The Return of the Vampire of Finance

by **antiaristo** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:22 pm

This is blowing up at an incredible rate. Look at this slate of stories from the Independent (that's the one where the Editor is not best mates with Mills and Jowell) The Jowell Affair Why Tessa chose her job over her marriage Mr Mills & the Mob Alan Watkins: An all-too innocent Ms Jowell Janet Street-Porter: He disregarded his wife's career in order to protect his own Margaret Cook: She was willing to fling him to perdition... she should have resigned Bel Mooney: She never picked up the signals Leading article: Truly, a political morality tale for our times Silvio Berlusconi: The laughing Cavalier So they've got Street Porter and Mooney pushing the "Little Woman Betrayed" storyline, and Watkins and Cook pushing back with the "Who Are You Kidding?" soryline. That's balanced, I suppose.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:50 pm

No, it's even worse. It's ALASTAIR CAMPBELL! The man who used to write "erotic fiction" for Forum Magazine!!!!!!! <blockquote>Quote:<hr>However, it was reported last night that Mr Mills and Ms Jowell consulted Alastair Campbell, a close friend of the couple, on how to present news of their separation. Mr Campbell's involvement, if proved, will deepen Labour MPs' cynicism over the announcement.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article349336.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...349336.ece</a> I'll bet it will! slim, the first thing to do is to get them out of power as quickly as possible. Then get the next lot out as quickly as possible. Minimise their opportunity to cause damage.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:47 pm

This is how it works in practice. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Fury over Home Office block on key evidence by Dennis Rice and Alessandra Maggiorani 08:32am 5th March 2006 Home Secretary Charles Clarke was last night dragged into the 'Jowellgate' affair after Italian prosecutors accused the British authorities of withholding crucial evidence against David Mills. As Downing Street tried to draw a line under the scandal, the Home Office was faced with two key questions. Why, three weeks after computer files were seized from Tessa Jowell's home and her husband's office, have they still not been handed to prosecutors in Milan up against a deadline? And why, as the Italians have been told, will Mr Mills be allowed to help decide which, if any, of the files should be released to their investigators? Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday say Mr Mills will be allowed to discuss the 'pertinence' of data extracted from the computers before it is passed on to the Milanese Public Prosecutor's Office. But unless the files are given to the Italians by Tuesday, their contents cannot be included in any charges to be brought against Mr Mills - which under Italian law have to be lodged by March 7. Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael said last night: "This Government brought in legislation to ensure international cooperation in criminal investigations, particularly with our European partners. "Why have the authorities not proceeded with great urgency faced with a deadline for prosecutions in Italy? I will be demanding to know." Last night a spokesman for the Home Office admitted that the decision to allow Mr Mills to help decide what material from his computers should be sent to the Italian prosecutors was 'unprecedented'. But he denied any Home Office involvement, saying that it was entirely a police matter. "The Metropolitan Police Service is responsible for identifying and gathering relevant material according to the warrant," he said. "The issue of the time taken is therefore an operational matter for the MPS. The issue of deciding what is relevant is a matter for the MPS. We understand the process is ongoing." Last night, six hours after first being contacted, the Met issued a statement failing to address the complaints from the Italians. It said: "As soon as we have completed the examination we will pass on any papers or material within the scope of the warrants." The Met said that it would decide on the 'pertinence' of the material 'in consultation with the Italian authorities'. At the Home Office, the spokesman added: "We can categorically deny there has been any preferential treatment or political interference." But the fact that Mr Clarke's office has previously been accused of not doing everything possible to help the investigations into Mr Mills will fuel suspicions that the politician's husband has been protected by the New Labour establishment. And the way tax lawyer Mr Mills is linked with the case prosecutors are trying to build against Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi further worries Milan investigators. A source close to the prosecutor's department said: "We have had more collaboration from offshore 'tax paradises' than the British authorities. Read into that what you want." Last week it was claimed that Whitehall had effectively leaked sensitive information about the case to Mr Berlusconi back in June when details of an extradition request for Mr Mills were passed to the Italian Embassy in London. The computer row also dates back to last June when the Italian prosecutors asked for their own investigators to take part in raids on Mr Mills's North London home and Central London office. Instead of being told British police would never allow this, the request, said an Italian source, 'was shuffled around between the Met, the Serious Fraud Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, and, at some point, the Home Office as well'. With valuable time lost, the Italians asked for 'swift' raids by British police in late January. After search warrants, specifically mentioning 'electronic' documents as well as paper ones, were obtained, the raids went ahead on February 10. Police records show a desktop and laptop computer were taken from Mr Mills's office and a laptop from his home. But when the seized material arrived by courier in Italy, neither computers nor any hard-drive files were included. Fabio de Pasquale, the Milanese Public Prosecutor, told The Mail on Sunday that he was informed Mr Mills would be allowed to discuss with the Met the 'pertinence' of the data from the three computers before it was sent to Milan. Mr de Pasquale immediately wrote to Simon Regis, head of the Home Office's Judicial Co-Operation Unit, listing the computers which were seized - and urging British officials to allow the Milan investigators access. But sources close to the prosecutor's office say they are still no nearer seeing the files. One said: "We do not wish to believe this is political, but you have to ask why a simple request is taking so long. The British authorities know that all the papers have to be put before an Italian judge on March 7. "The delay is good for Mr Berlusconi, with the election coming up next month, and it is good for the wife of Mr Mills as the questions about her will die down. The only ones who it is not good for are us."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=378953&in_page_id=1770&ct=5">www.dailymail.co.uk/pages...=1770&ct=5</a> This is Britain. Here a chap is innocent until proven guilty.

