Today in London

by **antiaristo** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:19 pm

Our Most Gracious Lady the Queen has been cracking the whip. Jowell is VERY VERY close to being caught for serious white-collar crime. Custodial crime. All that is missing from the chain of evidence is one document. The provenance of the payment. Mills has confessed it was a gift from Berlusconi. That’s devastating to his wife, the Secretary of State for television, sex, gambling and drinking. In the eyes of the law, half that money went to her. So Mills has “withdrawn” the confession. When innocent Irish men and women tried to withdraw confessions that had been kicked out of them by the British security state they were laughed at. Nobody wanted to know. Or at least nobody wanted to know until they had served ten or fifteen years. Mills was accompanied by his lawyer when he signed the confession. That, to put it mildly, is double standards based on ethnicity. RACISM. The Milan Prosecutors cannot get that document because they are being blocked by the British. Their inquiry has been obstructed at every turn. Leaked notice to Berlusconi before responding to an extradition inquiry. Refusal to act while various departments shuffled papers back and forth. This is called “running down the clock” and the clock sounds TOMORROW. Withholding ALL electronic records, even though this category was specifically included in the warrant. Allowing Mills to decide what information to allow the Prosecutors. THIS IS DISGUSTING. The Mills clan have been identified as an intelligence family. That puts a somewhat different complexion on Dame Barbara Mills QC. That puts a somewhat different complexion on Eleanor Mills, of the Sunday Times. Mills has fled the country and gone to the US. He is with his son, who is said to be “distraught”. I bet he is. His utility to intelligence has just gone down to zero. That’s like being identified as a Freemason. If you are a Blue Lodge Mason, what does that matter? Not much. But if you are one of the higher degrees, it’s devastating. This spectacle is Freemasons protecting their own, using the TREASON FELONY ACT. HER ACT. The act that is the why and therefore of the ritual assassination of Diana in Paris. The act she is DESPERATE to pass on to Camilla Parker-Bowles. If Jowell goes down it will critically weaken the Treason Felony Act. The British protection racked will be broken. She can’t GUARANTEE protection. And THAT will change expectations about the future. And THAT will cause people to behave differently. The President of Brazil arrives in London this week. He has let it be known that he will raise the matter of Jean Charles de Menezes, who died as a ritual sacrifice last July 22. Assassinated by agents of that same security state that kicked confessions out of innocent Irish men and women back in the 70’s and 80’s. He was assassinated because he was “black”. That same RACISM. So bearing all that in mind, this is what happened today in London. In the heart of British democracy. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>5.30pm update Double parliamentary boost for Jowell Oliver King and Matthew Tempest Monday March 6, 2006 The culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, tonight received a double boost in her battle to keep her job, as Labour MPs gave her a rousing show of support in the Commons, and the MPs' watchdog confirmed she did not need to update her register of members' interests. In potentially the most damaging moment of the day, Sir Philip Mawer, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, met the cabinet minister to question her about her declaration in the register of interests - but concluded she did not need to change her declaration. Meanwhile, Ms Jowell was backed by a sizeable phalanx of Labour MPs in the Commons as she faced her regular session of culture questions - just 48 hours after splitting from her husband, international lawyer David Mills, over the allegations about his financial affairs. She emerged with a smile, and the backing of many Labour MPs, including London MP Meg Hillier. Ms Jowell is still due to front Labour's local election campaign in the capital this May. Tonight Mr Blair's official spokesman echoed that support, saying Downing Street still gave Ms Jowell their full backing. He said: "We believe that Tessa Jowell is scrupulous in trying to ensure that she does maintain the ministerial code and does what is necessary to meet the standards set by the standards commissioner. "Therefore, we are not surprised by Sir Philip's comments." However, the Tory leading the attack against Ms Jowell, Nigel Evans, tonight complained that "the spin now is that any question against her is a witch hunt, and that's simply not the case". He told Sky News: "She got a sympathetic response, but that's not the same as support." Mr Evans, a member of the culture, media and sport select committee, has demanded answers to a series of questions over Ms Jowell not declaring her husband's profits in a pub investment while she was a minister in charge of public health. But tonight Ms Jowell put out a combatative four-paragraph letter to Mr Evans, saying her husband never owned the shares, and she had never even heard of the company