Today in London

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:03 pm

slim, please don't help him derail this thread.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:31 am

Looks like they have succeeded in running out the clock on those pursuing Menezes's ritual assassin. ELEVEN shots to the head, over THIRTY seconds. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The IPCC has completed its investigation into his death and sent its report to the Crown Prosecution Service, which is still considering whether to charge any of the Met officers involved in the operation.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5670334,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uklate...34,00.html</a> Presumably sans the "legally priveleged" papers. Will they get away with those chasing David Mills and his wife, Mary Poppins?

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Menezes family to meet president  Relatives of the Brazilian man shot dead by police in London are to meet the country's president for private talks on Thursday, the family has said. Three cousins and a friend of Jean Charles de Menezes, 27 - shot last July - will speak to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva at the end of his UK state visit. The family said the meeting would take place at Heathrow airport, but the Brazilian Embassy would not confirm it. Mr Menezes was shot at a Tube station after police mistook him for a bomber. Policy defended A Foreign Office spokesman said he was aware the relatives had requested to meet the president. A Menezes family spokesman said the meeting would take place in a diplomatic suite at Heathrow airport before the president leaves the country. The family will make a statement afterwards. Mr Menezes was shot dead at Stockwell tube station, in south London, the day after the failed bomb attacks on July 21. He had been mistaken for a suicide bomber and was shot seven times in the head. On Wednesday, an Association of Chief Police Officers' review of the killing found there was no need to change the strategy police use to deal with suicide bombers. But it did accept the public needed a clearer explanation of police tactics. President Lula da Silva is on a three-day visit to the UK, which includes a state dinner at Buckingham Palace, talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair at Downing Street and meetings with business leaders.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4787968.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4787968.stm</a> This is important, even though the British will keep right on with the cover-up. The test will come in Strasbourg, at the European Court of Human Rights. If the Menezes family go alone, they will be cheated like myself. If they think they can get away with it, the Council of Europe will break European law and side with the British. Precedent proves that to be true (ref 24316/03). But with the backing of the Brazilian Government, the de Menezes family can enforce the law, and get justice for Jean Charles. The legal issue hinges on the difference between the Human Rights Act, in Britain, and the European Convention on Human Rights. BOTH texts incorporate Article 2 <blockquote>Quote:<hr>ARTICLE 2 RIGHT TO LIFE 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.<hr></blockquote> Clearly this Article 2 has been breached by the British security state. They pumped seven bullets into an innocent man on his way to work. They fired eleven times, at point blank range. One every three seconds. THAT is a ritual assassination. So how come the British can LEGALLY cover this up? The answer lies with Article 13 of the Convention <blockquote>Quote:<hr>ARTICLE 13 Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html">www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html</a> Only common sense. What use is a "human right" that is discretionary, and cannot be enforced? But what about the British Human Rights Act? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Human Rights Act 1998 1998 Chapter 42 - continued -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes. [9th November 1998] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:- Introduction The Convention Rights. 1. - (1) In this Act "the Convention rights" means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in- (a) Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention, (b) Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol, and (c) Articles 1 and 2 of the Sixth Protocol, as read with Articles 16 to 18 of the Convention.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/80042--a.htm#1">www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts...2--a.htm#1</a> Notice anything strange? Article 13 is not there, is it? Which means so called "human rights" as they exist in Britain are not enforceable, are discretionary, and are therefore not rights at all. Which leaves Queen Elizabeth free to deploy her Treason Felony Act against Mr Menezes and his human rights. Which is exactly what she is doing. Which is not really surprising: after all, she gave the order for this ritual murder in the first place. Added on edit It is now clear that the Foreign Office is run by Sir Michael Jay, and that Jack Straw is a bobbing head put there to give Jay cover. Jay is the Queen's man. He runs British foreign policy the way she wants it run. Here is a taste (cross post) Remember this guy, identified in the first post on this thread as invoking the Treason Felony Act? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>When the issue came before the court of appeal in July 2004 the judges were handed an extraordinary witness statement 10 minutes before the hearing began. From Sir Michael Jay, permanent secretary to the Foreign Office, and authorised by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, it asked the judges to refrain from ruling on the legality of the war for fear of "giving comfort to terrorists, endangering the lives of Britons in Iraq and harming foreign relations".<hr></blockquote> Turns out he is ANOTHER serial offender. