The Return of the Vampire of Finance

by **antiaristo** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:37 pm

Whenever the authentic history of the (British) Labour Party is written down on paper the deeds of the Vampire of Finance will loom larger than most. This bloodsucker, known to the world as Lord Clive Hollick, greased the skids for the Blair/Brown factional takeover of the Party. With millions and millions and millions of pounds. He’s back, greasing the skids for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts in their raid on Northcliffe Newspapers. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Former Fleet Street giants vie for control of Mail's local titles Richard Wachman and James Robinson Sunday December 4, 2005 The Observer Labour peer Lord Hollick, the former Express Newspapers boss, plans to bid for Northcliffe, the local newspaper group put up for sale by the Daily Mail group last week. But he will face stiff competition from rival bidders, including David Montgomery. The former Mirror editor turned multi-millionaire businessman is preparing a consortium bid for Northcliffe Newspapers in alliance with British venture capital group 3i and Anglo-American investment fund Veronis Suhler Stevenson. They are the same allies he had when he unsuccessfully bid for the Telegraph stable of newspapers 18 months ago, which were eventually sold to the Barclay brothers for £665m. Hollick stepped down as chief executive of United Business Media, which used to own the Express titles, earlier this year. He has since joined American private equity group Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, which is preparing a bid for Northcliffe, according to City sources. The group could be worth up to £1.5 billion, analysts believe. Hollick is said to be eager to re-enter the media industry and views Northcliffe as an ideal opportunity to launch a comeback.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1657009,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/b...09,00.html</a> Lord Clive Hollick carried out corporate genocide at Anglia Television (under cover of Lord Jeffrey Archer and his insider trading in Anglia Television shares). If you want to know what is going to happen to the people at Northcliffe, take a look at all the bloodless corpses at Anglia Television in 1994. Two hundred of us cadavers, sucked completely dry. There were two formal, official inquiries. The Department of Trade and Industry appointed Roger Kaye QC and Hugh Aldous FCA as Inspectors in January 1994. Kaye and Aldous submitted their second and final report to Michael Heseltine ten years ago almost to the day. It was never published. It remains unpublished today. A State Secret untouchable by the Freedom of Information Act. It has been suppressed because it documents serious crimes committed by Lord Clive Hollick (amongst others). Hard-nosed bloodsucking. I know these things because I was asked by Kaye and Aldous to give evidence. And I did give evidence in August 1995. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Nicholas Pardoe FCA Secretary to Roger Kaye QC and Hugh Aldous FCA 24 August 1995 Dear Mr Pardoe, Thank you for your letter of 10 August 1995 to notify myself of the renewed Anglia inquiry being undertaken by Messrs. Kaye and Aldous. I cannot help but wish I had known about the original inquiry; had I known my life might not have lain in ruins. I can certainly tell you a great deal about what happened as a direct result of Lord Archer´s little jolly. About the deliberate damage and destruction done to the lives of hundreds of decent working people and their families. About blackmail and fraud, deceit and thieving, attempted abduction and the suspension of the rule of law across the Realm. And about the efforts to forcibly silence the only man willing to do anything about it. But herein I will restrict myself to the original blackmail and fraud. The directors of Anglia Television Group plc would have been notified about your original inquiry as a matter of course. Lord Hollick and two associates (Hickson and Laughton) joined the Anglia board on 14 April 1994 and would in turn have been formally notified at that time. Lord Hollick and MAI used the fact of your original (secret) inquiry as a weapon of blackmail against the entire Anglia board. One may discern the application of the squeeze from a reading of the notes of a meeting of directors held on 4 May 1994 (Exhibit A attached). What was proposed by MAI would have been a clear breach of promises issued with the offer documents through the Stock Exchange by the Anglia board. So the board could fight a clear wrong, and risk the exposure of Lord Archer. Or they could succumb and lay themselves open to legal attack by the employees of Anglia whose rights were being negated. It is at this point that Lord Archer himself became a party to the blackmail. He could have told his wife and the rest of the board the truth, that he had brought the inquiry on himself through his own acts. Instead he lied. (It was for this that he apologized to his wife at the end of August 1994. But only after he had been completely exposed.) The Anglia board were in a bind. Such a bind that the Chairman (Sir Peter Gibbings) refused to sign the notes (which is why they never became “minutes”.) Such a bind that the Chairman backdated the date of his own resignation from the board to 30 April (so the record would indicate he could not possibly have chaired the meeting of 4 May – see Exhibit B). Such a bind that later the truth had to be dragged from the company in a tortuous process akin to extracting wisdom teeth (Exhibit C) Then, in the best traditions of the Hard guy/Soft guy routine, Lord Hollick became the Anglia board’s best friend. “I know a way out of the dilemma. We will use a ghost Director to do the dirty work. You can break your word and deny your duty of care with no fear