PDA

View Full Version : Hedge fund tycoons bankroll Liam Fox office as Werritty affair deepens



Magda Hassan
10-12-2011, 01:56 PM
Hedge fund tycoons bankroll Fox office as Werritty affair deepensOctober 12th, 2011 | by Nick Mathiason (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/author/nick-mathiason/) | Published in Tory party funding (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/tory-party-funding/), Views from the Bureau (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/press-updates/)
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Dr-Fox-630x400.jpg
Liam Fox received large cash donations and gifts to meet his office running costs and other expenses from hedge funds The Guardian reported (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/11/michael-hintze-liam-fox-backer) this morning.
It shows the beleaguered defence minister’s most generous benefactor is Australian former Goldman Sachs banker, Michael Hintze.
Hintze, who also arranged a number of international flights for Fox, is one of the UK’s most powerful hedge fund mangers with an estimated fortune of £550m. Since 2005, he has bankrolled the Conservatives to the tune of £1.5m.
But Hintze is by no means alone as a Fox funder. Among the minister’s other personal donors are hedge fund tycoon, Lord Fink, veteran private equity dealmaker, Jon Moulton and financiers, David and Simon Reuben.
News of financiers bankrolling Fox comes less than two weeks after detailed research by the Bureau (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/09/30/hedge-funds-financiers-and-private-equity-tycoons-make-up-27-of-tory-funding/) revealed that hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms contributed more than a quarter of all donations to the Conservative party in the past year.
Our trawl of 450 separate donations given to Conservative Central Office by individuals, companies and limited liability partnerships revealed that 27%, or £3.3m, of the £12.18m donated to the party came from hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms.
Our findings came amid growing concerns that some parts of the financial sector, termed ‘asset strippers’ or ‘predator financiers’ by some commentators, profit from financial instability and raise questions over whether sizable donations to political parties buys influence (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/09/30/analysis-can-money-buy-political-influence/) and secures favourable treatment.
While there is no suggestion that individual donors can affect policy or win contracts, the Bureau’s story on Tory party funding and the Guardian’s scoop on Dr Fox are linked.
The defence minister’s position is growing increasingly insecure over revelations that close personal friend, Adam Werritty accompanied him on numerous foreign trips. Fox is now facing questions over whether Werritty was lobbying on behalf of businesses who may have stood to gain from decisions made by Fox.
It is understood that an ongoing Cabinet Office investigation could next week resolve some unanswered questions. But what will no doubt remain unresolved is the level of influence exerted by powerful City interests who in the past year spoke for 51.4% of Conservative party donations.
Effectively, the City majority owns the Conservative party. This at a time when the global financial system is paralysed requiring fundamental reform to serve the interests of the public – rather than the other way round as seems the case today. The question remains whether the Conservatives, while so beholden to financiers, are truly in a position to bring about such much needed reform.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/10/12/hedge-fund-tycoons-bankroll-fox-office-as-werritty-scandal-deepens/

Magda Hassan
10-12-2011, 11:24 PM
October 12-13, 2011 -- British defense minister scandal may lead to greater crimes

WMR's British intelligence sources report that the sudden early retirement of Britain's most powerful civil servant, Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell, who will receive a £2.3 million pension package, at the height of the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary into allegations that British Tory Defense Minister Dr. Liam Fox shared highly-classified information with Adam Werrity, a close friend. Werrity may have parlayed the information into personal financial gain.

O'Donnell had been investigating the affair but his departure will now open the door for the powerful post of Cabinet Secretary to be split up into three weaker positions by Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron's press secretary, Gabby Bertin, has now been implicated in the Fox-Werrity scandal.

Werrity holds no official government job and he lacks a security clearance for the classified information he was allegedly given access to by Fox. It is believed that Werrity may have passed classified information on to his multi-billionaire lobbying clients, former Goldman Sachs official Michael Hintze and now manager of the CQS hedge fund; hedge fund mogul Lord Stanley Fink; and real estate tycoons Simon and David Reuben.

The departure of O'Donnell, who has served four Prime Ministers -- John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron -- during a major inquiry into scandal surrounding the Prime Minister and Defense Minister, has many in the intelligence community wondering if there is something more that is being covered up.

O'Donnell may have been able to link the Werrity scandal to past defense ministry scandals involving the illegal exports of certain restricted defense items, including nuclear material, to embargoed nations or the international black market. O'Donnell has now left the civil service with a generous retirement. One of O'Donnell's predecessors as Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, later chaired an inquiry board that looked into the intelligence Britain used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Not surprisingly, Butler concluded that some of the intelligence on Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction was inconclusive but that the intelligence that Iraq was pursuing yellow cake uranium in Africa was "well-founded." The document on Iraq trying to obtain yellow cake from Niger turned out to be a crude forgery. Butler later was named a director of the banking giant HSBC.

From the Matrix Churchill scandal involving banned British military technology to Saddam Hussein to serious allegations surrounding the disposition of apartheid South Africa's nuclear weapons, successive British governments have been mired in military technology and weapons smuggling scandals. O'Donnell's hasty departure during a major inquiry indicates that the successive cover-ups of British weapons smuggling and other illegal defense deals with certain problematic regimes, including Israel and India, continue to the present day.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20111011_3

Magda Hassan
10-13-2011, 12:05 AM
An oldie but perhaps relevant, perhaps not. Just putting it here for the record.




Home of Tory defence spokesman Liam Fox burgled




http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47692000/jpg/_47692799_47692798.jpg

Liam Fox was at home when his house was burgled

A car and a laptop belonging to the Conservative shadow defence secretary Liam Fox have been stolen during a burglary at his central London home.
Dr Fox had been due to outline the Tories' armed forces manifesto on Thursday morning but the launch was cancelled at short notice.
A police spokesman said they had been called to an address near Tower Bridge and no arrests had been made.
Dr Fox said it was "not a nice feeling" to be burgled while he was at home.
The laptop was in his car when it was stolen, police sources say.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif As Tony Blair once said, things can only get better http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


Liam Fox




Dr Fox, a Somerset North prospective parliamentary candidate, was at his flat surveying the damage.
He said: "I feel like anyone else who has been the victim of an opportunistic burglary.
"It's not very nice to have someone in your house, particularly when you have been in it.
"It's even less nice when they have taken knives out of the kitchen drawer and leave them placed so that they can threaten you on their getaway.
"But I'm not the only person in this country who has been a victim of crime and I will have greater sympathy in the future with people who are.
"As Tony Blair once said, things can only get better."
Heinous offence
He described the burglary as "opportunistic" and said no sensitive documents were stolen.
Speaking as he campaigned in Exeter, Tory leader David Cameron said: "I'm very sorry for Liam.
"I've been burgled a couple of times and it's a horrible shock, the sense that someone has been into your house and taken your things. You feel completely invaded."
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said he was sorry the shadow defence secretary had suffered such a "heinous offence".