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Foreign Office chief accused of cover-up By Philippe Naughton The Whitehall mandarin who heads the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) was today subjected to a withering attack by an influential committee of MPs, one of whom accused him of a "cover up" over the organisation's failures. The criticisms of Sir Michael Jay, the FCO's Permanent Under-Secretary, relate to a report by external consultants detailing a series of leadership failings at the organisation, which employs 6,000 people worldwide and has an annual budget of almost £1 billion. Today, in its own report, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) accused Sir Michael of originally attempting to suppress the document and of acquiescing with senior staff who failed to co-operate with the consultants Collinson Grant. It concluded: "Sir Michael is part of the problem." Today’s report was also scathing about the FCO’s introduction of the Prism computer system in embassies and MI6 stations around the globe, which it said had caused "great dissatisfaction" among diplomats. One staff member wrote that "in the FCO’s long history of ineptly implemented IT initiatives, Prism is the most badly-designed, ill-considered one of the lot", the report revealed. The committee was also critical of the FCO’s failure to inform MPs of the largest fraud in its history, involving more than £790,000 in falsified allowances in the Tel Aviv embassy, exposed last year by the National Audit Office. The FAC said that the Foreign Office had "failed seriously in its duty" by not informing it about the fraud, which continued undetected for four years "as a result of weaknesses in financial control and involved clear breaches of long-standing accounting procedures". Andrew Mackinlay, a Labour member of the committee, said that today’s report detailed "the failure to disclose fraud, mismanagement, incompetence, adverse reports by independent consultants, indeed wilfully trying to cover up this catalogue of failure from the public and Parliament". He said it was the FAC’s third "major confrontation with the culture and style of senior managers of the Foreign Office", following controversial reports on Sierra Leone and the Iraq war in earlier parliaments. The Collinson Grant report was produced in January 2005 following analysis of the work of almost 3,000 Foreign Office staff. But today’s report noted that it remained unpublished until July, following pressure from a member of the FAC. The consultants raised concerns about the quality of leadership at the FCO and proposed cuts of as many as 1,200 posts and the removal of layers of management to achieve savings of £48 million annually. "The entire organisation needs to be challenged and reformed, but the leadership lacks the skills needed and the will to upset the status quo," the consultants wrote. They also complained of a lack of co-operation from some senior staff, particularly at the Paris Embassy, one of Britain’s largest and most prestigious overseas posts. In evidence to the committee last October, Sir Michael, the former Ambassador in Paris, said he accepted many of the consultants’ conclusions, but not their "root and branch criticism". He said he was "proud" to lead an organisation which did "an extraordinary job in difficult circumstances", but acknowledged that a "culture change" was needed. In a later letter, he said that the FCO believed some of the consultants’ recommendations to be "ill-founded" and some of the figures used to draw up possible savings inaccurate. The FCO had in fact cut costs by £6.6 million in 2004-05 and was confident of cutting £39 million this year. The FAC today responded: "We can only conclude from this that Sir Michael is part of the problem. Under his stewardship, the report was originally suppressed. It criticised the management he was supposed to lead. "He acquiesced in a situation where some senior managers failed to collaborate with Collinson Grant’s proper inquiries. His senior managers did not contest or seek to correct prior to publication errors which they now allege are contained in the Collinson Grant report. "When asked what he deems to be ‘ill-founded’ in the recommendations of Collinson Grant, he failed to give a specific example. This is all wholly unacceptable from a Permanent Under-Secretary." It added that the failure to share with MPs the Collinson Grant report or an internal report by Norman Ling, a senior official, into IT failures was "evidence of a disturbing aversion on the part of FCO management to proper scrutiny of its activities". The Prism system was designed to replace 30 separate existing systems, with new software and hardware, and changes in management and working practices in virtually every FCO post in Britain and overseas. But a "hugely embarrassing" internal review by Mr Ling last year listed a long series of flaws in the project, including hasty and bad decision-making, inadequate funding in some areas, lack of management skills and an exaggeration of the potential benefits of the new system, said the FAC. The "anguished" letter sent to an internal FCO magazine gave "only a hint of the true scale of anger in the ranks", said the committee. "Anyone who has visited a post where Prism has been rolled out knows that many staff are at their wits’ end about it," it said. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, rejected the committee’s criticisms of Sir Michael, who is due to retire in July and is expected to be replaced by Sir Peter Ricketts, the envoy to Nato. "I cannot and do not accept the criticism of Sir Michael Jay which I regard as wholly unreasonable," Mr Straw said in a statement. "Indeed, the report commends much of the important work Sir Michael has driven forward under his effective leadership of this organisation. "For example, the report praises ‘the FCO’s commitment to changing aspects of its culture and to giving leadership and management skills their appropriate place in the organisation’."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-2076280-2,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/pri...-2,00.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 3/8/06 6:07 pm