of comeback!” “Yes please” came the reply from the Anglia board. Thus was born Mr Malcolm Wall as high profile Managing Director. Except he was not a director at all, but a fraud. All of the administration and co-ordination and litigation was handled by Ashurst Morris Crisp, even though they had never been appointed by the company or its board. All of the dirty work – sackings, lockouts, cheating, contract breaking, threats and intimidation and so forth – was implemented by Malcolm Wall even though he had never been appointed by the board. Yet from behind the scenes a series of lies were being promulgated, as will be seen from the press release of 12 May 1994 and the Eastern Daily Press (then Chairman: T Colman) of 27 May 1994 (both Exhibit D attached). A close reading of the notes of the meeting of 4 May 1994 indicates a clear refusal to appoint Mr Wall just eight days prior to the issue of the “New Team” press release by Anglia Television Group plc. Throughout the intent is to shelter the Anglia board from the consequences of the actions undertaken by their two main agents – Malcolm Wall and Ashurst Morris Crisp. Everything done by Malcolm Wall prior to 21 July 1994 is unauthorised, unlawful and wholly invalid. But the only person both willing and able to prove it is John Cleary (Exhibit E). Mr Wall was appointed to the board of Anglia on 21 July 1994. The plan was that Section 285 of the Companies Act 1985 would be used to legitimise his prior acts ex-post whilst not at the same time implicating the rest of the Anglia board (Exhibit F). But Section 285 does not apply when there has been a total absence of appointment, and Mr Wall remains the lead player in a fraudulent misrepresentation which was perpetrated as a direct result of Lord Archer’s decision to place an order for Anglia shares a few days before the MAI bid was announced. The notes to the meeting of Directors of 4 May 1994 make it clear this fraud was perpetrated with the full knowledge and active connivance of the Anglia board. The payoffs for helping this famous friend of the Prime Minister were handsome and spread wide. For Sir Peter Gibbings, the Chair of the Radio Authority, a backdated resignation and about a million pounds; for David Puttnam a high profile role dispensing lottery money and the Knighthood so craved by his wife; for Dianne Nutting a post with the Millennium Commission; for Lady Archer a fragrant reputation; for Lord Hollick a quick and easy return on investment from mass sackings. In fact everyone won except for the oiks, and they don’t matter. Except to other oiks. Like me. So I’ve been cheerfully doing battle with the filth at Downing Street for fully this last year and more. I didn’t know it was him until the end of August 1994 when the truth about what triggered your inquiry emerged. And it was not until the end of March this year that my hopes of winning without confronting the Prime Minister direct were dashed. One other mystery was cleared up for me at the End of March – that of Lord Archer’s inexplicable car crash. Would your own mind not be preoccupied, not tend to wander, if you too had just signed the death warrant for an innocent man, in order to protect your guilty self? As you know, between 31 March and 4 July this year I have levied on the Prime Minister and his allies the strongest moral and intellectual attack I could muster. I have no doubt whatsoever that my agitation had been instrumental in prompting the re-opening of your own inquiry on 4 May. Yet you did not seek to make contact with me until 10 August. You may or may not know this, but assassins were despatched to my front door on four occasions between those two dates. I might never have known of the inquiry I had triggered. I confess I was completely bemused when first I received your letter – why had you chosen to make contact at this time, so long after being reappointed. Then earlier this week an excited friend called with his congratulations – he had read about the reopening in the press. And the penny dropped. Would I be right to assume you would never have made contact at all had you been able to maintain total secrecy? Possibly you are unaware that the unwanted callers began again yesterday. But even if they get me at least now you have the evidence to enforce the law. I am willing and able to provide all assistance, but only if yours is a serious inquiry. And please do not again ask me to further risk my life. Though oik I be, my value greatly exceeds that of all those mentioned herein up to now in aggregate. Beauty is Truth, Truth beauty. That’s all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. Please kindly acknowledge receipt by return. Yours sincerely John Cleary Enc Exhibit A Notes of a meeting of Directors on 4 May 1994 Exhibit B Section 288 resignation return for Sir Peter Gibbings Exhibit C Letter from Anglia Company Secretary 13 June 1994 Exhibit D Anglia press release 12 May 1994 Eastern Daily Press headline and front page 27 May 1994 Exhibit E Anglia Company Secretary plus Register extract both 22 July 1994 Exhibit F Section 285 plus “The Nature of the Anglia Fraud”<hr></blockquote> Are YOU an employee at Northcliffe Newspapers? Or a friend or relative? Are YOU a consumer of the local press? Or just one that believes in fair-play and justice? Do YOU believe that the Kaye and Aldous Report should be kept secret, gathering dust, so that the Vampire of Finance can dismember the regional press as he dismembered regional television a decade ago? More to come.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>This bloodsucker, known to the world as Lord Clive Hollick, greased the skids for the Blair/Brown factional takeover of the Party. With millions and millions and millions of pounds.<hr></blockquote> Can I get odds on this guy being a Shriner ? Or is that a rather optimistic request ? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\">

