The Return of the Vampire of Finance

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:30 am

antiaristo Registered Member Posts: 1292 (3/1/06 9:43 pm) Reply | Edit Re: Great point floyd. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Floyd, slim, I absolutely agree. We all have to make our own judgements on this. I've said before that I've thought it all through, and my conscience is clear. If current trends continue, I see no future for my children. They feel I have abandoned them. They have no idea of how things were for the working class in Britain all the way up to World War II. They were truly horrible. And I see those times returning. I see those times being brought back by the person that lived them. By the person whose own life spanned the entire century. That scares the shit out of me. Do you really believe I'm not aware of the derision I lay myself open to when I try to explain what is going on? From the ignorant, taking their easy shots. From the complicit, laying their traps. But I now see the people here in Spain waking up. There are lots of things that tell me so, that they are finally reacting to my warnings. But nobody ever helps me in return. That is our weakness. Love, true love for one's fellow man, is dying with the rush for personal enrichment. I got a letter from my eldest daughter to my mother asking why I was unable to help her buy a warm coat for the winter. Can you imagine how that feels? And that is just a sampler. And all I ever see on television is how wonderful these royals are. How glamorous, how caring, how decent. When they have literally stolen the food from out of the mouths of my children. In their efforts to starve me into submission. And all I ever get on this fucking board is "You're an anti semite". Or more recently, Stormfront. From those who claim the high moral ground. Yet I cannot give in to despair. For to do so is to give up hope. And then I am dead. antiaristo Registered Member Posts: 1294 (3/1/06 10:24 pm) Reply | Edit Re: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Floyd, You are a lovely man. But I am not asking for contributions. That would not solve the problem. What about the following month? And the month after that? And on and on. Charity is not the answer, however genuine. The answer is for me to be able to become a man once more, and to live up to my responsibilities. THAT is what they have done to me. But your kind words have done no end of good to my spirits. Thank you.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:17 am

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1721586,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/cartoo...86,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:32 am

Make no mistake. The Secretary of State for television is going on trial for bribery by Berlusconi. It was a JOINT mortgage. That means Jowell was on the hook to the bank for half the debt. If that mortgage was repaid with a bribe from Berlusconi, then half the bribe went to Jowell. That is the legal position. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Jowellgate: Italian judge will press charges over bribery allegations By Peter Popham, Colin Brown, Matthew Beard and Jonathan Brown Published: 02 March 2006 Judges in Milan will press charges against Tessa Jowell's husband, David Mills, and the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, in connection with a $600,000 (£300,000) bribery scandal. Just as Whitehall sources predicted the Culture Secretary would be cleared but left critically wounded by the findings of a cabinet inquiry into her role in the affair - to be revealed today - Italian sources said there was sufficient evidence to try the two men.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article348714.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...348714.ece</a>

by **madeupname452** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:26 pm

from Private Eye (fortnightly satirical uk magazine) David Mills and (the Guardian) Editor Alan Rusbridger are good friends,regular dinner companions and occasional golfing partners who both have weekend cottages in the same Gloucestershire village.And Tessa Jowell's best friend...is Rusbridger's wife. <img src="http://private-eye.co.uk/pictures/covers/big/1153.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:34 pm

