February 2017


There used to be three major trophies In English football: the League title, the FA Cup and the League Cup. Whether the FA Cup or the league was the most important really depended on whether you were In England or not.

But how can the FA Cup be regarded as a major (trophy) if most of the players in most of its games do not start league games at professional level?

Two non league teams in the last 16 of this season’s competition tells its own story.

As a Leeds United fan I know a lot about being on the wrong end of Cup upsets. But cup upsets and the romance of the cup etc, mean the higher ranked club fielding its strongest available team and being beaten as a result of hostile crowds, dodgy pitches, bad luck and a lenient referee failing to keep an over physical opposition in check. The giants were never outplayed by the minnows in football terms.

On 30th January 2017, in keeping with the modern day FA cup, Leeds United turned up at Sutton United with a team which was mongrel of its second team and youth team players and they were outplayed on an artificial surface. The players had never played together (if Leeds were going to rest the first team, then why not put out the same “weakened” side that they fielded in Round 3 against Cambridge United?) It looked as if they hadn’t prepared on an artificial surface either – an allegation denied by the club.

Brighton and Hove Albion and Newcastle United also fielded weak sides and deservedly lost to non league Lincoln City and Oxford United respectively. Newcastle went down without so much as a whimper. The reason most cited by pundits for clubs fielding weak teams in the FA Cup is “it’s because the league is priority”. But is there more to it than that? I ask because 1) The league always was priority. 2) Whilst weakened sides are also fielded in the League Cup, the practice is not as extensive as in the FA Cup. 3) If you look at the League table, Newcastle, Brighton and Leeds’ destinies for this season are pretty much cemented. Newcastle and Brighton will be promoted and Leeds will be in the play offs. It may be the case that a couple of extra games in the FA Cup can cost 3-4 league points, but all three clubs can afford to drop those points. Additionally a cup run brings in extra revenue. And if avoiding extra games is so important, then surely by not fielding the full team against lower league clubs, the higher ranked clubs increase the chances of a draw and a replay. That’s what happened to Liverpool in Round 3 against Plymouth Argyle, and it very nearly happened to Tottenham who got a 97th minute winner against Wycombe Wanderers in Round 4.

So I suggest there is much more to it than “league priority”. The reserve leagues were undermined and subsequently disbanded so how do the coaches get a chance to assess the strength of their non first team players in competitive matches? Maybe the FA Cup presents such an opportunity.

There is little doubt in my mind that an increasing number of clubs increasingly regularly disrepect the FA Cup. And the reason could be as simple as this:  it deserves to be disrespected.  Contrary to the propaganda we are increasingly being bombarded with in all walks of life, respect, surely, needs to be earned. The onus is on those who want to be respected to earn that respect. Does the FA deserve respect from those within the game and the fans? It does increasingly little which is related to football these days, and has apparently become an arm of Government, preaching and imposing politically correct doctrine on players, fans coaches and administrators alike. Ironically amongst these is a “Respect” Campaign.

And why, when the “crisis” of the sexual abuse of youth players came up, did the FA start saying “this is the greatest crisis we’ve faced and we hope that we don’t have to pay compensation because that money could otherwise be invested in 3G pitches in communities”? There are a number of things wrong with that statement. If ABC United of Division 4 in 1975 had a coach who was sexually abusing youth players, why should the FA be paying compensation? Why not the coach, the club, or at a stretch, the football league? What does it have to do with the FA? (Those of you who know your so called “New World Order” may find it interesting perhaps that Ed Smethurst http://www.edwardsmethurst.co.uk/   is getting involved here.) http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/football-sexual-abuse-scandal-crewe-alexandra-lawyer-a7456691.html His name has come up before http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2016/01/new-film-by-richard-d-hall-when.html

And as for artificial surfaces, they produce something which, however good you think it may or may not be, is a different sport from football. Hardly conducive to the stuff of FA Cup legend. Going back to the Sutton/Leeds tie, there is little doubt that had it been a grass pitch, the Leeds keeper Marco Silvestri would have reached the ball before Sutton’s Maxime Biamou in the incident which led to the only goal of the game. What has torn the heart out of community football is not lack of unnatural pitches. It’s the commercialisation and politicisation of the sport and its authorities like the FA.

The Premiership runs the Premiership and the Football League runs the football league. The FA, whose cup, we used to be told would never be sponsored, whilst whingeing occasionally about clubs disrespecting it, hardly helps its cause by moving the traditional kick off time of the final around to suit global TV, and allowing the ties preceding the final to be scattered about like confetti: again for TV purposes.


In Guernsey where I live, we’re quite lucky because the elephant is the same size but the room is smaller, so it’s easier to spot.  So the FA doctrine is in our faces here through the Guernsey FA (whose website is infested with commercial ads). Here is the text of a letter which the Guernsey Press published on 30th January. The GFA did not wish to respond, according to the newspaper.

“Dear Sir,

I could choose many examples of how society these days seems to be based on dumbing down the people and encouraging them to accept a “look after the strong and it will help us all” ethos (aka “Big Society”) without question, whilst the reality is that small communities’ supposed protectors are becoming their executioners.  

I’ll continue with local football though because barely had the ink dried on my letter “Development of Guernsey FC has wrecked domestic football” which you published, albeit in slightly edited fashion, on 10th January, then you ran a story which revealed that St Martins had requested the postponement of a Priaulx league game because of a shortage of players, chiefly on the grounds of “Christmas social commitments.”

Rather than send St Martins away with a flea in their ear and possibly sanctioning them for submitting a request on frivolous grounds, the League Management Committee chose to grant Saints’ request. Not only that, but they said that in future they would consider not scheduling games around the Christmas period. Unbelievable, unbelievable.

Since when has the Priaulx been a social league? Surely dedication to the sport should be being recognised and encouraged by its authorities, so if one team’s players prioritise playing above socialising and another’s doesn’t, then why reward the latter? What sort of message has that now sent to the rest of the players and clubs in the leagues? It’s not clear how much notice of the postponement their would be opponents (Rangers) were given, but will the GFA, LMC or St Martins be refunding them the cost of any training sessions they put on in preparation for the game?

According to the GFA’s website the “League Management Committee works closely with the Guernsey FA”, which tells me that the GFA does not regard the LMC as being its responsibility. (“Works closely with” is not the same as “takes its instructions from”.)  But surely it is ultimately the responsibility of the Guernsey Football Association to look after the health of the sport in the island. Or is it? The GFA doesn’t seem to think so, or if it does hold this belief it must be deeply buried in its advertisement infested website. It is strangely silent on most football matters raised in the media, and somewhere along the line has apparently absolved itself of running the domestic leagues, even though the clubs which play in those leagues (and also Guernsey FC) are affiliated to it. The GFA website also states that the three members who sit on the LMC are Keith Mansell, Brian Horsepool and Kelvin Melrose. According to your newspaper however, the LMC is Nick Graham, Andy Robert and Brian Horsepool. So on whose authority are the first of those two acting? In fact on what authority does the LMC –whoever sits on it – run the domestic leagues? If the clubs are affiliated to the GFA and not the LMC then what authority does the LMC have unless it has been appointed by the GFA? And if it has been so appointed, then that means that ultimate responsibility for its actions lies with the GFA, just as the Directors of a company would be ultimately responsible for a foul up by one of its managers. Also, is the LMC sufficiently resourced – and by whom – to do a competent job?

According to the self styled “local community club” Guernsey FC’s website, it was the GFA which encouraged them to enter a foreign league and play half of its games outside the Bailiwick.  It seems then that the GFA has taken the view that “unless it’s Guernsey FC it’s not important” and abandoned domestic football to the extent that it doesn’t even tell us which individuals run it, and has failed to step in when those who do are apparently prepared to reduce the Priaulx to social league status.

So what exactly does the GFA do, apart from distribute nanny state guidelines handed down to it by the FA in the UK? Similar questions are being asked of the FA itself…..

I was expecting negative and positive reactions to my initial letter from Guernsey FC fans and those who think as I do respectively. Instead of which I have received an almost universal response of “Where are the GFA in all of this?”


The World Cup of 2022 is scheduled for Qatar. It will be a disaster. 48 teams, 16 groups of 3 with the top two in each going through. That opens up the possibility of the two teams who play in the third game engineering a result which puts the other team out. Remember this?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gij%C3%B3n


Not only that, it’ll be so hot, the games will be slow and so there will be numerous draws. So especially with fewer games to shake out the pecking order, some teams will progress by drawing lots.


When they had 24 teams at the World Cup, as will be the case in Qatar, only a third of the teams were in the Group stages, and the group matches were sterile. That changed when they went to a two from four system.


Often the knockout games are boring because if its level after an hour the teams settle for not making a mistake, take extra time and then if it’s still level after ten minutes of that, settle for penalties.  And again, in the heat, the chances are that the games will be level.


It’s suggested that the increase in the number of teams is to promote consumer interest in the world cup. Consumerism raises its head again then. How much interest will there be in the world cup after Qatar has finished with it?


If you want to promote a global government, then you can do without things that generate national fervour like the World Cup or even Olympic games (where could this go? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Olympic_Team_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics)


I’m starting to wonder whether the football authorities won’t be happy until every team is made up of Stepford Wives.




November 2016




We are often told, here in Guernsey that it is vitally important that Guernsey as a finance centre has a good reputation. Is this message consistent with the following situations?


 1)   Rightly or wrongly Guernsey doesn’t have a good reputation. It has an appalling reputation. Yet it still has a finance industry.


 2)   Of the business lost to Guernsey’s finance sector in the last decade, most appears to have gone to either Jersey (whose reputation is not significantly better or worse than Guernsey’s) or to Dubai, whose reputation is even worse.


 3)   With avoiding conflicts of interest being a cornerstone of good governance and therefore upholding reputation, would Michelle Le Clerc be using her public office as a States Committee President to spout the “importance of reputation” rhetoric at the same time as drawing a salary from bankers Investec? What happens if Investec hits the headlines for the wrong reasons? In fact it has done just that recently, being exposed by Deloitte’s as the bankers of scam running Providence.


 4)   Would another States committee President, Peter Ferbrache, be a consultant to a new private law firm which could, and probably will at some point, act against the States of Guernsey?


