Dirty Tricks department turned on Sturgeon: Was Memo Leaked or Faked?

STORY TAKEN UP BY MAIL TOO.  And these Labour campaigners in East Lothian accepted it. (photo by Edddie Truman). Maybe they should remember an earlier story (see below). Or that only last week the Tory Mail called SNP leader "Most Dangerous Woman in Britain".

SCOTTISH National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon remained centre stage this weekend, offering Labour's Ed Miliband a deal to keep Tory David Cameron out of Downing Street.  Writing in the Observer, Sturgeon challenged Miliband to lead the Labour Party into an anti-austerity alliance with the SNP so they could prevent the Tories forming a government.

“If together our parties have the parliamentary numbers required after 7 May, and regardless of which is the biggest party, will he and Labour join with us in locking David Cameron out of Downing Street?”

Miliband has so far ruled out any talk of an alliance before the election. One reason might be that it would make it easier for more Labour supporters to consider switching their votes to the SNP, which is already outpolling the Labour Party in Scotland.

The SNP leader's call for an alliance came as an inquiry was being ordered into how the Tory Daily Telegraph obtained a Foreign Office memo about a conversation with the French consul general in  which Nicola Sturgeon supposedly confessed that she would prefer to see Cameron remain prime minister. The SNP leader said the story was "categorically, 100%, untrue", and called on Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood to order a probe. The French embassy also denied the report.

 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/04/sturgeon-offers-new-deal-to-miliband
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32187255
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/04/nicola-sturgeon-snp-david-cameron_n_7003408.html?utm_hp_ref=tw 

Unfortunately the Labour Party was quick to accept the Telegraph story and comment about it, without checking what Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP had to say. And if they did not take her word for denial they could have asked why the French ambassador, who is not a party to the election, should feel obliged to cover up.

BBC Scotland’s James Cook asked Nicola Sturgeon  about the Telegraph‘s "leaked memo", claiming it chimed with what he has been told by senior SNP figures – that it suited their wider purpose to have a Tory Prime Minister because that would rally support for independence. Later Cook complained of the angry way SNP supporters had rounded on him. "What an extraordinary level of vicious abuse I have received today for simply reporting the news. Is this the country we want folks? Is it?"  And reporting this the Spectator said it showed the ugly side of Scottish nationalism. 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/the-hounding-of-the-bbc-scotlands-james-cook-exposes-the-uglier-side-of-nationalism/

The Spectator, whose former editors include Boris Johnson, is owned by the Telegraph group. As for James Cook, he wasn't "simply reporting the news" but repeating a dubious story in the Telegraph and adding his own commentary.  It was Nicola Sturgeon who was being hounded.

It may be just a coincidence that the Torygraf ran its story  - based on a memo supposedly written a month ago, on March 6, concerning a conversation which allegedly took place in February - on Friday, April 3, the day after it was reported that the SNP leader made such an impression in the televised party leaders' debate that viewers in England were saying they wished they could vote for her.  A debate in which Sturgeon said she agreed with Ed Miliband on many issues and would be willing to work with him.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/03/can-voters-outside-scotland-vote-snp

Craig Murray, an SNP member who also happens to be a former British ambassaddor with more than twenty years' experience in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, had no doubt about the likely provenance of the "leaked memo" story.
"The fake FCO memo has MI5 written all over it. This is the worst example of British security services influencing an election campaign since the Zinoviev letter." 

That was of course the alleged letter from the Soviet minister instructing British Communists on subversion, probably forged by Czarist emigres, and presented by an MI5 officer to the Tory Daily Mail, which turned it into a front-page story in time for the 1924 general election, claiming it showed Labour's instructions from the "masters" in the Kremlin. A report commissioned by Robin Cook when he was at the Foreign and Commonwealth confirmed that this was contrived by the security services.