Page last updated at 12:20 GMT, Thursday, 22 April 2010 13:20 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8636779.stm

Magda Hassan
10-13-2011, 12:12 AM
Wealthy donors 'paid for Werritty to advise Liam Fox'http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/55992000/jpg/_55992543_jex_1197288_de50-1.jpg


[/URL]

David Cameron: Liam Fox is doing "an excellent job" as defence secretary

Continue reading the main story (http://faq.external.bbc.co.uk/questions/bbc_online/adverts_general)Related Stories

Fox row 'distracting MoD staff' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15252269)
Liam Fox 'made serious mistakes' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15235982)
Home of Tory Liam Fox is burgled (http://www.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8636779.stm)

A wealthy backer of Liam Fox has told the BBC he and several others raised funds to pay for Adam Werritty to act as the defence secretary's adviser.
The donor - who wants to remain anonymous - told BBC political editor Nick Robinson that the group shared Mr Fox's ideological leanings.
The Conservatives said Mr Werritty was not an adviser, while Mr Fox has insisted he will not quit.
Labour's Kevan Jones said the situation appeared to be "a very shady set-up".
The defence secretary has been under pressure after it emerged that his friend, the lobbyist Mr Werritty, was present on 18 overseas trips and met the defence secretary at the MoD 22 times since May 2010.
He also carried business cards describing himself as an adviser to Mr Fox.
'Bypassing the rules'The BBC's Nick Robinson says the wealthy backers who paid Mr Werritty an annual retainer did so because they saw him as someone who, unlike civil servants, could be relied on to champion support for Eurosceptic, pro-American and pro-Israeli policies.
They say they do not have defence interests, however.
Our political editor said the problem with this explanation was that having an adviser outside the rules of the civil service - and paid for by undeclared donors - was almost certainly a breach of ministerial rules.
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15269215#story_continues_2)“Start Quote
I'm appalled at being portrayed as having something to hide”
Liam Fox

Nick Robinson: Fox financial backer speaks (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/15283131)
Commentators: What does this say about politics? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2011/10/daily_view_what_liam_foxs_stor.html)

For Labour, shadow defence minister Mr Jones told the BBC the revelations "raised huge questions".
"David Cameron talks about new politics, but I didn't know new politics was actually about letting rich people influence public policy by bypassing the rules that have been set up," he said.
"If that is what David Cameron means by new politics, I'm sorry, that is a very serious situation for British democracy.
"[David Cameron's] either got to support Dr Fox, and admit he supports this very shady set-up, or he's got to go."
At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Labour MPs pressed David Cameron for more information about Mr Werritty's meetings with officials and whether Mr Fox could keep his job, if it is shown he broke the ministerial code.
Mr Cameron said the ministerial code was clear that it was ultimately the prime minister's decision and added: "I think the defence secretary has done an excellent job clearing up the complete mess he was left by Labour."
The Cabinet Secretary is now running an official investigation into the matter and on Tuesday, officials questioned Mr Werritty - who was best man at Mr Fox's wedding and is his former flatmate.
BurglaryFor his part, the BBC understands that Mr Fox viewed Mr Werritty as a kind of unofficial adviser, but has categorically denied to officials that he was in any sort of relationship with him.
Asked about his position on his way to Paris to meet his French counterpart on Wednesday, Mr Fox said: "I shall carry on doing the job I'm meant to do - the job I'm paid for."
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/55996000/jpg/_55996355_jex_1197460_de01-1.jpg




Ed Miliband: "One rule if you're in the cabinet and another rule for everyone else".

The defence secretary has also denied claims that Conservative officials lied about a break-in at his London home last year, following claims in the Sun (http://faq.external.bbc.co.uk/questions/bbc_online/adverts_general) that they had said Mr Fox was alone at the time - when in fact another man stayed in the flat overnight.
He said he had told police a friend - who was not Mr Werritty - had been staying in the guest room. His wife was stranded in Hong Kong by the volcanic ash cloud at the time.
"I was a victim of a violent crime, and I'm appalled at being portrayed as having something to hide. We are trying to establish why the media were given the impression I was alone."
A Conservative spokesman said later they had established the suggestion Mr Fox was alone "was released in good faith and that it was the result of a genuine misunderstanding".
'Wild gossip'A press conference in Paris involving Mr Fox was cancelled on Wednesday and a planned keel-laying ceremony in Barrow on Thursday will also not go ahead. A spokesman said the latter event was cancelled because Mr Fox had to be at a meeting of the National Security Council in London.
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15269215#story_continues_3)ANALYSISNorman SmithChief political correspondent, BBC News Channel
The story about the break-in matters because it keeps Mr Fox squarely in the media cross hairs and because it raises the dreaded word "cover-up".
We now know journalists were misled by Conservative officials about the circumstances of a break-in at Liam Fox's house.
We were told that Liam Fox was at home alone, we now know a male friend was staying there at the same time.
At one level the circumstances of Mr Fox's private life are entirely his matter but in the current context to have the idea of journalists being misled fuels the pressure on him.
Eventually an assessment has to be made about how far that is distracting him from doing his job.
Downing Street are standing by him pending the results of the inquiry but I think they will be forming a view as to how long they can sustain this.
Alastair Campbell used to have a view you couldn't survive more than 10 days with this sort of story, before a resignation became inevitable.

Employment Minister Chris Grayling, who ran Mr Fox's failed Conservative leadership campaign in 2005, told the BBC there was a "mass pursuit" of Mr Fox, who was doing a "good job".
Asked about rumours that the defence secretary is gay - described by Mr Fox himself as "smears" in a 2005 interview - Mr Grayling said there was "all kinds of wild gossip" about politicians.
"I've known Liam for many years, I've known Liam and his wife, they've always struck me as being a very happily married couple. The reality is that the gossip is certainly circulating."
Number 10 has said serious mistakes were made.
Mr Cameron is understood to have discussed the findings of an interim report on the inquiry (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15247004) with Mr Fox, but is not expected to make a final decision on his future until he sees the full report.
The original MoD report was due on 21 October but Downing Street now says there is no timetable, as it will include the Cabinet Secretary's work on whether Mr Fox broke the ministerial code.
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15269215

Jan Klimkowski
10-13-2011, 04:17 PM
What we are seeing with this "Dr Fox" story is the integration of warmongering, freemarket fundamentalist, Neocons into British government and Conservative Party structures.