 5)   Would Guernsey’s Vice President Lyndon Trott be drawing a salary as a non executive director in the finance industry whilst at the same time being the Chairman of Guernsey Finance which is heavily subsidised by the Guernsey taxpayer to promote the finance industry? https://www.weareguernsey.com/our-board/


6)   Would the last two elections have been regarded as valid? Shortly after the 2016 general election it transpired that some candidates and not others had been subsidised by the States to go on courses to be advised on how to run for election. Not only that, but one of the tutors, Jenny Tasker, chaired one of the hustings at which her own pupils were amongst candidates. Then there was the October 2016 by-election when one candidate, Gary Collins, was issued with a different and larger list of potential voters than the others, a list which included the name of Dave Jones, the politician whose death had triggered the by-election. If the States of Guernsey didn’t know he was dead, why did they hold a by election to replace him? Reminiscent of the stuff of tinpot regimes in 1970s bongo bongo land perhaps.


7)   Would the election to the post of Guernsey’s most powerful ever politician Gavin St Pier have been conducted by a series of secret ballots and had its outcome determined by a single spoilt paper by a person unknown? https://mattvocallocal.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/gavin-st-pier-elected-president-of-guernsey-by-dint-of-spoiled-paper-in-secret-ballot/


 8)   And if reputation were so important would the Policy and Resources Committee, headed by St Pier, be seeking, as they say they are, to work more with the third sector (charities)? Anyone who knows anything about money laundering knows that charities are a high risk category. And money laundering isn’t the only risk area. Some charities are obviously destructive. Examples include Common Purpose http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/nhs-common-purpose-towards-million-change-agents and Guernsey FC. Belgrave Wanderers, a powerhouse in local football prior to Guernsey FC’s inauguration a few years ago, who play their home games at The Track, Guernsey’s equivalent of Wembley, barely exists today after a hundred years of competition.




Their first team has one point from ten games. The reserve team is bottom of its league. It has no other senior team apart from a merged outfit with Herm which is also struggling. It only has one junior team which is third from bottom of its league. And Guernsey teams in general are being outperformed by their Jersey counterparts in inter insular competitions.


 Other charities are infiltrated. Humanitarian disasters are great news for the secret services and organised crime because border controls are relaxed. Why not train your secret agents as doctors and nurses? Others are covers for shaping society without going through the democratic process. Why, for instance, does the secretive Ana Leaf Foundation, a Jersey health based charity, refuse to answer questions about why it funds the Town Centre Partnership, a Guernsey amenities and entertainments charity, whose officials historically have infested the St Peter Port Douzaine (the Guernsey equivalent of a local council in the UK)?




And why did the Deputy Editor of the Guernsey Press, Suzanne Heneghan, and Barry Cash, who at the time was the most senior official in Parish government as well as being a Town Centre Partnership director, conspire to keep that question out of the media? Additionally, Ana Leaf is strongly connected to Hedge Fund magnate Peter de Putron of Guernsey, whose interests and antics, not to mention his connections with Andrea Leadsom, have been under scrutiny nationally. http://www.desmog.uk/2015/05/25/mysterious-tory-donor-linked-energy-minister-andrea-leadsom-s-rise-power




Besides which if Governments did their jobs properly and upheld democracy there wouldn’t be any need for charities, or most of them, anyway[m1] .




Guernsey’s constant policy of secrecy cannot, surely, be consistent with an argument that reputation is important to an economy or jurisdiction.




In the latest issue of “Business Brief” editor James Falla (also the Business Editor for the Guernsey Press) asks if those who seek to oppose what the islands do, especially in financial services, would like to run the islands’ PR campaign. Is that a strange question? Whilst, clearly, individual businesses and industries see a benefit in marketing their products, Falla did not explain why a country or island needs to have a PR campaign or explain why Guernsey is a brand or product any more than the air or the sea is.

You may have noticed that one of the sites whose link is in this article has a slogan which is “Clearing the PR Pollution”. That might just be a very good idea indeed


 Does the finance sector expect Guernsey’s Government to be full of salesmen rather than politicians? What about the view that if the finance sector, either via jealousy or poor governance or both,  tarnishes the international image of “Guernsey” (and there are, it seems, different understandings of what is meant by “Guernsey”) then it follows that if there were no finance sector there probably wouldn’t be much call for PR and spin?


Could it be the case that because the finance industry (and not just the Guernsey one) is based on confidence, those who move within its circles  have actually convinced themselves that the false world of image is more important than, or actually is,  the real world of truth? Are they able to see a difference?












Thursday 5th May 2016


In last week’s St Sampson’s election of people’s deputies, 1543 votes were cast for him and 13678 were cast against him. He came fourth out of twelve.

In yesterday’s voting of States deputies, he did not obtain the backing of the majority of the Assembly in any of the four votes which occurred, (in total 77 votes were cast for him and 82 against) but he was eventually deemed successful by dint of a spoiled paper in a secret ballot.

Who am I talking about? Who else could it be but the man who, in the circumstances described above, yesterday became Guernsey’s most powerful ever politician as he was deemed to have been  voted in to the newly created role of President of the similarly recently created Policy and Resources Committee. His name is Gavin St Pier. He was initially proposed for a political role by the then Chairman of the IoD, and he has taken over the reins of Guernsey power in an election every bit as controversial as that of Chief Minister Peter Harwood four years ago or George W Bush in his “I got more votes than there were people” heyday.

Whilst there didn’t appear to be the degree of contrivance in St Pier’s success that there was in Harwood’s, we won’t know for sure because the process  was shrouded in secrecy as the new House spectacularly failed its first accountability test by holding the Presidential vote by secret ballot – something which they were empowered not to do and which even the much ridiculed outgoing Assembly saw fit not to do. At least when Harwood was elected we knew who the villains were.

Events unfolded as follows. There were three men who put themselves forward for election to the role. These were returning politician Peter Ferbrache, St Pier and Charles Parkinson. Whether Ferbrache should have been there is highly questionable – the “four years recent experience” rule which was suspended for four years in order to pave the way for Harwood in the 2012 election, seems to have been quietly forgotten, despite its value being clearly demonstrated by events which resulted in the end of Harwood’s tenure of the top job.  In about the only welcome development yesterday, the other deputies were allowed to quiz the three candidates in a live debate to which the public had access, although the number of questions was limited and the deputies asking the questions chosen in order by lots.

The quality of the answers is a matter of opinion, but they appeared to reflect the time each candidate has spent in politics recently (back to the value of the four year rule again…)  St Pier, having been at the centre of matters in the last 4 years in his role as Minister of Treasury and Resources had more precise information to hand and was quick to exploit his advantage, but by so doing also displayed that he had a head start, which may have caused some to look upon a vote for him as having short term benefit. Ferbrache was worryingly vague and spoke of “listening to advice [from experts]” rather too much for my liking, and Parkinson struck the happy medium, having only been re-elected into the House by way of a by-election five months or so ago.

The first secret ballot had St Pier ahead with seventeen votes, with Ferbrache second on fifteen and Parkinson third on eight (although one deputy told me that it was Ferbrache with 17 and St Pier with 15). For reasons unknown, although I would guess it is to reduce the chances of a President being elected with an eventual minority, the rules say that the last placed candidate should drop out and the remaining  candidates contest another round of voting and so on until there is only one left standing.

Earlier this week I was asked “Why, when they reduced the number of deputies from 47, did they come up with an even number?” the implication being that it could result in tied votes. My reply was “It’s extremely rare for all of the States members to be in the chamber at the time of the vote. And in any case there is a rule which says that if the vote on an amendment to a proposal is tied, then it falls, so I can’t see it being a problem.”

How wrong can you be? The second round of voting produced a 20-20 tie but strangely, the Bailiff Sir Richard Collas was, according to the Guernsey Press, “forced” to delay it because three deputies –  Leadbeater, Merrett, and Mooney weren’t in the chamber. Why he was forced was not explained. Could the Bailiff  not have stuck to the rules and gone ahead without the three errant deputies, as is the case in all other votes? Does this mean that we’re going to have votes delayed from now on because deputies aren’t ready, or are out shopping, or whatever?

So what rules does Guernsey have in place to resolve a tie? Apparently there is just one: “Go away and vote again in a few minutes time”. I wonder what genius thought that one up. Guess what happened in the re-vote. It was 20-20 too. How amazing. So what rules are in place to resolve a second tie? You’ve guessed it; just the one: “Go away and vote again in a few minutes’ time”.

This system is a system most likely to produce a “biggest bully behind closed doors wins” result.

At the third time of asking the result came out 20-19 in St Pier’s favour with someone having allegedly spoiled a paper. We’ll never know which weakling “caved in” because it was a secret ballot. Or maybe nobody did and it was a court official who took it upon himself to deem a paper spoiled.

“Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” – Josef Stalin

When I was at school if a paper plane passed through the classroom airspace and was picked up on the teacher’s radar and his question of “who threw that?” did not yield an answer, the whole class was punished. Similarly the whole Assembly, including the court officials, cannot be trusted until the weak or corrupt link is exposed.





















































“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”  – Benjamin Franklin




The “War on Terror”, our leaders tell us, is necessary in order to protect our freedoms. Therefore, and especially given the significant changes to our lives and societies which the conflict is driving, we are surely free and entitled to ask a few questions about what we are being told about it.


This war, which has caused the deaths, maimings, surveillance and displacement of millions of people, has also involved numerous regime changes, and much economic hardship. It has resulted in loss of freedom and the adoption of legislation drafted elsewhere. (According to Gary McKinnon, the latest UK extradition laws contain American spelling, and he should know.) Yet both the War on Terror and the likes of the subsequent December 2015 UK Parliamentary debate on the bombing of Syria have been conducted on the unproven assumption that the crisis being responded to has been created by Muslim fanatics. So, has it?

Those who blame Tony Blair and George Bush for the indirect creation of terror groups may be apportioning blame in the right area. But is there a possibility that the terror threat is not a reaction to the west’s capitalist policy, but a deliberate creation by it? Or maybe consideration should be given to the fact that the underlying policy at work is global dictatorship and that capitalism, and all that sail within it, is a means to that end. Once that end is achieved, the free marketeers could be in for a nasty shock. (The following quote is attributed to Frank Zappa: “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”)

Why does the UN say that Israel supports ISIS and why do the authors of a recently declassified Pentagon report from 2012 see the rise of ISIS as a US strategic asset? What about the published works of former US National Defense Advisor Zbigniew Rzezinski which were so closely mirrored by the Project For The New American Century’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” Report commissioned by the US Government and whose authors took up key positions in the US Government once George Bush was appointed? (One of those was placed in charge of the Pentagon four months prior to 9/11). Why has the FBI said that it has been unable to find evidence showing that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy perpetrated by Al Qaeda or Muslim fanatics? And what of UN Agenda 21, and The Red House Report of 1944?

This article will attempt to shed light on the most likely answers to these questions,with particular emphasis on the Project For The New American Century’s report and the UN’s Agenda 21.