When I think about it, I think nothing so personifies this upside down world more than this. Land assets held in an offshore trust. Trusts are a peculiar feature of the common law. But they are hugely advantageous to the wealthy, and so growing hand-over-fist. This is how people like David Mills add value to the world. This is the legitimate side of what he does. What must he have done to be in trouble with the law? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ghosts who own Duke's estate Who owns Scotland?: Nominee Trusts THERE was little sympathy for the Duke of Buccleuch, one of the richest men in Britain, when he had a Leonardo da Vinci painting stolen from Drumlanrig Castle last month. Buccleuch, who has a vast personal fortune and charges £6 to enter his estate at Drumlanrig Castle near Dumfries, made the mistake of demanding that the government should pay for security at estates that open their doors to the public. He conveniently forgot the £200 million tax exemption he received in 1974 for agreeing to the access deal in the first place. Buccleuch owns 288,000 acres of land and is ranked 646th on the current Sunday Times Rich List, making him worth £55m. His art collection alone is said to be worth £450m. As well as Drumlanrig, he owns the 17th-century Bowhill estate at Selkirk, and Boughton in Northamptonshire, sometimes known as the “Versailles of England”. Or does he? We looked closer. At first glance Buccleuch Estates Ltd appears to be a conventional limited company with directors and shareholders. But the Duke of Buccleuch owns only two out of the 132,000 shares in the company. The twist, which hides the true identity of the ultimate owners and helps them legitimately avoid paying excessive taxes, is a nominee company that owns almost all of Buccleuch Estates Limited. Anderson Strathern Nominees Ltd, a company whose total paid-up share value is £4 and whose shareholders are four Edinburgh lawyers, has been dormant since its incorporation in May 1992. It owns 99.7% of Buccleuch Estates Limited, a company with assets and turnover of tens of millions of pounds. Anderson Strathern Nominees Ltd is exactly what it says on the tin – a nominee company, a skeleton that does no trading except to do things at the behest of others. In this case, Anderson Strathern Nominees Ltd, it is assumed, acts in the interests of the other shareholders of Buccleuch Estates Ltd, who include the Duke of Buccleuch and HRH Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. But that is impossible to establish conclusively. It is just as likely that the beneficiaries are other trusts offshore or onshore that protect the substantial wealth that must now be accumulated in them. Nominee companies are dead ends, making it impossible to establish the motive or true ownership of land. Somewhere there will be a declaration of trust or a deed of trust that will give instructions on how the nominee company should operate and detail the deal between the nominees and the beneficiaries. The Buccleuch estate is big business. In 2002 it paid £1.26m in corporation tax. Some £31m was invested in the business in 2002, mostly financed from a £34.5m bank loan. It paid £500,000 in dividends to the nominee directors at Anderson Strathern Nominees Ltd, but it is virtually impossible to find out who the beneficiaries are beyond the nominees. On paper, Anderson Strathern Nominees Ltd, receives most of the annual dividends paid to the shareholders. Anderson Strathern Nominees Ltd’s directors are real people, but, like ghosts, they cannot grasp coins. The money passes through the nominees to the beneficiaries. Where it goes then, nobody knows. Within Buccleuch Estates Ltd, it is understood that there are financial firewalls which will ensure that estate assets are sheltered and shielded from each other. Some parts of the company might be held offshore, some parts in Britain. The Buccleuch accounts show a vast number of companies that the estate has associations with. There is no transparent path through those to the true owners. Nobody doubts that the Duke of Buccleuch is one of the biggest landowners in Scotland, but on paper he owns only a tiny part of his own company. Finding out exactly who owns the Buccleuch estate is almost impossible. Finding out how much tax it would pay if the ownership were publicly declared will remain a secret to the Inland Revenue and all others who seek to pry. www.whoownsscotland.org.uk 05 October 2003<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.sundayherald.com/37224">www.sundayherald.com/37224</a>

