Saturday, December 29, 2012


It seems that the US administration have been unhappy about it - another proof that they had their fingers in the events described therein. 

More details to come

(linked post:

Sunday, December 02, 2012

The Friends of Ethical Writing

“The Communist Party will be the only master of the minds and thoughts, the spokesman, leader and organiser of people in their entire struggle for communism.” Pravda, 7 July 1956 

How clever John Adams was to say that all democracies end up in suicide. The British democracy has been trying to top itself off for while, but as the recent Leveson report has concluded with a demand for a new regulator for the press, the signs are that its end is very near now. 

An independent body, ultimately validated by the State, to regulate the ethics of the press has been recommended – paradoxically - in order to ensure that the press is really free. Free not to embarrass public figures with revelations of their misconduct, while, at the same time, the onerous libel laws in Britain make us the destination of international crooks and London the capital of reputation laundering? But no judge would speak out against this state of affairs, for this is what keeps them in clover. 

Furthermore, who, on earth, would be independent enough to oversee such an important wielder of power as the media, and who is independent enough to appoint the independents? Essentially, what you will get is the politicians in charge of those supposed to bring them to task. 

This impetus for tougher regulation betrays, in fact, a very pessimistic view on the capacity of the British public to meditate on what they read and to control the media themselves through their own free choice and demand. A free press - no matter its derelictions - trains the people’s power of reason. Why should we fear intrusion by the media? This is what keeps a more frightful kind of intrusion – that carried out by the State itself - in check. 

We already have a plethora of statutes and powers that can be used to deal with abuses by the media; the fact that these were not used by the past Labour administration in the historical cases heard by Leveson is a far more serious matter. 

Do not be fooled by the vociferous ‘public’ outrage and the cant of those now putting pressure on the government to conceive new laws for the press - those virtuous citizens and victims of press indiscretions are simply actors in a play scripted by politically motivated higher powers, powers who simply wish to grab more control over us. 
Ill-advised creatures, signing petitions, may not realise that they could usher in a regime similar to that described in Orwell’s 1984 or in Mercier’s utopian novel, The Year 2440, where most books are destroyed and where ‘dangerous sceptics’, authors of literary works deemed bad for the people’s minds, are rounded up and interrogated until they are willing to admit to their errors. 

Intrusion by press does not destroy lives – it may temporarily upset them – but, in the end, freedom provides the necessary self-redressing mechanisms that an authoritarian State does not possess. What can destroy lives, however, are the gags imposed on the media, journalistic cowardice and the lack of ability to make your mind and your own choice. 

We hope that the Prime Minister will think carefully, as he said he would, and will not be swept away by this flurry of pre-meditated madness.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

El Comisario

 “I am completely half afraid to thinkFlann O’Brien, The third policeman 

At tomorrow’s elections, Hull may choose to entrust its law and order affairs to Lord Prescott. This is, of course, totally thoughtless, but entirely possible. Yes, Lord Prescott is standing for election as Police Commissioner in Hull, and what is more shocking is that he could actually win the necessary votes(*).

This, however, will not simply be an error of collective judgement or the consequence of some historical adversity inflicted from afar; it will be an act of self-persiflage - that is of self-directed piss-taking by the voters in Hull. It will also be sheer madness to wish to ruin your hometown for a laugh. You cannot cast your ballot like that without exposing yourself to permanent ridicule, to the condemnation of all the clear minds of the future.

John Prescott may fancy the power and the material rewards that the role confers, as well as the advantage of having access to snooping and interfering powers – remember his knack of compiling dossiers on the people he has an interest in (which is probably why he has never been brought to justice even by a half-Tory government).

The people of Hull, however, deserve a proper commissioner – and I trust that they will not indulge in frivolity or in that morbid attraction, which, sometimes, victims of cruelty show towards their aggressors.


(*) Although soon enough, they would have to elect a new one. 

UPDATE: 17 November 2012

John Prescott failed to secure the necessary number of votes and  was therefore not elected Police Commissioner. The proud citizens of Humberside were very wise in choosing a different candidate and, I must say, have also had a lucky escape. Congratulations and many thanks!

Friday, November 02, 2012

The Royal Courts of Justice

There’s been regretfully a protracted period of silence on this blog, owing to our busy schedule breaking the silence elsewhere and dealing with a whole set of related matters – matters that have eventually taken us all the way up to the Royal Courts of Justice. 