Wars are always about resources. So why would people who already have resources start a war over those same resources? Are we to believe that people clever enough to carry out the successfully co-ordinated attacks like 9/11 and 7/7 and hide the evidence are not smart enough to realise what the reaction would be? Who benefits from these and other attacks like the November 2015 ones in Paris? Who has the motive, means and opportunity to carry out a sustained terror versus anti-terror war and threat?

All arms dealers claim to be “defence contractors”. That being the case, whose arms are we defending against? The leading arms exporters in the world by country are: China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the USA. The UN Security council has five permanent members which lead it: China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA. The UN security council has backed attacks against ISIS. http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/nov/21/un-security-council-backs-action-against-isis-paris-attacks-video

The UN was founded at the behest of bankers (who profit from the debts which wars bring). There have been far more wars since the UN was founded in 1957 than in the entire history of the planet before then. And it’s curious that the supposed chemical attack in Syria in 2013 happened within days of the UN arriving in the country and basing themselves twenty minutes’ drive away from the scene of the crime.

If ISIS is the entity it is presented to us as being, why hasn’t it, and others like it, been infiltrated by western agents? Infiltration works. It has succeeded against organised crime on a regular basis, and was used to combat football hooligan gangs. It is also used by groups seeking to subvert democratically elected Governments. Why else would Common Purpose founder Julia Middleton entitle her book “Beyond Authority” http://www.cpexposed.com/latest-news/common-purpose-heart-conservative-party (This January 2015 quote from its chairman Robert Care: “There is no doubt that the people who constitute Common Purpose – the Alumni – can fulfil the purpose of providing leadership in our communities whether modest or at the highest level. When we do, the world will become a better place.”)








An August 2012 Pentagon report, released in June 2015, shows that the US saw the creation of ISIS as a strategic asset and in the interests of its foreign policy.














Kristol ball: the PNAC founder’s 1997 vision for the future has a remarkable correlation with events since


But it gets much more interesting than that. We have the Project for The New American Century and The UN Agenda 21 to consider.

Little mainstream media coverage is given to a document called “The Project For The New American Century – Rebuilding America’s defenses” (PNAC RAD). This closely mirrors the 1982 and 1998 books by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Defense Advisor to the United States. Basically he was saying that following the demise of the Soviet Union, the USA could become the only global superpower, but to do so it would need to obtain the resources from Eurasia. And to do that it would have to be able to justify a presence and intervention in the region.

The PNAC itself was a neo-conservative think tank founded in 1997 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century by Robert Kagan of Carnegie infamy  http://www.rodjenkins.com/new_world-order_origins.htm and William Kristol, who amongst other things,  serves on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Committee_for_Israel

In 1998 the PNAC wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to promote their Brzezinski like policies. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/27/444438/-

In 1999 the US Government  commissioned the PNAC to produce a report called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” which I shall refer to as “PNAC RAD”.

The report was published in 2000.  During political debates on the war in Iraq, a section entitled “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force” became the subject of considerable controversy. The passage suggested that the transformation of American armed forces through “new technologies and operational concepts” was likely to be a long one, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” (Page 51)  Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans.

At 0920 on 9/11 journalist and activist David Horowitz sent an email to Counsellor to the Vice President Mary Matalin) saying “Today is Pearl Harbor.”

Some critics asserted that “the PNAC RAD report should be viewed as a program for global American hegemony”. Writing in Der Spiegel in 2003, Jochen Bölsche claimed that it “had been developed by PNAC for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby,” and was “devoted to matters of maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.” British MP Michael Meacher made similar allegations in 2003, stating that the report was “a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana,” which had been “drawn up for” key members of the Bush administration. Academic Peter Dale Scott subsequently wrote:

“[PNAC’s] ideology was summarized in a major position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, in 2000. This document advocated a global Pax Americana unrestrained by international law…”

Of the twenty-five people who signed the PNAC’s founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick CheneyDonald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Others, including Dov Zakheim, who became Comptroller of the Pentagon four months before 9/11 http://911review.org/brad.com/batcave/Dov_Zakheim_911.html  are to be found amongst the signatories of the PNAC RAD. In full these were:

Roger Barnett

U.S. Naval War College

Alvin Bernstein

National Defense University

Stephen Cambone

National Defense University

Eliot Cohen

Nitze School of Advanced International

Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Devon Gaffney Cross

Donors’ Forum for International Affairs

Thomas Donnelly

Project for the New American Century

David Epstein

Office of Secretary of Defense,

Net Assessment

David Fautua

Lt. Col., U.S. Army

Dan Goure

Center for Strategic and International Studies

Donald Kagan

Yale University

Fred Kagan

  1. S. Military Academy at West Point

Robert Kagan

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Robert Killebrew

Col., USA (Ret.)

William Kristol

The Weekly Standard

Mark Lagon

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

James Lasswell

GAMA Corporation

  1. Lewis Libby

Dechert Price & Rhoads

Robert Martinage

Center for Strategic and Budgetary


Phil Meilinger

U.S. Naval War College

Mackubin Owens

U.S. Naval War College

Steve Rosen

Harvard University

Gary Schmitt

Project for the New American Century

Abram Shulsky

The RAND Corporation

Michael Vickers

Center for Strategic and Budgetary


Barry Watts

Northrop Grumman Corporation

Paul Wolfowitz

Nitze School of Advanced International

Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Dov Zakheim

System Planning Corporation



As for Brzezinski, he’s still advocating the same policies. His 2013 book “Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power” is critiqued on Wikipedia  as follows:

“By 1991, following the disintegration first of the Soviet bloc and then of the Soviet Union itself, the United States was left standing tall as the only global super-power. The 21st century seemed destined to be yet another American century. But that optimism did not last long as the stock market bubble and the costly foreign unilateralism of the younger Bush presidency, as well as the financial catastrophe of 2008 jolted America – and much of the West – into a sudden recognition of its systemic vulnerability to unregulated greed. In “Strategic Vision”, esteemed author and former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski argues that to quell mounting anxieties about the growing capacity for Eastern economic and technological innovation, America must define and pursue a long-term geopolitical vision. Only in this way will it become more strategically deliberate and historically enlightened in its global engagement with the new East. A tactical blueprint, Strategic Vision argues that without an America that is economically vital, socially appealing, responsibly powerful, and capable of sustaining an intelligent foreign engagement, the geopolitical prospects for the West could become increasingly grave.”

So, given all of that, is it really so surprising that we have, since 9/11 seen creeping and Western backed regime change across Southern Europe and North Africa, never mind Afghanistan and Iraq and seemingly and onwards into Syria?







So, let us look what has happened since 9/11 and compare it to the aspirations of Brzezinski and the PNAC. Is this a deliberate and well organised military strategy resembling the board game “Risk”? Italy and Greece are in the grip of the bankers who can control entire nations through debt. Libya and Egypt have had regime change supported by the West, the former at a time when President Ghadaffi was trying to irrigate the country using vast underground reserves of fresh water, a project destroyed by NATO in 2011. http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-water-wars-and-gaddafis-great-man-made-river-project/5334868

Ukraine and Georgia have also seen regimes change in favour of the West. So have Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan has suffered drone attacks. The West is bombing Syria. The Saudis are fully on board with the West as arms dealing patterns which I will come to later have shown. Azerbaijan also has a western supporting regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan%E2%80%93United_States_relations

Turkmenistan is believed to have struck a deal with the United States allowing the latter access to its airfield Ashgabat which lies on its Iranian border. http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav071209.shtml

Armenia, per capita, is the third most militarised nation in the world. Israel heads that list. So Iran, which has significantly more oil than any of those countries, is in a precarious position and some say has been the main target of US Policy all along. The thought seems to have occurred to them to: I remember the candlelit vigils in Tehran as a reaction to 9/11. https://photosiran.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/irans-exceptional-reaction-to-911-attacks-candlelit-vigils-for-the-victims-and-60k-soccer-fans-respected-a-minutes-silence-2/


US bases surround Iran: Who is threatening who, exactly?

Of all of the regimes and mad butchers and despots we are told are threats to us, they are, obligingly only a problem to the West one at time. Where was the Assad problem six years ago? Why isn’t North Korea, which was going to wipe us out according to our media a year or two ago, not exploiting the fact that Western forces are so tied up in Syria? And is it a coincidence that the IRA ceased to become active just as the British forces engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq?

What justification is there at the moment for invading Iran, for example? Will it be in the interests of Iran to create one? Will they conveniently have a brutal regime in a few years time?




According to the United Nations Israel supplies ISIS. http://yournewswire.com/un-proven-ties-between-isis-and-israel/

David Cameron is among the 80% of Tories who belong to the Conservative Friends of Israel. And there are umpteen highly influence politicians serving, or who have served in the US Government in recent times, with US/Israeli dual passports.

Conservative Friends of Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Friends_of_Israel

If, as the CFI claims, 80% of Tories are members, then the whole party is surely conflicted. But most notably on the list in the link are PM David Cameron, former leaders Iain Duncan-Smith and William Hague who of course was also Cameron’s secretary of state and foreign secretary, and was recently made a Life Peer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hague

I have already mentioned the connections to Israel of William Kristol, but here, as at June 2011, are more US politicians with dual US/Israeli passports according to the link below:


Michael Mukasey

Recently appointed as US Attorney General. Mukasey also was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center.


Michael Chertoff

Former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department; now head of Homeland Security.


Richard Perle

One of Bush’s foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson’s office in the 1970’s after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from one the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktanks, the AEI. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.


Paul Wolfowitz

Former Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle’s Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the above mentioned Jewish thinktank, JINSA. Wolfowitz was the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering. He later was appointed head of the World Bank but resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a scandal involving his misuse of power.



Douglas Feith

Under Secretary of Defense, and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don’t agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm’s own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith “represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer.” Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith also came from the Jewish thinktank JINSA. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.


Lawrence (Larry) Franklin

The former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst with expertise in Iranian policy issues who worked in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and reported directly to Feith’s deputy, William Luti, was sentenced January 20, 2006, “to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat” and members of the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).


Franklin will “remain free while the government continues with the wider case” and his “prison time could be sharply reduced in return for his help in prosecuting” former AIPAC members Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, [who] are scheduled to go on trial in April [2006]. Franklin admitted that he met periodically with Rosen and Weissman between 2002 and 2004 and discussed classified information, including information about potential attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Rosen and Weissman would later share what they learned with reporters and Israeli officials.” (source: sourcewatch.com).


Edward Luttwak

Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq and Iran.