by **antiaristo** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:04 pm

This is the Northcliffe portfolio of newspapers Aberdeen Citizen Aberdeen Evening Express Aberdeen Press and Journal Advertiser Series (Hull) Ashby and Coalville Mail Axholme Herald Bath Chronicle Bath Times Brentwood Gazette Series Bridgwater Times Bristol Evening Post Bristol Observer Series Burnham and Highbridge Times Cannock & Rugeley Mercury Carmarthen Herald Carmarthen Journal Cheadle Post and Times Cheltenham News Clevedon Mercury Cornish Guardian Derby Evening Telegraph Derby Express Group East Grinstead Courier East Lindsey Target Essex Chronicle Exeter Express and Echo Exeter Times Forest of Dean: The Forester Gainsborough Target Gloucester News Gloucestershire Echo Great Barr Observer Grimsby Target Grimsby Telegraph Hereford Admag Hull Daily Mail Kent and Sussex Courier Leek Post and Times Leicester Mail Group Leicester Mercury Lichfield Mercury Series Lincoln Target Lincolnshire Echo Llanelli Star Series Loughborough Mail Mansfield and Ashfield Recorder Mendip Messenger Mid Devon Gazette Series Mid Somerset Series Neath & Port Talbot Courier News In Focus North Devon Journal Nottingham Evening Post Nottingham Recorder Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth Extra Potteries Advertiser Retford Times Scunthorpe Target Scunthorpe Telegraph Sentinel Sunday Sevenoaks Chronicle Shrewsbury Admag Somerset Guardian Standard South Cheshire Advertiser South Lincs Target Group South Wales Evening Post Stoke The Sentinel Sutton Coldfield Observer Swansea Herald Of Wales Tamworth Herald Series Tamworth Leader Taunton Times The Citizen The Cornishman Torbay Weekender Series Torquay Herald Express Uttoxeter Post and Times Walsall Advertiser Wellington Weekly News West Briton West Wiltshire Advertiser Western Daily Press (Bristol) Western Gazette Western Morning News Weston and Worle News Wolds Target Yeovil Times

by **anon** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:37 am

would you be so kind as to lay out the basics /particulars? I take it one thing they did was a version of Charles Hurwitz in Northern California: he bought up a family lumber company by issuing junk bonds for collateral. Then, to pay them off he gobbled up the forests, clearcutting and over-harvesting - thus depleting the "seed stock" and depleting the jobs for x # of employees. Don't know if that's exactly 'pump n dump' , another corporate/mafia/wall street robbers' tactic. But then, the letter also lists blackmail and other crimes. Then, who was it that the vampire accused of murder & what were the circumstances? Is this what happened? PRIVATIZATION !! It's a bit hard to tell just from the letter. Thanks