That was for us a first time experience and we were filled with trepidation at the chance of visiting that magnificent bastion of righteousness in the Strand. The edifice housing the Royal Courts of Justice is impressive; designed by George Edmund Street in the Victorian Gothic Revival style, the appearance of the construction, both external and internal, is illustrative of the idea of what society ought to be – morally correct, spiritually elevated and pure. 

And to make sure that society is so, nowadays, visitors are X-rayed and frisked at the entrance, lest some deadly weapons are fired in court. The inner corridors (and there are over 3 miles of them, we are told) were pretty vacant, except for a few black flocks of bewigged barristers, dashing along – vulturine and predacious – and descending upon various courtrooms in their paths. They were followed by judges, more measured in pace, making their way towards the same venues, with the confidence and composure of those habituated to veracity. 

At the oral hearing held by the Court of Appeal, we were honoured by the presence of a lord justice of appeal and allowed to present our argument at length. The facts were plain and our dispute pointed at the distorted logic of earlier court decisions. Our case being so politically sensitive and embarrassing, the lower courts must have thought that it could only be tackled by abandoning standard logic. And abandon it they did. 

The appeal judge, however, did not seem to be listening; we got the impression that he had other preoccupations, which our oral submission hindered to some extent. Not that it was any point in listening anyway, as the Court of Appeal seemed to have made their minds beforehand as to the outcome – or to have had their minds made for them. (Nothing of what we submitted seemed to be acknowledged.) So, in order to save everybody time and spasms of mind, the court quickly decided that the appeal should not be allowed. 
We were told that the decision was for our own good. This may be true, but, as we know very well from history, this assurance is often used by the State to justify the perpetration of many crimes. 

The idea of justice – as Epicurus said, is that it prevents men from harming and from being harmed. And that is, I have to admit, the very idea that the British justice system applies when it prevents us from harming the interests of our opponents – high-rank politicians and officials - and when it prevents them from the unpleasant task of accounting for their actions.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

The Hillsborough tragedy

With the publication of the Hillsborough report, that famous saying, according to which tragedy in life normally comes with betrayal and compromise, has been verified again.

The report from the panel created by the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in 2009 has just been disclosed to the public, thus allowing the families of the football fans who died in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster to find out the truth about the circumstances of their death.
And a series of shocking aspects have emerged, and further intrigues have started to take contour.

Familiar with the dealings in the Gaul, Derbyshire and Trident formal investigations (planned under Blair’s government), I could not help noticing the similarities and a number of disturbing aspects:

As the Hillsborough report revealed:
  • official negligence was covered up by blaming the victims for their own deaths;
  • the media colluded in the cover-up by presenting a misleading version of the events and  spreading smears;
  • police statements were amended to avoid liability;
  • the existence of a conspiracy to withhold the truth right across the Establishment.
Sadly, the same (and a lot more and a lot worse) can be said about several other public inquiries.

Such tragedies represent terrible, both private and public, loss. It is therefore the duty of the public, thorough the institution created to serve it, to properly investigate the causes of the loss, mitigate it and learn lessons for the future. This is not and should never be a political game. If it were, this would show a far deeper level of depravity than a hundred doctored statements.

The Hillsborough tragedy occurred under a Conservative government, and I therefore have my doubts as to whether the keenness on the part of Labour to get to the truth has been a hundred per cent motivated by compassion and honour. Why, in the campaign for the truth, has Labour been the loudest?
The panel was formed in 2009 by a Labour government who expected to lose the 2010 elections. What prevented them from setting up this panel 12 years earlier or sooner after Labour had come to power?

We have also noticed that Lord Falconer and Michael Mansfield QC are involved in advising the Hillsborough Family Support Group, with the former making lavish use of conditionals in his statements about future legal actions, and with the latter, hastily, calling the Hillsborough “the biggest cover-up in history”. 

The families, as Prime Minister Cameron said, suffered a double injustice and they have suffered a lot. Justice now needs to be done – and, most importantly, done for the right reasons. This was a tragedy and it should never be turned into a Tu Quoque defence for Labour.

It now turns out that documents showing the role of the police in covering up the Hillsborough disaster were handed to the Crown Prosecution Service 14 years ago. That is under the last Labour government, who must have decided to stash the evidence away as political ammunition for the future.


Negotiations are now ongoing:

Sunday, September 02, 2012

Sad news

On the 18th of August 2012, the Hull Daily Mail announced the death, at the age of 71, of Norman Fenton, the TV-documentary maker. It was Mr Fenton who commissioned the search for the Gaul and was on board of the search vessel when the wreck was located, in 1997.