Two more items below:


Adam Werritty set up Liam Fox meeting with Iranian regime lobbyist

Revelation likely to add to claims that Werritty was running a shadow, more hawkish, foreign policy on Iran

Saeed Kamali Dehghan, Ian Black and Luke Harding guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/12/adam-werritty-liam-fox-iranian), Wednesday 12 October 2011 21.03 BST

Adam Werritty personally arranged a meeting between Liam Fox and a senior Iranian lobbyist with close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime, the Guardian has learned.

The Iranian lobbyist visited Fox in May 2009 at Portcullis House. Werritty met him at the entrance of the parliamentary building and escorted him up to Fox's office, sitting in for half a meeting on Iran. "I thought Werritty's was Fox's assistant," the lobbyist – who declined to be named – told the Guardian. "Werritty was the main contact for meeting Fox. He was the person who arranged the time of the meeting. He collected me at the gate of Portcullis House and took me up to Fox's office.

"There was a meeting between the three of us. Werritty wasn't introduced to me. I didn't get the impression that Werritty was an especial expert on Iran. I didn't know who he was but thought he was either an official or Fox's assistant."

The lobbyist declined to reveal what was discussed. He described Werritty as "a very pleasant, sociable guy". He said he met Fox briefly twice after he became defence secretary, with others present.

The revelation is nevertheless likely to add to claims not only that Werritty masqueraded as Fox's international fixer but that he was running a shadow foreign policy on Iran – a policy more hawkish than the official government position. David Cameron is said to have been annoyed by some of Fox's more neo-con pronouncements on the subject.

In February, Werritty and Fox flew to Israel for a high-profile strategic conference on regional security. Fox called for stronger sanctions to compel Iran to give up its nuclear weapons programme. He warned the Commons during the same period that it was "entirely possible" Iran could have a nuclear weapon by 2012.

Werritty also arranged and attended a dinner at the conference with Fox and Matthew Gould, Britain's ambassador to Israel. Other top political figures also attended. The Independent reported that senior Israeli diplomats were under the impression that Werritty was an official adviser to the defence secretary. It is not clear why Werritty, rather than Foreign Office officials, organised the dinner.

Werritty attended the same conference in February 2009 as an "expert" on Iran. He was a guest of a UK-based pro-Israeli lobbying organisation. The British Israel Communications and Research Centre (Bicom) paid for his flight and hotel bill.

Lorna Fitzsimmons, Bicom's chief executive, said: "We have only ever done two things with Adam Werritty in the five years I have been at Bicom. We funded him to go to the Herzliya conference in 2009 to talk on a panel on Iran and I accepted an invitation from him to talk to a panel on Iran at an event in London in 2009 or 2010."

It's unclear, however, how deep Werritty's Iranian connections are, and on what basis he is a specialist on the region. Richard Dalton, Britain's ambassador in Tehran between 2003-2006, said: he had not come across Werritty, either during his time in Iran and subsequently. "He hasn't broken the surface of Iran expert circles. I've never read anything written [on Iran] by him."

One Iranian exile said that he had met Werritty in London to discuss Iranian politics. "We met over coffee several times", he said. "He [Werritty] even spoke a few words of Persian," the exile recalled. A second Iranian exile added that Werritty was a regular participant at seminars on Iran held by Chatham House, the foreign affairs thinktank, and the Royal United Services Institute.

The source said that Werritty had visited Iran once back in 1997 and the Iranian chamber of commerce. He said that when he met Werritty in 2005-2006 he described himself as "someone very close to Liam Fox".

The source added: "I heard recently from Arab colleagues that Werritty had called himself an adviser to Fox. I didn't get the impression he was an Iran expert. He could talk convincingly but I didn't see any depth in his Iran information."

It is understood that Bicom paid less than £1,000 for Werritty to fly to Israel to attend the 2009 conference, an annual event organised by academics and former luminaries of the country's intelligence and security establishment to discuss strategic and Middle Eastern issues and promote Israel's view of them.

Werritty was invited to attend by one of its organisers, Tommy Steiner, a Nato and international relations expert who served as the executive director of the Atlantic Forum of Israel, a network-based policy organization that promoted "Israel's relations with the Euro-Atlantic Community". Steiner was unavailable for comment.

Werrity is described in the list of 2009 Herzliya participants as "Dr Adam Werritty, Advisor, Office of Shadow Defense Secretary; UK Executive Director, The Atlantic Bridge" but is not listed as speaking on Iran or anything else. He does not appear in the list of 2011 participants.

In his speech in February Fox spoke of the need to resolve the Palestinian issue as way of undercutting Iran's ability to cause trouble in the Middle East. The 2009 conference was held just weeks after the end of Israel's Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip, in which 1,400 Palestinians were killed.




Liam Fox took five MPs to Washington with donor's money

Michael Lewis, who donated almost £14,000 to Fox's Atlantic Bridge charity, paid for newly elected Tory MPs' flights in 2005

Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/13/donor-liam-fox-flights-washington), Thursday 13 October 2011 09.38 BST

A major donor to Liam Fox's controversial charity paid for the defence secretary to take five freshly elected MPs on a first-class trip to Washington.

Three of the MPs joined Fox on the flight from London to Washington on October 18 2005, the same day as the first round of voting in the leadership election, which Fox subsequently lost to David Cameron. The other two MPs joined the trip on different dates.

It is thought that Fox's long-term travel companion Adam Werritty was also on the trip, but this could not be confirmed. Fox and Werritty did not respond to requests to comment.

The Tory MPs – Mark Harper, member for the Forest of Dean; John Penrose, Weston-super-Mare; Brooks Newmark, Braintree; Adam Holloway, Gravesham; and Philip Dunne, Ludlow – had only months earlier been elected to parliament.

All of the MPs declared in the register of members' interests that their flights and hotel bills were paid for by Michael Lewis. Lewis has donated £13,832 to Fox's Atlantic Bridge charity, which was shut down last month after regulators found it was primarily promoting Tory ideals.

"18-21 September 2005, to USA. Travel and accommodation costs met by Dr Liam Fox's office from a donation by Mr Michael Lewis, a businessman from London. I received flight upgrades on outward and return journeys from London to Washington from Virgin Atlantic," Harper registered on 17 October 2005. The other MPs' registers include similar entries, although some dates differ.

