Thomas Hamilton’s shotgun licence.

Blair government insider Lord Robertson has threatened to sue Scotland’s leading independent newspaper over internet allegations that he not only used his influence as a Freemason to procure a gun licence for child killer Thomas Hamilton, but was also a member of a clandestine paedophile ring reportedly set up by Hamilton for the British elite. On 13 March 1996, Hamilton, armed with four hand-guns, opened fire on a junior school class, killing 16 children and one teacher before turning the gun on himself

Tony Blair’s closest confidante’s is a practising paedophile, are even suggesting that this particular scandal, and not Blair’s repeated lies and fabricated reports in regard to Iraq, may well prove the downfall of a government mired in sleaze and corruption. The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list ofLabour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides, Phillip Lyon.
The latest allegations came to light following a campaign to lift the secrecy on the Dunblane massacre. Large sections of the police report were banned from the public domain under a 100-year secrecy order. LordCullen, an establishment insider, also omitted and censored references to the documents in his final report. Parents and teachers were advised to concentrate their efforts on a campaign to outlaw handguns instead of focusing on how the mentally unstable Freemason, already known by the police to be a paedophile, had obtained a firearms licence for six handguns. Hamilton allegedly enjoyed good relations with both local Labourluminary George Robertson and Michael Forsyth, the then Scottish Secretary of State and MP for Stirling. Forsyth congratulated and encouraged Hamilton for running a boy’s club. Hamilton was also found to have exchanged letters with the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth.

‘commons clerk on trial after IT find thousands of images of children performing sexual acts’

Tony Blair’s closest confidante’s is a practising paedophile, are even suggesting that this particular scandal, and not Blair’s repeated lies and fabricated reports in regard to Iraq, may well prove the downfall of a government mired in sleaze and corruption.

The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list of Labour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides, Phillip Lyon.

Lyon used his computer “to pursue his interest and perhaps curiosity in this type of material. He searched for it on the internet and, when found, downloaded it for his delectation later”, said Ms Karmy-Jones.

Lyon, 38, from Stanford le Hope in Essex, denies 12 specimen charges of making an indecent image of a child between October 2001 and April 2002. “It is like a drug, you try one and you want to try something harder, and it has a snowball effect,” he is alleged to have told officers when arrested.

Lyon worked in the Upper Table Office, where he met MPs, the Speaker, and Deputy Speaker while checking parliamentary questions and administering early day motions. “He needed skills in computing and the internet,” said Ms Karmy-Jones. “He is an intelligent individual, and knew full well what he was doing.” When first interviewed, he allegedly told police he did not distribute material – “I just look at pictures.”

Ms Karmy-Jones told jurors: “This case is about child pornography – what others might call photos of child abuse. When I say child abuse, it may sound harsh, but it is the nature of these images which is central to the case. They are unpleasant and disturbing.”

She said the issue might be whether it was Lyon who downloaded the images. “We say it is clear he was that man.”

Under Blair’s government paedophiles get off with a slap on the wrist and never seem to suffer the full weight of the law – no shock there then!

In 1999, an international investigation of child pornographers and paedophiles run by Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Service, code named Operation Ore, resulted in 7,250 suspects being identified in the United Kingdom alone. Some 1850 people were criminally charged in the case and there were 1451 convictions. Almost 500 people were interviewed “under caution” by police, meaning they were suspects. Some 900 individuals remain under investigation. In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair’s government.

However, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation. Blair cited the impending war in Iraq as a reason for the D-Notice. Police also discovered links between British Labour government paedophile suspects and the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from Belgium and Portugal (including young boys from the Casa Pia orphanage in Portugal).

Tony Blair: stifling investigations of paedophiles in his Labour government.

According to media reports, the names of 2 former Labour Cabinet Ministers said to be `Household names` appear on the `Operation Ore ` list of subscribers to hard-core child pornography. The same FBI investigation, which led to the arrest of rock star Pete Townshend. So who are they Mr Blair?Now let’s consider the Tony Blair connection. The supercilious, criminal, treasonous little twat who ran this country for his Rothschild handlers for a decade before handing over to another potential contestant for paedophile. Blair had a hunger for power and prestige (and money) and he still has. He is a ravenous, craving mass of corruption – he has to be. He has to follow the demands of his Rothschild handlers because one way or another, the little shit is compromised.