Norman Fenton’s death was sad news for the Gaul families whom he had known well and worked with over the years. (He also attended, for a brief period, the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation.)

In his long TV career, Norman Fenton made many films, including 5 documentaries about the Gaul and, as his family have revealed, was working on a book about the Gaul at the time of his death. 
Norman Fenton (like a few others) knew the truth about the Gaul and one can imagine that he was eventually going to lay it down on paper. It was, however, not to be. 

May he rest in peace!

Monday, July 02, 2012

Back in town

He did not retreat into a monastery or take the path of the desert; he has enjoyed instead the worldly pleasures to the full. He has not been silent, contrite or resting in prayer – but has given highly remunerated after-dinner speeches and money-making counsels to the world’s potentates. Nonetheless, he can still justify, in almost theological terms, his international gold rush – as some kind of voyage of initiation, the lucrative aspects of which were not ends in themselves, but means to charity and enlightenment. As a promoter of the Third Way in politics, he may have also found a Third Way to heaven. 

Now, fully initiated, his mind enkindled by his expanded bank account and portfolio of properties, Tony Blair is back in town…preaching to us again. He has not given up his political ambitions – his recent interviews revealing the hair-raising prospects of his return as PM or, more portentously, as EU president – which, considering the powerful friends he has made by single-handedly taking his country to war, he may well stand a chance of fulfilling.

Friday, June 08, 2012

Means of communication

Online communication is pretty unreliable, care of the slime that make up the British authorities. So, we have come to the conclusion that more direct means of communication are necessary.

Saturday, June 02, 2012

Diamond Jubilee

A glorious national celebration marking the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth's reign - Her Majesty's remarkable devotion to her duty - without lapse, without fault, without measure - her faith and dedication to her people.

We cannot ever thank Her Majesty enough for her long-standing service to her nation, but we can all celebrate the occasion and wish: God bless the Queen and the Royal Family!

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Conquest by disorder

Sartre said that we are what others have made of us. As far as the British political and bureaucratic elites are concerned, the statement is true in a much more literal sense than originally intended. 
This is, in fact, the fate of any occupied country, where laws and official decisions are no longer sanctioned by the agreement between society and the state, but by the whims of external powers. This is not a fortunate state of affairs as our modern ideologists, in their immense foolishness or dishonesty, would rush to persuade you, peddling the fallacy that extreme departures from the requisites of national dignity, moral principles and the rule of law, together with the ensuing chaos, are acceptable to establish a new social order, in which, irony of ironies, even the smallest ideological departure would be repressed. 
And so, propped by a network of spies, treacherous political actors and pubic servants, and a lot of ordinary stupidity, the invisible occupation of Britain goes apace. 

Yet, in spite of what it looks like, the damage is not irreversible. Stupidity, for a start, when not caused by some permanent medical affliction, can be cured. Truth and transparency would open eyes and work miracles in this respect. Then, our politicians would be moved to recognize that pragmatic justifications for their lack of action have no credibility – when we can all see the self-interest and the cowardice behind them - and to recognize that the politics of intelligent diplomacy and compromise is one thing – beneficial to all - and collaborationism is another.

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

The spread of infamy

What is going on? Even from our remote vantage point we can clearly see a recrudescence of infamy. The left are going through another bout of rowdiness - they have these regularly, as we can all remember, since the time that the wretched Brown was in charge of the UK government.

But these days, just as we had all sighed with relief at finally finding ourselves under a government made of predominantly sane people, the fetid bolgias of the Labour party broke open again. Given succour from the East and the West (if not direct orders), the British left, hollowed out long time ago to make room for a motley assemblage of political pygmies and charlatans, are trying to brawl their way back into power. (Goodness, what a nightmarish thought! Yet, there are plenty of poor souls who still believe the Labour party is what it says on the tin and that it truly represents them.) 

Had the winds not been propitious to an international spread of ‘socialist’ infamy, British Labour would have never had the fervour for such orchestrated action, since what Labour are most famed for is the introduction of the concept of slime as acceptable conduct in public life. Slime, not honourable opposition… 

So we now have Mr Miliband spluttering with concern about the press, while failing to see the dereliction within his own ranks. As you know, we have asked him several times about the Gaul cover-up and the rest (chronicled on these pages), but Mr Miliband did not have the grace to give an answer. Neither scintillating, nor handsome, one wonders why he was chosen as the Opposition front-man. 

Besides, if we were to criticise the press, we reckon that the most important complaint and the biggest charge that could be levelled at them is not one of prying, but quite the opposite – that of selectively revealing the truth or not revealing it all.