by **antiaristo** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:34 pm

slim, I missed your post last time round. Sorry. I don’t know if he’s a Shriner, but he’s Scottish Rite through and through. He formed his character at Hambros Bank. anon, A great deal happened, over a period of years, during the cover-up. But the original crime was a relatively straightforward fraud. After gaining full control of Anglia Television Lord Hollick appointed a new Managing Director, Malcolm Wall. Wall proceeded to brutalise the employees and carry out a series of illegal acts with the help of hired guns. However, the appointment was a lie. Malcolm Wall was not elected to the Board until more than two months later, AFTER the commission of the crimes. Why? Because the Board of Directors is not responsible in law for acts prior to the actual appointment of Wall. Such acts are ultra-vires. Furthermore section 285 of the Companies Act 1985 says this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>285 Validity of acts of directors The acts of a director or manager are valid notwithstanding any defect that may afterwards be discovered in his appointment or qualification<hr></blockquote>. Any employee that sued would have to prove this was NOT a simple defect afterwards discovered. How to do that??? Like the bombing of the Chinese Embassy, or the lack of oversight on BCCI, it was all an “honest mistake”. How to prove otherwise, months or years afterwards? Now I CAN prove otherwise, because I took action at the time. That’s why I got chased – throughout Britain, throughout Ireland and into Spain. For more than ten years. Kaye and Aldous had that same information. That’s why the report was suppressed. That’s why the report is still a State Secret, beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act. So that Hollick can play the same dirty tricks once again, this time against the regional press.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:00 pm

I found this today. It's from Hansard, and occured during my "blind period" (living in Spain with no resources). It was July 15 1998. At the time ALL the focus was on Lord Jeffrey Archer, who was standing to become mayor of London. The larger crimes, those committed by Lord Clive Hollick against about two hundred ordinary people, have been airbrushed out of history. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Mrs. Beckett: The investigations into dealings in the shares of Anglia Television Group plc were matters which were begun and completed under the previous Administration. Reports on allegations of insider dealings are never published, as there are strict legal restraints on disclosure of information obtained in such investigations. I would consider opening a further investigation only if substantial fresh information became available, and if it was considered to be in the public interest to do so. In accordance with normal practice of neither confirming nor denying the existence of insider dealing investigations (unless there was some overriding public interest in doing so) no announcement was initially made of the appointment of inspectors on 8 February 1994 to inquire into dealings in the shares of Anglia Television Group Plc between 10 and 21 January 1994. On 7 July 1994, however, it became apparent that the media had detailed knowledge of the inspection, and the then Secretary of State accordingly decided that acknowledgement was in the public interest and confirmed that an investigation was being undertaken into the dealings in Anglia shares and that Lord Archer was one of the persons concerned. The inspectors reported on 19 July 1994, having conducted formal interviews with 22 witnesses. The then Secretary of State's decision to take no further action was announced on 28 July 1994. The original investigation had attracted widespread media coverage and speculation continued in the press and a number of further allegations were received in the Department about other dealings in Anglia shares. On reviewing this information in the spring of 1995 the then Secretary of State concluded that the inspectors should be re-appointed to investigate this new information. The then Secretary of State also decided, in line with normal practice, that this re-appointment should not be announced and that no further public statement should be made. The inspectors were re-appointed on 4 May 1995 to inquire into dealings in the shares of Anglia between 20 December 1993 and 21 January 1994. On 26 July 1996 the inspectors submitted their report on the second investigation, having conducted formal interviews with 32 witnesses. They concluded that there was no evidence on which a prosecution could be founded. Although the second investigation was a matter of some discussion and speculation in the media at the time, the re-appointment of inspectors has not previously been publicly acknowledged; and answers to recent parliamentary questions refer only to the first investigation. However, in order that there should be no misconception on this matter, I now consider it right to confirm the re-appointment of the inspectors in 1995. No papers relating to these two reports from the previous administration, and neither of the reports themselves have been seen by present Ministers. However, my officials have considered whether recent information constitutes new evidence which I ought to consider with a view to deciding whether to re-open the investigation. They have advised me that it does not, and I have accepted that advice; I have similarly accepted their advice that no useful purpose would be served by referring this case to Counsel or to the DPP.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980715/text/80715w09.htm">www.parliament.the-statio...715w09.htm</a> I'll have some comments on this to follow. It's just nice to find something in the parliamentary record. On edit: broken link fixed Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 12/9/05 9:34 am

by **emad** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:03 pm

He is known to the world as Lord Hollick NOT Lord Clive Hollick. Important distinction: 'Lord Hollick' denotes he is a non-hereditary peer, whose title dies out with him. If he was Lord Clive Hollick that would mean he was the son of an Earl or Marquis and that his title was hereditary.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:42 am