Now let’s consider the Savile situation. While the British Media, BBC etc etc wish to keep it all “Savile” and perhaps a few other celebrities, it all goes far far deeper than that.

Second Palace memoir links Savile to Charles and Diana

Andrew Morton warned of Jimmy Savile’s closeness to the Prince and Princess of Wales in 1992 in his Diana biography, as I noted on Friday.

Now I see Sarah Goodall, a Lady Clerk at St James’s Palace, talked about Savile’s role as a royal marriage counsellor to Charles and Diana in her 2006 memoir The Palace Diaries.

“He arranged for them to meet in Dyfed in Wales so they could comfort flood victims together in public,” Goodall says in the book, ghosted by Lord Monson. “Their Royal Highnesses weren’t speaking at the time, so to bring them together was quite a feat…

“I stand there stunned at the thought of Jimmy Savile, the TV personality who utters curious warbling noises and dresses in weird clothing, helping His Royal Highness and the Princess of Wales to fix their relationship.

“Jimmy Savile may do great work for charity and children but he hardly seems the best qualified or most appropriate person to give marital advice.”

Later she expresses astonishment that the shell-suited star of Jim’ll Fix It is given a knighthood — but concludes that,  if he manages to save the royal marriage, perhaps he deserves it.

Now switch your brain into gear for a moment: A man like Savile or ANY celebrity (or non celebrity) who would get close to the monarchy – they would be vetted. There is no doubt of this not even a ball hair of doubt. So MI5 and others would know PRECISELY what Savile was. MI5 know what Prime Ministers have for breakfast and how often they release a stool per day. So let’s not play STUPID buggers shall we? I mean, of course, you can if you wish, that’s your prerogative but, if you do, please don’t get upset if I call you a fcuking fool! Ok?

Just an example:

You need to understand ONE thing: MI5 are British Intelligence, yes BUT, as “british Intelligence” they do not look after the British Public. Their remit is to “Defend the Realm” That “Realm” is the interests of the British Monarchy and establishment. YOU are not “The Realm”. What a hilarious and naive thought!

MI5 protect the interests of the Queen and Monarchy and they vet the BBC! Now THINK about that! It doesn’t take a lot of thinking and it is fact. You may be a British Citizen (or “subject” of the Lizard) but if you do not act in a way that is acceptable to the power establishment, then that same MI5 shall treat you as the “subversive” you are. That MI5 also were involved in the 7/7 bombing – a false flag attack on the UK mainland to achieve the same goal as the false flag in the US called 9/11. ALL to have the populations of the UK and US believe there was a bogeyman out there just waiting to blow you up and, therefore, ensuring that you will accept the further infringement of your rights under the con of protecting you and that you would support the UK/US/UN imperialism against those countries who will not play ball with global world government and, therefore, they are “Rogue nations”.

They don’t vet the BBC? They don’t work for the Crown? Really? Then let me repeat:

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

“There is no question whatsoever—I am not seeking to blame everybody in the security services—that there have been people working in high positions in MI5 and MI6, who have used the power vested in them under the so-called well-tried mechanisms of the Maxwell Fyfe directive to undermine political democracy in Britain.

Then, of course, we come up against the justification for their action, and that is where the constitutional areas become most important. Anyone who has read any of the histories on these matters will know that the security services do not feel in any way responsible to the Government of the day. They believe they are responsible to the Crown. They represent the Crown in order to deal with subversion. I shall try to define the Crown and subversion in a moment.

The methods used by the security services must be set out. There is widespread vetting not only of civil servants, but, of course, of those in defence industries. The Clerk of the House and all the officials of the House are vetted by the security services. This was revealed in evidence submitted to the Committee of Privileges of which I am a member. That says a lot for the division between the legislature and the Executive, because the Executive vets the officials of the legislature. The BBC is vetted down to the level of anyone is involved in the preparation of current affairs or news. The research assistants of Members of Parliament are vetted. We know that from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who brought the matter to the House.

The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.”