Major Joseph Ball, the MI5 officer involved, went on to work at Tory central office, running media manipulation and dirty tricks, even against people in the government and Tory party when required, before resuming a security post. *

 https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/04/uk-intelligence-services-attack-snp/

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/04/frenchgate-definitely-the-security-services/

HERE'S ONE THEY RAN EARLIER.  Daily Mail in 1924


Foreign and Commonwealth Office employees are supposed to be "non-political", or so I was told when I once somehow came in sight of a job as filing clerk and tea boy. Maybe passing material to Tory papers does not count as politics; but now I see the FCO says the memo did not come from them, and the Telegraph says its came from the Scottish Office. Craig Murray seems to think it was not so much "leaked", as faked.   

 Whatever we think of the Scottish National Party -and I'm one of those who used to jeer that they were "Tartan Tories" - its leaders are neither knaves nor fools. They know that the votes for independence in the referendum were strongest in what had been solid Labour areas; and that the support they have gained is not based on romantic nationalism nor blaming "the English" but on the wish to defend what's left of the welfare state and build a better Scotland, in opposition to the austerity and privilege that David Cameron represents.

The idea that it would be better to have a Tory government make things worse so as to drive people to revolt is a schoolboyish conspiracy notion, of tactics that might work for underground groups desperate to generate resistance in occupied countries, and hoping for outside help. It is no use at all to a party dependent on grass-roots enthusiasm and public trust, and leaders able to articulate their supporters' aspirations with conviction.  It is the kind of ulterior motive which those who don't understand mass politics - spies or journalists - sometimes maliciously attribute to the Left, and we will doubtless hear it again if any of the Left groups standing against Labour make a real dent on Labour majorities in the coming election.

Maybe some Scottish Labour Party MPs and hangers on,  with redundancy staring them in the face, will have clutched gratefully at the Telegraph story, hoping it was true. And some of them might prefer a Tory government rather than have the SNP shoring up Labour, and leaving them sidelined.

The Tories - who might be prepared to share government with UKIP if needs be - are bound to want to block and divide any possible combination against them.

And that's not all.

Besides the SNP's policies on health and education, one aspect of Nicola Sturgeon's appeal beyond Scotland, to voters and many within the Labour Party and further Left, is her forthright opposition to Trident and to nuclear bases in Scotland.  And that suggests one reason why the security and intelligence services, and maybe not just in Britain, could have a hidden hand in the campaign against Nicola Sturgeon.

*  For more about the pre-war development of Tory "Dirty Tricks" and Major Joseph Ball,  see for instance: http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/features/item/cabinet-conspiracy

Freedom of Speech, so long as you keep shtum?

"FREEDOM OF SPEECH" has been much talked about lately, in the wake of the 'Charlie Hebdo' killings and with regard to such slightly less serious matters as the enthusiasm with which some groups of students, feminists or whatever want to ban or boycott others, burn their papers, and so forth, in the name of creating "safe spaces". Having regard for my own safety, not to say sanity, I won't go there, but will stick to the relative comfort zone of things I know and can understand.

"Freedom of Speech" is not a new idea, of course, but more like a retro fashion. I can remember it as the first of the Four Freedoms proclaimed by President Franklin D.Roosevelt a year before I was born (and given the middle name Franklin), the other three being freedom of worship, and freedoms from Want, and from Fear. Maybe if freedom is back in fashion we should consider the rest of the package, particularly the last two, which are missing from much of the world, and being increasingly denied a lot of people in this country.

After the war, when the UN was established with such great hopes, Roosevelt's four freedoms were woven into the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which reads, "Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed the highest aspiration of the common people,...."

I also remember seeing my first live fascists, with placards proclaiming "Let Mosley Speak" and "'Action!' (their paper) "banned from your library. Why?". At that time most town halls were banned to the fascist leader, and if anyone quoted Voltaire, the more recent "barbarous acts" were more uppermost in people's minds, along with the thought that had the War turned out differently, Mosley would most likely have been the only politician to enjoy freedom of speech. As it was, Tory Kensington kept its doors open for Sir Oswald when he wasn't stirring the Teds in the north end of the borough.