There was a SECOND inquiry. The question is WHY? WHY did the Department of Trade and Industry open the SECOND investigation on May 4 1995? This is the crucial question, and this is reflected by the questions put to the Minister. So I’ve reproduced those questions at the end of this post. Ms Beckett is very slippery and vague in reply. She gives no answer. So let me tell you what happened. As I told the Inspectors on August 24 1995, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As you know, between 31 March and 4 July this year I have levied on the Prime Minister and his allies the strongest moral and intellectual attack I could muster. I have no doubt whatsoever that my agitation had been instrumental in prompting the re-opening of your own inquiry on 4 May.<hr></blockquote> I wrote to the Committee on Standards in Public Life (The Nolan Committee) on 13 and 25 April 1995. Using Who’s Who I obtained a private address for every member of the Committee, and sent each Member a copy. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>13 April 1995 Dear Lord Nolan, I write with not tittle-tattle, but a question. When did you first read my original submission to the Committee? This is very important. I have recently learned that an attempt was indeed made against me sometime between 10th and 20th January this year. Those making the attempt were heavy-minded of my submission to the Committee – to the extent of checking the public hearings to see if I was there. That submission was dated and delivered to the Cabinet Office in duplicate on 16th December 1994 (I have the receipt to prove it). Had I disappeared, it could have been an embarrassment to have my submission in the hands of independently-minded Committee Members. When did you first read my submission? Yours sincerely John Cleary<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>25 April 1995 Dear Lord Nolan, I’m a great believer in pragmatic Bayesian experimentation. I invite you to observe that species on which you are to pronounce. The ubiquitous quango. All Members of the ITC know both Russell and Stevens are crooked, and that Dalkieth is a secret supporter. I myself have served notice of intent to take action on each Member, and defective (that is, all) decisions will be subject to judicial review and are probably reversible. The ITC intends to award the last terrestial broadcasting opportunity, and several consortia are thought to be interested, so it is a competitive situation. One consortium incorporates MAI plc, which led the attempt on my life in January, in part to cover up for ITC criminals. Last time round, when Channel 3 licenses were auctioned by the ITC, three men opened every bid on receipt. They were Sir George Russell, Jocelyn Stevens and David Glencross. I invite you to observe that species on which you are to pronounce during the coming weeks. Yours sincerely John Cleary PS I believe you owe me a reply to my enquiry of 13th April<hr></blockquote> A crazy man will be ignored. But because I sent copies to their private addresses, the Members were aware of my claims. They were clearly disturbed, and the bureaucracy was forced to send a reply. Back it came. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>1 May 1995 Dear Mr Cleary, In response to your letters of 12 and 25 April. The Committee are unable to enter into protracted correspondence with members of the public. There is, therefore, nothing I can usefully add to our previous correspondence. Yours sincerely Andrew Brewster Committee Secretariat<hr></blockquote> Pretty terse and pissed-off, I thought. That was the last I heard until the Inspectors wrote to me on 10 August 1995. It turned out the inquiry had been re-opened on 4 May. The Nolan Committee Members had indeed been disturbed by my letters. The Committee Membership was as follows Lord Nolan Sir Clifford Boulton Sir Martin Jacomb Professor Anthony King Tom King MP Peter Shore MP Lord Thomson of Monifieth Sir William Utting Dame Anne Warburton Diane Warwick ================0 The questioning that led to Beckett’s reply was this <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Insider Dealing Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions Mr. Roger Kaye QC and Mr. Hugh Aldous FCA have been contracted to act as inspectors investigating alleged insider dealing. [49432] Mrs. Beckett [holding answer 7 July 1998]: They have only been appointed insider dealing inspectors into the two investigations into the alleged insider dealing in the shares of Anglia Television Group plc. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many reports of investigations into insider dealing carried out under the Financial Services Act 1986 have been published. [48603] Mrs. Beckett: None. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many persons have been the subject of more than (a) one and (b) two investigations by her Department into alleged insider dealing. [49568] Mrs. Beckett: Inspectors are appointed under Section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to investigate dealings in the shares of a particular company not the dealings of specific persons. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make it her policy to publish her Department's inspectors' reports; and if she will make a statement. [48252] Mrs. Beckett: In relation to public companies it is already the Department's policy to publish reports prepared by Companies Act inspectors if it is in the public interest to do so. However, the reports of insider dealing inspectors are not published. There are strict legal restraints on disclosure of information obtained in such inspections. Lord Archer Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will seek the agreement of Lady Archer and Broosk Saib to make public details of the evidence they gave to her Department's inspectors investigating the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston- super-Mare in respect of share dealing. [4892<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"> Mrs. Beckett: I have no plans to do so. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will seek the agreement of Ms Morgan Thomas to make public details of the evidence she gave to the Department's inspectors investigating the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare in respect of share dealing. [49433] Mrs. Beckett [holding answer 7 July 1998]: No. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her Department's inspector's report into the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare in respect of share dealing carried a recommendation. [49431] Mrs. Beckett [holding answer 7 July 1998]: The report of the inspectors is confidential. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many investigations were conducted into alleged insider dealing in Anglia TV shares; when each investigation started and finished; and how many persons were interviewed in each case; [49362] (2) if the report by her Department's inspectors on the investigations into share dealing in Anglia TV by Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare has been made available to Ministers; [49202] (3) if she will request Mr. Edmund Lawson QC to review the information now in the public domain concerning the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston- super-Mare in respect of share dealing with a view to ascertaining whether there are grounds for a fresh investigation; [48605] (4) if she will seek the consent of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare to publish the report of the investigation into his conduct in respect of share dealing; [48606] (5) if she will seek the permission of the former President of the Board of Trade, the Right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), to consult the inspector's report into the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston- super-Mare in respect of share dealing; [49547] (6) if she will pass the report of her Department's 1994 investigation into the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare in respect of share dealings on to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a request for an opinion whether (a) the report and (b) facts disclosed subsequently constitute sufficient reason for the inquiry to be re-opened; [48249] (7) pursuant to her answer of 17 June 1998, Official Report, column 242, if she will assess (a) the statement by Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare in the Evening Standard of 9 June concerning Sir Nicholas Lloyd and (b) subsequent statements by Sir Nicholas Lloyd as possible new evidence which could justify the appointment of inspectors to investigate the alleged insider dealing in Anglia shares in 1994. [48253]<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980715/text/80715w09.htm">www.parliament.the-statio...715w09.htm</a>