Monday, April 02, 2012

Crooks International

The US administration (past and present) and authorities have been giving a helping hand to their fellow crooks in the UK - figures in the Labour party, former leaders and other equally commanding figures - by offering operational assistance in cover-ups and exercising pressure  (Murdoch's scandal being just one of the levers) on a morally ambiguous and feeble UK government to pervert the course of justice, bend the law and refrain from investigating high-profile crimes and official misdemeanors.

Long live Crooks International!

(More details to come... meanwhile we see the PM trying to buy concessions for his friends at News International and cover up his own faults on our backs.)

Tuesday, March 27, 2012


The British authorities should soon catch up with our most notorious criminals.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Running out of patience

We hear that, under pressure from 'abroad', the UK government are preparing another legal sham to cover up the old ones. If that is indeed the case, then they are, definitely, going to get more than they bargained for - no holds barred. And we shall all see who knew the truth about the fraudulent RFIs and when.

We almost rejoice at the thought.

(More details to come)

Hull Trawlermen's Memorial

The 6000 trawlermen who lost their lives at sea will have a memorial built at St Andrew's Quay in Hull. The approval follows many years of campaigning and donations by the public. The Hull Council authorities will also allow the families and local trawlermen to participate in the design of the monument.

The memorial is intended to keep alive the memory of those who gave their lives to one of the most daring and honourable of professions, and offer a terrestrial symbol for all those who wish to remember the men lost to the sea and pay their respects.


Friday, March 09, 2012

The changing climate

This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr)

Our experience of the Courts and Tribunals service – fragments of which were presented here before - has expanded. And with it, so has our bewilderment.
To our laymen’s eyes, what is going on in these temples of law and wisdom does not look at all like wisdom and law, and it certainly has nothing to do with dispensing justice.

The tribunals are, in fact, creatures of the UK government, so when the government is the party complained against, it may be rather tricky for these establishments to act against themselves. But even allowing for this inherent limitation, what we have seen is far beyond what one could normally expect.

Unfortunately, the matters - as they appear to us - are also kept rather quiet, so that the person in the street can still go about his business, lulled in the conviction that, whenever in need, he will be well served by the law. Eventually, when the majority finds that this is no longer true, the very notion of law will have already taken a different meaning.

In our case against the government, we ventured as far as the first main hearing, with the Department for Transport having splashed out more than £33,000 of taxpayers’ money to defend themselves in grand style.

We, of course, did not have the benefit of any legal assistance. Furthermore, the tribunal, faithful to the principle of armes ├ęgales, refused to order the Department to make full disclosure (which, theoretically, they were obliged to do) of the documents in their possession or answer essential queries, despite the fact that the judges have the power to make such orders and that these are fairly customary.

It may be worth mentioning that the information that we tried to extract included certain details relating to the way in which the DfT/MCA had dealt with our disclosures about past maritime accidents investigations and copies of the communications between the DfT/MCA and the Met and other third parties following our complaints. However, it seems that the government did not like such information to get into our hands and, care of the legal system, got what they wished.
And to show their good nature, the Treasury Solicitors, who had been tasked by the judge with the preparation of the hearing bundle, could not help taking this opportunity to mess up our own, carefully prepared, evidence.

Anyway, the government’s most intriguing achievement was the tribunal’s refusal to call any of the witnesses [*] whom we had named and who, as key players, had most relevant evidence to give. This is highly unusual, and not even being given a written refusal or the reasons therefore is more unusual still.

Yet, although we don't have much faith in the system, we shall be persisting, no matter what,  fathom the full extent of official dereliction and then pass the knowledge on.
[*] Interesting details about this particular aspect will be revealed in due course.

Monday, February 20, 2012

The rule of derision

We heard that John Prescott is considering standing for the post of elected Police Commissioner and that he also had a go at becoming a chanteuse. Splendiferous! It reminds us of that movie scene with a group of yobs breaking in a luxury fashion store and trying on various fineries, one after the other, madly exhilarated by the fun of seeing themselves in incredible guises.
But this is nothing unusual, for we have already seen entertainers posing as revolutionaries or statesmen – depending on what fitted best their haircut and mirror-reflected physique - and politicians constantly acting as impersonators - for nothing most of them say nowadays betrays any conviction.