Electoral Commission records show Lewis, who is deputy chairman of the Israeli lobby group Bicom, donated £5,000 to Fox's leadership campaign on 27 July 2005.

Bicom paid for Werritty's flight and hotel bill to attend a conference in Israel in 2009 where he was asked to join a panel and talk about Iran. The Herzliya conference was one of the events listed by the Ministry of Defence at which he met Fox.

Kevan Jones, Labour's defence spokesman, said: "This is yet another question Liam Fox needs to answer. Why during his campaign to be Tory party leader, did Dr Fox's office fund a visit to the United States for new Tory MPs from a donation by businessman Michael Lewis? The only declaration of money to Liam Fox from Mr Lewis is in regards to his leadership campaign. Did he use this money donated to his campaign to fund these visits?"

Magda Hassan
10-14-2011, 01:36 PM
Tory donor links to Adam Werritty increase pressure on Liam FoxMillionaire Michael Hintze, the Tory donor who indirectly funded Adam Werritty, the friend and self-styled adviser to defence secretary Liam Fox, has tens of millions of dollars invested in defence companies through his hedge fund.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02026/rexfeatures_728897_2026637c.jpgImage 1 of 2
Michael Hintze, an Australian former Goldman Sachs banker Photo: REX














2:07PM BST 14 Oct 2011


One of the companies in which tycoon Mr Hintze's hedge fund CQS invested benefited from an announcement made by Dr Fox in July this year in his role as defence secretary, according to the Financial Times. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e6d083c0-f5c7-11e0-824e-00144feab49a.html#axzz1akFdtqb8)

CQS had £21.5million invested in L-3, a high-tech US communications firm, at the time Mr Fox awarded it a contract to provide the Ministry of Defence with new “Rivet Joint” aircraft.

CQS only has a small portion of its total assets invested in defence-related positions and there is no evidence or suggestion that CQS’s funds profited directly in any way from the association of Mr Hintze with Mr Werritty or Dr Fox.

The MoD said on Thursday that the contractor was chosen by the US government and the decision to select the firm had been made under the previous government. Up until now L-3's contract was not publicly released.

The Australian-born businessman Mr Hintze, who is said to be worth more than £500million, has given the Conservative Party and Tory MPs almost £1,437,830 over the past decade. One of his companies has lent the party a further £2.5million.

His firm CQS is found to have paid for flights and accommodation for a 2007 trip by Dr Fox to Mauritania and then again later that year to a conference in Florence.
In October 2008, he flew Dr Fox – then Shadow Defence Secretary – to Washington. He also supplied a private jet for Dr Fox and Mr Werritty to fly from the United States to London in May this year.
Earlier this week, The Daily Telegraph disclosed that Mr Werritty also had the use of a desk at the London offices of Mr Hintze (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8821209/Liam-Foxs-friend-Adam-Werritty-linked-to-Conservative-donor.html) until last week.
A former girlfriend of Mr Werritty's told The Telegraph: “As far as I was aware, he would get up and unless he had an external meeting he would go there as if it was his office, every day,” said the woman, who said she had a relationship with Mr Werritty between April and August this year.
“He literally had an office there, tucked away in the administration area. He was off the floor, he wasn’t part of the hedge fund. He was just given a free office space.”
It was also discovered Mr Hintze's charitable foundation has also donated over £51,000 to Dr Fox's now-defunct charity The Atlantic Bridge, which was run by Werritty.
One Tory MP said that any evidence that Mr Hintze had interests in defence companies would put Dr Fox in a difficult position:
“This is what makes it into a grey area. It makes it a difficult decision and that becomes a tough judgment call for the prime minister and the cabinet secretary,” the MP said.
“Hintze is not motivated by [financial] defence interests,” he said, “but a shared ideological agenda [with Mr Fox]. But perception does matter.” Sir Gus O’Donnell, cabinet secretary, is leading an inquiry into Mr Werritty’s relationship with Mr Fox including possible conflicts of interests.

Jan Klimkowski
10-14-2011, 07:55 PM
Fox fucks off (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/14/liam-fox-resigns).

Fox's web of connections (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2011/oct/14/liam-fox-adam-werritty-links-interactive).

This bunch of warmongering fools will soon be back, turning dreams to nightmares....

Neocons are viral, like Freddy Krueger.....

Jan Klimkowski
10-15-2011, 09:26 PM
Freddy Krueger's motley crue:



Liam Fox resignation exposes Tory links to US radical right

Labour and Lib Dem politicians have stepped up demands for the PM to explain ministers' involvement with Atlantic Bridge

Toby Helm and Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/15/liam-fox-resignation-exposes-tories), Saturday 15 October 2011 21.30 BST

David Cameron has been accused of allowing a secret rightwing agenda to flourish at the heart of the Conservative party, as fallout from the resignation of Liam Fox exposed its close links with a US network of lobbyists, climate change deniers and defence hawks.

In a sign that Fox's decision to fall on his sword will not mark the end of the furore engulfing the Tories, both Liberal Democrat and Labour politicians stepped up their demands for the prime minister to explain why several senior members of his cabinet were involved in an Anglo-American organisation apparently at odds with his party's environmental commitments and pledge to defend free healthcare.

At the heart of the complex web linking Fox and his friend Adam Werritty to a raft of businessmen, lobbyists and US neocons is the former defence secretary's defunct charity, Atlantic Bridge, which was set up with the purported aim of "strengthening the special relationship" but is now mired in controversy.

An Observer investigation reveals that many of those who sat on the Anglo-American charity's board and its executive council, or were employed on its staff, were lobbyists or lawyers with connections to the defence industry and energy interests. Others included powerful businessmen with defence investments and representatives of the gambling industry.

Fox's organisation, which was wound up last year following a critical Charity Commission report into its activities, formed a partnership with an organisation called the American Legislative Exchange Council. The powerful lobbying organisation, which receives funding from pharmaceutical, weapons and oil interests among others, is heavily funded by the Koch Charitable Foundation whose founder, Charles G Koch, is one of the most generous donors to the Tea Party movement in the US. In recent years, the Tea Party has become a potent populist force in American politics, associated with controversial stances on global warming.

Via a series of foundations, Koch and his brother, David, have also given millions of dollars to global warming sceptics, according to Greenpeace.

Labour said it wanted to know how, in 2006, when David Cameron travelled to Norway for his famous photo opportunity with huskies to promote his new-look party's "green" policies, his senior colleagues were cosying up to US groups that were profoundly sceptical about global warming.