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Blair expresses confidence in Jowell but questions continue Prime minister accepts assurance she did not know of £350,000 payment Patrick Wintour and Ian Cobain Friday March 3, 2006 The Guardian Tony Blair yesterday reprieved his beleaguered culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, when he accepted her assurance that she was not told for four years by her husband, David Mills, that he had received a £350,000 gift with which he had paid off a joint mortgage on their home. Ms Jowell acknowledged the gift should have been disclosed to civil servants under the code to avoid any conflict of interest. She added that her husband, a corporate lawyer, should have informed her of the gift. Her plea of ignorance stretched the credulity of some angry Labour backbenchers, and one senior London Labour MP feared the mud would stick in the London local elections. One Tory backbencher, Nigel Evans, condemned the report as "staggering and a whitewash". He said he would be raising a complaint on her failure to register her other interests in the register of MPs' interests, including her interest in the Centurion hedge fund. Critics are expected to seize on a number of peculiarities in her statement, notably how she appeared to be unaware of the injection of £350,000 into the household finances for four years despite having made a subsequent joint mortgage application on the same property 18 months later. But the Tory frontbench, in new compassionate Conservative mode, held off from any public attack on a woman politician widely regarded as both popular and competent. The new Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, also restrained himself saying he was "content" with the ruling by Mr Blair. He entered the caveat that he would change his view if new information came to light, something that may yet happen in the Rome court case involving Mr Mills later in the spring. Ms Jowell escaped censure by the prime minister after he accepted her assurance that by the time she became aware of the £350,000, in August 2004, her husband had agreed with the Revenue & Customs that the sum should be reclassified as taxable earnings, and therefore did not need to be reported to her departmental permanent secretary. After days of media pressure, the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, set out the facts in a brief report. He recorded that Ms Jowell had explained she did not know her husband had received what he believed to be a £350,000 gift soon after taking out a mortgage in September 2000, and he had used that money to pay off the mortgage. She adds: "I fully accept that my husband should have informed me and if he had, I would, of course, have reported it to my permanent secretary." Mr Blair in a statement said: "I accept Tessa's assurance that she did not know about it (the gift) until the issue was resolved with the Inland Revenue. In these circumstances, she is not in breach of the ministerial code." But it is clear from Sir Gus's report that, after being informed in August 2004 by her husband that he believed he had been in receipt of a disclosable gift in 2000, she took no steps to tell the permanent secretary. In his narrowly drawn report, Sir Gus implicitly criticises Ms Jowell for not taking greater interest in her spouse's financial dealings. He pointedly stated that he will remind permanent secretaries that the notification of "personal financial interests of ministers and their partners remains the individual responsibility of ministers". This initiative is likely to be seen as a clear reminder to Ms Jowell that, under the code, she had a personal responsibility to be familiar with the full financial activites of her husband, and then report them to the civil service. Sir Gus offered no view on whether the £350,000 gift came from Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, or, as Mr Mills claims, from a shipping magnate. He said he did not probe this issue since it is central to the imminent court proceedings in Rome and any judgment by him would have prejudiced the trial. Sir Gus's inquiry does not examine wider issues, including whether she should have registered other holdings in offshore trusts. He also did not look into a letter from Mr Mills to authorities in Dubai seeking work and trading on his closeness with Mr Blair. The prime minister, worried that he might have to hand the media another scalp, is determined to keep Ms Jowell in office and she will be in Melbourne alongside him at the Commonwealth Games in March. She also intends to front the Labour local election campaign in April. Ms Jowell's husband is likely to be charged by the Italian authorities before the end of the month. He is expecting to face a perjury charge, and may later face an additional charge of money laundering. Ms Jowell may also be dogged by a number of awkward questions arising from her statement. She has said she was not aware until recently that a mortgage on her home was repaid after 10 weeks, in November 2000, and that she knew nothing until August 2004 of the sum used to pay it off. This would mean that she remained unaware of the repayment at the point, 18 months later, when she and her husband applied for another loan, worth £250,000, from Mortgage Express.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1722509,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/frontp...09,00.html</a> What's the point in bothering to vote when there's no difference between the parties? Sound familiar? ps 452 is that Brian Paddick in the photo with the blind woman?

by **madeupname452** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:53 pm

dunno who the policeman in the pic is-i will google it--its the front cover of this weeks private eye-very scathing about tessa-just jokey stuff mainly but unfortunately most of the current mag is not available on their website ( <a href="http://www.private-eye.co.uk">www.private-eye.co.uk</a> ) -you have to buy the mag.(which i do) just noticed that the most recent article about Jowells & Mills on the guardian news blog by Michael White has no user comments are allowed.Seems like they are nervous about letting readers comment on this affair. also in this issue-revelations that Mark Bolland (prince charles'ex spin doctor )lied massively about his qualifications and experience in his C.V. and 'Who's Who' entry-he never was amarketing exec for IBM with a 2.1 degree in Chemistry-but he was temp on a telephone help line with a 'pass' degree . (uk university qualifications run from first class down to third -then pass-then fail) also in this issue is an anecdote about Lady Archer and how she received preferential treatment for a cat bite at Addenbrookes hospital where she is 'chairman'.No appointments or waiting lists needed for this lady-she even gets valet parking organized by the hospital porters . Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=madeupname452>madeupname452</A> at: 3/2/06 8:42 pm

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:45 pm

452, Veeeery interesting. Michael White wrote a Newsblog a couple of days ago, whitewashing Jowell. I put him straight. When I went back an hour later the comments section was closed, and my comment had been removed. There's something about it earlier on in this thread. Bolland. Looks like he's gonna get some payback. And they will want to discredit him before any possible trial of PoW v AN. They're ALL liars.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:00 am