by **pfredricks** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:38 pm

There was a "guide to the players" in today's Indy & in the very small bio of Mills' dad it noted that he was a British spook active in Jamaica & Gibraltar. It's not online, although I did find a paragrahp about Kenneth in the Independent from Feb 24th. The link is now pay-per-view, but thankfully the text has been copied: "He (Mills) has a gift for languages, traceable to his boyhood, when his father, Kenneth, was a big league spy. At the end of the war, Kenneth Mills was running MI5’s operations from Gibraltar. Later, he was transferred to Jamaica and - according to a family legend - personally foiled an attempted revolution in Cuba. Its leader, Fidel Castro, survived to try again." <a href="http://businesswriter.wordpress.com/2006/03/01/david-mills-walked-the-fine-line-between-business-and-politics/">businesswriter.wordpress....-politics/</a>

by **madeupname452** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:13 pm

<a href="http://www.sundayherald.com/54439">www.sundayherald.com/54439</a> It is understood that, late on Friday, Downing Street was made aware that Michael Ancram, the former shadow foreign secretary, had tabled a Treasury question for Chancellor Gordon Brown asking if the government had carried out any investigation over 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 United Nations and European Union trade sanctions”. ... Ancram’s inquiry centres on Mills’s work for a company called Saint James Capital and an Iranian lawyer, Shahan Shirkhani. Mills was also involved with a firm that dealt in exports to Iran which, in 2003, had tried to buy passenger aircraft, a deal in conflict with US law because the aircraft was fitted with US-made engines.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:40 pm

PF, A bit more in the Indie <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Mr Mills & the Mob SNIP THE ITALIANS SILVIO BERLUSCONI The Italian premier and media mogul alleged to have rewarded Mr Mills for "turning some tricky corners" in a previous trial. CARLO BERNASCONI Now dead. Executive and close friend of Mr Mills, who claimed Mr Bernasconi had made the disputed payment. DIEGO ATTANASIO The Naples shipbuilder who Mr Mills first claimed had given him the money. But Mr Attansio denies it, saying he was in prison at the time for corruption. MARCELLO DELL'UTRI The Sicilian politician and businessman convicted for his Mafia links whom Mr Mills appointed to a Berlusconi-run firm in London in the 1980s. THE FAMILY JOHN MILLS His brother and millionaire boss of import business. Labour councillor in Camden for 30 years, turning round council's derelict finances. DAME BARBARA MILLS His barrister sister-in-law, director of public prosecutions until 1998 during a difficult time for the Crown Prosecution Service. KENNETH MILLS His father, who was a British spy first in Gibraltar then in Jamaica, where family legend has it that he was instrumental in foiling Fidel Castro's first coup in Cuba. ELEANOR MILLS His daughter, editor of The Sunday Times News Review. Colleagues gave her a fake list of planned articles to conceal investigations of her father in last week's issue.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article349341.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...349341.ece</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:32 pm