Henry Kissinger

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger’s evil past, read Seymour Hersch’s book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger likely had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), Installing Chilean mass murdering dictator Pinochet, Operation Condor’s mass killings in South America, and more recently served as Serbia’s Ex-Dictator Slobodan Milosevic’s Advisor. He consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S. Unfortunately, President Bush nominated Kissinger as chairman of the September 11 investigating commission. It’s like picking a bank robber to investigate a fraud scandal. He later declined this job under enormous protests.


Dov Zakheim

Dov Zakheim is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew’s College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York’s Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.


Dov Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.


He was appointed by Bush as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as mentioned, was buried under 9-11’s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim’s watch. We can only guess where that cash went.


Despite these suspicions, on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense.


Judicial Inc’s bio of Dov tells us Zakheim is a dual Israeli/American citizen and has been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel’s armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.



Kenneth Adelman

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his racism or ignorance, he actually called Arabs “anti-Semitic” on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by definition are Semites.


  1. Lewis “Scooter” Libby

Vice President Dick Cheney’s ex-Chief of Staff. As chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iran. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president. Libby was recently found guilty of lying to Federal investigators in the Valerie Plame affair, in which Plame, a covert CIA agent, was exposed for political revenge by the Bush administration following her husband’s revelations about the lies leading to the Iraq War.


Robert Satloff

U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby’s “think tank,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby’s “experts” come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.


Elliott Abrams

National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based “Think Tank” Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year’s probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration’s State Department.


Marc Grossman

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.


Richard Haas

Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.


Robert Zoellick

U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iran.


Ari Fleischer

Ex- White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad’s Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.


James Schlesinger

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.


David Frum

White House speechwriter behind the “Axis of Evil” label. He lumped together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to justify the war.


Joshua Bolten

White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish community.


John Bolton

Former UN Representative and Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton is also a Senior Advisor to President Bush. Prior to this position, Bolton was Senior Vice President of the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktank, AEI. He recently (October 2002) accused Syria of having a nuclear program, so that they can attack Syria after Iraq. He must have forgotten that Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are thermonuclear weapons (according to a recent U.S. Air Force report).


David Wurmser

Special Assistant to John Bolton (above), the under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli outfit which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light.


Eliot Cohen

Member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. More recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the enemy, not terrorism.


Mel Sembler

President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems.


Steve Goldsmith

Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush’s Jewish domestic policy advisor. He also served as liaison in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President. He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives.


Adam Goldman

White House’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.


Joseph Gildenhorn

Bush Campaign’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland.


Christopher Gersten

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor Secretary.


Mark Weinberger

Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs.


Samuel Bodman

Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.


Bonnie Cohen

Under Secretary of State for Management.


Ruth Davis

Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).


Daniel Kurtzer

Ambassador to Israel.


Cliff Sobel

Ambassador to the Netherlands.


Stuart Bernstein

Ambassador to Denmark.


Nancy Brinker

Ambassador to Hungary


Frank Lavin

Ambassador to Singapore.


Ron Weiser

Ambassador to Slovakia.


Mel Sembler

Ambassador to Italy.


Martin Silverstein

Ambassador to Uruguay.


Lincoln Bloomfield

Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.


Jay Lefkowitz

Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.


Ken Melman

White House Political Director.


Brad Blakeman

White House Director of Scheduling.”


And then there are the conflicted interests of Tony Blair.

Tony Blair took Britain into war in the Middle East

Tony Blair is a convicted war criminal (Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, 2011)

Tony Blair was, until recently a peace envoy



 Blair: which project?

Tony Blair is paid more to be a consultant for an insurance company (Zurich) then he was paid to be Prime Minister http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11274788/The-lucrative-world-of-Tony-Blair-ex-PMs-business-deals-and-properties.html

Insurance companies can charge larger premiums in war zones, and can particularly benefit from terror threats when there are no subsequent attacks (they can justify larger premiums, but don’t get to pay out any claims) http://nwnt.prd.go.th/centerweb/NewsEN/NewsDetail?NT01_NewsID=WNECO5811170010002








“Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many… who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. So we call our process something else such as comprehensive planning”, “growth management” or “smart growth”J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to the US President’s Council on Sustainable Development and to US AID. He was on the US Government delegation to the 1996 Habitat II Conference and has also been Director of the Centre for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington and Chief Planner in the City of Seattle 1998 UNEP Conference U.K.

Here is UN Agenda 21 http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/articles/Agenda21.pdf

and here is a book about it: http://www.ukcolumn.org/sites/default/files/pdf/your-life-in-their-hands.pdf  which summarises Agenda 21 and its implementation as follows:

“The United Nations Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development programme is

a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by

organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every

area in which humanity impacts on the environment’. 1

Some of its key policy objectives are:

*an end to national sovereignty

*an end of western democratic process

*the ending of Common Law

*the abolition of private property

*the abolition of private transport

*the destruction of western industrialisation

*the ending of free enterprise

*the harmonisation of incomes and re-distribution of wealth across the globe

*the limitation of resource use (energy, water, minerals)

*populations to be concentrated in cities close to their place of employment,

*the restructuring of the family unit and increasing limitations on mobility and individual


*continuous surveillance and monitoring of the population

*the end of freedom of choice

Now, consider just a few of the policies coming out of our own British Government:

*an end to national sovereignty European and UN ―laws‖ applied at the local level – the

―Big Society

*private property and assets stripped away through economic hardship and crippling taxes

*the systematic destruction of our industry

*the spiralling burden of ever increasing overseas aid programmes

*children stolen by the state and pushed into a privatised multi billion pound care system

*0 -19 education programmes (schools opening longer, no parental influence)

*crippling public transport costs and soon to be imposed road charging

*the highest concentration of CCTV cameras in the world

*increased behaviour modification ‗nudge‘ programmes”

A friend of mine had a class of six year olds recently who asked what would happen if the devil came to earth. “He’d pretend to be the good guy” they decided.

To run a global police state you would probably indeed, pretend to be the good guy at first whilst aiming to:

1) Control the media

2) Undermine the independence of nations, especially with regard to their economies, education systems, food production, and military and police forces (eg through national debt causing cuts)

3) Create either a genuine or phantom shapeshifting global enemy

4) propose global solutions

5) Create a need to monitor all citizens

6) encourage citizens to report each other to the authorities

7) restrict freedom of speech to such extent that anything challenging the official linbe is deemed radical and dangerous to society

8) Create an acceptance of the principles of trial in secret courts and detention without trial

9) Create a global legislative framework containing so many laws that almost any citizen of their choosing could be found guilty of a crime






According to this report, having realised that they could not shape the world as they wanted to in the name of Germany, a group of Nazi industrialists, scientists and military leaders plotted an international “Fourth Reich” which involved conspiring with followers of the same philosophy from other nations and cultures and implementing the agenda on which national interests were not included, by stealth.

This Daily Mail article from 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich–EU.html – a Nazi plan for post war totalitarianism.








Here are a few relatively recent quotes to conjure with:

From the UK’s  ITV evening news (20/11/2015): “Civil liberties are no longer at the forefront, as France waits for Europe to catch up.”

EU President Jean-Claude Juncker, referring to his colleagues on the European council in 2012: “We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”

David Icke 2010 “..the bosom buddy of Problem-Reaction-Solution [to achieve your objective you first create a problem to create a demand for it] is the technique I call the “Totalitarian Tiptoe” and the two work together. The Totalitarian Tiptoe goes like this: you are at standing point “A” and you know you are taking people to point “Z”, but you have to keep this agenda hidden if you are going to make it to the end without the level of protest that would thwart you. So you don’t go the whole way in one leap because the change would be so fast and obvious that people would look up from the television or the sports game and ask what was going on. Instead you move forward in steps A to B and C and so on. You go as fast as you can, but not so fast that you attract the scale of opposition that could stop you. Each step is presented as unconnected to the others to ensure the connections are never seen, except by those comparatively few that are awake to the game. By the time many of the rest begin to see it because by then it is so obvious, it’s too late, a fait accompli. What we have in Europe today, and what is planned to follow with a United States of Europe under dictatorial control, was the aim from the start, as i explained earlier [in the book]. The same has been happening in the United States, Canada and Mexico with regard to the North American Union. But when you know what the goal is, a centrally controlled global police state, and you know the main methods of taking us there – problem-reaction-solution and the Totalitarian Tiptoe –you are able to see what most of the population of the world cannot. That’s why I have been stressing these three things at every opportunity since the early 1990s

David Icke  1995 “The plan for the New World Order and global control moved into a new phase with the emergence of funny money. This is the process by which banks lend money that doesn’t exist (credit) and charge you interest on it. If I gave you something that doesn’t exist and asked you to pay me for it, you might consider calling the police. If I gave you something that didn’t exist and said that it you don’t pay me for it I will take you to court and take your property away, you might say we lived in a fascist state. Yet what I have just described is the banking system and the means through which people and Governments are drowning in debt. And what does debt equal? Control

Banker David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle): “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.”

He went on to explain:

It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”











How many of the alleged terrorists have ever been proven guilty in a court of law? The way it seems to work now is that the media (more about the media later) or politicians say: “it was them over there” and before we know it a death sentence is pronounced on thousands of people, and monitoring and freedom restricting legislation is imposed on everyone else. http://www.munknee.com/usa-patriot-act-remains-americas-most-draconian-legislation-ever/

When is the evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 going to appear?



“They are so cunning they must have hidden all the evidence” indeed. What sort of bureau of investigation is that? Can you imagine that standing up as a prosecution case in court?

A couple of years later we were told that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction couldn’t be found because they must have hidden them. If they hide them when the country is being invaded, the country really isn’t that dangerous is it?

And in between times, the farce that was the “ricin conspiracy” occurred. This was used as a springboard to justify an invasion but was later proven in court to be an unfounded claim. By then however, the invasion had occurred and thousands of people killed https://mattvocallocal.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/time-to-remember-the-ricin-conspiracy/











Do you know who owns the newspaper you have just read or the TV Channel you have just watched? Do you know of their other interests? Do you know for example the extent of defense contractor General Electric’s history of media ownership, deals with the US Government and military and its global interests? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_General_Electric


So to paraphrase their own website, a defense contractor  is “building the world by providing capital, expertise and infrastructure for a global economy.” http://www.ge.com/about-us/building

So building the world is how they make their money. What would happen to them, I wonder, if there was no need to “build the world” because there were no wars or debts created by central banks who supply nations with money based on nothing and ask for payment in return with interest?