 

Now, if you think for one moment that the British Intelligence services did not know about Jimmy Savile and do not know about so many others – including those in the Royal Family of which Louis Mountbatten was just ONE – then you are, quite frankly, immensely naive, ignorant or, just a simple minded idiot. So then, WHY would Prince Charles and the rest of the Monarchy (while Diana couldn’t stand Savile, it seems, from reports) entertain this sleazy little entertainer? Do you also think that THEY did not know? This sordid little shit was on the inside of the Royal Family because the British Royal Family are into what he was into!

 

Now consider Esther Rantzen and the rest of the BBC multitude who knew what was going on. Think about who shut these people up. The heads of the BBC right? Noone else would or could have (assuming Esther isn’t into it herself and who could blame you if you now seriously questioned that?). So the head honchos at the BBC silenced anyone who would have been prepared to speak out. Now why would the heads of the BBC protect this sleazy little bastard? I mean, it wouldn’t just be for ratings. They could sack him, get rid of him and the BBC would carry on with other entertainers. No-one would really miss Savile as such. So why? Because Savile was being protected by even higher powers (OR the BBC Executives were a part of it). There are no two ways about it, it is one or both of the two scenarios. However, let’s look at the former: Who would be protecting him? Well, as the man himself would say, “I can get jobs done”. Those “jobs” would extend into the Royal family itself. They would include work on behalf of Israel. Was Savile a Mossad agent? Sound crazy? Well how about this man?

Cliff Richard – MI5/6 Agent.

Yes indeed! Cliff Richard was (and may still be) a British Intelligence asset.

Recently declassified MI5 papers sensationally reveal that Peter Pan of pop, Sir Cliff Richard, was recruited by British intelligence services in the late 1950s. He remained a frontline agent throughout the cold war.

Squeaky clean Sir Cliff went by the code name Harry Web-of-Deceit amongst Whitehall officials. Cliff’s paymasters gave the bachelor boy (although apparently ‘a bit of a James Bond on the side’ according to one anonymous source) a brief to release his soft pop balladry as a smokescreen for more clandestine activities. Having successfully established himself as a sleeper in the pop world he was ‘activated’ in 1968, during his performance of Eurovision entry, Congratulations, at London’s Albert Hall in 1968.

‘Sir Cliff was Mr Wiretap himself’ explained Tony Newbold, a retired intelligence officer ‘It was bloody brilliant: nobody suspected a thing. He was the best bug-er we had – a departmental accolade that spread, I’m afraid – for which I would like to humbly apologise.’

Now look at this photo of Savile with Peter Sutcliffe and Frank Bruno. What a VERY odd combination! But there’s something in that handshake that leads us back to George Robertson, Thomas Hamilton and the freemasonry fraternity.

You see, if you look at any freemasonry outfit, they are all heavily involved in child charity. The Freemasons get heavily involved with the disabled, children and families with “social problems” from alcohol to drug abuse. Now before going off on some rant saying “freemasons do good work” etc, perhaps some of them do. Perhaps. But the whole ethos of freemasonry is secrecy (just look up Parliamentary archives and you will see numerous instances of it). Good does not work in the darkness of secrecy, it works in broad daylight. What better wat to get your hands on kids who are vulnerable either physically, mentally, emotionally or all three? No better way than acting as Savile did! Does that mean all freemasons are paedophiles or even have the slightest idea of what happens higher up the chain? NO!. Freemasons, as we all know, do not get introduced to the “greater secrets” until they achieve the level above their existing degree so HOW could a freemason ever say “We don’t do that?” They do not even know the detail of the degree above!

 

BBC 5 LIVE 6th November 2012: Freemasonry paedophiles:

Somehow, I feel this video won’t stay up long on Youtube so download while you can.

You’ve got to ask yourself why Frank Bruno would want to visit Broadmoor and meet with people like Sutcliffe while he also met with Ronnie Kray. Again, introduced to him by Savile. What was the point?

Bruno is another big children’s charity man. I am not suggesting anything by that but it shows that even the innocent (if a freemason ex boxer who did cocaine can be called innocent) can be used by the users, totally unaware of the practices of the other.

No! Of Course Prince Charles would have not the foggiest idea of who and what Jimmy Savile was. Don’t be ridiculous! The Prince, his father and mother just happen to be the people who the British Intelligence services report to.

Ah! “The British Intelligence services didn’t know that Savile was a paedo”?