They're doing THE SAME THING IN THE MENEZES COVER UP! <blockquote>Quote:<hr>At the inquest into de Menezes’s death 10 days ago, John Cummins, the senior IPCC investigator, said publicly he had experienced no obstruction from the Met in his inquiry. But behind the scenes, the IPCC has pressed for the Met files at two meetings in the past three weeks. The commission has told Blair it is entitled to them under section 17 of the 2002 Police Reform Act, which gives it the power to demand “all such information and documents” it judges necessary to conduct its inquiries. The Met has declined to surrender the files. Scotland Yard bosses insist the papers are “legally privileged” and they are under no legal obligation to disclose them.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2070470,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...70,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:07 pm

Oops! Perhaps there is more to it than "a mere two-second flourish of the pen" after all. Rupert knows she's finished. Monday's Times Leader. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Separation of powers A marital split is not the end of the Jowell affair In their separate bolt holes, Tessa Jowell and David Mills had reason over the weekend to wish they lived in Italy. There, despite his complex ties to leading Italian business people and politicians, Mr Mills’s troubles and their impact on his spouse and marriage have only fleetingly aroused the interest of the local press. (The weather has also been unseasonably mild.) The contrast with the couple’s chilly British reality could not have been more marked, or more justified. Where reasonable people might ordinarily have only sympathy for the participants in an imploding marriage, they are instead bewildered by the litany of unanswered questions and frankly baffling answers thrown up so far by the affair of the many and varied Jowell-Mills mortgages — an affair that goes to the heart of issues of ministerial accountability that the Government claims to hold dear. There will be more questions and answers today in the House of Commons, where Ms Jowell has pledged to appear as usual to face her opposite number, Theresa May. She may yet ride out the storm that her husband’s business dealings, and her professed ignorance of them, has unleashed. Any decision on her future is, after all, a political one, since she has not been accused of breaking the law, and Tony Blair has already given her the benefit of any doubts he harboured over potential breaches of the ministerial code. But the scrutiny of Mr Mills’s finances and of what his wife knew about them, and when, now has its own momentum. If there is more damaging information yet to emerge, emerge it will. Ms Jowell would therefore be wise to take advantage of the calm that should descend on her London home now that her husband has moved out, and examine her conscience more rigorously than ever. If it is clear, as her supporters insist it always has been, she should remain in office. If not, she should step down. The sheer complexity of Mr Mills’s personal investments, and of the tax-avoidance schemes that are his professional specialism, has so far allowed Ms Jowell to insist that she knew next to nothing about them. She was unaware of a six-figure “gift” to her husband until it was reclassified as income, she told Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, and he and Mr Blair had little choice but to believe her. The complexity of any marriage, likewise, means no outsider can be certain of why it lasts or fails. However, as rival camps depict rival scenarios — one of a warm partnership torn miser-ably asunder by the media and Italian prosecutors, the other of a cynical public relations stunt hatched to distance the Government from its latest embarrassment — this much is clear: in the circumstances, Ms Jowell could not have conceived of a more dramatic statement of her loyalty to Mr Blair than to part from her husband, and she did so soon after the disclosure that he had mentioned his connection to the Prime Minister in a letter pleading to be allowed to practise in Dubai. Hilary Benn, one of several government figures who rode to Ms Jowell’s rhetorical defence yesterday, said the notion that her marital hiatus may have been a political calculation was “beneath contempt”. It is not. This marriage may indeed have been strong. Those involved may indeed be miserable today, but the timing of the split invites a healthy dose of scepticism. To feel nothing but sympathy for the couple would verge on the naive. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2071839,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...39,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:32 pm