Meanwhile the Barclay Brothers are looking to sell the Daily Telegraph. According to Private Eye, the number one candidate to buy it “is arms dealer Wafic  Saïd, the Syrian-born fixer who helped Margaret Thatcher conclude the biggest arms deal in British history, Al-Yamamah, 30 years ago, and has since founded Oxford University’s business school. A friend of the Barclays and of Telegraph columnists Charles Moore and Simon Heffer, he has cash to burn – and a huge desire to seem respectable.”

Are newspapers owned by arms dealers likely to promote the case for peace?

And then there is the thorny issue of Israeli involvement of media ownership


And what happened after Baron Reuter supposedly committed suicide in 1915 (shortly after the founding of the Federal Reserve)?  http://www.the-big-picture.org.uk/wp/?page_id=4382

History shows numerous examples of media propaganda and bias. But thanks to the internet we can find out what is not reported in the mainstream. Here are a few examples:

George “Walkin’ nowhere” Bush  – convicted in absentia by a War Crimes Tribunal in 2011

Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal finds Tony Blair and George W Bush guilty – not reported

BBC reports celebrations live from Green Square in Tripoli after Gaddafi is overthrown. The crowd is waving Indian flags and the BBC later admitted that the footage did not come from Libya.  not reported  (No other media outlet reports BBC’s “error”). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0


Legal cases over 9/11 brought by Dr Judy Wood –  not reported http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml


9/11 Tower 7 and the “Jane Standly clip” – not reported https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

French President Francois Holande’s Press conference in which he says “attacks were nothing to do with Islam”, (referring to the Charlie Hebdo attacks –was this perhaps why France was attacked again later?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZdsHrJNWUI  – not reported, even to the extent where this report where the British culture Secretary comments on those who say the attacks were nothing to do with Islam, fails to mention that these people include the French President.


Pakistan President Benazir Bhutto informs David Frost in 2007 that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered in her country. Frost does not pursue the statement – not subsequently reported 


Bhutto was assassinated in mysterious circumstances shortly afterwards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNO_3qHHsgA

UN announces Israel is helping ISIS – not reported.


Journalist David Chase Taylor posts notice on 8th November that the CIA was planning a wave of terror attacks in Paris in November and to blame ISIS – not reported  (Attacks occurred on 13th November)  http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=25528

“In Syria, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, combat-related crossfire has accounted for a large proportion of deaths. But in Iraq, at least 92 journalists, or nearly two out of every three killed, did not die in airstrikes, checkpoint shootings, suicide bombings, sniper fire, or the detonation of improvised explosive devices. They were instead murdered in targeted assassinations in direct reprisal for their reporting. Many were targeted because of their affiliations with U.S. or Western news organizations, or their connections to news outlets seen as having sectarian connections.” –


And the much respected Gaby Rado, we are told, fell out of a hotel, shortly after his fellow reporter was killed:

“The correspondent is the second ITN journalist to die in Iraq this month. His fellow reporter, Terry Lloyd, was killed in Iraq earlier this month after coming under fire. Two of his crew are still missing, according to ITN.” – http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/media-jan-june03-rado_03-30/








Here is a list of events. (month/year):-

12/09 Sweden Proposes East Jerusalem should be the capital of Palestine. Later dropped from proposals


12/10 Suicide bomb in Stockholm (blamed on Islamists)

02/11 UN Security council resolution critical of Israeli settlements vetoed by US

03/11 Frankfurt small arms attack (Germany on security council in 2011) (blamed on Islamists)

07/11 Norway supports Palestine bid for statehood

07/11 Andreas Brevik terror attacks on political camps

03/12 Israel launches military operation in Gaza

03/12 Shootings at Jewish school in France

07/12 Burgas bombing in Bulgaria of Israeli’s leads to EU blacklisting Hezbollah as terrorist organisation

05/14 Belgium plans to recognise Palestinian Statehood


05/14 Terrorist attack in Brussels blamed on ISIS

12/14 EU vote for noon-binding resolution recognising Palestinian statehood

01/15 Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. President Holande says that attacks were nothing to do with Islam

01/15 Denmark votes to recognise state of Palestine


02/15 Shootings in Copenhagen blamed on Islamists

02/15 Sweden opens Palestinian embassy


10/15 Sword attack in Sweden

11/15 EU votes that all Israeli products must be labelled if they come from settlements

11/15 Terrorist attacks in Paris whilst France play Germany




Not forgetting Malaysia and the Kuala Lumpur war crimes trial of course.


(although there was quite a while before Malaysia seemed to be targeted.)

The November 2015 attacks in Paris came a couple of days before a G20 meeting


and in London the 7/7/5 bombings immediately preceded a G8 conference in Scotland







At around the time of these attacks, plenty of discrepancies were starting to emerge from the official version of the 9/11 attacks. This is possibly why not too many people have questioned much the official version of 7/7/5.

This is former MI5 agent David Shayler’s video:


and these are two interviews with researcher Nick Kollerstroem:



And this is another book, in its entirety online


The attacks were shortly before hand Live Aid II had happened and all eyes were on the G8 conference. The attacks happened on the morning of the first day of G8, and within an hour or so, Tony Blair, George Bush and Nicolas Sarkozy were on the steps of Gleneagles saying “this bears all the hallmarks of an Al Qaeda attack” and the subject dominated the conference

A month before 7/7, Warner Brothers filmed “V for Vendetta” using the disused Aldwych station, and concerns were expressed at the amount of security clearance to the tube system they were given. This is rather like the CNN reporters who, to do a business travel feature got into the cockpit of a Malaysian Airliner identical to the one that disappeared a month or so later. Same co-pilot both flights.

And in 2003, Ken Livingstone appointed Bob Kiley as Commissioner for Transport on London. Kiley earned £6m in 4 years, got a £2m handshake and sold his house in Belgravia for £2.7m. Kiley was formerly executive assistant to the Director of the CIA Richard Helms.

I would ask anybody who doesn’t believe in the concept of “false flag” events and Government sponsored war and terror to watch either of these videos:



Finally, what are the odds of all of these happening by chance?



In the United States of course, the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) was included in the constitution in order to give citizens the chance to deter a tyrannical dictatorship. http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/





The outpouring over the 2015 November attacks in France dwarfed everything else, including 9/11, yet as shown elsewhere, on a scale of innocent civilian wilfully inflicted in deaths, France is hardly at the top of the global list.  At the time of these attacks 26,000 civilians had been killed in Afghanistan in 2015,  12,700 civilians had been killed in Iraq in 2015 alone and 10,900 civilians had been killed in Syria in 2015. Yet the French national anthem was played at British games 8-10 days later.  And FIFA fines clubs and bans fans for expressing non-football related messages and opinions? http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/09/soccer-fans-punished-for-waving-palestinian-flags/#


Also: http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/11/14/paris-attacks-a-perfect-pretext-for-nato-to-mobilize-in-syria-and-iraq/





There are recurring themes after terror attacks. It usually emerges that there has been a near identical terror drill going on shortly before hand or scheduled for that day. Is this to have people on hand to remove or lay false evidence? Several buildings disintegrate or are obliterated but copies of the Koran and passports are found lying all over the place. And how often do we hear that “we were watching him” (the accused) or “we had him in custody but couldn’t hold him” from the authorities? Is this to create acceptance of the concept of indefinite detention without trial on grounds of suspicion? Add that to living in a world where people can be found guilty without evidence or due process and we start to see a totalitarian agenda at work.

Immediately after the November attacks French officials said that the attacks were from a self contained cell which had been in the country for a long time. This was almost totally ignored by the British newspapers who generally ran with the story that at least one of the assassins had passed himself off as an immigrants. And the G20, who by happy coincidence had its annual summit days later, proposed more monitoring and control of people. One of the five invited guests at the summit, and the only representative from Africa, was Robert Mugabe…..

The G-Who?


Despite this highly political drum banging, the G20 is essentially a group of finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors who meet regularly, yet it is the political leaders of the countries who attend the annual summits. It begs the question: who is controlling who?

I suggest that whoever it is isn’t terribly averse to controlling people. As David Icke said back in 1995 (see section “Geopolitical Quotes and Forecasts”), debt equals control.





Was the December 2nd 2015 Parliamentary debate on bombing Syria simply a tick box exercise? Or a precursor for a full blown invasion? Britain has already bombed Syria. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/17/british-pilots-took-part-in-anti-isis-bombing-campaign-in-syria

By “crediting” attacks to a global or international force, are national politicians hiding behind a smokescreen? What really is the moral difference between Britain, the USA, France etc co-ordinating national attacks and a “NATO” “UN” or “Coalition” attack which they are more frequently called? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/06/nato-bombs-conflict-syria-isis-iraq-afghanistan

And Britain and others have also bombed Iraq too, after declaring it a sovereign nation in 2004.



“Al Qaeda” translates as “the data base”. Does that sound like the name of any organisation, never mind one based on fanatical ideology? And what of “Islamic State”; why is it in English? And why is it so cold and corporate – it’s not exactly “The Swords of Truth” or “The Martyrs of Allah” is it? And how can a country the size of Ireland appear overnight? See two minutes into this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H12VMmCSW6o





Just as football is becoming so nanny state that it’s increasingly hard to commit a foul without receiving a yellow card, it’s becoming harder and harder to follow Islamic traditions and culture without being labelled an extremist.

As usual, the British Press tried and solved the case of the various 26/6 attacks, especially the one in Tunisia, within a matter of hours. It was ISIS. Still no information on who ISIS were, where they came from, who benefits from their formation and activities, who funds them, or who supplies them. No sort of intelligent investigation into whether the perpetrators had any links to western intelligence agencies, or if mind control could have been involved. There was brief hope here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143795/Sunbed-killer-s-link-Britain-Tunisia-massacre-gunman-Seifeddine-Rezgui-inspired-fanatic-ran-global-terror-cell-London.html,  but even though they indirectly associated the alleged gunman with Abu Qatada, they stopped short of mentioning the latter’s links with MI5, MI6 or the fact that he’s never been found guilty of anything. The whole piece was likely to provoke more hysterical nonsense about the dangers of radicalisation, clamping down on freedoms and more spying.

Who decides what’s radical and what’s not? Michael Mansfield, one of the most sensible and level headed people on the planet, called his book “Memoirs of a Radical Lawyer”. Is he a danger to us? Should I be arrested for reading his book?

One of the “never seen before threats” we and our “freedoms” face supposedly is, “hate preaching”. Are we being nudged into forgetting  the difference between agreeing with what is being said and agreeing with the right to say it? Thus we become hesitant to say stuff.  In reality there’s more hate preached about hate preachers by hate preacher haters than there is by hate preachers. I have never met a hate preacher but I know of several newspaper editors who tell me I must hate one when I do.