by **jenz** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:06 am

what did you mean about Hollick and Hambro's, any enlargement appreciated. what do you think about the fragrant lady in this (Anglia) affair?

by **antiaristo** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:47 pm

jenz, Don't have much on Hollick at Hambros - just some on the business assets spun-off into MAI. But it IS the Windsors' bank. I knew Mary Archer. I visited her home. She was a director of Anglia Television Group PLC. What can I tell you? I did write two pieces in 2001. I Accuse Mary Archer and Mary Archer's Fraud. If you're interested I'll post them.

by **jenz** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:18 am

I'm interested in the pieces you wrote anti. I don't have anything specific on Fragrance, but in the course of investigating something very very nasty ( a whole lot horribler than fraud), I did notice that she was an associate, of a person who is accused by a survivor. The association is all above board, legit, and the activity they share is also as white as a fresh scrubbed marble sepulchre. but something in the testimony I have heard leads me to fear that there is a concealed aspect of this activity which is well rotten. the legit aspect may be the only level on which they are associated, and she may be completely ignorant of this other level of business.she may be a gatekeeper and not know it.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:02 am

jenz, Will post on a new thread I'll call "Lady" Mary Archer. For your specific interest I'd also recommend trying to talk to Jane Williams, who was her secretary for many years. The two women fell out badly and Archer sued her a few years ago for "hurt feelings". The court awarded something like a hundred pounds in damages, but of course the costs, which fell on Williams, came to several hundred thousand. Archer bakrupted Williams, who was forced to sell her home and everything she possessed. She took a job in a call centre at five pounds an hour. But she stressed, and I believe her, that she'd rather be brought low than sign the deal Archer was offering - a "deal with the Devil" was how Williams characterised it. Also I don't doubt that Archer is a top member of the Eastern Star. I remember watching some of the banquet preludes when Denis Thatcher was awarded his hereditary baronetcy ten years ago (Newt Gingrich was also there). Led in procession by the Queen and Margaret Thatcher, followed by the Duke of Edinburgh and Denis Thatcher, next in line were Lord and Lady Archer. The whole thing was reminiscent of a medieval monastic sect. Really creepy. And whatever it is you are looking at, if she's a gatekeeper there is no way she is ignorant. That woman is the coldest, nastiest piece of work I've ever had the misfortune to meet.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:13 pm

