Friday, July 25, 2014

Jewish problem - part 1


Cowardly, profiteering, lying royal scum. Don't keep their promises afraid of the criminals who prosper under their rule.

The old washbasin navigator, given his age, should have never been taken seriously, but a future king, bending before crooks and failing to keep his word, for no other reason* than to secure backing for the Tory party before the next elections and avoid embarrassing inquiries, is despicable. No royal pride or dignity! They have known the truth for at least seven years.

More will come about the Jewish legal professionals who 'represented' the Gaul victims' families at the 2004 RFI or were otherwise involved with the inquiry, the threats and the trouble they have caused us. (Apparently, or so we have been told, restoring justice in the Gaul case, telling the truth and criticising a few individuals would reflect unfavorably upon the whole Jewish community in Britain. This is nonsense.)

* There have been suggestions - and we wrote about this before - that securing unity across political parties with some noble purpose in view such as opposing military action etc. was the reason why the government needed to accommodate crime. This, however, is not true, it doesn't and it shouldn't have anything to do with us; it is just putting a gloss on what has been in fact nothing more than a sordid quid pro quo.

UPDATE: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-philips-former-aide-on-sexual-assault-charges-9639215.html 

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Misreality

A specific form of ubiquity is the misreality that swarms around us. It consists of the great body of information that we ingest daily that is slanted, false or so subtly transformed that we don’t think to question it.” Jason B. Ohler 

The British press would not miss any occasion to peddle myths, even those that have been repeatedly and authoritatively debunked during the Gaul public inquiries. 

Publishing an obituary in its 23rd of June edition, The Scotsman thought it appropriate to use that somber occasion in order to breathe new life into the Gaul spy ship tale: 

It was at this time, February 1974 at the height of the Cold War that the FV Gaul, a fishing factory ship, mysteriously vanished with 36 crew on board on the night of 8-9 February in the Barents Sea. This was the very area the Explorer operated in. Ian believed the Soviets knew spying was going on but mistook the Gaul for the spy ship and sunk it. The full report into the sinking is still secret.” 

Examination of wreck has produced no evidence whatsoever to show that the Gaul had been deliberately sunk. The full report into the sinking is and has been public since 2004, of course.

Friday, July 04, 2014

Black and white

Those involved in the conduct and the cover-up of the Gaul, Derbyshire and Trident miscarriages of justice can blackmail the current government and the Crown (with their constant demands for inquiries), can intimidate, rouse the rabble and issue threats via all the state institutions that Labour infiltrated while in power, interfere with the already corrupt justice system, but they cannot efface black and white evidence of their wrongdoing. The evidence (of which both the government and the Crown are well aware, and which they seem to be using as counterbalance to the threats of exposure leveled at them*), unluckily for some, exists - annoying, unequivocal and uneffaceable and soon to be made public.

No amount of cunning and political horse trading or privileges afforded to certain ethnic minorities in Britain can compensate for bad luck.



* The child abuse inquiry being just one of the latest examples of which they are clearly terrified. We cannot understand why the Royal family would be so frightened about historic cases of child abuse.


Sunday, June 15, 2014

Muscles and Magna Carta

"We need to be far more muscular in promoting British values and the institutions that uphold them" Prime Minister David Cameron recently advised, urging that Magna Carta should become part of the school curriculum. LINK


Does he know that this clause is contained in the Charter:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.


Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Hull

As suggested earlier, there is a lot more to say about the Gaul - information that the government expects to be released as well as information that they don't expect to surface.

If the British Police were truly accountable, they would have a lot to answer for and explain their role in the harassment of witnesses and various other related criminal actions. As far as we are concerned, we shall do our best to make sure that they will.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Stability expertise

The video clip below contains some relevant facts and straight talking from ship stability expert, Capt Paul Roden on the recent Korean ferry disaster.
Had UK's public inquiry experts been involved in the initial investigation of this tragedy, I doubt that their 'expertise' would have been accepted so placidly by the Korean victims' families.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Astonishing

How UK government has to 'bribe' Labour to make them more peace-loving.

The dancing around with the evidence of wrongdoing by the former Labour government is Cameron government's handiwork.

The myth peddled at the moment is that unity between political factions is necessary in order to make common front against the threat of military aggression abroad. As if probity and justice were now the only obstacles against peace. This maybe the case in the US.