When all things turn belly up, it is only natural that Mr Prescott should dispense law and order in Hull. (With the summer coming, it may be getting too hot for the lordly ermine.) Just imagine his heavy fist cracking down on gambling and vice, and the admiration he would command in his brand new uniform, epaulettes and Brasso-polished badges, and the benefits of a short-skirted sergeant in tow.

The reality as seen on the ground or as reported in the press is just tragedy and derision. Delinquent and joyous is today’s legendary figure. But this hero is not the tough highway robber or the fearless outlaw celebrated by folklore, but the well-connected, risk-averse, confidence man. Being a scoundrel has never been safer or more entertaining.
There is only one comfort that we can derive from the present state of affairs, and that is that, compared to other places on earth, ours still looks pretty sane.

Monday, February 13, 2012

The main word in the political dictionary

As a result of our attempts to resolve by legal process the matters resulting from our disclosures about the Gaul, we have now become all too familiar with the awe and apprehension with which formal undertakings on this subject are met. The shocking failures of impartiality and the blatant violations of the rules have, individually, various and complex circumstances (details of which we reserve for another day), but they can all be reduced to a simple reason, which is to do with one’s unwillingness to risk one’s skin.

Although the terrified silence over the shameful aspects of our recent maritime history – coerced via various threats and legalistic snares - is, to a large extent, inspired from outside the government’s field of forces (that is above and beyond the grubbiness of internal politics), the duty of taking responsibility in this matter and putting things right still rests with the incumbent administration. But there is too much fear amongst the senior figures.

Yes, “fear” is, today, the main word in the political dictionary - a fear almost religious in nature, which inhibits any sense of reason, duty and decency. It is a fear bred by the knowledge that the road to success in a public office is not a competition on merit – but a contest in offering tributes of subservience to extraneous powers, paid higher and higher above of what is necessarily due.

(More to come at the right moment)

Wednesday, February 08, 2012


This 8th of February marks another years since the loss of the Gaul and another year of official efforts to obliterate the true causes of the tragedy.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Legalistic trumpery

We have recently been told that the Trident families, who never got a fair and impartial outcome from the Trident Re-opened Investigation, applied for legal aid to fund a judicial review, which, if successful, could have opened up avenues for them to overturn the findings of the RFI.
The families’ application for legal aid was refused and, to add insult to injury, the legal body overseeing this matter have produced the most ludicrous and insensitive justifications possible for their negative response.

It was said that the Trident families’ request did not pass the ‘reasonableness’ test.

If we understood the legal logic correctly, it seems that concerns were raised that, having spent ₤6m to organise a whitewash, the Department for Transport may find it wasteful to spend extra money on defending themselves in a legal process that could expose the sham.

Other reasons for refusing legal aid appear to be the applicant’s age, the time that has passed since the loss of the Trident and the question of whether the costs involved in pursuing compensation would be justified by the level of compensation to be obtained, whose value the lawyers seemed unable to ballpark, despite all the statutory guidelines in existence.

Another reason put forward was that old cherry – a favourite with the DfT – i.e.:

there is nothing to demonstrate that, had the Trident been constructed in a manner compliant with best practice at the time, the accident would not have occurred.

Well, actually, there is a lot to demonstrate that the vessel’s compliance with the standards applicable at the time would have saved the lives of its men.

The body of evidence is overwhelming (otherwise every time there was a bit of a stiff breeze at sea, large numbers of fishing boats would suddenly capsize). The reason they don’t capsize (then and now) is because they comply with a standard that assures their safety:

- No other seagoing 25m fishing vessel, constructed to the standards that applied in the early seventies (including full compliance with IMCO stability standards), has capsized solely as a result of Beaufort 7/8 waves

- MARIN were unable to replicate this mode of capsize in the series of tests carried out on a model of Trident in Holland

Standards are not aleatory; they are based on the technical expertise and real-life experience of the most informed men in the industry and the accretions of knowledge in the field. The many trials and tests carried out and the validation of time have demonstrated that, invariably, a vessel built in full compliance with the standards that Trident should have met would survive the moderate weather and seas that are thought to have turned her over in 1974.

The whole purpose of standards is – to prevent accidents and loss of life

Strangely, however, considerations as to the public interest and value to society were not part of the reasonableness test.

But of course, this latest injustice was again politically driven, for, of late, the justice system in Britain has become a market place for political favours and compromise.

Sunday, January 08, 2012


Our post of 06/12/2011 has been updated - - and Mr Cameron has started pulling the strings harder.

The the authorities' inaction in this matter makes Mr Cameron and all those who know about it accomplices to serious criminal acts. (The skin up there must be very thick.)