Writing in the Observer, the shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, said the Tories still had many questions to answer and claimed that "while David Cameron's compassionate conservatism has been undermined by his actions at home, it could be further damaged by connections overseas".

Murphy writes: "With each passing day there have been fresh allegations of money and influence and it appears that much of the source was the Atlantic Bridge network and its US rightwing connections. We need to know just how far and how deep the links into US politics go. This crisis has discovered traces of a stealth neocon agenda. For many on the right, Atlanticism has become synonymous with a self-defeating, virulent Euroscepticism that is bad for Britain."

Fox resigned on Friday after admitting that he had allowed his friendship with Werritty, a lobbyist who portrayed himself as an adviser to the defence secretary, to blur his professional and personal interests. His resignation followed a drip-feed of revelations about the links between Werritty and businessmen and organisations with defence interests.

The revelations over Atlantic Bridge have triggered questions about the role played by Fox, chair of the charity's advisory council, and that of four of its UK members: William Hague, George Osborne, Chris Grayling and Michael Gove. As a UK charity, the organisation enjoyed tax breaks but had to comply with strict rules prohibiting it from promoting business interests.

The charity's political agenda, which it articulated in conferences devoted to issues such as liberalising the health sector and deregulating the energy markets, chimes with the thinking of many on the right of the Conservative party whom Cameron has been keen to check as he holds the Tories to the centre ground of British politics.

Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshot said: "Dr Fox is a spider at the centre of a tangled neocon web. A dubious pattern is emerging of donations through front companies. We need to establish whether the British taxpayer was subsidising Fox and his frontbench colleagues. What steps did they take to ensure Atlantic Bridge didn't abuse its charitable status?"

Werritty, the group's UK director, was funded by a raft of powerful businessmen including Michael Hintze, one of the Tories biggest financial backers whose hedge fund, CQS, has investments in companies that have contracts with the Ministry of Defence; Poju Zabludowicz, chairman of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, who chairs a US munitions company; and the Good Governance Group, a private security firm set up by a South African businessman, Andries Pienaar, who also has an investment firm, C5 Capital, focused on the defence sector.

The potentially explosive mix of big business interests and politicians that triggered Fox's demise is the subject of an investigation by the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell. Murphy said it was essential that the government then referred the wider issues to Sir Philip Mawer, the independent adviser on ministers' interests. "He should look at the issues in their entirety to establish precisely how this never happens again," Murphy said.

Questions are being asked over the role played by an organisation called the Sri Lankan Development Trust, whose headquarters were listed at the Good Governance Group. The trust paid for three of Fox's trips to Sri Lanka. In a statement the group said: "Our involvement with the Sri Lankan Development Trust was not done for profit or at the behest of any clients."

Arriving at the Ministry of Defence to take up his new role in charge of the department, Philip Hammond, the new defence secretary, said Fox had "done a great job.

Magda Hassan
10-16-2011, 05:22 AM
Fox resigns: Police consider Werritty probehttp://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/56072000/jpg/_56072330_013142166-1.jpgJohn Mann is also considering asking the Electoral Commission to investigate Mr Fox
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15324686#story_continues_1)Related Stories

Profile: Philip Hammond (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15316964)
Fox leaves unfinished business (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15318685)
Fox resigns as defence secretary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15300751)

City of London Police are considering investigating Adam Werritty, the close friend of former defence secretary Liam Fox, for possible fraud, it has said.
Labour MP John Mann has asked the police to probe allegations Mr Werritty used business cards falsely claiming he was an adviser to Mr Fox.
At the same time a firm he set up was receiving money from several wealthy supporters, it has been reported.
Mr Fox resigned after pressure over his working relationship with Mr Werritty.
A City of London Police spokesman confirmed it had received an allegation of fraud.
"Officers from the force's economic crime directorate will consider the matter and establish whether or not it is appropriate to launch an investigation."
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15324686#story_continues_2)Analysishttp://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54495000/jpg/_54495807_004968522-1.jpgRobin BrantPolitical correspondent
Liam Fox is gone but the questions remain.
John Mann believes Adam Werritty's use of business cards claiming he was an adviser - coupled with the revelation that some wealthy backers claim they were unwittingly funding his numerous international visits - is evidence the 34-year-old may have broken the law.
Mr Mann also said it is possible the Electoral Commission - which regulates political parties and their funding - may be asked to look into claims that the former defence secretary failed to declare payments which could be political donations.
Mr Fox always maintained Mr Werritty was neither an official nor unofficial adviser.
He told Parliament he had asked Mr Werritty to stop using the business cards last summer.

Mr Mann said he was also considering asking the Electoral Commission - which regulates political parties and their funding - to consider whether Mr Fox should face criminal proceedings over a failure to declare political donations.
The latest comes after venture capitalist Jon Moulton on Friday said Mr Fox approached him after the election seeking funds for a company set up by Mr Werritty.
The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/) newspaper reported that Mr Werritty set up the firm, Pargav, as a not-for-profit company to fund his trips abroad.
Mr Moulton said he was told Pargav was involved in "security policy analysis and research".
According to the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049222/Liam-Fox-resigns-Defence-Secretary-finally-quits-Adam-Werritty-scandal.html), Mr Moulton bought a defence company eight months before giving money to Pargav.
Report dueMr Fox's conduct is being investigated by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell and a report is due to be published early next week.
It is expected to be very critical of his actions.
The defence secretary had been under intense pressure this week after it emerged that Mr Werritty had met Mr Fox 22 times at the MoD and joined him on 18 overseas trips since he came to office last year - despite having no official role.
Labour has called for a broader investigation into the rules governing ministerial conduct.
Mr Werritty, a former flatmate of Mr Fox and the best man at his wedding, handed out business cards suggesting he was his adviser and was present at meetings Mr Fox had with military figures, diplomats and defence contractors.
Questions have been raised about who paid for Mr Werritty's business activities and whether he had personally benefited from his frequent access to the defence secretary.
The BBC understands officials at the Department for International Development had raised concerns about Mr Werritty's involvement in Sri Lanka where, it is claimed, defence contracts were being touted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15324686

Magda Hassan
10-20-2011, 12:58 AM
Revealed: the link between Liam Fox donors and Tory HQAdam Werritty funded by businessmen introduced to former defence secretary by party treasurer



Rajeev Syal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/rajeev-syal), Rupert Neate (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/rupertneate) and Nicholas Watt (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/nicholaswatt)
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian), Thursday 20 October 2011
Article history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/19/link-liam-fox-donors-tory#history-link-box)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/10/19/1319056492390/Liam-Fox--007.jpgLiam Fox attacked the media in his resignation speech. He will face a fresh inquiry into his links with Adam Werritty. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Europe