Whereas Rusbridger is doing EVERYTHING he can to elicit sympathy for the best friends of himself and his wife. Take a look at the front page <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/todays_stories/0,,1349931,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/guardi...31,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In a letter leaked from the office of the public prosecutors, Mr Mills wrote: "You will also know that I am married to a member of the Cabinet of this country ... but I have the support and sympathy of very many people in public life, from the Prime Minister down." But that was only one of numerous occasions when he dropped his wife's name on strategic occasions. The Italian prosecutors say they know of 50 cases in which Mr Mills used Ms Jowell's name and position to improve his business standing. SNIP Meanwhile, documents emerged in Milan proving Mr Mills searched for clients to invest in a property deal proposed by the Neapolitan shipping magnate Diego Attanasio, the man Mr Mills claims was the source of the "gift" of £350,000 prosecutors claim was a bribe from Silvio Berlusconi (Mr Attanasio denies giving Mr Mills the sum). The businessman had bought an old industrial lot in Salerno, south of Naples, for a knockdown price then bribed local officials to change its use to commercial, a crime of which he was later convicted. The whole transaction, which yielded a 90 per cent profit, was conducted through an Isle of Man company, Dendor Investments Ltd, set by Mills.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article349553.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...349553.ece</a> slim, Any chance of posting a Dorian Gray of Mr Blair?

by **antiaristo** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:36 am

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/06/njowell06.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/06/ixnewstop.html">www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...wstop.html</a> They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I know exactly how she feels. I felt like she looks when her cronies destroyed my family and everything I had back in 1994. But my children were five and three. Not grown-up like hers. I have NO sympathy.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:51 pm

No surprise here, but there is no justification for what Allen wants. Every ITV regional licence was awarded by competitive bid. I know all about this because I compiled the application for Anglia Television. The parameters were set by government. The obligations like public service commitments were known in advance. And on the basis of those known obligations, and their associated costs, we all submitted a competitive bid. If Allen wants the contract renegotiated they can be put out to tender. The scarce resource is and was spectrum - a public good. On the basis of that spectrum a market position was created. ITV established its dominance on the basis of monopoly, and certainly NOT on the basis of the "genius" of men like Charles Allen. Allen wants to rob the people AGAIN. And who is going to stop him? Certainly not Mary Poppins, Secretary of State for Vice. Certanly not Richard Hooper of Ofcom, the man who raped Anglia Television. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>ITV wants public service condition to be dropped By Saeed Shah Published: 09 March 2006 ITV has called for the lifting of its entire remaining public service broadcasting (PSB) obligations, which cost it £250m a year, as soon as possible. The commercial broadcaster said regulations forced it to show specific religious, children's and regional programmes while its key competitors laboured under no such requirement. The company calculated that making these programmes cost £180m a year, while the "opportunity cost" of not showing potentially more popular programmes added a further £70m to its burden. Reporting 2005 financial results yesterday, Charles Allen, ITV's chief executive, suggested ITV should be compensated if it is forced to continue to show PSB programming. He said in the past, PSB obligations were "payment in kind" for ITV's use of the valuable analogue television spectrum to broadcast. "This [issue] needs to be addressed in the next couple of years. The model does not work in the digital age.... I'm happy to provide this programming. But we don't have a model for it any more," Mr Allen said. The Government recently announced 70 per cent of UK households have access to digital television, offering many more channels than the five on analogue. ITV said the costs of making programmes such as regional news were "disproportionate" to the ratings achieved. Regulators are to review ITV's PSB obligations but that does not have to occur until 2012. ITV said it wanted a much swifter "debate" to resolve the issue. Last year, the media regulator Ofcom halved ITV's obligations to broadcast non-news regional programmes to one-and-a-half hours a week. Separately, ITV has said it wants the contract rights renewal regulatory (CRR) mechanism to be listed. This is a scheme to ensure that falls in ITV viewing figures are reflected in the amount of money advertisers paid for slots. Mr Allen said yesterday the company had not yet applied for a review of CRR but "it is on our agenda for 2006". ITV reported that pre-tax profits, before amortisation and exceptionals, grew £135m to £460m for 2005. The company's competitors pointed out that the uplift appeared to come entirely from another regulatory source - ITV cut its licence payments to the Treasury last year by £132m. The company also announced a £300m sharebuy-back. Advertising revenues at the core ITV1 fell by £50m last year after the channel lost viewers, but this was more than offset by a £144m gain in ad revenues from its newer digital channels, ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4. The company said half its ad revenues would come from outside ITV1 by 2010, from 33 per cent at the moment. ITV warned ad revenues in the first quarter of 2006 were 10 per cent below last year. PSB obligations * National/international news 365 hrs/year * Current affairs 78/yr * Religious programmes 52/yr * Regional news 5/week * Regional non-news 1.5/wk * Children's 8/wk<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article350118.ece">news.independent.co.uk/bu...350118.ece</a>