 So I was not altogether carried away with the recent fervour over "free speech", nor entirely surprised when a Labour councillor friend in the North East who'd said something about the EDL and Pegida marching in his his city received hate mail saying he was attacking "Free Speech", and going on to accuse him of a string of other offences, as libellous as ridiculous. (Naturally the kind of heroes who send this stuff are always anonymous).

But rather than discuss the ethics of free speech or pontificate about its proper limits, and what the law says or what it ought to say, I would like to look at how much free speech there really is, as illustrated by a few recent instances.

One of the things we ought to be able to freely hear and talk about, because it could affect all our lives, is the treaty being cooked up behind closed doors by European Union(EU) and United States officials, called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Ostensibly about removing obstacles to trade, there are fears that it could force countries to remove restrictions on food additives and genetically modified crops, lower safety standards, and drop the minimum wage. Some court cases already being brought by big companies could be the shape of things to come. Philip Morris wants to sue for loss of profits caused by the Australian government's legislation on cigarette packaging, while Germany is facing legal action because it decided to phase out nuclear power.

Under TTIP big companies with their seemingly limitless resources and high powered lawyers could take any  government which got in their way to special, secret courts. The threat of billion dollar fines could deter a future Labour government,say, from renationalising the railways, or reversing the inroads of privatisation in the NHS. What price then your voting in elections, passing conference resolutions, or - if the Met will still allow it - even marching in the street?

No wonder there have been protests in Brussels about TTIP, or that 97 per cent of European citizens said they were against it in an EU poll. Even European commissioners are expressing caution, as are MEPs, and trade unionists both sides of the Atlantic oppose it, though the British government seems content to let it go ahead.      

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/19/ttip-brussels-cecilia-malmstrom-eu-trade-us-nhs

The wonder though is how little we hear from politicians or on TV about TTIP, and why it is not being raised in an election year. It seems not even elected members of the European parliament are trusted, and they have to take a vow of silence, forbidding them from telling us what they have seen.
 As Molly Scott Cato, a Green MEP for the South West of England, wrote recently:

'... I have now been granted privileged access to the European parliament restricted reading room to explore documents relating to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal. But before I had the right to see such “top secret” documents, which are restricted from the gaze of most EU citizens, I was required to sign a document of some 14 pages, reminding me that “EU institutions are a valuable target” and of the dangers of espionage. Crucially, I had to agree not to share any of the contents with those I represent.

The delightful parliamentary staff required me to leave even the smallest of my personal items in a locked cupboard, as they informed me how tiny cameras can be these days. Like a scene from a James Bond film, they then took me through the security door into a room with secure cabinets from which the documents were retrieved. I was not at any point left alone.

This week hundreds of protesters against TTIP have descended on the European parliament. They are quite rightly concerned about the threat that this treaty poses to the British government’s ability to conduct its affairs in their interests. On a range of issues, from food safety standards and animal welfare to public services and financial regulation, there are deep concerns that the harmonisation of standards across the Atlantic really means a reduction of standards on both sides.

But how are we to know for certain? All discussions about TTIP have been hypothetical, since the negotiations are taking place in secret. In order to read even brief notes of what has been discussed I have to be reminded of my duties not to undertake espionage for foreign powers. Repeated complaints about secrecy from my fellow Green members have resulted in our being admitted to the restricted reading room but we are still not able to share what we discover there with our constituents or with journalists.'

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/04/secrets-ttip-corporations-not-citizens-transatlantic-trade-deal

Of course, an important part of free expression is the freedom of the press. As people say, if you don't like what you see in a particular paper you can stop buying it. Whereas, if you are wealthy enough you can buy the paper and change its politics.

We all know better than to trust the tabloids for our information, but there's the 'quality' press- papers like the Telegraph.Until recently its chief political correspondent was Peter Oborne, a conservative even if independent.

On February 17, 2015 Oborne resigned from The Daily Telegraph. In a letter posted to the online news website, OpenDemocracy, Oborne criticised his former employer for the relationship between their editorial and commercial arms. Oborne outlined how the paper would suppress negative stories and drop investigations into the HSBC bank, a major source of their advertising revenue, which, in his opinion, compromised their journalistic integrity calling it a "form of fraud on its readers".