Please look in the mirror closely at your scalp to see if there are any scars left over from your lobotomy!

The Prince may regret his association with the master paedo? No, not at all. He’ll be reminiscing of the good times won’t you Charlie?

Meanwhile, isn’t it bizarre just how many Princes get close and have such good relationships with paedos? We had Philip with Louis, Charlie with Jimmy and Andrew with Jeffrey!

So what the hell is the problem with Harry flashing his dick and ass at the world? Quite normal really comparatively speaking! He’s perhaps just getting warmed up!

Then you have Harriet Harman! Bets please!

 

Anyone want the big fat cigar?

 

UPDATE 28th October 2012:

Thank you Sonia! The Daily Express (for those of you who require mainstream media outlets for your “truth”) states it:

“Then there is the question that overshadows the whole Savile ­inquiry: why was he allowed to ­become so close to royalty and government? Surely it is the job of the security services to investigate the lifestyle of those who have access to our figureheads?

Yes indeed it is Sonia and you can take it to the bank that the Security Services AND, therefore, the Royal Family knew exactly what he was!

And now another update: 5th November 2012:

The Sunday Times!

But while they get close and so many will ask these questions regarding Charles’ “judgement” in befriending Savile, they will NEVER go close enough for the sheer fear of being destroyed – either the reporter, the Editor or the paper itself and its owners. So, above we see the Daily Mail saying ANDREW BROUGHT THE ROYAL FAMILY INTO DISREPUTE. Now we have CHARLES DOING THE SAME – EVEN WORSE! While Andrew’s article points to “sordid association” and “unwise”. STRANGE HOW BOTH BROTHERS HAVE HAD RELATIONSHIPS WITH PAEDOPHILES ISN’T IT? BUT WILL THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA PICK THIS UP AND RUN WITH IT ASKING REAL QUESTIONS?

How is it just “unwise” of either of them? When you get TWO of them it becomes a little more than “unwise” don’t you think? How about a mainstream headline asking the question:

ARE OUR ROYAL FAMILY – the SAXE COBURGS of GOTHA who are defrauding the British people of ÂŁmillions by way of using a Constitutional office’s right to hold the mineral rights of the Commonwealth – also PAEDOPHILES?

And don’t say that is slander because ANY other family who just so happened to have long standing relationships with two different paedophiles would be investigated by the Police for paedophilia themselves while just about 100% of society would be demonising that family and shunning them. But no, not our royals eh?

This is a SICK COUNTRY and it is sick because it is run, at the very top, by sick people!

Rebekah shag you yet Davey boy?

Or is it just the norm with you, the wife, Rebekah and the Obama’s etc having an inter-racial gang bang in chequers? Do the girls and boys from the primary school down the road get called in occasionally to party too? Not suggesting anything, just asking a question. The answer is either yes or not so nothing to get hot and bothered about Davey boy!

BBC & MI5

Posted in "Terrorism", The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by earthling on December 15, 2011

The BBC and MI5. You tell people this and you even show them and, no matter, they STILL think you wear a “tinfoil hat”. The problem with such people is that is all they have as ammunition against what is plainly in their face and, if they were to allow themselves to acknowledge these things, they would become very ill at ease and, perhaps, would not be able to handle it.

The point is, the BBC is and always has been, what so many of us know: A “programmed” propaganda outfit of the establishment programming (in so many ways) what and how the British people and many over the world within the commonwealth and elsewhere, should think. Nevertheless, us Brits will still wave our little flags at a Royal family which is screwing us all to the wall. Even screwing the families of the very soldiers who, ignorantly, die for her, her establishment, their prized possessions (countries and corporations). Ahh if only the typical soldier had a brain huh?

BBC MI5

The Telegraph: BBC & MI5

TRY TO DEFINE THE CROWN?

While it is entirely undemocratic and answers to noone.

Tony Benn: Would have been Britain’s Ron Paul (perhaps even better).

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

The debate is beginning to get to the central question, which is not the details of how we handle the security services or the official secrecy, but the constitutional relationships that are changed by the legislation that is to come before us. I believe that I am expressing an anxiety that goes far beyond the party of which I am a member about the evidence that has come to light regarding the threats to freedom by those who were supposed to defend it. Therefore, I consider that the proposals made by the Government in the Prime Minister’s speech from the Throne are far from being evidence of liberation, and offer evidence of tightening up. We should look at that first.