Are we seriously to believe that the global terror threat is over a particular brand of Islam? Where was that brand before?

What is it exactly about ISIS’s Islam that’s different from regular Islam?

What is ISIS’ stated goal? Why are we fighting it (and giving up our freedoms and money in the process) and assuming it’s going to be bad for us, if we don’t even know what it is? What would happen if we said “ok, that sounds good ISIS, you get on and run the world?”

How do ISIS intend to achieve their stated goal, whatever it is? Are we really to believe that ISIS have enough people to succeed where no one has succeeded before and run every country in the world on a long term basis?

Can the media make the ISIS story stand up to any sort of intelligent scrutiny? One or two of the papers are not now even using the term “Islamic Extremists”;  they are simply saying “Islamists”. The goalposts are moving.

Without evidence based answers to these sorts of questions, can we justify the murder and destruction of Syrian people and their country? Within a week of the attacks in Tunisia the Italy and Europe destabilising immigrant crisis was forgotten as the west bombed “ISIS targets” in Iraq, and prepared to do the same in Syria.

And why, given the west’s fantastic spying technology, clamping down on freedom of speech and monitoring and surveillance and general other inconveniences which we have, for years, been told we have to accept in order to protect us, would the threat be growing?

If it is, and if David Cameron and company value the country’s independence and freedom so highly, why have they decommissioned the military? Does this mean that EU, NATO and UN forces will replace them – globalist armies (and police https://www.europol.europa.eu/ and this October 2015 article by the Chairman of the Police Federation for England and Wales:  http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/612856/Budget-cuts-Police-meltdown )?

If so, Britain will, at best, be only be one of many voices deciding who is protected or attacked when. The UK has already seen the FBI policing its airports, as well as private security firms owned by God and Allah know who in God and Allah know where. https://mattvocallocal.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/the-privatisation-of-crimefighting/













What are we to make of the West’s arms dealings with Saudi Arabia in recent times?

Who can forget the Al-Yamamah arms deal, where Prince Andrew wouldn’t let law and justice get in its way?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal


In 2015 UK Defence secretary Micahel Fallon was “advised” by Lazards to sell the Defence Support Group for one tenth of its reported value to Babcock, a Defence contractor whose Chairman Michael Turner is also a director of Lazards ! He was the CEO of BAe when the Al Yamamah deal it was at its most scandalous heights.


Then the Saudis were reported to have been involved in the chemical attack in Syria in 2012



There was also the recent appointment by US Investment Bank Greenhill of Sir Simon Mayall, the Ministry of Defence’s Senior advisor on the middle East 2011-14, David Cameron’s security envoy to Iraq until recently and a 2014 guest of Saudi defence Minister Prince Salman, who in 2015 became King. Greenhill backed the appointment by saying on the one hand the bank’s and MoD’s environments are mutually exclusive and on the other that Sir Simon “has long and deep relationships with the senior leadership across the Middle East”. If the business environments are mutually exclusive, why is that a reason to appoint him and where did he get those experiences from?

And why is it that across Britain, even in the supposedly autonomous Channel Islands, whenever a Saudi Royal dies, the national flags are flown at half mast? What is Britain’s obsession with pleasing this least democratic of countries which beheads and crucifies citizens who challenge its authority? Is their support for Saudi Arabia any political pre-election manifesto?

Given the extent of support for the Saudi regime from the UK’s establishment and the vested interests of media owners and sponsors, how likely is it that in the event of Saudi being a leading catalyst in the current war, we would learn about it through official channels and mainstream media?







It could be argued that Nostradamus appears to have had plenty to say about this too. Plenty on the internet about that, but I have found that it’s best to obtain one of his books, because the interpretations on the sites are slanted and of course the quatrains have to be translated from Olde Worlde French. (For example, reference to the “blue turbaned ones” representing the antichrist are construed alternatively as referring to the turbans of Muslims and the blue helmets of the UN.) I also agree with the view that Nostradamus’ visions were exactly that – pictures – and as much of what he saw involved things which hadn’t been invented yet, he could only describe them based on what he knew at the time, so he too had plenty of scope for interpretation which leaves which leaves any amount of scope for modern day interpretation. This is probably the best I can offer: http://sacred-texts.com/nos/mrg/nosmrg03.htm




There are three popular geopolitical beliefs concerning the ISIS crisis.

There are those who follow the line fed by the mainstream media and western Governments – religious nutters and rogue leaders are stirring up the trouble.

There are those who believe that the former is a part of a carefully designed strategy by the United States and/or NATO to engineer regime change and justify invasion of Eurasia with the goal of obtaining oil and resources and furthering the cause of corporate America. This is the line often taken by students of the PNAC RAD.

Then there are those who believe that both of those are part of an over arching agenda to engineer a global fiefdom by self elected, like minded Nazi supremacists with no regard for national interests. (This is a concept which the older generation in particular seems to struggle with: “all wars are about national interests” according to them) This third belief is consistent with the UN Agenda 21 and the Red House Meeting of 1944, when a group of Nazi officials and industrialists, realising that they would not conquer the world as “Germany” plotted just that scenario, according to a leaked report http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich–EU.html

Taking into account all of the above, I see the very real possibility that the “third belief” group are right.

I have definitely concluded that I am being lied to and misled by Western Governments and a compliant media, both infested with vested interest in war.

Now, where did I put that Chilcot Report?

 “Civil liberties are no longer at the forefront, as France waits for Europe to catch up.” – Britain’s ITV evening News, 25th November 2015









Originally published by The Community Press Group in September 2013


Whilst the bravery, dedication and loyalty of military personnel who carry out the agenda given to them by their Governments are acknowledged, we also know that soldiers are trained to follow orders, and it is not their place to question the rights and wrongs of those orders.

But we can and I do.

When weighing up the pros and cons of launching a strike on Syria, we would do well to remember that it wasn’t only the WMD intelligence ahead of the Iraq war, which was “false” but there was also the “Ricin Conspiracy” which was huge news ahead of the decision to invade Iraq and was much cited as a justification for the invasion and for the introduction of more anti-terror laws.

The case potentially illustrates the “Problem-reaction-solution” technique where a problem is engineered in order to generate a reaction which will guarantee support for your solution. Here is how the “Ricin Conspiracy” unfolded:

5/1/3 Police found a few castor-oil beans, potentially the raw material for the poison ricin at Mouloud Sihali’s flat in Wood Green. They also claimed to have found equipment needed to produce ricin.

7/1/3 Tony Blair announced, without waiting for a trial to determine if the arrests were justified, that “The arrests which were made show this danger is present and real and with us now. Its potential is huge”

8/1/3 The Sun reported the discovery of a “factory of death” and other newspapers warned that 250,000 of us could have died and a poison gang was on the loose. (In reality, ricin has never been a weapon of mass destruction; it has only been used in one on one assassinations.)

5/2/3 Colin Powell said: “The ricin that is bouncing around Europe now originated in Iraq – not in the part which is under Saddam Hussein’s control, but his security forces know all about it”

20/3/3: The USA with UK support, invaded Iraq.

30/3/3: The head of US forces in Iraq announced “And it’s from this site where people were trained and poisons were developed that migrated into Europe. We think that’s probably where the ricin found in London came from”

Eighteen months later, the evidence came to light and finally in 2005 April, in a British court, a jury acquitted Sihali due to the gaping holes and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. It had even emerged that the only tests carried out on the substance were preliminary ones, which were completed by 8th January. The most that could ever be said was that there was a weak positive result for manufactured ricin from a presumptive test carried out on a mortar and pestle. (A presumptive test fails to eliminate a substance from suspicion; it merely confirmed that the substance could have been ricin, but the same could have been said about numerous other substances)

Additionally the Porton Down analyst “Witness H” admitted to not keeping any records of the tests or of the communications of the findings of the tests to the police. It was revealed during the trial that the lead scientist, “Dr A”, and others with whom he worked, had arrived at the collective conclusion that the traces could not be attributed to ricin and the result was to be regarded as negative, not positive. Despite this, on the 6th January, the Operations Manager at Porton Down communicated to the police that they had found a positive result when testing for ricin, and did not tell the police that there may be a problem with the test until late March, by which time the invasion had occurred.

On 13/4/5 legal affairs analyst for the BBC Jon Silverman wrote: “A key unexplained issue is why the Porton Down laboratory which analysed the material and equipment seized from a flat in Wood Green said that the residue of ricin had been found when it had not”

Cameron’s case for an attack on Syria takes Britain to a new low. Why? This time not only are he and Obama not bothering with obtaining evidence of the chemical attack (as was the case with the WMD in Iraq) but they are not even claiming that the country they are about to attack represents a threat to them. If the grounds for intervention are humanitarian, then that it surely a decision for the UN to take. Not that the UN instills me with any great confidence; it is hopelessly conflicted because its leading nations are also the world’s biggest arms dealing ones, and it was founded at the behest of bankers who profit from the debts which wars bring. There have been far more wars since the UN was founded in 1957 than in the entire history of the planet before then. And it’s curious that the supposed chemical attack happened within days of the UN arriving in the country and basing themselves twenty minutes’ drive away from the scene of the crime.

There’s another curiosity to mention. On 29th January 2013 the online edition of the Daily Mail ran a major story by Louise Boyle which was that a leaked email revealed that the US had backed a plan to launch a chemical attack in Syria and blame the Assad regime. The story was taken down a few days later.


The issue of who is behind the running of St Peter Port has been brought sharply into focus once again following the resignation of St Peter Port Douzenier Pete Burtenshaw.

In a letter copied to his fellow Douzeniers, Constables and Parish deputies, Burtenshaw made a series of sharp criticisms at the way the Douzaine is being run, and these include allegations of bullying, cronyism and vested interests. He chose on this occasion not to go into detail.

Deputy Barry Brehaut responded to Burtenshaw with a short one line email: “Your correspondence is of no concern to me, I have no idea why you felt compelled to copy me in on such objectionable tripe.” This appears to exemplify Burtenshaw’s point about a bullying culture, but ignoring this potential breach of a deputy’s code of conduct in terms of courtesy (I ignore it because I quite like deputies to get a bit hot under the collar and show some passion now and again), the questions for Brehaut to answer are: “Why is the Government and administration of St Peter Port of no concern to a deputy elected by the parishioners of St Peter Port? Where is your evidence that Burtenshaw’s claims are unfounded or “tripe” as you put it?”