He also alleged that the Telegraph’s coverage of stories relating to UK supermarket chain Tesco, shipping company Cunard and the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong had been influenced by commercial considerations, adding, “There are other very troubling cases, many of them set out in Private Eye, which has been a major source of information for Telegraph journalists wanting to understand what is happening on their paper”.


http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/18/peter-oborne-telegraph-hsbc-accounts

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/20/peter-oborne-resignation-media-serve-rich-telegraph-hsbc

 It would not be the first time a newspaper has considered its advertising revenue before running a story that might upset a company.  What was newsworthy was that someone like Oborne felt he had to speak out. In other cases journalists newer to the profession have come across what looked like a big story to pursue, but reluctantly had to dump it when they were told it would never get printed, or realised it might break rather than make their career.

I' imagine the Ritz-owning, Channel Island-dwelling Barclay brothers who own the Telegraph might be sympathetic to some of HSBC's tax avoiding customers anyway, aside from the advertising. A much bigger newspaper owner, whose interests' ability to avoid UK taxes did not prevent a mutually understanding relationship with British governments is Rupert Murdoch. The Sun's infamous Hillsborough story was a political matter. And Sun journos who we're told were horrified by what they saw were free to go up the road from Wapping, or keep their heads down and mouths shut, remembering that all that took Prince Rupert's shilling had waved goodbye to conscience along with union rights.

Free Speech at Work?

Are you free to say what you like at work? "Have a nice day?", click, click and/or "would you like fries with that?" may not be the full extent of your repertoire, but it can be pretty well circumscribed. Elsewhere, that nice office where everyone's on first name terms and you can dress down Friday may seem free, but have you noticed how the receptionist looked nervously over her shoulder before she whispered her confidence to you?
How free people feel to speak their mind depends generally on how secure they are and if the place is organised. In some casual jobs people are afraid to talk to the person they are working with, in case what they say is eavesdropped, or reported, and next day they are out of a job.
As for government departments, undermining job security and union organisation is not just about pay and conditions, but one way of intimidating civil servants from speaking out about stuff they know, or telling the public things we should know. Of course it may have the opposite effect.
In the past the Official Secrets Act was used to cover a multitude of sins, and probably still is, but now it is being supplemented with commercial businessspeak.

Members of the Public and Commercial Services(PCS) union at the National Gallery are starting their second strike today in the fight against their work being handed over to a private security firm. But they have an additional issue since management suspended senior union representative Candy Udwin, an art handler, for allegedly “breaching commercial confidentiality,” PCS said, by giving information to a full-time union official, including information about the costs of using profiteers.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-bce7-National-Gallery-union-convenor-suspended-on-eve-of-5-day-strike/#.VOlzRy6E3jk

http://artforum.com/news/id=50134

Now hang on. We the public still own the National Gallery, right? In fact the management claims it must get more "commercial" because there are limited public resources available. But the private company coming in is not a charity. It must see a profit in taking over the work. So how come the cost of bringing the privateers in is not something the public, including people who work at the gallery, are supposed to know?

Another aspect of freedom of speech at work is safety. In the construction industry, where many workers were blacklisted after taking up safety issues, and HSE inspections are few and far between, responsible workers will not cut corners, but they may hesitate to raise issues, hoping someone else will, if it means losing your job and having your card marked henceforth.

Electrician Frank Morris lost his job on the Crossrail project after raising concerns about safety, and it took over a year for him to win reinstatement.  Frank was not the last, either. But last week a worker who was sacked in similar circumstances was reinstated within half an hour of workers taking militant action on his behalf.  This may have to do with a demonstration at company headquarters spilling over into London's Oxford Street and stopping rush hour traffic. It is probably also not unconnected with the inquest opening tomorrow at St.Pancras Coroners' court into the death of Rene Tkacic working on Crossrail, and the vigil planned by trade unionists and safety campaigners outside.