There is no question whatsoever—I am not seeking to blame everybody in the security services—that there have been people working in high positions in MI5 and MI6, who have used the power vested in them under the so-called well-tried mechanisms of the Maxwell Fyfe directive to undermine political democracy in Britain.

Secondly, those people have done so outside any form of ministerial control. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has been Home Secretary, and others in Governments of whom I have been a part have occupied that position, and I cannot believe that they knew what was going on. If they did not know what was going on, the Maxwell Fyfe directive was wholly ineffective in its operation—and I understand it is to be weakened in the new legislation.

Thirdly, when evidence of this behaviour came to light, far from the Government pursuing the law breakers for their law breaking, they pursued the man who described the law breaking for his description of it. A Government who purport to pursue a policy of law and order made no issue of the fact that in Mr. Peter Wright‘s book—after all, he was a serious and respected member of the intelligence services—he described crimes that were committed, and made no attempt to investigate those crimes or bring him to justice. His only offence was that he wrote about them.

Then, of course, we come up against the justification for their action, and that is where the constitutional areas become most important. Anyone who has read any of the histories on these matters will know that the security services do not feel in any way responsible to the Government of the day. They believe they are responsible to the Crown. They represent the Crown in order to deal with subversion. I shall try to define the Crown and subversion in a moment.

Two new elements have rightly been brought into the debate by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), which must be put upon the record. First of all, the British security services are supervised completely by the American security services. I know that because I had responsibilities for many years for those areas that were a part of what was called the “special relationship”. The Americans control our security services, supervise them, lay down the rules under which they operate, and warn them against people whom they regard as unreliable in Britain, because that is the condition upon which the United States makes nuclear weapons available to us.

The second threat—rather more shadowy but none the less real—is that, within a federal Europe, it is the intention of the Commission that security would be seen as a federal function, in part because the internal frontiers will cease to matter, and the Community will have to tackle what it defines as subversion on a federal basis.

The methods used by the security services must be set out. There is widespread vetting not only of civil servants, but, of course, of those in defence industries. The Clerk of the House and all the officials of the House are vetted by the security services. This was revealed in evidence submitted to the Committee of Privileges of which I am a member. That says a lot for the division between the legislature and the Executive, because the Executive vets the officials of the legislature. The BBC is vetted down to the level of anyone is involved in the preparation of current affairs or news. The research assistants of Members of Parliament are vetted. We know that from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who brought the matter to the House.

The security services penetrate other services and actions of our national life. I shall give three examples. Cecil King, who purported to be a newspaper proprietor or a manager, was an agent of MI5, as was Tom Driberg, a former chairman of the Labour party. Lord Rothschild, who, when I worked closely with him, I took to be an industrialist brought in to help our think tank, was actually working for MI5 throughout that period.

Massive telephone interception and the opening of letters occur. Charles II nationalised the Post Office in 1660 because he wanted to see what people were writing to one another. Therefore, the Home Secretary is carrying on a good tradition in trying to intercept postal and telephone services and to legalise it. The Home Secretary is the most appropriate person to be moving the Bill, because when I tried to make a speech in 1976 in a church in his constituency at Burford to celebrate the Levellers, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get the grant for the Workers’ Educational Association withdrawn. He is therefore consistent in his opposition to dissent in any century by anybody.

Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)

rose—

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I have the correspondence.

Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)

I remember inquiring 12 years ago why the taxpayers’ money was being used to help the right hon. Gentleman support the Levellers in Burford.

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

The right hon. Gentleman, with the sort of naivety that adds to his charm, confesses to the charge that I laid against him, that when he heard I was to speak at a church in Burford about the Levellers, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to try to bring pressure to bear so as to withdraw a grant from the WEA that had invited me. He has confirmed my argument, and he is consistent. He does not believe in dissent in any century, including the present one.

The other area in which the security services have operated is in redefining subversion. There is no doubt that the phrase that became popular during the miners’ strike of “the enemy within” had been defined much earlier by the security services. The enemy within includes the trade union movement and many members of the Labour party and peace movement. That definition was undoubtedly one of the factors that led to the attempt to destroy Harold Wilson. In my opinion, it was also used, but for different reasons, to remove the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), because the security services thought that he was too weak.