until this weekend. In the Commons this afternoon, flanked on the frontbench by a plethora of senior Labour women, including Patricia Hewitt, Ruth Kelly, Margaret Hodge and Hilary Armstrong, Ms Jowell was welcomed with cheers at a packed culture questions. Earlier a sympathetic cabinet colleague, Margaret Beckett, advised Ms Jowell to "tough it out". With Labour MPs out in force to support her, even Tory MPs got in on the act with one, Patrick McCormack, placing his arm around her before she entered the chamber and another, Mark Lancaster, telling her he it was "special pleasure to see you here today - and I mean that genuinely". At a routine question time on her departmental brief Ms Jowell was asked no direct questions about either her marriage breakdown or the financial allegations surrounding her husband, David Mills. A calm Ms Jowell told MPs: "Thank you. I hope my departmental questions will continue to provide the political highlight of the month in this place, that it has done today." After the 45-minute session, a beaming Ms Jowell left the chamber surrounded by female colleagues, one of whom shouted: "Well done Tessa!" PM's 'full support' With Ms Jowell's troubles concerning the alleged £350,000 "bribe" her husband is said to have received from the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, entering their third week, Downing street earlier said she "continues to enjoy the prime minister's full support" and should be allowed to get on with her job. "I believe she does an excellent job and should be allowed to get on doing it," Mr Blair told reporters after meeting the Pakistani prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, in Downing Street. Questions need answering The Conservative leader, David Cameron, who has held back from calling for Ms Jowell's resignation, today echoed the expressions of sympathy for her marriage breakdown but said other questions still needed answering. Speaking in Liverpool this morning he said: "Obviously everybody is thinking of the sad fact of her relationship breaking down. "There has been huge pressure on her and it has been a difficult time but there are other questions that need answering." He added: "There needs to be a better way of judging how ministers have abided by the ministerial code." However one Conservative MP, Nigel Evans, has continued to press Ms Jowell for answers on her knowledge of her husbands complicated business dealings, hand delivering a letter to Ms Jowell shortly before culture questions. Labour dissent grows But signs of internal Labour dissent have grown, with former cabinet minister Frank Dobson calling on Ms Jowell to step down from fronting the London local elections campaign, and MP Glenda Jackson demanding she should "seriously think" about resigning. At lunchtime Kate Hoey, the Labour MP for Vauxhall, told the BBC World at One programme that it would be "serious diversion" if Ms Jowell continued to lead Labour's London campaign. Speaking to the BBC this morning, the environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, said Ms Jowell was being subjected to a "trial by ordeal" over the allegations linking her husband to Mr Berlusconi. Mrs Beckett told the programme: "There is nothing yet that has been shown to be illegal, nothing that Tessa has done which has been shown to be illegal. "It is a kind of witch-hunt and it ought not to go on." Asked if Ms Jowell had "a duty to tough this out", Mrs Beckett responded: "If she can stand it, yes I think she does." She added: "I am really sorry for Tessa, but yes, if she can possibly stand it, she should tough it out, because it is just awful." Integrity That was echoed by the former education secretary Estelle Morris, who said she believed Ms Jowell told the truth as she knew it and had no doubt about her former cabinet colleague's integrity. "In this complicated and in some ways sad business, I think one of the things it is important for people to think about is the character of Tessa Jowell herself," Lady Morris told the BBC. The culture secretary was "second to none for being straight," she said. But she added: "There is no excuse if information hasn't been passed to the permanent secretary in the way that we are advised to when we take ministerial office." Asked whether Ms Jowell's character would be enough to save her job, Lady Morris answered: "It should be, but sometimes it is not." Mr Dobson warned things could go from "bad to worse" for Ms Jowell, considering the impending court cases against Mr Mills in Italy, and that she should relinquish the London campaigns role - although not step down as cabinet secretary. Serial rebel Bob Marshall-Andrew, told Guardian Unlimited: "I think she should survive. What concerns me is the amount of prosecution material leaked to the media. That is indefensible. There would be no chance of a fair trial here. One cannot pillory a British minister in this way. By our standards this is indefensible."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1724653,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/l...53,00.html</a> Cross reference <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=2221.topic&start=81&stop=100">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1&stop=100</a>