Had Brehaut – or any other deputies – chosen to seek substantiation of Burtenshaws’ allegations, I have little doubt they would have uncovered, amongst other stories, the following chain of events:

Senior Parish Constable Dennis Le Moignan announced on BBC Guernsey a Legacy Team project to restore the Bathing Pools and surrounding area at La Vallette. The radio sold the project as the best thing since Guernsey milk, the Guernsey Press ran with it and, boom whoosh, before you know it anybody seeking to object to it or ask questions about the manner in which it had been agreed was spitting into the wind. Burtenshaw and Junior Constable Jenny Tasker felt strongly that the Parish Douzaine should have been notified in advance, and Tasker sent Le Moignan an email making that very point.

Then Le Moignan issued the following statement:

“La Vallette Challenge


Although this item will be on the agenda for Monday’s meeting, I feel it is better to explain the following in writing to all Douzaine members.  Moves have been going on for some 18 months or so to improve La Vallette area.

In recent times a group of people called ‘The Legacy Team’ got together and decided that the whole area should receive a makeover and they are:


Pat Johnson – Chairperson

Dennis Le Moignan – Vice Chair

Andrew Pouteaux – Treasurer

Joe Mooney – Project Manager, Pools

Sue Coryndon


We needed to keep things under wraps while we talked to people and obtained various permissions, also to see what help there was available in the private sector to enable us to get the job done.  This was essential before we made public our intentions.  It would have been a much better situation had there been a Douzaine meeting immediately before the public release, unfortunately there was too much time to the release date and we could not afford any accidental mention of what was about to happen.


Out of courtesy to Jenny Tasker as the other Constable of the parish, I informed her of the plans just before I went on holiday, but she appears not to have understood what I said, as I note she then sent out an email to Douzaine members demanding that I apologise to you all.  That was done without even speaking to me first about her perceived problem. 

I understand other Douzaine members also feel aggrieved they were not told and some even complained to the Guernsey Press that they were hard done by and had the right to be informed of what we were proposing.

I refute that, as this venture is being run by private individuals, one of whom happens to be a Constable/Douzenier and one a Douzenier.  Therefore the Douzaine had no right to be privy to our proposition before its public release.


If any members of the Douzaine wish to be involved in this project, which will be of great benefit to locals and visitors alike, they can apply to take part (one already has expressed interest) and will be very welcome.  Teams of 10 physically fit persons are preferred if possible, although individuals are welcome.

The intention is to initially start work on the following Sundays;

25th October, 1st & 15th November.  Workers can sign up for half days or the full day, times are 08.00 – 12.00, 12.00 – 16.00.

Tea and coffee plus bacon rolls will be supplied.

Workers should wear suitable clothing including proper shoes. (trainers will not be allowed)


Work may be scraping seaweed off the stones of the gents pool or clearing brushwood and branches from the old garden area to the shredders, or truck for removal.  The area will be totally closed to other traffic and pedestrians for those days, also, workers will have to sign a disclaimer and sign in and out of the area.


I will not apologise to the other Constable or the Douzaine, as I have done nothing wrong.  I am just sorry some people have unjustifiably taken offence before knowing and understanding the full facts.”


There are some valid points there. But there are also alarm bells. “Moves have been going on for 18 months” and “We needed to keep things under wraps while we talked to people and obtained various permissions” are particularly note worthy. Permissions from whom? Presumably amongst these groups were the Parish Constables who, currently are Le Moignan and Tasker, yet Tasker knew nothing of it. 18 months ago of course, the Constables were Barry Cash (Senior Constable) and Le Moignan (Junior). But wait a second, what else was going on 18 months ago? There was the row over the clandestine appointment by Cash (also a Town Centre Partnership director at the time) and Le Moignan of Jack Honeybill (Town Centre Partnership) to the newly created role of Town Centre Manager. So it looks as if at the very time Cash and Le Moignan were weathering one storm of secrecy with one hand, they were, behind the scenes, involved in constructing the framework for another fait accompli.

Usually when planning permissions are sought, notification is placed in La Gazette Officielle and a notice posted on site? The latter is a legal requirement. I assume the rationale for this is that it gives any potential dissenters the opportunity to protest.

In his statement Le Moignan  speaks of “necessary permissions” but did the people of St Peter Port give permissions? I wasn’t asked. I might have wanted to play tiddlywinks amongst the weeds or study hedgehogs or have been in the middle of a botanical project, only to see all my plans disappear into the  scoop of Joe Mooney’s bulldozer.

Did these notifications happen in this instance? If so then why was the Douzaine blindsided? And if not, then why, as Le Moignan describes, was it necessary to “keep the project under wraps?”

So have the Douzaine and people of St Peter Port been presented with a done deal dominated by Le Moignan and members of the Town Centre Partnership –again? It seems like it.

If it is a project by  a group of individuals and nothing to do with the Douzaine as Le moignan claims, then how did it get on to the agenda for “Monday’s meeting” of the Douzaine?

And what of the Legacy Team? Besides Le Moignan we have Pat Johnson (Town Centre Partnership) and Douzenier 18 months ago. Joe Mooney, current Douzenier who has recently enjoyed a promotion in status on the floral committee without I am told, appropriate consultation with those affected. Andrew Pouteaux (Town Centre Partnership) close friend of Honeybill and father of Guernsey Press journalist Juliette, and Sue Coryndon. Who is Coryndon? A journalist for BBC Guernsey – the entity which sold the project to the public in the first place.

If as Le Moignan says this is a venture by a private group of individuals who have only got themselves together “in recent times”, who were the original movers and permission seekers eighteen months ago? The opening paragraph of his statement implies (to me at least) that they were not the same people.

True to form, the chocolate fireguards on the Douzaine did not support Burtenshaw and Tasker’s position, so it is no wonder Burtenshaw resigned, and somewhat surprising that Tasker didn’t too.

Such matters may be of no concern to Barry Brehaut but they should be to everyone else in St Peter Port. If the Deputies aren’t running the town, and the Douzaine isn’t, then who is?

There is still no answer forthcoming from the Douzaine, Town Centre Partnership or Ana Leaf Foundation to the question of why the latter , a Jersey Health Charity, funds the Town Centre Partnership, a Guernsey entertainments and amenities charity, and to what extent AnaLeaf is connected to the scandal and conflict of interest ridden UK MP Andrea Leadsom.

Why did they choose the name “Legacy”? It’s been tainted by recent events in the UK, and in any case, “legacy” means what one leaves behind – ie your initiatives become part of history when you are gone. It doesn’t mean you take the past and put it into the present. So in the UK, Legacy Development Corporations name is appropriate.


Why is it tainted? Like the Town Centre Partnership it is secretive:






Around thirty years ago I recall my grandfather (whose father died in World War I in the belief he was fighting for our freedom) dismissing my dad, mum, my sister and myself (and the dog) as “a bunch of ruddy townies” during a particularly heated political debate. So two generations before me, Guernsey’s parishes felt they should be largely independent, never mind the island. So what has been going on since?

Whilst I am pleased to say that I have no evidence that the Channel Island Governments are worse than most others – especially the UK’s – when it comes to failing to uphold proper ethical principles, I am not going to defend their increasing disregard for prioritising the interests of their respective electorates. As a Guernseyman my yardstick for comparison is how Guernsey used to be (and therefore can be) rather than how the UK and elsewhere is today. To applaud the Guernsey establishment (and indirectly the people who allow them to continue to fail) on the simple grounds that we’re “better than the UK” is rather like saying “Myra Hindley was okay because she was responsible for fewer deaths than John Gacy, Hannibal Lechter, Gary Ridgway or Tony Blair.”


Three particular significant decisions which fly in the face of prioritising the interests of existing electorate in recent times have been:

2006: Zero-Ten

2015: Government reforms

2015: Population policy


In 2006 by virtually abolishing corporation tax with a tax strategy known as “zero-ten”, the States surrendered control of Guernsey’s economy to the ‘business lobby’. This was not done in an even handed fashion.

The envisioned success of zero-ten was dependent on achieving sustained economic growth, estimated at 4% per annum, ad infinitum. This seemed to be based entirely on Gordon Brown’s “the days of boom and bust are over” concept and ignored the spectre of increasing prices of oil and construction materials much of which were being bought by China. The theory was that by reducing corporation tax, existing businesses would employ more people or pay higher salaries, new business would be attracted to Guernsey, and the increased rates of employment and salaries would generate enough increases in Government revenue through income and other taxes to fill the black hole in the States’ finances created by the absence of corporation tax

Along with construction company boss and Government Minister Bernard Flouquet, Stuart Falla, the largest shareholder in the largest construction company in Guernsey, was on the Financial and Economic Steering Group when he was Commerce and Employment Minister. The Committee decided to “go for growth” and later of course recommended “zero-ten”. An “independent report” which came out in favour of zero-ten, was written by Falla’s cousin, Steve Le Page of Price Waterhouse Coopers. During my election campaign of 2008 I was not allowed by any mainstream media to mention any of this connectivity.

Chief proposer of the zero-ten regime, Treasury and Resources Minister Lyndon Trott, declined to meet Deputy Charles Parkinson in a live public debate on the issue. Parkinson was proposing alternative plans which were far more popular with the electorate, although Trott disputes this, despite saying later that his fall in votes in the next election in 2008 was due to his role entailing having to make unpopular decisions. Parkinson’s votes soared.

It was only on the morning of the debate on zero-ten in June 2006 that its proposers allowed the majority of deputies access to their files showing the public response from the consultation process, and even that was only after deputies threatened a requete to delay the whole debate.

Trott and then Chief Minister Laurie Morgan attacked Parkinson’s proposals, saying they were not EU compliant on certain grounds. When Parkinson pointed out that the Isle of Man’s new tax regime was identical in these disputed areas, Trott and Morgan assured the assembly during the debate that they had information that the Privy Council would be outlawing the Isle of Man’s regime within the next few weeks. The Privy Council subsequently did no such thing.

Trott also reneged on his promise to meet members of the public (who he had repeatedly described as a vocal minority) who were unhappy with the zero-ten decision, in December 2007, saying that he was going to attend his son’s school Carol Service instead.


In June 2015 deputies surrendered control over our government by placing it in the hands of a ‘super committee’ who will be at the beck and call of the business lobby groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the I.o.D. (also known as “The Illusion of Democracy”)

There will and has been be plenty of talk about what’s good for the economy, (also see the section entitled “The Jerseyfication of Guernsey”) but little talk of who will be in the economy.

The business lobby groups, which have lobbied hard for “Executive Government” did not oppose the proposals.