It's Blair's decision, and he wants to keep her. He opened up a loophole, and marched her through it, though nobody believes it ("by the time I knew it was no longer a gift"). That is a mistake and will hasten Blair's own exit, and narrow his option for a "handover" to Gordon Brown (who has kept his own head down throughout) Jowell's constituency is Lewisham, a poor part of Southeast London with some gentrification, but poor communication links. She is the Labour "face" for the local elections in May. She will cost the Party dear. It will highlight the chasm between politicians in Westminster and ordinary folk five miles away. It will encourage the opposition parties as the Labour voters stay at home. It will incite fear amongst Labour Members for their own jobs. Which is all that matters for most of them. Sample comment title from the Independent, a left-leaning newspaper. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Matthew Norman: The greed of Blair's inner cabal is exposed<hr></blockquote>

by **antiaristo** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:14 pm

Who knows why these things happen, but the timing is interesting, and it cannot have hurt that Jowell has shown herself to be unworthy of trust. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>8am Licence fee needs open debate, say Lords Owen Gibson Friday March 3, 2006 An influential House of Lords committee has accused the government of treating the television licence fee as a stealth tax and called for the decision on the level of the charge to be debated in parliament rather than decided in secret. The select committee, chaired by Lord Fowler, said in a report published today that the government could undermine support for the licence fee by charging the BBC with expenses that should be met by central government. In the second part of its report on the corporation's future, due to be published today, the peers said the clandestine horse trading that characterises the runup to the renewal of the BBC's royal charter should be replaced by proper parliamentary scrutiny. By asking the BBC to bear the costs of subsidising the switch from analogue to digital transmission, due to start in 2008 and be completed by 2012, it risked pushing the licence fee ever higher and undermining public support, argued the committee. Meanwhile, media regulator Ofcom is also deliberating over whether the BBC should pay the Treasury for use of the broadcast spectrum in the same way as commercial broadcasters, a move the report said would be "illogical and unfair". "There is an overwhelming case for licence fee increases to be properly scrutinised by parliament with the assistance of the National Audit Office. There is no justification for the present position which is in effect a deal between the government and the BBC," said Lord Fowler. While supportive of the licence fee in principle, the committee warned that, by continuing to grant above-inflation increases, the government risked jeopardising wider public support. The BBC has asked for an increase of 2.3% above inflation, which would take the licence fee to more than £180 by 2014 but was criticised by the committee for not accurately costing the licence fee bid it put to government. The corporation's plan to move certain departments to Manchester, for example, had come down in cost by one-third since it submitted its bid. The BBC has estimated it will cost £200m to pay for the switch to digital transmission and a further £300m if so-called spectrum charging is implemented. The committee said it was most worried by the government's decision to charge the BBC with subsidising the switch to digital for the old and vulnerable, a move that has not yet been costed. Appearing before the committee, the BBC chairman, Michael Grade, said the corporation was content to help subsidise switchover on condition that "it is not so onerous that it brings into question, or increases resistance to, the licence fee". Elsewhere, the report - published ahead of the government's white paper on the future of the BBC, due in the next fortnight - said that recent moves by the European commission to break BSkyB's dominance over rights for live Premier League football didn't go far enough. The report also strongly encouraged the BBC to make a "genuinely competitive bid" for the rights to England's home Test cricket matches when the rights next came up for auction in 2009.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1722152,00.html">media.guardian.co.uk/site...52,00.html</a> This is really great news. The existing setup is slowly killing the BBC. The Commons Select Committee is chaired by the odious Gerald Kaufman who detests public service broadcating and uses his power to undermine the Corporation. Ofcom is the fiefdom of Richard Hooper, one of Lord Clive Hollick's directors at MAI at the time they raped Anglia Television. So the House of Lords is championing democracy once again by demanding both transparency and parliamentary sovereignty. This upside-down world shows its colours once again.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:46 am