by **madeupname452** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:46 pm

but the news cycle rolls on and real people are not impressed by the spin that Jowell is a person of great integrity and professionalism. an online poll on the guardian website records 70% of the public believe that she should resign. On the bbc newsnight programme -people expressed negative opinions about her casual use of multiple mortgages in dubious circumstances when most of the population cannot scarcely afford even one .The Labour party is in panic that they will suffer hugely in the forthcoming local government elections this spring. the daily mirror -a mass market tabloid has some scathing coverage-their columnist Tony Parsons (who i find quite nauseating usually )has some great one liners. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The latest foul smell comes from the fact that Mills made a £67,000 profit from pub chain shares when his self-confessed empty-headed missus was public health minister, involved in reviewing the licensing laws. The real issue is not whether the Culture Secretary is dishonest or stupid, although for the rest of us it beggars belief that a husband could get a wife's signature on multiple mortgages without the little woman wondering why. ... Mandelson's mortgage, Blun-kett's shares, Cherie Blair's Bristol flats, dodgy friends and lucrative appearance fees, Tessa Jowell's slimy lawyer hubby - this greed-is-good shower make socialism seem like a good idea. So spare us the touching stories about a red-eyed David Mills flying off into the sunset. David Mills is a piece of scum floating on the sea of high finance. ... <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tonyparsons/#story1">www.mirror.co.uk/news/tonyparsons/#story1</a>

by **Darklo** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:09 pm

I dont begrudge anyone making a buck from their associations with others, I dont mind if people make money out of legal financial scams. Dont care. If you dont like it, looby for a change in the law. If hes guilty of stuff, he may well go down, if he doesnt - well nothings perfect. But I do care when politicians lie right in your face and get away with it. All her "mates" on both sides of the political spectrum are all doing the same, using their Curiculum Vitae, the credibility and access that being an MP gives you, to cash in and one day cash out. Why else would they all be trying to support her? Last thing any of them want is her to get kicked out, might just make it easier to get the whole stinking lot of them kicked out. We cant have people like this having the power to take us to war.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:24 pm

But Darklo, I thought you abhored racism?

by **madeupname452** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:02 pm

Peers have thrown out the Government's plans for identity cards for a second time, triggering a constitutional crisis by putting themselves on a collision course with MPs. The Lords rejected plans for everyone to be forced to register for an ID card when they renew their passport, accusing the Government of reneging on its manifesto promise to make the scheme voluntary. <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article349715.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...349715.ece</a>

by **Darklo** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:07 pm

Antiaristo, Your trying to antagonise me....so just spit out your point and let everyone read your logic here...

by **Darklo** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:15 pm

MPs have been told behind the scenes that this ID card is all about a clean database for the Government to work from. They screwed up the Inland Revenue and benefits merger, lost nearly a million people tax records (at least although we will never know). They have been told the government cant afford the public to figure out that the tax system is screwed as there would be outright massive fraud. The truth is way beyond that, but MP's need to think they know the conspiracy and that its all about keeping their fat arses paid up.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:32 pm

Darklo, I don't think you are correct. I'm seeking a bit of consistency from you. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>At the inquest into de Menezes’s death 10 days ago, John Cummins, the senior IPCC investigator, said publicly he had experienced no obstruction from the Met in his inquiry. But behind the scenes, the IPCC has pressed for the Met files at two meetings in the past three weeks. The commission has told Blair it is entitled to them under section 17 of the 2002 Police Reform Act, which gives it the power to demand “all such information and documents” it judges necessary to conduct its inquiries. The Met has declined to surrender the files. Scotland Yard bosses insist the papers are “legally privileged” and they are under no legal obligation to disclose them.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2070470,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...70,00.html</a> Now this ought not to be a problem. You just go to a judge and get an injunction. If it's not followed you are in contempt and you go to prison. So why don't they do that? The answer is because of the Treason Felony Act. The Treason Felony Act is being used to facilitate racism. That's a pretty specific legal charge. It is of great utility to the Brazilian Government. The alternative, which is of the "They are all bastards. They stick together like glue" variety, is of no use to anybody. I posted some material on how all sorts of LEGAL ACTIONS are gearing up on behalf of the London bomb victims. Actiona against the security state. Did you see that? That's how you fight back. Don't you think the Brazillian is worth defending?