Here's another interesting connection <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Patrick Fitzgerald has added a superseding indictment for racketeering and obstruction to the fraud charges already faced by big neocon chiseler Conrad Black. Meanwhile, the SEC is tantalizing us all by serving up Wells notices to Hollinger board members Marie-Josee Kravis (wife of Henry Kravis), Richard Burt, former US ambassador to Germany, and former Republican Illinois Governor James Thompson. A Wells notice is "a formal warning that the agency's enforcement staff has determined that evidence of wrongdoing is sufficient to bring a civil lawsuit." You'll recall that Richard Perle was recently on the receiving end of a one of these babies in the Hollinger case. While Kravis, Burt and Thompson are in the crosshairs for having served on the board's audit committee and rubber stamping Black's efforts to loot the company, it's worth noting that a) the SEC doesn't seem to be done, and b) their fellow board member at the time was Henry Kissinger.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113471139882500629">firedoglake.blogspot.com/...9882500629</a> So the wife of Henry Kravis was on Lord Black's audit committee at Hollinger. Now Henry Kravis presumably wants to help Lord Hollick do the same to Northcliffe Newspapers

by **antiaristo** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 1:30 pm

Something I should make clear to any employees of Northcliffe or the DMGT. This property is of more value to Hollick/KKR because of how they will use the local press. Get hold of a copy of the Eastern Daily Press for 27 May 1994. On the front page there is a large photo of Malcolm Wall. In the story accompanying the photo ("Top-rated Anglia TV axes 171") are these words: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Malcolm Wall, appointed managing director of Anglia 10 days ago, said job losses were inevitable<hr></blockquote>. That was a lie, because Malcolm Wall was not appointed until 21 July 1994. The Chairman of Eastern Counties Newspapers (owners of the EDP) was Timothy Colman. Timothy Colman was at that time a director of Anglia Television. Today Sir Timothy Colman KG is a Knight of the Garter. Timothy Colman used the newspaper he controlled to carry out a very serious crime at Anglia Television. He and Hollick and his accomplices made a great deal of money out of their crime. THAT is how Hollick/KKR will finance their buyout. THAT is why they can outbid others for Northcliffe. ps If any of you want hard copy I will send it. I am unable to post scans. Please leave a message here.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:00 pm

I'm taking a flyer here, linking these two developments. But it's a truism that the invisible CAN be detected by the traces it leaves. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>7.15pm update Kennedy calls snap election after admitting drink problem Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Thursday January 5, 2006 The Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, tonight called a snap leadership contest after admitting on live TV that he had been treated for a drink problem for the past 18 months. In an extraordinary emergency TV statement at the Lib Dem headquarters in Westminster, Mr Kennedy told reporters: "I wanted to overcome it privately" but had been forced to go public ahead of media revelations. He insisted the drink problem was "essentially resolved" and that he was "capable and in good health". Tonight two of his most likely successors - the party's deputy leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, and its home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten - were quick to rule themselves out of a challenge. Simon Hughes, the party chairman who lost to Mr Kennedy in 1999, is yet to rule himself out, as are more outside figures such as Nick Clegg and David Laws. Mr Hughes's office put out a statement saying Mr Kennedy had been "brave" in making his problem public, but made no mention of whether he would or would not stand against his leader. But, simultaneous to Mr Kennedy's acceptance of his personal problems with alcohol, it emerged that a letter signed by nearly half the Lib Dem shadow cabinet expressing disquiet at his political leadership had been circulated by the party's Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable. more<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,9061,1680133,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/l...33,00.html</a> Kennedy's statement makes no sense if you think about it. He was re-elected as leader after the last General Election in May. Something has happened in the last month, which is when the criticisms REALLY started. It could well be this Northcliffe takeover. I sent e-mails to about one hundred of the journalists that work at Northcliffe local newspaper, and referred them to this thread. This scandal SHOULD be a massive boost for the Liberal Democrats. Why? Because BOTH other major parties are implicated. The Conservatives are implicated by Lord Archer's crimes. Labour is implicated by Lord Hollick's crimes. The Lib-Dems are clean. Yet Kennedy has made nothing of it. And his colleagues know it (I have acknowledgements from Lib Dem politicians, including at least one possible challenger) But Kennedy has always pretended he knows nothing. He's part of the Scottish Raj. Good fucking riddance to him.

The Return of the Vampire of Finance

The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Re: The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Northcliffe Titles

edify, pls?

Re: edify, pls?

Re: The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Hollick:

Re: The Return of the Vampire of Finance

anti - coupla ?s

Re: The Return of the Vampire of Finance

am interested

Re: am interested

Re: The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Northcliffe and DMGT Employees

Footprints in the Snow

Who is online