The Liam Fox (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liamfox) affair has reached the Conservative party's high command for the first time after it was confirmed that its leading fundraiser introduced donors to the former defence secretary, who then introduced them to his best man, Adam Werritty.
In a blow to Downing Street's central tactic of distancing itself from Fox – saying that he was operating in his own way – the Conservative party admitted that its senior treasurer was the conduit for donors to the former defence secretary.
Howard Leigh passed on the details of donors who wished to support Fox's campaign during the 2005 Tory leadership contest. They were later persuaded by Fox to give money to organisations that supported Werritty, according to a source, and some of the money was spent visiting Fox on lavish trips abroad. Leigh was one of party's treasurers at the time.
The disclosure is an embarrassment for the Tories and will pose further difficult questions for Fox, who has been told that he faces a parliamentary inquiry into his behaviour and Werritty. In his resignation statement in the Commons, Fox attacked the media for pursuing him.
"Last week's media frenzy was not unprecedented, and it happens where a necessary free press and politics collide," Fox said. "But I believe there was, from some quarters, a personal vindictiveness, even hatred, that should worry all of us."
A Conservative spokesman confirmed Leigh's role in helping to introduce Fox to the donors whose recent support was used by Werritty to fly around the world to meet the former defence secretary.
The spokesman told the Guardian: "Howard Leigh introduced donors to Liam Fox's office during the 2005 leadership campaign. Some of them subsequently maintained contact with Dr Fox's office. Mr Leigh had no knowledge of Pargav and has not introduced donors to Dr Fox for some time."
A source close to Leigh said: "Howard Leigh was as shocked as anybody to find that donors' funds were being used to fund Adam Werritty (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/adam-werritty)'s trips. There is no way that he would have countenanced that."
Leigh is now the senior treasurer of the party. He is understood to have met Werritty on a number of occasions, but does not regard him as a friend. A party source says the donors approached Leigh asking to donate money to Fox's campaign, not that they were solicited by Leigh.
The Tory spokesman declined to say which donors had been introduced to Fox by Leigh, and did not expand on whether they knew of how their money had been spent by Werritty. Backers of Pargav include Mick Davis, a South African-born mining magnate known for his pro-Israel views; Tamares real estate, an investment company owned by Poju Zabludowicz, the chief funder of Israeli pressure group Bicom; and Michael Lewis, a former vice-president of Bicom, who donated £13,832 to Atlantic Bridge and £5,000 to Fox.
Davis, Zabludowicz and Lewis would not comment on Wednesday on how their donations had been solicited or what they believed the money was to be used for. However, Lewis has stated he had no knowledge of how his donations to Fox's leadership campaign were used.
A source with knowledge of some of the donations said some initial contributions were made to Fox's charity, Atlantic Bridge, and renewed in subsequent years without close scrutiny of where the money was going. He said some of the donors were also under the impression that the approaches had been approved by the Conservative party. "I don't think it was core Tory party fundraising but there were core Tory party fundraisers who were willing to support it."
Another source said there had been no co-ordination between the Jewish donors to fund Werritty, though some had initially felt well-disposed to help Fox because of his pro-Israel position. Both Davis and Leigh serve on the Jewish Leadership Council, a body with representatives from community and religious groups. Davis has been chairman of the council's executive committee since 2009.
Leigh chairs the elite Leaders' Group, which has more than 70 members who pay up to £50,000 a year for the privilege of meetings with David Cameron. Tory insiders say he has helped to bring in more than £2m a year through fundraising events, according to reports.
He is the managing director of Cavendish Corporate Finance, which helped Cameron's wife, Samantha, collect a windfall following the £18m sale of Smythson, the stationery and leather goods emporium company where she is creative dire ctor.
Leigh passed the donors over to Fox in 2005. At the time, Fox was the leading candidate of the party's right in the leadership campaign against Cameron and David Davis.
Tory sources claim Fox then maintained contact with the donors and was responsible for passing them to Werritty, who then funnelled £150,000 to Pargav.
The parliamentary standards commissioner, John Lyon, announced that he would investigate a complaint about the former defence secretary lodged by Labour MP John Mann, after Mann asked him to examine allegations that Fox allowed Werritty to live rent-free in his London flat, which allowed him to run a business from a property funded by parliamentary allowances.
Fox apologised to MPs after Sir Gus O'Donnell ruled that he was guilty of multiple breaches of the ministerial code for a "blurring of lines" between his official and private responsibilities.
In a carefully constructed sentence, Fox said: "The ministerial code has been found to be breached. For this I am sorry."Fox accused the media for hounding his family and accepting "unquestioningly" claims by Harvey Boulter, the Dubai-based businessman "It is difficult to operate in the modern environment, as we know, where every bit of information, however irrelevant or immaterial, is sensationalised, and where opinions or even accusations are treated as fact.
Boulter rejected Fox's criticism. He said: "It is most certainly not fair or correct for Fox to again brand me as a blackmailer. He knows very well that I was trying to settle a legal dispute … The Tories' statement follows unconfirmed reports on Wednesday in the Jewish Chronicle saying that Leigh had helped to pass on donors who funded Werritty's activities."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/19/link-liam-fox-donors-tory

Magda Hassan
10-23-2011, 12:05 PM
Inside the corporate intelligence company which bankrolled Liam FoxA South African intelligence expert made payments of as much as £60,000 through his security company for an unregistered charity linked to Dr Liam Fox.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02028/fox_2028167c.jpgDr Liam Fox quit after it emerged that he had allowed Adam Werritty, right, to attend official government meetings (PHILIP IDE)






Robert Mendick and Patrick Sawer

9:04PM BST 22 Oct 2011


Andre Pienaar, a multi-millionaire who keeps out of the public limelight, runs G3 Good Governance Group, a corporate security and intelligence company whose clients include the defence contractor BAE Systems.

In a lucrative industry reliant on insider information and expertise, Mr Pienaar has made it his business to be well-connected. A number of Establishment figures are on the company’s payroll.

G3’s main source of income is providing intelligence for big business including “competitor analysis” and cyber security at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds. There is no suggestion that the company, which is worth about £20 million, has operated in any way outside the law.

The chairman of G3’s advisory board is the Duke of Westminster, while the company worked behind the scenes — and free of charge — as security consultants in the run-up to this summer’s royal wedding. As a result, Mr Pienaar, 41, received an invite to the wedding ceremony as a guest of Buckingham Palace.