The methods used by the security services include the collection of damaging information and fabricating misinformation—as with the forging of Ted Short‘s bank account, which was leaked to Chapman Pincher. So much for lifelong confidentiality, when the security services regularly use certain journalists to feed out damaging information to destroy people they do not like. One cannot overlook the fact that Peter Wright confirmed Anthony Nutting‘s claim that Sir Anthony Eden ordered the assassination of another head of state, President Nasser. Anthony Nutting confirmed on television what Wright had written.

The question one must now ask is, what safeguards will there be under the new Act? Supposing Ted Short, as Lord President, had appealed to discover whether his bank account had been forged, to whom would his appeal have gone? Would it have gone to the Cabinet? No. Would it have gone to the Prime Minister? No. It would have gone to a commissioner appointed for the purpose by a previous Government.

When Bruce Kent‘s telephone was tapped, what safeguards would have existed then? If he had written to whoever it may have been and asked, “Is my phone being tapped?”, the only answer he would have received was not whether his phone was being tapped but whether the security services were abusing their rights—and those rights are covered by warrant and by a commission. The victims do not know what is being done to them, and the perpetrators do not wish to make complaints that might reveal the crimes they are perpetrating. The exceptions are one or two people such as Clive Ponting and Cathy Massiter, who were moved by their consciences, to act.

I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not. The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.

Tony Benn Crown

I asked the Home Secretary whether Ministers, who, after all, are Crown servants, will be covered by the new rules. It will be difficult to bind the Prime Minister to lifelong confidentiality as Bernard Ingham, on her instruction, breaches it at 11 o’clock every morning for the benefit of selected lobby correspondents who never make clear what has gone on. Are we really saying that anyone who is elected to Parliament, who becomes a Minister and discovers things he believes that it is in the public interest should be made known, will be bound to confidentiality for life? Or will anybody else? I have cited Ministers as they are uniquely accountable to those who elect them.

The reality is that there is nothing different about security. In its proper sense, security is part of the country’s defence forces, and no one denies that the country needs defence forces. But contrast the way security is treated with the other parts of the defence forces. Every year Parliament debates defence policy, but it never debates security policy—I am not talking about security operations. Parliament never discusses the definition of a subversive person—which is currently based on a phrase written years ago by a civil servant for Lord Harris in the House of Lords. We have never discussed whether as a Parliament we believe that being a member of CND makes a person subversive. That was decided by the Ministry of Defence, which told Cathy Massiter to bug Bruce Kent.

Parliament debates defence policy and votes a budget for the country’s defence establishment. It does not know the budget of the security establishment. Parliament knows the Chiefs of the Defence Staff and can ask parliamentary questions about defence matters. The issue is only confused by those who say that we cannot be told about individual security operations. Of course nobody wants to know a rumour that a bomber is coming to London. We do not want a parliamentary question that leads to the Minister responsible replying, “We think that a bomber is staying at a Bayswater hotel.” That is not the point at issue. The question is whether a state within the state, employing people with no feeling of responsibility to the Government elected by the people of this country, can continue as it is.

The Government wish to conceal information because that suits their book. I dare say that all Governments will want to conceal information—[Interruption.] It is not my purpose to make a party point. I hope that hon. Members will give me some credit. I am trying to raise a matter that is of equal concern in all parts of the House and to every elector. It would not alter matters very much if my right hon. and hon. Friends were occupying the Government Benches and those of hon. Gentlemen were seated on the Opposition Benches. I am clear about that. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the record, they will find that, as a Cabinet Minister, I raised the same questions on the Labour party’s national executive and submitted a memorandum that warned of the dangers. That was 10 years ago.

When one considers that the Government sent in the police to remove the Zircon film, and the prosecutions of Tisdall and Ponting, one realises that the real conflict concerns both sides of the House and those who elect us. We have heard much about the oxygen of publicity for Sinn Fein. Democracy lives by the oxygen of information. If one cuts off the oxygen of information and releases instead the poisonous gas of secrecy, misinformation and news management, one destroys the basis on which this House safeguards our people. The House of Commons is the real guarantor of the liberties of the people, not those individuals in little offices who have their own ideas about who is subversive and who engage in bugging, blackmailing and in destroying the reputations of those whom they do not like.