by **blanc** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:47 am

be nice if the lovable balding cuddly satirist could get out of his chair more often over the fragrant lady's medical interests. still, not much chance of that if the ignorant attack on Sarah Nelson, (one of the very few academics brave enough to confront the reality of ra) PEYE 1153, means what it seems. your hobby horse and mine, anti, trot along similar paths on the Cambridge circuit, even if we career off in separate directions most of the time. meanwhile, whimsical Hislop says ritual abuse is a "notion long ago exposed as a myth" so no real danger there for certain researcher's extra curricular "work", and nothing worse than a plaster on a cat bite sticking to Jeff and Pong. sadly, those who emphatically debunk ra either know too much (perish the thought), or nothing at all, and Ian is much cleverer than I; for finding a sin as inoccuous as a little sprightly queue jumping against someone so busting full of public spirit and academic excellence as Mary, is, well, guaranteed to be seen as petty carping, and enhance her aura. Its a pity 452, cos I used to read PEYE regular, cherry picking issues from the pile in my bro-in-law's outside khazi, on the basis of the front cover funny, and now even this little pleasure is tinged with sadness.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Labour's secret loan operation generated more than £10m · Blair concedes mistake over not telling treasurer · Role of PM to be curbed in nomination of honours Patrick Wintour, political editor Friday March 17, 2006 The Guardian Labour may have gathered as much as £10m in secret loans before the election, more than double the figure revealed so far, one of the party's most senior party fundraisers admitted yesterday. He said Labour had taken the money before the election after its bankers were unwilling to give the party a larger overdraft. At one of his most difficult monthly press conferences, the prime minister conceded he had made a mistake in not telling the Labour party treasurer, Jack Dromey, about the loans. He said he took personal responsibility, but was unable to explain the reason for leaving Mr Dromey out of the loop. Tony Blair also admitted that he had not told the Lords appointments scrutiny committee that three of his candidates for working Labour peerages had given the party loans. Faced by accusations that he was running a parallel party within the party, Mr Blair yesterday rushed forward a raft of reforms, including one that will limit the role of the prime minister in the nomination of honours, such as knighthoods and OBEs, but still retain the right to appoint Labour working peers until wider reforms for the Lords are agreed. He said that an independent figure would seek to create a consensus between the parties on greater state funding of political parties, including a cap on the level of donations. The move might limit the influence of the trade unions in the Labour party. He would also strengthen the independent monitoring of the ministerial code, in the wake of the controversy surrounding the culture secretary Tessa Jowell. In future, so long as there was a cross-party consensus, he would also support commercial loans being made declarable in the same way as gifts. Mr Dromey issued a statement late on Wednesday revealing he had been kept in the dark about the loans, and accusing Downing Street of treating elected party officials with contempt. The deputy prime minister, John Prescott, and the party chairman, Ian McCartney, had met Mr Dromey only hours earlier. They believed they had an agreement that he would not discuss the issue further until the party's national executive met on Tuesday. But Mr Dromey's allies said he went public because he felt he had not received the right assurances at the meeting. They stressed he was not accusing Mr Blair of breaking the law or offering peerages for cash. A senior Blairite returned fire, accusing Mr Dromey of "trying to put the final knife into the heart of Tony Blair on behalf of Gordon Brown". There is no evidence that Mr Brown or his allies were involved in any plot to undermine Mr Blair. The party's chief fundraiser, Lord Levy, is known to be furious with Mr Dromey, pointing out that he has not met the union official since he took on the role of party treasurer. "If he [Dromey] did not know, it is because he did not ask," said one senior party figure. Mr Levy's friends claimed that Mr Dromey's denunciation of Mr Blair was "irrational and illogical". Downing Street conceded that the party's fundraising committee, set up by the then Labour chairman Charles Clarke in 2002, had not been told about the loans or their source since they were not deemed gifts. The committee had been set up following a gift from Richard Desmond, the owner of Express Newspapers. The Tories fell in with Labour, and the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, by saying that they would in future declare all loans.