The reality in the UK, however, is more trivial than that, and the main reason for discarding probity and justice (and when things don't go the desired way, Mr Blair's cage gets a bit of rattling) here seems to be the current government's fear - fear shared at the highest levels of the State - of the outcome of criminal investigations against Mr Cameron's allies and friends and their impact on the public, as well as losing the promise of an easy ride from Labour at the forthcoming elections.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-labour-need-show-3557133
 

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Channels of Disinformation

Yesterday, most interestingly, the story of the FV Gaul hit the press again. The contents of the 'news', their suspicious timing and the opportunity it gave the police and the John Prescott/Alan Johnson duo to keep tabs on and manipulate the victims' families we shall not comment on at this moment.

Yesterday, some elements in our society decided that it was the day when they wanted to alter the FV Gaul Wikipedia entry so that much of its content was removed and the link to our site deleted. See in the image below the muddy footprints of the vandal's boots on the Wikipedia Revision History page. The boots came from Yorkshire.


The crudity of the attempts to re-write history gives further clues as to who might be behind them.

(More to come...)

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Great suggestion

"Police corruption is now so rife that radical reform is the only answer" - Henry Porter

http://gu.com/p/3jyve/tw via @guardian

Indeed, corruption is so rife that the Police have been instrumental in the Gaul cover-up and in the cover-up of the cover-up.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Happy Tidings

We hear from the Daily Mail that

"Lord Prescott is at the centre of a £75million legal case over allegations that he tried to undermine coal miners’ compensation claims – because he feared Labour could lose union donations. Court papers seen by The Mail on Sunday allege the former deputy prime minister colluded with a major law firm to put pressure on an insurance company to refuse to underwrite the miners’ legal bills – forcing them to drop their action." 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2496415/John-Prescott-tried-undermine-compensation-claims-coal-miners-feared-Labour-lose-donations.html

I think we need to get in touch with the claimants.

Thursday, September 05, 2013

Trident and the White Fish Authority

In the 1975 and 2009 official investigations into the loss of the Trident, officers of the White Fish Authority (later Seafish) gave testimony to the effect that they had employed a ‘hands off’ approach to the way they administered the conditions associated with the award of Government grants for the purchase of new fishing vessels. 

Original formal investigation, Day 4 Page 50, Mr Sutherland Chief Surveyor for White Fish: 


In both investigations the court spent considerable time in trying to lay down the idea that the lax policies that White fish had in place at the time that Trident was lost were quite normal and that no blame could be attached to the organisation for not insisting that the terms of their grant be met. 

The Government was very eager to avoid the obvious conclusion that, had the White Fish Authority done their job correctly in matters pertaining to Trident’s stability, she would not have been allowed to put to sea until her stability shortfalls had been addressed – and she would not have capsized.
Surprisingly, at the time of the original inquiry, there was a White Fish publication in existence that precisely specified the White Fish stability requirements associated with the award of a government grant. Although this publication would have been highly significant in both official investigations, White Fish (and later Seafish) did not reveal its existence to the court. 

The existence of the publication in question was a serious inconvenience for White Fish, as it proved that their very own ‘Rules for the construction of wooden fishing vessels’ did not countenance a ‘hands off’ approach - White Fish surveyors were, in fact, obliged to attend inclining tests and to approve the stability information for all grant-aided fishing vessels. 

A copy of the section in these Rules that deals with stability, with key provisions ringed in red, is reproduced below:











Friday, August 23, 2013

Weighty Matters

During the past 40 years, the Department for Transport (DfT) has gained a wealth of experience in the art of data manipulation and disinformation when conducting official investigations into fishing vessel casualties, especially those in which dubious stability was thought to be a factor in their loss. This expertise is currently being used quite blatantly by the DfT (via MAIB) to both cover their own backs and safeguard the interests of their many business ‘clients’.

Generally, the DfT only feels threatened when it has made a mistake - when there is something it did not do, that it should have done or it did something that it should not have done - and lives were subsequently lost at sea.

In the case of the FV Gaul, the DfT approved her stability (see copy of the stability certificate below), for unlimited operation at sea, just 14 month’s before the trawler capsized and sank (in February 1974), with the loss of 36 lives.


Following the loss of the Gaul, the official investigation, led by the DfT, was quick to put on record that the Gaul had met the IMCO minimum stability standards for deep-sea trawlers “with a substantial margin”. 