by **Darklo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So how come the British can LEGALLY cover this up?<hr></blockquote> Wheres the cover up? If we were told he was actually a terrorist, but he wasnt, that would be a cover up. If we werent told about it at all, it would be a cover up. True, the establishment is doing whatever it can to stop the De Menezes family. Why? Because they want two things; 1. To protect the arses of some high flying officers and their commanders. 2. To protect the arses of all future officers and their commanders should it happen again. Thats what happens when Lawyers get involved. They protect their client and screw the plaintiffs.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:30 pm

You are tedious, Darklo. All you can say is "They're all bastards". True, but not much help. Where's the cover-up? Can you read? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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>

by **Darklo** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:30 am

Antiaristo, I have clearly and explicilty stated why the Met is obstructing this enquiry; protecting their own from a complete f*ck up, and future f*ck ups. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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> As I said, the Lawyers are protecting their clients. If you have a decent argument against this, rather than attacking me as tedious, or misquoting me, then post it.

by **Darklo** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:34 am

Antiaristo, I have clearly and explicilty stated why the Met is obstructing this enquiry; protecting their own from a complete f*ck up, and future f*ck ups. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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> As I said, the Lawyers are protecting their clients. If you have a decent argument against this, rather than a fallacious one; attacking me as tedious, or misquoting me, then post it. Otherwise please just ignore me.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:02 am

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1726860,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/cartoo...60,00.html</a> f anyone can post it here I'd be grateful.

by * » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:39 pm

<img src="http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2006/03/09/stevb512.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **madeupname452** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:09 pm

the cartoon is by Steve Bell on Brazilian President Lula's state visit to Britain. why fit for purpose? "Fit for Purpose is a general expression which can be useful to ensure that ... Security solutions are appropriate for your organisation. " i added this note because at first i thought the beardy guy in the cartoon was the uk home secretary-thats the guy in charge of our homeland security Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=madeupname452>madeupname452</A> at: 3/9/06 2:11 pm

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:37 pm

Thanks 1 tal and 452 <blockquote>Quote:<hr>De Menezes family reject PM apology Press Association Thursday March 9, 2006 8:58 PM The family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian man shot dead by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber, said they would never accept the apology offered by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Speaking after a meeting with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, three of Mr de Menezes cousins and a family friend said they hoped the Brazilian government's involvement would help break down barriers in their search for justice. But Alex Pereira said: "I won't accept Blair's apology because he's killing people - he apologised but at the same time they will still carry on with their shoot-to-kill policy." Mr de Menezes' cousin, Patrisia da Silva Armani, said through an interpreter she thought the short meeting with the Brazilian President was very productive. "He said he would look at the case more closely and when he arrives in Brazil he will get their high lawyers to explain more about the case," she said. She also said the President had promised he would send human rights representatives from Brazil to look at the mistakes the family believe were made and help to try to correct them. "I'm very happy with the meeting, I'm sure after the meeting we can put more pressure on the case," she said through family friend Erionaldo da Silva. The meeting at Heathrow airport followed talks between the Prime Minister and the Brazilian President which included trade and the death of Mr de Menezes. Following that meeting, Mr Blair offered his "deepest regrets" to the family of Mr de Menezes, but said he retained full confidence in Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair. "Once again let me say that we offer our deepest regrets to the family for this very tragic event and I of course assured the President that the proper investigations and procedures would continue through to their conclusion," Mr Blair said at a Downing Street press conference.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5674303,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uklate...03,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:05 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In Milan yesterday, prosecutors rejected an attempt by lawyers for Mr Berlusconi and Mr Mills to bring forward more evidence in the case in which the men are accused of attempting to obstruct justice. Mr Berlusconi is accused of having paid Mr Mills for not telling a corruption trial facts damaging to Mr Berlusconi. Mr Mills admitted he had done this in a memo to his accountant and to prosecutors in July 2004. But he has repudiated his testimony. An Italian judge will see the evidence this week and decide if it is strong enough for the men to be charged. In refusing the defence's request, it is likely any trial would begin imminently.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article350369.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...350369.ece</a> A signed confession, plus the signed letter yo his accountant. If it were you or me either would be enough to hang us.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:33 pm