Our individual freedom and even lives as workers depends on our ability to join in collective action. 

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-007b-Crossrail-whistleblower-reinstated-after-sacking#.VOl2xi6E3jk

Crossrail  Vigil at St.Pancras Coroners Court, Camley Street, London N1C 4PP. Assemble 9.15am

The Grocer's Daughter and A Mystery Fortune in Bricks and Mortar

FROM DING DONG SONG TO SINGING  IN THE RAIN.  media say "hundreds", friends say 3,000, and so do photographs, like this one from Nicholas Glais.


APOLOGIES to fans and admirers who might have been hoping for a bop around Trafalgar Square with me on Saturday evening, but after an early start, an interesting meeting of the Greater London Association of Trade Union Councils, and a few pints with the gang before heading home through the rain, I'd had enough excitement for the day. Such is old age.


Besides, there had been all the warnings in the media, of murder and mayhem being brought to the capital by anarchists, if not al Qaida, and judging from the armed police I passed at Kings Cross someone was taking it all seriously.

Doing its best to keep up the thrills and supposed suburban outrage, the Daily Mail came up with a scoop:

Mastermind behind plans to disrupt Thatcher funeral is Oxford student whose parents live in £700,000 house in Tunbridge Wells

• 25-year-old Dominic Francis studies at Oxford's Ruskin College 
• Fanatics plan to 'celebrate' Iron Lady's death in Central London today If people do break the law they will be properly dealt with,' Mayor said 
• Police preparing for planned protest in Trafalgar Square tonight
• Members of Durham Miners' Association among those taking part
The Mail Discovers a Mastermind

 

It seemed that not only were people going to be listening to speeches and partying in the Square on Saturday night, but what young Dominic has planned is for people to turn their backs on Thtacher's funeral cortege as it passes by on Wednesday. Wow, that is really scary.

Not wishing these young whipper-snappers to receive all the credit for the national rejoicing I am going to make a confession. Some years back when an unfortunately unfounded rumour went around before Christmas that Thatcher had popped her clogs, I suggested that if this was confirmed the song should resound throughout the land, "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead".

True to my word, as soon as I heard the news of her death at the Ritz last week I opened my windows and regaled the neigbours with more than one version of the Yip Harburg classic. I have not had any complaints, nor even remarks, but I read in the Mail that a decision by the BBC to broadcast a short snatch of the Ding Dong song after it zoomed up the charts is handing "victory to the Trots". Ding Dong victory.

Loth as I am to claim credit for an idea that occurred to so many other people, I think for the sake of the Daily Mail  I will confess to being the "mastermind", or if you prefer, the Mister Big, who started this conspiracy. Well, we need every little victory we can get.

But while the Rothermere rag was doing its best to stir up readers' resentment against this young man at Ruskin over his parents' house in Surrey (without much success, to judge from the comments I've seen), the Daily Mirror was drawing our attention to another, more pertinent housing story.  

Mystery: Margaret Thatcher, her £6m house and the tax havens

Margaret Thatcher’s £6m London townhouse is owned by a mysterious company with links to THREE notorious tax havens.Financial experts said it could have been a scheme which would help her estate avoid millions of pounds in inheritance tax.

But because her affairs are shrouded in such extraordinary secrecy it may be impossible to find out.

The trail leads to offshore businesses in the British Virgin Islands with links to Liechtenstein and Jersey.

The £6million property she lived in for more than 20 years is owned by Bakeland Property Company, based in the BVI.The company’s official address is a PO Box in a small town in Liechtenstein and it had its original roots in St Helier, Jersey.

Any suggestion of avoiding a £2.4m inheritance tax bill will spark outrage following the row over who is paying for Thatcher’s lavish £10m funeral.

Records at the government’s Land Registry HQ in Croydon, South London showed that on March 29, 2006, Bakeland paid £2,395,807 for the house at Chester Square in Belgravia, London.It is unclear who they purchased the house from because they were also named on the lease when the house was originally bought on October 30, 1991 for a reported £700,000 in 1991.