In our posts of 1 January 2010 [LINK] and 8 February 2010 [LINK] we were able to point out that this official statement was, in fact, incorrect and we gave details of the Gaul’s ‘arrival in Port’ and preceding sailing conditions where the IMCO minimum stability standards were not and could not be met. 

Trident 
 
In our post of 4 August 2010 [LINK] we also described how the stability records for the calculated lightship and sailing conditions of the Trident, which capsized and sank in 1974, with the loss of 7 lives, were callously modified by the Trident RFI experts (hired and paid for by the DfT) to give credence to the “official” view that, at the time of her loss, the Trident substantially met the IMCO stability standards of the day – an official requirement for grant-aided fishing vessel purchases in the early 1970s. 

We also noted in our posts of 28th February [LINK] and 27th April 2011 [LINK] that considerable sums of money had been squandered on worthless model tests, which were deliberately fed with doctored data, to give the results that our officials desired [1]

This blatant deception was only attempted because, contrary to official policies, the Trident’s lightship particulars (and stability reserves) had not been accurately established and verified [2] at the time that she was built. 

Gaul 

The Gaul’s lightship particulars (and stability reserves) were also left unverified when she was built [3], the data used being merely a copy of those derived from the inclining experiment, held in February 1972, on the Ranger Calliope (subsequently re-named Arab).

Testimony by Mr M. Scott (DfT surveyor) - 1974 Formal investigation into the loss of the Gaul - Day 12 page 27 : 


Surprisingly, if you check out the lightweight figures in the footnote below [4] you can see that an additional 11 tons of solid ballast has somehow managed to make its way into the calculations of the DfT, the shipyard and the Owner’s Consultants. When their investigations into Gaul’s stability were put in hand for the 1974 inquiry, it became an integral, unspecified part of the Gaul’s lightship weight. 

This 11 tons of notional ballast was useful in subsequent calculations in that it lowered the Gaul’s vertical centre of gravity (by 180 mm) - and would therefore be readily adopted by those who did not wish the tag of ‘deficient stability’ to be linked to the Gaul’s loss. Nonetheless, at the original FI hearings, the Builders, Brooke Marine, the Owner’s consultants, Y-ard and the DfT all managed to imply that solid ballast was not necessary on the Gaul to meet the IMCO minimum stability requirements (see below):

Mr M. Scott (DfT) - transcripts day 12 page 45 

Mr G. Donaldson (Brooke Marine) transcripts day 9 page 67
 
Mr A. Gilfillan (Y-ard) transcripts day 11 page 43 – in proposing improvements for Gaul’s 3 remaining sister vessels: 


This notional ballast was also an integral but invisible part of the Gaul’s lightship weight during the subsequent lengthy and expensive testing carried out by Morral in the late 1970s at the National Maritime Institute. This was another instance in which taxpayer’s money was spent on extensive model testing, but in which the basic data was skewed, to give the results that our officials desired. 

If we exclude this 11 tons of phantom ballast (it was not present on the Gaul) from the Gaul’s lightship and then check out her reserves of stability, we can see that this was degraded to the point where she did not meet the IMCO minimum stability criteria on arrival at distant fishing grounds. Furthermore, if she then did not proceed to promptly fill her fish hold with a significant catch of fish, she would be unable to meet the IMCO minimum stability standard throughout the rest of her voyage!

_______________________________________________________

[1] In 2005 the DfT also deliberately destroyed a number of folders of evidence and video that was unfavourable to their desired outcome.

[2] Neither an inclining experiment nor lightship check was carried out on the Trident. 

[3] The Gaul’s lightship data (displacement & vertical and longitudinal centres of gravity) were not obtained from a unique inclining experiment; they were copied instead from an inclining experiment held on the Ranger Calliope (a sister to the Gaul) on 1 February 1972; however, a simple lightweight check, to verify the integrity of the copied data, was not carried out on the Gaul. 