Before you groan - "No! Not again!" It's turning into a big story on YOUR side of the pond. At least, the New York Times/Herald Tribune seems to think so. And I'd hate to see a new thread started by a newbie. There are THREE people under threat of indictment jointly. Silvio Berlusconi, David Mills and Tessa Jowell. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Indictment is sought against Berlusconi By Ian Fisher and Sarah Lyall The New York Times FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 2006 ROME A month before Italy's hard- fought elections, prosecutors in Milan asked Friday that Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and a high-profile British lawyer be tried on charges of judicial corruption in a case that is also causing political turmoil in Britain. The prosecutors released no details, but the case has been widely reported in the Italian media, and centers on whether Berlusconi ordered $600,000 to be paid in 1999 to the lawyer, David Mills, an expert on offshore corporate law, in exchange for providing false testimony on behalf of Berlusconi in two other cases involving fraud and corruption charges. A judge must now rule on the indictment requests. Both Berlusconi and Mills have denied the charges, with Mills contending that the money was a legitimate payment from another Italian client, a Neapolitan shipping magnate named Diego Attanasio. Attanasio has said that he could not have paid the sum because he was in prison at the time. Mills has ties to the innermost circles of the Labour government. His wife, Tessa Jowell, is Britain's culture minister and one of Prime Minister Tony Blair's closest allies. In the last few weeks, the British newspapers have been dominated by articles about Mills's complicated business affairs, casting an increasingly dark shadow on his marriage with Jowell, who has said that she knew nothing about his financial activities. Last weekend, the couple announced that they were separating after 27 years of marriage, leading to speculation - denied by both - that Jowell had jettisoned Mills because he had become a political liability to her and to Blair. It was unclear what exactly led the couple to split up. But Jowell was said to be embarrassed by a number of revelations. Among other things, it emerged that she had co-signed a mortgage on the family home in 2000, which was then repaid by Mills in a matter of weeks using the $600,000 he said he had received from Attanasio - and that had been channeled through a dizzying series of offshore accounts in the interim. In Italy on Friday, Berlusconi's allies dismissed the charges: They said that the timing, during the election campaign, proved the prime minister's long contention that left-leaning prosecutors have a vendetta against him. His spokesman, Paolo Bonaiuti, released a statement calling the charges "false theories - shameful and impossible." The prosecutors' request came as another embarrassment hit Berlusconi on Friday. His health minister, Francesco Storace, resigned over allegations that he had spied on political opponents. Neither allegation seems likely to be the silver bullet that the opposition might hopes would kill off Berlusconi's chances for a second consecutive term. During Berlusconi's decade both in politics and the courtroom, Italians have long overlooked legal proceedings against him. Still, the election race, coming at a time of no economic growth and growing frustration among voters here, might be different. Polls show Berlusconi, Italy's richest man, running behind his center-left challenger, Romano Prodi, amid other problems that include an earlier resignation of a minister and continuing disarray among his center- right allies. "It's another two hits on a ship that is not very seaworthy to begin with," said James Walston, a professor at the American University in Rome. But, like anyone who follows Italian politics, Walston was quick to add that, for whatever weaknesses, Berlusconi has been fighting hard for re-election and remains very much in the race. "We certainly can't count him out," he said. Italians go to the polls on April 9 and 10. Prosecutors have been quoted in Italian press reports as saying that they needed to act quickly because the statute of limitations for the crimes were shortened under legislation passed by Berlusconi's government. Now, a judge must hold hearings on whether the case will go to trial, a process unlikely to be complete during the last month of campaigning. Such trials drag on for years and, as has been the case in other corruption cases against Berlusconi, are often voided because the statute of limitations run out. In Britain, the matter is complicated because of the British public's wariness of Berlusconi, with whom Blair and his family once shared a vacation in Italy. Interviewed by the Italian authorities about the payment, Mills told the prosecutors that the money had come from Berlusconi. But he later retracted his statement, saying that he had been exhausted by the prosecutors' lengthy questioning. Mills has also disavowed a letter he wrote to his accountant in which he said that the $600,000 had come from "the B people" - meaning Berlusconi, apparently - and was connected to evidence that he had given in court and that had "kept Mr. B. out of a great deal of trouble." Explaining the letter to reporters recently, Mills said it was a "completely insane" document setting out a hypothetical situation by way of asking for tax advice about a client he did not wish to name. Perhaps the last straw in the marriage came when the Daily Mail newspaper reported that Mills, seeking permission to practice law in Dubai, had boasted to the Dubai authorities in a letter that he was married to a British cabinet minister and had the support of the prime minister. The other day, Mills, who was reportedly trying to avoid a pack of reporters while driving away from his house, drove past a photographer who was opening his car door at the time. The door ripped off Mills's sideview mirror. "Who's going to pay for that?" Mills asked. "Berlusconi!" the reporters chorused. Ian Fisher reported from Rome and Sarah Lyall from London.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/10/news/italy.php">www.iht.com/articles/2006.../italy.php</a>

by * » Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:39 pm

I was a little worried about you earlier in the day antia, when I found these articles hadn't been posted here yet: <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article350369.ece"> Labour MPs want Jowell's party critics disciplined for 'disloyalty'</a> By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor Published: 10 March 2006 "Labour MPs loyal to Tony Blair have made furious calls for two of Tessa Jowell's female backbench critics to be disciplined for attacking her over her husband's £350,000 "gift" from Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister. Ms Jowell was supported by the so-called Labour "sisterhood" in the Commons on Monday but in a private meeting, angry Labour MPs condemned outspoken remarks by Glenda Jackson, the MP for Hampstead and Highgate, and Kate Hoey, the Labour chairwoman of the Countryside Alliance. The MPs called for both to be brought before Labour backbenchers to explain their "disloyal" criticism of the embattled Secretary of State for Culture at a private meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Jane Kennedy, the Health minister, is reported to have protested to the private meeting that ministers were "defenceless" when they were attacked by their own side. Others who criticised the attacks included Barry Sheerman, chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Education, who backed Ms Jowell in the chamber by attacking the media. One MP said: "Sheerman said it was time the PLP did something about it. He said, 'Where is Glenda; where is Kate?' It got pretty heated. He said they should be brought before the PLP." David Blunkett, the former cabinet minister, and a close friend of Ms Jowell who supported him when he was ousted last year, yesterday described Ms Jackson as "doleful". He attacked her for referring to large quantities of money "washing around like a vast launderette". In The Sun, Mr Blunkett wrote: "Glenda would have learned all about that through her acting links with the great money machine in Hollywood." But Ms Hoey is determined to stand by her remarks. She said she was reflecting the views of Labour supporters in her seat, Vauxhall, London, who were appalled at the reports of David Mills, as the husband of a Labour minister, investing large sums in off-shore funds to avoid tax. Ms Hoey was sent text messages on her mobile phone by constituents, including a Labour councillor who said Ms Jowell should go. Ms Jowell announced at the weekend she was separating from her husband, and she was cleared of breaching the ministerial code by Mr Blair. But the damage over "Jowellgate" continued yesterday with the annual report of a parliamentary standards watchdog which criticised the Government for not having an independent panel to oversee the ministers' code of practice. Sir Alastair Graham, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said parish councillors are subjected to stronger ethical standards than cabinet ministers under Mr Blair. But No 10's spokesman said the Prime Minister was against handing his role to an independent panel. He said Mr Blair believed the judgement over the fate of ministers should rest with someone who was accountable to the electorate and Parliament. In Milan yesterday, prosecutors rejected an attempt by lawyers for Mr Berlusconi and Mr Mills to bring forward more evidence in the case in which the men are accused of attempting to obstruct justice. Mr Berlusconi is accused of having paid Mr Mills for not telling a corruption trial facts damaging to Mr Berlusconi. Mr Mills admitted he had done this in a memo to his accountant and to prosecutors in July 2004. But he has repudiated his testimony. An Italian judge will see the evidence this week and decide if it is strong enough for the men to be charged. In refusing the defence's request, it is likely any trial would begin imminently. Labour MPs loyal to Tony Blair have made furious calls for two of Tessa Jowell's female backbench critics to be disciplined for attacking her over her husband's £350,000 "gift" from Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister."

by **antiaristo** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:53 pm

1 tal, Thanks for posting it here. (Take a look at the "V for Vendetta thread!)

Today in London

Re: Its a lie

It's a Policy

Great News. Well Done Lula

Re: Great News. Well Done Lula

Re: Great News. Well Done Lula

Argumentum ad hominem

Re: Argumentum ad hominem

Truth, Spoken as Jest

Re: Truth, Spoken as Jest

re truth spoken as jest

Keeping up the pressure

Re: Today in Milan

You Read It Here First

Re: You Read It Here First

Re: You Read It Here First

Who is online