There are two leases on the property, which a Land Registry source described as “unusual”.The first one was taken out on October 18, 1991, and lasts until December 25, 2030.The second was taken out on July 29 and runs out in 2055.

The latest lease mysteriously stated: “The airspace above the building is excluded from the title.”

Bakeland Property Company Ltd trustees were originally listed as Jersey-based Hugh Thurston and Leonard Day, her friends and financial advisers. In 2002 The Guardian reported that Bakeland’s shares were held by Mr Day and Mr Thurston. Accountants said they were acting as nominees for a trust with concealed beneficiaries.

As Lady Thatcher did not own the house herself it is possible, depending on the terms of her will, that her children Mark and Carol could benefit.If the property was listed in the name of their mother they would been subject to 40% tax on the entire value of the home – an estimated £2.4m.

Both Mark and Carol visited the house in Chester Square last night.

Tax campaigner Mr Christensen added: “There are huge financial benefits for an offshore company to own a property or leasehold particulaly in connection with stamp duty and inheritance tax.

“A company doesn’t die. If a person dies the property has to be passed on to someone else – obviously this is not the case with a company.

“This can be very beneficial indeed and can save a large amount of money in taxes which would be othewise due.”

The Mirror called the British Virgin Financial Services Commission which confirmed that the company which now owns Thatcher’s house had been based there since August 19, 2005.

The question marks over the Thatcher home come as police in London prepare for demos this weekend following the former Prime Minister’s death on Monday. Anarchists threatened a mass “party” to celebrate her death and protesters say a demonstration in Trafalgar Square today will be a focus for discontent in the run-up to Wednesday’s funeral.

     Mystery of The House on Chester Square

We've been interested in houses in Belgravia before, in connection with the generosity of Saudi businessmen. Mark Thatcher had a home in Eaton Terrace, handy for "Mumsy".  I don't know about bedroom tax but I should not think he'll be affected by the benefits cap.

Paper hit by legal hoax

Lastly, quite unconnected, another mystery, from Croydon. Newsagents and supermarkets across the south London borough were duped into taking the Croydon Advertiser, with front-page stories about Lady Thatcher and Princess Di,  off their shelves, after someone calling themselves "Joanna Lumley" 'phoned to say there was a legal problem.

Not the Joanna Lumley surely? How could anyone imitate that voice and accent?  Or suppose she was working in the local paper's office? Still, whoever it was, it worked. Thanks to the word "legal" the paper lost a whole day's sales.
 
Advertiser editor Glenn Ebrey said: "I've been in journalism for almost a decade but never heard of anything like this before"

Somebody sabotages the Advertiser

Here I have the advantage over him.

When I was working (unpaid) on the late Workers Press, I wrote a story about one Roger Rosewall, whom I remembered from the Young Socialists, but had made the news as a shadowy adviser to another grocer's daughter, Tesco heiress Dame Shirley Porter. The leader of Westminster city council, notorious for selling off council houses in what became known as "homes for votes" scandal.

With the help of one or two old friends, I traced his career from Socialist Workers Party industrial organiser by way of Ruskin College (!) to helping ex-CP union leader Frank Chapple at the Daily Mail before moving further into the corridors of power, well City Hall at any rate (Though he was not on Westminster's staff officially, and it was reported that they were not supposed to mention him).

Next morning I looked forward to seeing, and selling, the paper with my article, but it was not available. Apparently a certain person, whom I will not embarass by naming, had seen my copy being set, and taken it upon himself to call the printers and some outlets , warning them authoritatively that my article could be considered libellous. Not being a big company with pots of money or on tap lawyers they were worried and stopped the paper going out.

Not till after my late friend Geoff Pilling, the paper's editor (whom they had not 'phoned) heard about this, and checked with a lawyer who knew what he was talking about and said there was noting wrong with my article, did that issue of the paper get out, late in the day.

What was behind all this, besides an absurd nervousness, I don't know. It almost makes me sympathise with the Croydon Advertiser. 

Roger Rosewall gets a mention in the House