[4] Lightship data obtained from the inclining test on the Ranger Calliope
Displacement = 1099.63 tons, 
Vertical centre of gravity = 20.2 ft above base 
Longitudinal centre of gravity = 9.46 ft aft Midships 
Gaul Lightship data - used for all official stability investigations: 
Displacement = 1110.6 tons, 
Vertical centre of gravity = 20.02 ft above base 
Longitudinal centre of gravity = 9.99 ft aft Midships

Thursday, August 15, 2013

The age of the shills

I know very well that this blog is no longer the right place to make disclosures, however, it ought to be recorded, here as well, that the Counsel for the Department for Transport (Jeremy Burns) made a seriously false statement both verbally and in his affidavit for the court.

We are not quite sure what the motive was - but it has recently dawned upon us that these falsehoods could have given us an unfair advantage against his client.

(We would like to know why and who put him up to it - so expect a big scandal as well as a formal complaint. Hopefully, you will thus realise that having threatened us to keep quiet was a bad idea.) 




It may be tempting for the State to block access to this information, but there are many other ways in which it can be made public. Just like the info regarding a few other members of the legal profession. 

And another thing: any more threats will only make matters worse.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Where they are now

Recent thoughts of the formal investigations that we have referred to on this blog prompted our curiosity to find out more as to the whereabouts of the judges who acted as chairmen in those unfortunate inquiries.

Sir David Steel, for instance, is no longer judge at the Commercial and Admiralty Courts in London. David Steel was involved twice with the FV Gaul: first in a partisan position as lawyer for the Insurance Company, then in a neutral position as chairman of the 2004 RFI.

Although not yet arrived at the age when, as a poet said, passions relax their hold, or when expired judges are customarily wheeled out of HM’s Courts, in October 2011, Sir David Steel quietly left his judicial position and returned to the bar in a less demanding, though no less cushy role of Arbitrator at 10 Fleet Street. Simultaneously, he was also appointed Appeal Arbitrator for the London insurance market. Quite surprising!!! The commercial literature advertising the nobleman’s services now refers to Sir David Steel in terms of “the retired judge”.

The other honourable judge, Sir David Young – the former Sheriff Principal of Grampian, Highland and Islands – who presided over the more recent public inquiry into the sinking of FV Trident has also left his judicial position early, that is immediately after the conclusion of the Trident inquiry.

Justice Anthony Coleman, who chaired the MV Derbyshire investigation, in his turn, left the High Court in 2001, immediately after the MV Derbyshire inquiry had ended, and set out to the Czech Republic to advise the Ministry of Justice there on procedure with a view to the Czech Republic’s accession to the EU. Sir Anthony Colman then went on to become an International Arbitrator for that temple of austerity which is the Dubai International Financial Centre.

So, all these three former inquiry chairmen are no longer judges. The Brotherhood, it seems, has its own, discreet code of honour. Still, we are left with the feeling that these three judges fared far better than the victims of their judgments. This is Britain today – long live the Queen!

More to come

Sunday, August 04, 2013

Penchant for injustice

It now transpires - http://fw.to/sMbtyZb - that Tony Blair, using his contacts in the US (cemented by taking this country to war) - helped Colonel Gaddafi avoid paying $1.5billion in damages to the relatives of the seven Americans killed when a bomb exploded on a Paris-bound passenger jet in west Africa.

This puts the FV Gaul and the MV Derbyshire RFIs into a clearer perspective.

Friday, August 02, 2013

ECHR

Selections from our recent complaint to the European Court of Human Rights:

48. Following suggestions received from different quarters, including from the most creditable sources (i.e. most kindly, from within the Royal Family*) – suggestions validated to some extent by the Applicant’s personal experience – the Applicant was given to understand that the UK government has been placed under pressure by the US administration to obstruct any legal process that could make the abuses complained of by the Applicant and details of his disclosures public and proven in a court of law. What is more painfully apparent is that the Applicant and his family have been placed, in their turn, under tremendous pressure (duress) with the aim of preventing the Applicant from pursuing his claims further. The Applicant became aware that there were fears that details of his complaints of harassment suffered outwith the workplace (especially the events which took place during his secondment in Brussels and in which foreign nationals/agencies were implicated ) might be aired in public, and names and affiliations publicly disclosed. As it is understood that some of the Applicant’s former work colleagues had links to the intelligence services, there were also fears that identities, methods and embarrassing details about the conduct of those services could emerge. What was more, the Applicant’s disclosures, if dealt with, would have also tainted/incriminated a number of senior political figures and high-ranking officials from within the British Establishment.