Jowell and her husband are to separate. She's dumping him to try to save herself. But it makes no difference. It was a JOINT mortgage. You don't have to be married to share a mortgage. She was on the hook to the bank for half that debt. If that mortgage was repaid with a bribe from Berlusconi then half the bribe went to Jowell. Whether or not they are married. Jowell is now going to play the "little woman" who didn't know what a BAD MAN Mills was. It's fucking nauseating, frankly. The only difference between Mills and the many other thieves, crooks, murderers and fraudsters at the top of New labour is that they weren't able to cover it up. Because it's under Italian jurisdiction. That's the ONLY difference. They have a machine in the UK that can cover up ANYTHING. It's called the TREASON FELONY ACT. And it's to maintain that very crime machine that they murdered Diana. It's ALL connected.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:47 pm

Two stories from one newspaper today. First, HIM trading on HER connections <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Mills embroiled in sanctions-busting row By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor Published: 04 March 2006 The fall-out from the affair of Tessa Jowell's husband David Mills widened last night after he became embroiled in allegations over attempts to breach UN sanctions on the sale of aircraft spare parts to Iran. The Culture Secretary will face questions in the Commons on Monday and will be placed under intense pressure to make a statement to MPs on her husband's labyrinthine business connections which led to calls for her to resign. The full extent of Mr Mills's business connections is only now becoming clear, as it emerged that the international corporate lawyer was listed as a director or company secretary for 46 businesses. The sheer scale of his commercial involvements has raised fresh questions about Ms Jowell's declarations of her spouse's financial interests under the ministerial code of conduct. Ministers are required to disclose any financial dealings of a spouse that could cause a conflict of interest. Mr Mills's other interests include financial "intermediation" for Saint James Capital Ltd, a company set up in January last year with an Iranian lawyer, Shahan Shirkhani; Magnoglide Ltd which holds investments in European companies; and Mayfair Corporate Services Limited, a company privately owned by Mr Mills, specialising in secretarial support for businesses. Mr Mills was a key player in a trading firm which dealt with Iran in 2003, when the Iranians were trying to buy BAe Systems RJ146 passenger jets but they were stopped by a strict American embargo because they were fitted with US-built engines. His involvement sparked controversy after it was disclosed he had sought the help of a close family friend, Baroness Symonds, who was then a Foreign Office minister, over the trade restrictions that prevented the sale of jets or aircraft parts to Iran. The Government had hoped that the controversy had died down. But the allegations resurfaced last night after Michael Ancram, the former shadow Foreign Secretary, tabled a Commons question for the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. Mr Ancram asked the Chancellor whether the Government has carried out an investigation during the past three years "into the dealings of Mr David Mills in connection with the sale of aviation spare parts and equipment to Iran in contravention of the UN and European Union trade sanctions". The move underlines the determination of some Tories - in spite of David Cameron ordering his Shadow Cabinet to pull their punches - to bring Ms Jowell down. If they succeed, it would inflict serious damage on Tony Blair. Ms Jowell is one of his closest allies in the Cabinet. Mr Blair cleared her yesterday of breaching ministerial rules for failing to tell her permanent secretary of a payment, allegedly by Silvio Berlusconi, of a £350,000 "gift" to her husband for helping the Italian Prime Minister to avoid fraud charges in Italy. However, her claims that she was kept in the dark for four years about the money, and the disclosures that they repeatedly re-mortgaged their two homes to raise cash for investment in Mr Mills's extensive off-shore hedge funds is using up her store of goodwill among Labour MPs. A mortgage company appeared also to contradict her assertion that she had not known that the "gift" had paid off their first loan on their Kentish Town house in London. The firm said they had obtained a £625,000 loan in 2000 and a second loan on the house of £250,000 two years later. She had co-signed the forms for both mortgages. The Iran connection first surfaced in 2003 when Mr Mills approached Baroness Symonds at a dinner party and she urged him to "tread carefully" with the US in a private letter that was later leaked. She wrote: "Given the obvious political sensitivities you will need to tread very carefully with this one. This is a difficult time to be raising Iran policy in Washington. The advice I have been given, with which I am inclined to agree, is that our official support for you with the administration would raise the profile of the case and, by so doing, increase the chance of eliciting a negative response." She added: "So you will need to think very care fully about a lobbying strategy calibrated to achieve the right result. I am pleased that Allan Flood [the BAe director] will be in Washington next week and that he will be calling on the embassy to discuss this further. They are best placed to advise on next steps." There was no evidence that Mr Mills had broken the US trade embargo. He denied Opposition claims led by Mr Ancram that he had abused his privileged position, as the spouse of a cabinet minister, to further deals with Iran. However, it has now emerged he has traded on his connection to Mr Blair to try to boost his business elsewhere abroad. Mr Mills complained to financial authorities in Dubai when he had been refused permission to practise there, writing that "I have the support and sympathy of very many people in public life, from the Prime Minister down". The Dubai Financial Services Authority - a financial watchdog - accused Mr Mills of six breaches of Dubai's application procedures. These include an allegation that he gave false answers, including denying he had been involved in any firm that was subject of an investigation into allegation of misconduct or malpractice. At the time, he was being pursued by the Italian prosecutors over his links with Mr Berlusconi.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article349128.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...349128.ece</a> Next, HER trading on HIS connections. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Berlusconi hurt by 'gift' revelations By Jonathan Brown and Peter Popham in Rome Published: 04 March 2006 Prosecutors in Milan believe Tessa Jowell's statement asserting that the £350,000 received by her husband, David Mills, was initially described by him as a "gift" has critically undermined Silvio Berlusconi's defence in the case against him. According to documents in the prosecution file, Mr Mills told investigators in 2004 that the money was a fee, paid to him by his client Diego Attanasio. Magistrates believe they have sufficient evidence to link the money to the Italian Prime Minister and were said to be "delighted" yesterday when the Secretary of State for Culture appeared to contradict her husband over the nature of the cash. "If it is a gift then Mr Berlusconi is guilty," said one prosecution source. Niccolo Ghedini, a lawyer for Mr Berlusconi, dismissed the prosecution case. He said: "We must repeat for the umpteenth time that the lawyer Mills received the money indicated by the prosecutor of Milan from a person who has been clearly identified and is totally unrelated to [Mr Berlusconi's] Fininvest Group and in particular unrelated to Prime Minister Berlusconi." Meanwhile, Mario Pescante, Mr Berlusconi's minister of sport and a member of the International Olympic Committee, came under pressureto explain whether Ms Jowell sought to use undue influence to secure votes under his control to win the games for London last year. He told La Repubblica newspaper that he met Ms Jowell. "She asked me to vote for London to host the Olympic Games. But I deny in the most absolute way that she mentioned the name of her husband or that she boasted of connections of any sort to Italy," he said.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article349129.ece">news.independent.co.uk/eu...349129.ece</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:53 pm