My island has been, and is being, ruined by a greedy capitalist philosophy whose success is based on having resources which the island simply does not have. Why was the finance sector ever allowed to employ so many people, especially when its existence is dependent on decisions made by regulators and company directors outside of this island? Guernsey would struggle to be self sufficient even if the population were a sixth of the size it currently is. So increasing the population increases the island’s dependency on the outside world. Cue the cries of “our deputies don’t listen to us” and exit democracy.

Employers are allowed to employ incomers under the 5 year licensing system which was only created because they agreed that they would train local people during that time to replace the incomers when their licenses expired. Not only has that agreement been completely abused, and one of the worst employers in that regard is the States itself, but at the end of July 2015 it is distinctly likely that the States will hand over control over our population by agreeing that the decision on who gets a permit to move to the Island (and who they may bring with them) will be placed in the hands of the very same organisations through the advisory panel who will be sitting at the elbow of the office of the statutory official.


No one gave any indication in their election manifesto that far reaching proposals such as these – Peter Harwood called the decision a “defining moment in Guernsey’s history” and Housing Minister Dave Jones said it was “the most important States’ debate since the war” would be brought to the table.

An increase in population is bound to put upward pressure on house prices. There has been scarcely any investment in affordable housing for local people during this term of Government, thanks largely to the influence over the Housing Department of the Treasury and Resources Department, whose Minister Gavin St Pier has no previous political experience and was proposed for election in 2012 by the then chairperson of the I.o.D, Anne Ewing.

Meanwhile in June 2015 the Commerce and Employment Department announced proposals to spend millions on a project to attract wealthy people to come to live in the island.



It is no coincidence then that Guernsey’s two Governments since 2004 have been the most unpopular with the electorate since the German occupation. Other acts and policies which have been committed which have not prioritised the interests of the electorate include:


In 2009, Chief Minister Lyndon Trott caused controversy by saying he was going to sign off the island’s negotiation rights with the EU to Westminster. States members were angered, but it turned out not by what he was intending to do, but because he intended to do it without debate in the Assembly. Once he agreed to put it before the House, they simply accepted it, without even considering the implications of the recently signed EU Treaty which surrendered record amounts of British independence to the EU. Did they seriously believe that the UK would have our interests at heart forever? There are plenty of people in the UK who think that Westminster doesn’t even have the British electorate’s interest at heart, never mind ours.


When the Guernsey electorate went to the polls in 2012 there was a rule which said that no politician with under 4 years experience could assume the role of Chief Minister. The current Assembly changed that rule on their first day in office and installed Peter Harwood as a result.


Jersey’s Chief Minister Ian Gorst wants a joint, Channel Island police force. Our Police Chief Patrick Rice, who has been granted control of both the Police and the Border Agency (which is itself a product of a merger between the Financial Intelligence Unit and Customs and Excise) changed our force’s crest and uniforms so that they closely resemble Jersey’s. There is more joint training in both islands. (For the bigger picture please see https://mattvocallocal.wordpress.com/tag/organised-crime/ )

The States reforms will mean that the system of Guernsey’s Government is more similar to Jersey’s than is currently the case. The current assembly continues to support the view that Corporation Tax was rightly virtually abolished to enable us to compete with competing offshore centres. Clearly then Jersey is regarded as a competitor. Yet the proposed reforms of the Guernsey Government, which more closely resemble the set up in Jersey, were designed in consultation with former senior Jersey politician Terry Le Sueur!

The Brussels office, which represents both islands, is therefore conflicted too at times.

The media are assisting in trying to convince us we are first and foremost channel islanders, and secondly Guerns. This ploy seems to have worked on Guernsey politician and former Treasury Minister and intriducer of zero-ten Lyndon Trott, who when asked about the austerity measures being introduced in Jersey which, despite growing profits in its financial sector, has a larger and still growing black hole in its finances than Guernsey’s following their respective introductions of zero-ten reportedly said:

“There is a long standing convention that current and former treasury ministers do not comment on the other island’s respective financial affairs. In this case it is probably best to stick to that convention in the interests of diplomacy”

This comment begs a few questions including:

1) If Guernsey and Jersey are such competitors fiscally (and elsewhere), why is there this “convention” Or are they both serving the same corporate agenda and are effectively in it together?

1) If Jersey is such a competitor island why not put the knife in and say “they’ve got it wrong” ?

3) LT said it was probably best to stick to the convention in this case. When do you stick to the convention and when don’t you?

4) So is LT, who a few back was telling us what a dyed in the wool Guernseyman he was, a deputy for Guernsey or for the Channel islands?

Whilst it was amusing to read in the Guernsey Press of this story from its sister newspaper in Jersey (hey –guess what – they are both owned by the Claverley Group) http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2015/07/08/1394553/ there is no doubt that the “news from Jersey” section in the GFuernsey Press is steadily growing larger. And as for BBC Guernsey – they managed to lead with a Jersey story (the alleged murder of Morgan Huelin) for virtually a whole day recently.

The Ana Leaf Foundation is a Jersey health charity which refuses to explain why it funds a St Peter Port amenities charity called the Town Centre Partnership, whose directors have held simultaneous roles in recent years including those of douzenier, deputy, senior constable of St Peter Port and senior roles within the business lobby groups.

Guernsey used to have a state run telecommunications company, which worked fine and was dirt cheap for the consumer. In 2002 the States, under pressure from Lyndon Trott and his colleagues in the trade and industry decided to sell it off. Jersey Telecoms is a private company which is now digging up our roads at the expense of local businesses. (My local corner shop’s milk bill was down 25% last week..I’d know – I supplied it.)

Then we have Guernsey FC, a private new football club which has played the biggest part in wrecking the structure of Guernsey football and adversely affecting domestic clubs’ results against Jersey opposition by sucking in the best players, coaches and sponsors and entering the UK leagues. Whilst Guernsey FC is not a brainchild of the States, it will almost certainly receive some benefit from tax payers via the Sports Commission, and has been in talks with at least one top Jersey player recently. Even though that story cooled, it is clearly not a dead issue. Deputy Garry Collins has recently proposed increasing the States’ funding of the Sports Commission.

And now the idea of synchronising election dates of the two Governments is to be investigated by the Guernsey States. Convenient for anyone who wants a One Channel Islands Government to evolve?

It seems as if the only members of the Channel Islands establishment who don’t want to link the two islands together is Condor Ferries whose regular cancellations for a myriad of different reasons have infuriated travellers.


What are we to make of Jersey Assistant Chief Minister Ozouf’s reaction to recent news about increased profits in their banking industry?

The Jersey finance sector made £1.4bn last year, most of it, £1.2bn, coming from banking. And the Jersey people are supposed to be pleased about this apparently. Not only that, but despite the “boost to the economy”, public sector cuts are still necessary according to their Assistant Chief Minister. Who are they representing exactly?

Even a 10% corporation tax would have brought in around £1.2bn. And that’s just banking, not including other sectors of the finance industry or other corporate sectors of the economy.

I know the argument will be “but if we did that the banks wouldn’t be here” but

1) this is ordinary common or garden banking we’re talking about and there’s always a demand for that and 2) if all of the jurisdictions stood up to the corporate and agreed a fixed rate, or an approximate fixed rate of around 10% or 20% or whatever, instead of agreeing a 0% rate, all of the people in all of those jurisdictions would be better off –their money would be spent far more democratically.


If you have a handful of bankers making millions each year, what do the restaurateurs do? – put their prices up. So it’s good news for them, but bad news for the rest of us. The trickle up effect is much greater, in my observation, than the trickle down effect.



This is worth repeating. An island whose economy which is based around a finance industry whose sector which is returning growing profits, still has a growing black hole in its finances and is trying to recoup that by inflicting more austerity measures on its people





The MHRA is largely staffed by former executives from the pharmaceutical industry, and whose regulations and guidelines are funded exclusively by the pharmaceutical industry.

The Guernsey Assembly continues to choose to subject its people to the rules and guidelines of this foreign agency http://mhracorrupt.st/


This Assembly has continually failed to hold the Guernsey Financial Services Commission to account for issuing the Channel Islands Stock Exchange a record fine without explaining why, or to explain its role following the quite farcical goings on at Castle Holdings (see https://mattvocallocal.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/a-tale-of-two-transparencies/ )

Given that the States of Guernsey contributes large sums to Guernsey Finance to promote the industry, they have a responsibility to ensure that it is run properly and that the regulator has high standards of Governance. And if the taxpayers’ money given to Guernsey Finance is genuinely for the promotional cause as opposed to jollies for the boys, the GFSC should be making it abundantly clear to the world what actions have been taken in specific cases and in particular to avoid similar failures in future.

Then there are the strange appointments to senior roles by the GFSC of Dale Holmes (who took responsibility for the Lagan fraud (see below)) and foreign civil servant Andrew Sloan, who had left his job as senior economic adviser to the States in disgrace after assaulting a policeman in a Jersey hotel whilst on States business.


Then there was the Lagan fraud, when the States of Guernsey paid out millions of pounds on the strength of a phone call to a person who told them that he represented the contractors for the airport runway extension. The civil servant who took responsibility and resigned was subsequently appointed as overseer of risk by the GFSC. And the politicians had no say in who his replacement was (or replacements were as it turned out); it was all done by the civil servants.


This Assembly employed a civil servant to lower the Guernsey flag as a mark of respect when a member of the Saudi royal family died, yet no candidate indicated a particular allegiance to Saudi Arabia in their election campaign.


Late in the life of the last term, Deputy Carol Steere attended an Anglo Irish conference. This was against the rules because she was not a Minister, but she went anyway. The Minister who was due to attend, Hunter Adam (HSSD) did not want to be seen going on a jolly ahead of the election. This meant that Steere missed the States vote on Social Security proposals which Adam was due to miss. Adam did not vote the way Steere would have done as a result of which the “have nots” in Guernsey society lost out in a tied vote 22-22, and the new Assembly, elected in 2012 was charged with developing the proposals.

When faced with criticism that his 2012 Department’s Social Security proposals were unfair on the lower paid, Minister Alister Langlois (who is also the Deputy Chief Minister) announced that there was a group of deputies who felt that the proposals didn’t go far enough. Langlois refused to name the deputies concerned, and not a single deputy came forward when asked if they were amongst this group, save for those who denied involvement therein.



Unfortunately whilst the public in Guernsey are up for a fight, the majority can’t see beyond the end of their car bonnets and roads. As in the UK and Jersey, the focus is on minor matters such as whose calling who what names and what harm it’s doing, with the Press, Police Chief and some politicians keen to ramp up and focus on petty issues, petty crimes and petty rules. With so much distraction, the real enemies of society: corruption and duplicity, are being given ample opportunity to run riot without even the politicians noticing what is going on.