49. It has been also implied that the UK, for the sake of some unspecified political interests, could not contemplate defying the US’s calls for secrecy. When faced with the difficult quandary of deciding how to reconcile the US administration’s demands with the obligation of having regard to due process and the rule of law, the UK, it seems, has chosen to comply with the former, while giving only the appearance of following the latter – to the effect that the Applicant was deprived of a fair hearing of his claim.

We have also complained about the UK government monitoring and interfering with our mail, telephone and electronic communications while we were preparing our case for the UK courts and the ECHR. These actions placed us at a disadvantage in relation to our opponents (i.e. the UK government) by allowing the latter foreknowledge of matters concerning evidence, legal strategy, search for witnesses etc. and the possibility to interfere with these matters. This was another serious breach of the principle of equality of arms and hence of the right to a fair trial.

The complaint also provided evidence of the UK courts' used of blatant falsehoods, legalistic quibbling and disregard for the law in order to avoid hearing our complaints related to the fraudulent public inquiries referred to on this blog.

More details will follow...

_____________________

* That was when the Tory PM did not appear as vulnerable politically

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Awareness



Life is real! Life is earnestWilliam Wadsworth Longfellow

Knowledge is an indispensable asset of the free individual, and, as any self-respecting despot knows, free individuals are a danger to government absolutism. Our governments expend therefore a lot of effort in preventing the masses from learning the true facts of the world they live in, while acquiring more and more information about what the rest of us do and think. 


 
The official narratives offered to the public about the State’s aims and conduct, are ever more deceptive. Yet, because so extensively promoted by the mainstream media, they gain credibility, rendering all alternatives as serious errors, the result of some deviations from the norms of morality, which deserve punishment by the law.

Creating an illusory world in place of the real one is a patently devilish occupation. Devilish also are the State’s grand-scale intrusions into our privacy, which conjure up the image of those flying demons in The Master and Margarita, jetting over the city, lifting the roofs of all the houses below and exposing the lives of the people therein.

Once in a while, the official narratives can contain actual truth, delivered, however, with considerable delay and timed to suit political interests. Take for instance the phone hacking scandal, the Bloody Sunday investigation, the Hillsborough inquiry, and several other abominations perpetrated by ministers and officials under the pretext of national security etc. etc., left to fester - wrapped up in layers of secrecy - for years, then disinterred at a time when they could be used as political paybacks or when some other benefit could be extracted and consensus had been built across political factions for a controlled release of the facts. As they all live in glasshouses, the throwing of stones is not something governments do without careful forethought.

There is also what often goes by the name of ‘open secret’ – that is truth acknowledged by many but never publicly confessed, never disseminated through the media, truth kept in a state of limbo, either because the time is not right to disquiet the masses or because public acknowledgement would entail some penal consequences that the Establishment doesn’t like to incur.

Official infamies are never spilled out in their crude, unadulterated format, but are filtered and with their asperities blunted by the press. There is no truth outside the mainstream channels - only the mainstream media, the umpire of our perceptions, is capable of giving events the stamp of authenticity.

The official narratives, nowadays, can also be the expression of non-reality, of theatrically staged events or things that never happened  – a far more dangerous phenomenon than the traditional conspiracies, as it involves not only serious, state-sanctioned villainy, but also an elevated degree of madness.

Like the veil of maya that can only be pierced through transcendental knowledge, the official narratives and deception will only be demystified by individuals’ understanding of what is in their nature and what is cunningly intended to condition it. 
 

Monday, April 15, 2013

Peaceful countryside

Great excitement on the road from Stockbridge, yesterday afternoon!  Following a few verbal warnings received previously, yesterday, we may have received a physical reprimand. That is our car did, when, on a less circulated road, another vehicle (purposely, it appeared) rammed itself into ours, then accelerated away, leaving us with some useful fragments of its body (which we have collected). Three minutes later, the driver returned in the same aggressive rush, going back whence he had initially come. Busy maneuvering out of the way and into a more convenient ditch by the roadside, we were unable to physically stop the driver and formally introduce ourselves - our gestured attempts to stop him being rudely ignored.
Shortly afterwards, we were given the impression that a local police crew may have had some involvement in the matter, or, maybe, it was just another strange coincidence. 