Lt Gen Sir Graeme Lamb, the former director of UK Special Forces, is also listed as a G3 adviser, while Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, is a non-executive director of Proven, an investigatory arm of G3.

Geoffrey Tantum, a former MI6 Middle East director with wide-ranging connections, is also on the advisory council. Mr Tantum’s daughter, Laura, operates Universal Exports, G3’s charitable foundation which is also the name of the fictional company used as cover by James Bond.
The charity’s trustees include Lord Ashdown and Lady Deborah Peat, the wife of the Prince of Wales’s former principal private secretary.
According to sources, Dr Fox’s office first approached Mr Pienaar in 2008 for funding for a Sri Lankan-based charity. Dr Fox had a long-standing interest in the country, dating back to the mid-1990s when he was a junior foreign office minister. Dr Fox’s best man Adam Werritty, whose friendship led to his downfall, was also involved in the negotiations.
They agreed that G3 – which has no commercial interests in Sri Lanka — would pay to set up the Sri Lanka Development Trust through a Scottish law firm to help with reconciliation and reconstruction of a country torn apart by years of civil war. The charity, however, was never registered with the Charity Commission nor with Companies House.
No details of its accounts appear in any public records. The Sunday Telegraph has been told that G3’s co-founder Hugh Petre, an Old Etonian who has since left the company, was never told about the payments linked to Dr Fox.
The former Defence Secretary travelled to Sri Lanka three times on flights paid for by the trust in 2009 and 2010 while he was in opposition. The flights were declared in Dr Fox’s register of MPs’ interests. The trust’s address is given as the business address of G3, although the company says it never carried out any work for the charity on its premises.
Between 2008 and 2011, G3 says it made payments to the Sri Lanka Development Trust totalling “no more than £45,000”. A further payment of £15,000 was paid to Pargav Ltd in June this year, which G3 believed would be given to the trust. Pargav is a company set up on behalf of Mr Werritty and funded his travel around the world and even the purchase of shoes, a handmade suit and a trip to a topless bar in New York. G3 is now reviewing the payment made to Pargav.
A spokesman for G3 said last week: “In 2008, we were asked by Dr Liam Fox, then the shadow defence secretary, to give advice about the reconstruction of northern Sri Lanka after the sudden end of the civil war.
Dr Fox explained that he wanted to play a constructive role in the peaceful reconstruction of the country. Our advice, which was provided on a pro bono basis, related to how a charity of this nature might be structured.
“The Sri Lanka Development Trust was subsequently established but we have never had any involvement in its work. Good Governance Group has no business or other related business in Sri Lanka, has no clients there and has never worked for its government.”
G3 admits holding meetings with Dr Fox, both in government and in opposition, but says officials or civil servants were always present. Mr Pienaar is chief executive of G3 although he sold his shares in the company in the spring to a Swedish investment company for about £14 million before the scandal over Dr Fox emerged.
He was previously head of the South African division of Kroll, the world’s biggest risk and security consultancy. G3 has been hugely successful since Mr Pienaar co-founded it in 2004. The company saw its turnover double between 2010 and 2011 from £6 million to £12 million and raised its profits from £1.3  million to £2.4 million — during the period Dr Fox was appointed as Defence Secretary.
A source in the security and intelligence business said Mr Pienaar had been keen to help Dr Fox while he was in opposition. “G3 had defence clients but wanted to get more,” said the source. “The deal with Fox was kept quiet even within the company.”
A Buckingham Palace source confirmed G3 had undertaken work in the run-up to the royal wedding but did not comment on whether Mr Pienaar had been invited.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8843810/Inside-the-corporate-intelligence-company-which-bankrolled-Liam-Fox.html

Magda Hassan
11-25-2011, 09:41 PM
Gould-Werritty: A Real Conspiracy, Not a Theory (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/11/gould-werritty-a-real-conspiracy-not-a-theory/) by craig on November 25, 2011 1:33 am in Uncategorized (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategorized/)
There is a huge government cover-up in progress over the Werritty connection to Mossad and the role of British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould, and their neo-con plan to start a war with Iran. (http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/matthew-gould-missing-link-%E2%80%9Crogue%E2%80%9D-uk-foreign-policy)
Yesterday at 22.15pm I submitted by email a Freedom of Information request for:

All communications in either direction ever made between Matthew Gould and Adam Werritty, specifically including communications made outside government systems.
At 23.31pm I was astonished to get a reply from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The request was refused as it was

“likely to exceed the cost limit”.
Now it is plainly nonsense that to gather correspondence between two named individuals would be too expensive. They could just ask Gould.
And a reply at nearly midnight? The Freedom of Information team in the FCO is not a 24 hour unit. Plainly not only are they hiding the Gould/Werritty correspondence, they are primed and on alert for this cover-up operation.
Even more blatant was the obstruction of MP Paul Flynn (http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/11/did-sir-gus-breached-the-code.html#comments), when he attempted to question Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell on the Gould-Werritty connection at the House of Commons Public Administration Committee. These are the minutes: anybody who believes in democracy should feel their blood boil as you read them:
Publc Admininstration Committee 24/11/2011