Democracy’s second safeguard is conscience. There is no substitute in law, administrative action or court ruling for the person, be they man or woman, who says, “What is being done is wrong and I shall speak my mind and take the consequences.” If one removes the safeguard of conscience from people who, in the course of their work, may come across something they feel it would be in the public interest to divulge—whether one gaols them, punishes them, or makes them into public villains—they would only be doing what we told the Germans at the Nuremberg trials they should have done, which was to disregard unjust orders—[HON. MEMBERS: “No!”] Of course that is what the Nuremberg trials were all about.

Parliament must protect these principles. In many ways I share the view of the hon. Member for Thanet, South. Next week I shall have been here 38 years. I have never known a House of Commons that has been so craven in surrendering one of its rights after another—surrendering powers to the EEC, accepting 120 foreign bases, and now, in the name of security, handing over even greater powers to the Executive. If we do not stand up here and now it will be too late—

Mr Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I am approaching my last sentence.

We must make a stand here and now or we shall find that, in the name of freedom, we are surrendering our liberties.

WHO THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE? WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY? AND WHY ARE THEY IMMUNE TO LAW? 

BECAUSE ROTHSCHILD’S A JEW? AND THEREFORE, BRINGING CHARGES WOULD BE DEEMED ANTI-SEMITIC?

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)

To ask the Attorney-General whether he is considering bringing any prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act arising from the “Spycatcher” episode.

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

No, Sir.

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he is not yet prosecuting Lord Rothschild?

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

My answer as to why no prosecution was being brought was given several months ago. To bring such a prosecution would not have been in conformity with the Attorney-General‘s published guidelines for prosecutors.

Mr Michael Fallon (Darlington)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it extraordinary that, even after yesterday’s outrage, the Opposition still do not support the need to uphold the duty of confidentiality of those who work in our security service in order to defend the country from terrorism and subversion?

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There seems to be a certain ambivalence in the attitude of Opposition Members to that litigation. I venture to suggest that if we were not prepared to incur the cost of litigation to uphold the duty to which my hon. Friend has referred, the cost would very soon be more than money.

TRY TO DEFINE THE CROWN?

SO WHO THE HELL IS IT THAT ARE PROSECUTING US?

AN UNKNOWN, CENTRAL STATE WITHIN A STATE, SUBJECT TO NO-ONE AND SUBJECT TO NO PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY?

AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE WANTS TO DO WHAT? PROSECUTE WHO? FOR WHAT?

WHO IS PROSECUTING US?

As for this piece of absolute trash:

Sir John Morris (Aberavon)

I, too, wholeheartedly welcome the Attorney-General back to his place in the House.

What is the prime consideration in relation to prosecutions? Is it damage to national security, or is it political embarrassment? Does the Attorney-General maintain consistency in his approach to Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting and to others such as Mr. West, Mr. Pincher, Lord Rothschild and the security men who may have leaked information to those people? Has not section 2 of the Official Secrets Act been virtually put out to grass and replaced in practical terms as a damage limitation exercise by actions for breach of confidentiality?

Mr Michael Havers (Wimbledon)

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind remarks. He used the word prosecutions, not for the first time during my questions. In fact, the proceedings in Australia are civil proceedings. There is no way in which we can prosecute under the Official Secrets Act in another country. With regard to the action in Australia, the principle has been brought out clearly today that it is the Government’s determination to establish that once a man joins a service in which he promises to keep secret for the rest of his life all that he finds, that principle should be upheld.

So you cannot prosecute in another Commonwealth country where the Queen is the Head of State? Her Majesty had her Governor General destroy the Government of Gough Whitlam in 1975!

So Her Majesty can do that but Her Majesty cannot prosecute in Australia, an individual who has broken the law relating to her Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act? Didn’t we just say it is the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE?

Then if the CROWN can’t prosecute certain people then what sort of CROWN is this?

I’ll tell you what sort of CROWN it is: It is a CROWN, within which ROTHSCHILD plays a very significant part alongside his lackey Lizzie!