Could it be that our recent complaint sent to the ECHR (see the blog post below) sent some shivers through the backs of the British Establishment? We already know that car smashing is their preferred modus operandi. We shall have to look into this further – by ourselves – as our government and State have already proved to be too timorous to tackle criminal behaviour and corruption within the higher ranks, being too concerned about their own interests and safety.

P.S. Our complaint also made reference to the involvement of the US administration in aiding the corrupt within the higher levels of our ruling elite (the former US-subservient Labour government and institutions).

Friday, April 12, 2013

Offshore justice

The legal case that we started against the UK government a few years ago has now reached Europe. We are very curious about the outcome.

More fascinating, however, is that some of those affected are already brimming over with confidence that Mr Cameron, as regional distributor of US government policy and seasoned negotiator, will have the muscle to interfere and save those concerned from embarrassment and responsibility.

We cannot but wait and see.

Monday, March 25, 2013

The champions of censorship

Having shown an ambivalent attitude to much of the clamour and orchestrated tumult, the public finally got what it deserved - state regulation of the media, including of what is published on the Internet. 

It was sad to note that society did not vigorously oppose this totalitarian assault on the freedom of expression, confirming, once again, the old claim that the masses love tyranny. In this, the newspapers themselves deserve much of the blame, having cultivated the public such that it would have no inclination to rush to their defence. It might have been a good idea, perhaps, pointing out more clearly the link between the individual’s means of subsistence and the freedom of the press to stir up scandal on his behalf. 

Tethered both directly, through decisions of Parliament, and indirectly, through the appointment of overseers, the media will now become even more subsumed within the ghetto of politics. That is not to say, of course, that subordinance to the so-called apolitical arms of the State would have been a more salubrious option. 

The demand for press regulation was not an act of revenge by some celebrity figures outraged by their treatment at the hands of the press, as some seem to think, nor was it promoted by the aggressive banality of the arguments of the ‘pro-regulation’ campaign; it all looked rather like a well planned action, melding into the wider-ranging political strategy of the Left. (Pity that the press lacked the temerity to fully investigate this aspect even when its own fate was at stake.) 


It is no surprise that the British Labour were the first to embrace the idea of state-control for the press; apart from the fact that Labour stands to lose the most from serious investigative journalism, the left-wing ideology has never been tolerant of alternatives, nor would it consider leaving it up to the man in the street to discern between right and wrong. Freedom of expression is, in their view, something dished out by the State, rather than a necessity of our nature. 

To be true, the media in Britain has never been really free from the start – if it had been, we wouldn’t have needed amateur news sites to expose the corruption of the elite, neither would we see press articles used as political assault weapons, hinted menaces, disinformation and other diversionary tricks. If the British press needed anything nowadays, it was to be allowed more freedom and more curiosity.
Hence, it would have been more useful to explore the field of forces - extending way beyond the media corporations’ management boards - that restrict reporting on matters of serious public concern and the crimes committed by those who are making the rules.

Friday, February 08, 2013

Commemoration


We commemorate today 39 years since the loss of the Gaul. The blame for the tragedy still rests with those who lost their lives on the trawler.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

SHILLS

SHILL - (Definition from Wikipedia) - A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization.

(More to come about the UK government's use of shills)

Gangland Britain

After posting this message and trying to contact the Gaul families for further disclosures - we have received threats.

Pressure has been placed on us to prevent us from naming the shills in the GAUL RFI etc. Our cowardly UK authorities are protecting, in fact, not the shills, but their lawyers ( a special caste that is). 

Obs.

Does anyone know who the owner of the following IP address is: 77.86.117.135 - Kingston Upon Hull?

NOTE


We are trying to organise a meeting in Hull with the Gaul families, in order to deliver to them, personally, a number of documents revealing the rapports between the families representatives, government (and the opposing parties). This message is one way of bringing this event to the attention of those who may be interested.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Tentacles

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: http://the-trawler-gaul.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/socialist-international.html)

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.

UPDATE
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.
 
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202961/Complaint-senior-Hillsborough-officer-serving-blamed-fans-despite-report-referred-watchdog-lawyer-claims-cover-documents-handed-CPS-14-years-ago.html)

UPDATE

Negotiations are now ongoing:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/hillsborough-files-lawyer-casts-doubts-over-prosecutions-1-2533661

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/news/9554051/Hillsborough-Police-watchdog-may-be-limited-in-investigation.html





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

Advice


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.

LINK

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

Anniversaries

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.