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>President may meet Menezes family during visit to Britain By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor Published: 07 March 2006 President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is considering whether to meet relatives of a Brazilian man killed by British police in London last July after being mistaken for a suicide bomber, diplomats said. The official part of Mr Lula's visit to Britain, for the signing of many bilateral agreements, could be overshadowed by a meeting with the family of Jean Charles de Menezes. Alex Pereira, a cousin of Mr Menezes who lives in London, is seeking the meeting with the president.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article349692.ece">news.independent.co.uk/wo...349692.ece</a>

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:03 pm

I may have to change the thread title. This is one of those days when life imitates art. This story is all about Jowell. Yet Jowell's name nowhere appears. What's going on? The money in question was used to repay a mortgage. It was a JOINT mortgage on a Joint property. Half the money went to Jowell. That is the legal position. If it was a bribe from Berlusconi that is absolutely devastating for Jowell, for Blair and for the British Establishment. ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING. It's better than evens to bring down the government. It's that serious. Now I judge that the money DID come from Berlusconi. I say this for two reasons. First, Mills wrote to his accountant and said so. Then he confirmed this fact to the Milan Prosecutors, while accompanied by his attorney. But THAT was before he recognized the implications. He now says it was all made up. The British Establishment are doing everything they can think of to obstruct justice. So long as they can fend off a conviction, then Jowell is technically innocent of any crime and the circus will carry on with her as Minister of State for the television, alcohol, gambling and soft sex industries. Oh yes! And the Olympics, 2012. She's Minister of State for Vice. That's why she's presented as Mary Poppins. THIS is Britain. HERE a chap(ess) is INNOCENT until proven guilty. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Lawyers for Mills in last ditch effort to postpone bribery trial From Richard Owen in Milan LAWYERS defending David Mills and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, in a bribery and perjury case in Milan, are expected to try to delay an indictment today by asking for the two defendants to be questioned again by prosecutors. Today is the last day on which Niccolo Ghedini, defending Signor Berlusconi, and Federico Cecconi, defending Mr Mills, can ask for new interrogations to be carried out by the prosecutors and then included in the 15,000-page dossier of allegations. At the heart of the tussle between defence and prosecution is Mr Mills’s withdrawal of an earlier confession to prosecutors, made in July 2004, that he received a gift from Signor Berlusconi of $600,000 (£340,000) as thanks for having acted as a witness for the Italian leader in corruption trials in the 1990s. Mr Mills changed his story in November 2004, claiming that he had received the money from a Bahamas account of Diego Attanasio, described as a Naples shipowner. The prosecutors are seeking to prove that Mr Mills’s original confession was correct, but are said to be missing key documents. The defence lawyers hope to prove that Mr Mills did receive the money from Signor Attanasio, as he claims. Signor Attanasio has a conviction for corruption in Salerno, against which he is appealing. From the defence point of view, however, any stigma attached to Mr Mills’s association with Signor Attanasio pales beside the benefit of being able to prove that Mr Mills did not take a bribe from Signor Berlusconi. Signor Attanasio has denied transferring the money, saying that he was in prison at the time, but has admitted that he entrusted the management of his financial affairs to Mr Mills while in jail. Legal sources said the prosecutors had hoped that new evidence from a Metropolitan Police raid on Mr Mills’s home and office last month would provide crucial evidence that the money did come from Signor Berlusconi, but the documents and computer files from the raid were only now arriving in Milan, and had so far proved disappointing. The prosecutors deposited their dossier with the Milan court on February 16, and the defence has 20 days, which expires at midnight tonight, in which to record its response or ask for fresh questioning to clear up basic points in the prosecution’s case. If the defence lawyers waive their right to ask for new interrogations, the prosecutors are expected to ask Fabio Paparella, the judge, to decide by the end of the week whether to set a trial date. Even if he does, the case could lapse unless the prosecutors can secure a conviction before the beginning of 2008 because of Italy’s ten-year statute of limitations. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2072901,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...01,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:47 pm