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/story/0,,1733040,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/c...40,00.html</a> Why would Richard Desmond make a gift to Labour? And what's it got to do with the Vampire of Finance? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>C/Eusebio Navarro, 12 Rt. Hon. Robin Cook MP 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Leader of the House of Commons Spain 5 June 2002 Blair, Byers, Desmond, Hollick and the Express Dear Mr. Cook, Would Tony Blair prostitute himself for 100,000? No, of course not. As usual the British media are looking in all the wrong places when it comes to the Express takeover. Lets go back to basics and ask ourselves who gained the most from Byers' circumvention of the law. Richard Desmond was prepared to pay a very full price for the Express, and we all know the reason why. The only other offer on the table was from the Barclay brothers at 75 millions. Had the Desmond offer been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the Sullivan precedent would dictate that a pornographer was not a "fit and proper person" to own a regional, let alone a national newspaper. The vendor would have been forced to accept 75 millions rather than 125 millions. So the vendor, in obtaining an extra 50 millions, was the big winner. The vendor was Lord Clive Hollick. He was a forced seller, having been fingered along with the impostor Blair at Feira on 19 June 2000 (I'm sure you remember it well). Lord Clive Hollick, known gangster and the largest single financial donor to the Blair "project". Lord Clive Hollick, who at the time of the Desmond decision was Special Advisor to the Prime Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, notionally run by Stephen Byers. Under the circumstances it is easy to see why Byers was pressurised and circumvented the rules. And having circumvented the rules, why it was that Blair was prepared to support him "For better or for worse" these past 12 months. And why, once Byers buckled and released the report, he was summarily dismissed. So the decision to break the rules was made by Blair himself. And would he prostitute the nation for 50,100,000? After Feira I will let you answer that yourself. Please forward copies of this letter to all the interested Select Committee Chairmen, including the one that “knifed Stephen Byers in the back” according to Two Jags. Oh, and a reply would be nice. Yours sincerely, John Cleary BSc. MA MBA CC R Prodi I Duncan Smith MP C Kennedy MP Enc. Mary Archer’s Fraud 8 August 2001 Cleary to Blair 25 July 1994 Blair to Cleary 30 July 1994<hr></blockquote> Are you starting to get the picture yet? It was at this time that the Old Slag made Hollick Chairman of the South Bank. Such useful idiots. It can't do him any harm now, may he rest in peace. But Robin Cook, to his great credit, DID reply to me. I'll post it tomorrow, when I've found it.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:39 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr><div style="text-align:center">RT HON ROBIN COOK MP LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 2 CARLTON GARDENS LONDON SW1Y 5AA TEL: 020 7210 1025 05 JULY 2002</div> Dear Mr Cleary, Thank you for your letter of 5 June to the Rt Hon Robin Cook MP, Leader of the House of Commons and President of the Council, the comments of which have been noted. <div style="text-align:center">Yours sincerely, Charles Galloway Administrative Officer</div> John Cleary C/Eusebio Navarro, 12 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Spain <div style="text-align:center">www.privy-council.org.uk</div><hr></blockquote> Jeff, I've sent you a private message about the post that comes between my letter and Robin Cook's reply. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 3/18/06 7:44 am

The Return of the Vampire of Finance

New Labour in Meltdown

Is Jeffrey Archer scripting this soap opera?

Treason Felony Act as Crime Machine

re

Iran link to David Mills

The Family

Treason Felony Act as Crime Machine II

Rupert's Reverse Gear

Psychological Conditioning

David Mills - The Gift That Keeps On Giving

A Dorian Gray of Tessa Jowell

The Rapists are Coming

private eye on addenbrookes

Making Some Connections

Robin Cook

Who is online