Is Jeffrey Archer scripting this soap opera? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>New allegations emerge as 'hurt' Jowell leaves husband · Minister angry over 'abuse of trust' · Couple hope to mend marriage - Mills Gaby Hinsliff , political editor Sunday March 5, 2006 The Observer Tessa Jowell has separated from her husband after the 'painful discovery' that he had not told her the full facts about his controversial financial dealings, friends of the cabinet minister said yesterday.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1723896,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/p...96,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Observer has also obtained evidence to suggest that a second mortgage on their London home was paid off using money made from Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1723897,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/p...97,00.html</a> This is a joke. There is so much to find that the journalists are tripping over it. Another "two-second flourish of the pen", Mr Murdoch? And THIS is their poster girl! The Tories cannot POSSIBLY be worse than this lot.

by **slimmouse** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Tories cannot POSSIBLY be worse than this lot.<hr></blockquote> I think any capable mind can figure it all out by now. Democracy is Tyranny without chains, or Fascism with a smile. Can you seriously recognise any tangible difference between Blair and Cameron ? But of course, if you said that in any normal cross section of folks, they'd look at you stupid. But saying it here, should hopefully be speaking to the converted. Lets hope the converted are speaking to the people. At this stage, what is important is not suggesting the alternative, but making the vital point that essentially, there is fuckall difference between Tory/Labour or Dem/ Repub. This whole facade is nothing more than feudalism with trimmings. As regards a logical suggestion of an alternative. Think about inverting the Pyramid. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 3/4/06 8:20 pm

The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Cross Posting

The Hypocrite-in-Chief

Jowell On Trial

Jolly Good Friends

Offshore Trusts

In the Land of the One-Eyed, the Blind Woman is Queen

private eye

Private Eye

The Price of Cronyism

Taking the Initiative

The "Little Woman"

It Works BOTH Ways

Hah! "The Little Woman Betrayed"

Serial Offender

Re:Much of a muchness John.

Who is online