Poor Tessa has been taken in again by that BAD MAN. Ever the victim, our Mary Poppins. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Tessa Jowell was facing renewed questions over her husband's financial dealings. The under-fire Culture Secretary had denied David Mills had ever owned shares in a a pub chain. Reports at the weekend claim he made £67,000 from shares in the Old Monk Company. Documents obtained by Sky News were said to prove he was the "beneficial owner" of the company that owned the shares. And Tory opponents say Ms Jowell should have declared that in the register of MPs' interests. "I understand the shares were never owned by my husband," she said. But Italian prosecutors looking into Mr Mills' affairs have released a series of letters suggesting that a company owned by Mr Mills did own the shares. In a hand-written letter the beneficial owner of the company said she had transferred the shares to Mr Mills. Raj Bairoliya from accountancy firm LLP told Sky: "It suggests that at that point the ownership of this company, Struie Holdings, has transferred from Marina Mahler (the beneficial owner) to Mr Mills. "Essentially that means to me that the shares have been transferred in his name to him." Tory MP Nigel Evans said: "This is a declarable interest that should have been declared in the register of members' interests. It doesn't matter at the end of the day that his name wasn't on the share ownership. If it was on the company that owned the shares and he benefited from the profit then clearly they were declarable."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=379203&in_page_id=1770">www.dailymail.co.uk/pages...ge_id=1770</a>

by **Darklo** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:01 pm

Antiaristo, You are saying that someone is using the Treason Felony Act to prevent a proper investigation of the events surrounding the death of De Menezes because he is Brazilian. It follows then that you are saying that if he was, lets say, English, white middle class, then the MET would not obstruct the IPCC. Sorry, cant go with that Im afraid. The MET's motivation driver here is protecting butts, and has nothing to do with racism. If he was English they might be in even more riogorous in their arse covering. You might say that if De Menesez was an English white man, he would never have been killed in the first place. But that argument is easily crushed, he was a target because he fit the criteria of a suspect, not because the cops were racist. Im presuming here that this killing was a mistake, tragedy etc. etc. and not some sort of ritual sacrifice, or an opportunity to set a precedent.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:10 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You might say that if De Menesez was an English white man, he would never have been killed in the first place. But that argument is easily crushed, he was a target because he fit the criteria of a suspect, not because the cops were racist.<hr></blockquote> The official version of the whole incident is an "official" LIE. The bonus from "their" Point of view being, this guy is some innocent Brazilian who nobody is supposed to care about. However, in the context of Anti terror laws, and the ever increasingly laid bare deceptions of the PTB ( courtesy largely of the net ) , there are a lot of networked people these days who have access to information. People are begginning to see thru the lies. And they are talking to each other. Strap in and enjoy I suppose. . Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 3/7/06 7:11 pm

by **Darklo** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:44 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The official version of the whole incident is an "official" LIE.<hr></blockquote> Im fully prepared to go along with this, but I have not seen a decent enough conspiracy theory to replace the official "mistake" story. Alex Jones was suggesting that De Menezes was an electrician working on the Tube and was killed for what he knew, but I just dont see why it was such a public killing. And anyway that idea died. OK, maybe it is some weird masonic occult ritual sacrifice, but I see no evidence for this. It looks like a complete f*ck up to me, and Im sure that were not being told the truth. But that doesnt mean it wasnt a f*ck up anyway.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>OK, maybe it is some weird masonic occult ritual sacrifice,<hr></blockquote> Maybe youre right there, who knows ? Pont de la Lune ring a bell ?

Today in London

Today in London

Re: Today in London

Re: Am I missing something here?

Racism

Today in London-ID cards Bill suffers defeat in Lords

Re: Racism

Re: Today in London-ID cards Bill suffers defeat in Lords

Strategy

Does Lula Care?

Today in Milan

Re: Today in Milan

Re: Strategy

Re: Strategy

Re: Its a lie

Re: Its a lie

Who is online