Q<369> Paul Flynn: Okay. Matthew Gould has been the subject of a very serious complaint from two of my constituents, Pippa Bartolotti and Joyce Giblin. When they were briefly imprisoned in Israel, they met the ambassador, and they strongly believe—it is nothing to do with this case at all—that he was serving the interest of the Israeli Government, and not the interests of two British citizens. This has been the subject of correspondence.
In your report, you suggest that there were two meetings between the ambassador and Werritty and Liam Fox. Questions and letters have proved that, in fact, six such meetings took place. There are a number of issues around this. I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories, but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist and he has previously served in Iran, in the service. Werritty is a self-proclaimed—
Robert Halfon: Point of order, Chairman. What is the point of this?
Paul Flynn:> Let me get to it. Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran.
Chair:> I have to take a point of order.
Robert Halfon:> Mr Flynn is implying that the British ambassador to Israel is working for a foreign power, which is out of order.
Paul Flynn:> I quote the Daily Mail: “Mr Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran and has made several visits. He has also met senior Israeli officials, leading to accusations”—not from me, from the Daily Mail—“that he was close to the country’s secret service, Mossad.” There may be nothing in that, but that appeared in a national newspaper.
Chair:> I am going to rule on a point of order. Mr Flynn has made it clear that there may be nothing in these allegations, but it is important to have put it on the record. Be careful how you phrase questions.
Paul Flynn:> Indeed. The two worst decisions taken by Parliament in my 25 years were the invasion of Iraq—joining Bush’s war in Iraq—and the invasion of Helmand province. We know now that there were things going on in the background while that built up to these mistakes. The charge in this case is that Werritty was the servant of neo-con people in America, who take an aggressive view on Iran. They want to foment a war in Iran in the same way as in the early years, there was another—
Chair:> Order. I must ask you to move to a question that is relevant to the inquiry.
Q<370> Paul Flynn:> Okay. The question is, are you satisfied that you missed out on the extra four meetings that took place, and does this not mean that those meetings should have been investigated because of the nature of Mr Werritty’s interests?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I think if you look at some of those meetings, some people are referring to meetings that took place before the election.
Q<371> Paul Flynn:> Indeed, which is even more worrying.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I am afraid they were not the subject—what members of the Opposition do is not something that the Cabinet Secretary should look into. It is not relevant.
But these meetings were held—
Chair:> Mr Flynn, would you let him answer please?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I really do not think that was within my context, because they were not Ministers of the Government and what they were up to was not something I should get into at all.
Chair:> Final question, Mr Flynn.
Q<372> Paul Flynn:> No, it is not a final question. I am not going to be silenced by you, Chairman; I have important things to raise. I have stayed silent throughout this meeting so far.
You state in the report—on the meeting held between Gould, Fox and Werritty, on 6 February, in Tel Aviv—that there was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK ambassador was present. Are you following the line taken by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who says that he can eat with lobbyists or people applying to his Department because, on occasions, he eats privately, and on other occasions he eats ministerially? Are you accepting the idea? It is possibly a source of great national interest—the eating habits of their Secretary of State. It appears that he might well have a number of stomachs, it has been suggested, if he can divide his time this way. It does seem to be a way of getting round the ministerial code, if people can announce that what they are doing is private rather than ministerial.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> The important point here was that, when the Secretary of State had that meeting, he had an official with him—namely, in this case, the ambassador. That is very important, and I should stress that I would expect our ambassador in Israel to have contact with Mossad. That will be part of his job. It is totally natural, and I do not think that you should infer anything from that about the individual’s biases. That is what ambassadors do. Our ambassador in Pakistan will have exactly the same set of wide contacts.
Q<373> Paul Flynn:> I have good reason, as I said, from constituency matters, to be unhappy about the ambassador. Other criticisms have been made about the ambassador; he is unique in some ways in the role he is performing. There have been suggestions that he is too close to a foreign power.
Robert Halfon:> On a point of order, Chair, this is not about the ambassador to Israel. This is supposed to be about the Werritty affair.
Paul Flynn:> It is absolutely crucial to this report. If neo-cons such as yourself, Robert, are plotting a war in Iran, we should know about it.
Chair:> Order. I think the line of questioning is very involved. I have given you quite a lot of time, Mr Flynn. If you have further inquiries to make of this, they could be pursued in correspondence. May I ask you to ask one final question before we move on?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> One thing I would stress: we are talking about the ambassador and I think he has a right of reply. Mr Chairman, I know there is an interesting question of words regarding Head of the Civil Service versus Head of the Home Civil Service, but this is the Diplomatic Service, not the Civil Service.
Q<374> Chair:> So he is not in your jurisdiction at all.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> No.
Q<375> Paul Flynn:> But you are happy that your report is final; it does not need to go the manager it would have gone to originally, and that is the end of the affair. Is that your view?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> As I said, some issues arose where I wanted to be sure that what the Secretary of State was doing had been discussed with the Foreign Secretary. I felt reassured by what the Foreign Secretary told me.
Q<376> Chair:> I think what Mr Flynn is asking is that your report and the affair raise other issues, but you are saying that that does not fall within the remit of your report and that, indeed, the conduct of an ambassador does not fall within your remit at all.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> That is absolutely correct.
Paul Flynn:> The charge laid by Lord Turnbull in his evidence with regard to Dr Fox and the ministerial code was his failure to observe collective responsibility, in that case about Sri Lanka. Isn’t the same charge there about our policies to Iran and Israel?
Chair:> We have dealt with that, Mr Flynn.
Paul Flynn:> We haven’t dealt with it as far as it applies—
Chair:> Mr Flynn, we are moving on.
Paul Flynn:> You may well move on, but I remain very unhappy about the fact that you will not allow me to finish the questioning I wanted to give on a matter of great importance.
It is shocking but true that Robert Halfon MP, who disrupted Flynn with repeated points of order, receives funding (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/110418/halfon_robert.htm)from precisely the same Israeli sources as Werritty, and in particular from Mr Poju Zabludowicz. He also formerly had a full time paid job as Political Director of the Conservative Friends of Israel.
But despite the evasiveness of O’Donnell and the obstruction of paid zionist puppet Halfon, O’Donnell confirms vital parts of my investigation (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/11/matthew-gould-and-the-plot-to-attack-iran/#comments). In particular he agrees that the Fox-Werritty-Gould “private dinner” in Tel Aviv was with Mossad, and that Gould met Werritty many times more than the twice that O’Donnell listed in his “investigation” into this affair.
Of the six meetings of Fox-Gould-Werritty together which I discovered, five were while Fox was Secretary of State for Defence. Only one was while Fox was in opposition. But O’Donnell has now let the cat much further out of the bag, with the astonishing admission to Paul Flynn’s above questioning that Gould, Fox and Werritty held “meetings that took place before the election.” He also refers to “some of those meetings” as being before the election. Both are plainly in the plural.
It is now evident that not only did Fox, Gould and Werritty have at least five meetings while Fox was in power – with never another British official present – they had several meetings while Fox was shadow Foreign Secretary. O’Donnell is right that what Fox and Werritty were up to in opposition is not his concern. But what Gould was doing with them – a senior official – most definitely is.
A senior British diplomat cannot just hold a series of meetings with the opposition shadow Defence Secretary and a paid zionist lobbyist. What on earth was happening?
The absolutely astonishing cover-up and lack of honesty from the government about the Fox-Gould-Werritty relationship is being maintained with cast-iron resolve. Not only is Gould a self-declared fervent zionist, he was born in the same year as Chancellor George Osborne and attended the same private school – St Paul’s. At least some of the time he was meeting Fox and Werrity while they were in opposition, Gould was Private Secretary to New Labour Foreign Secretary David Milliband. That opens up the question of whether David Milliband, another fervent zionist, was part of the discussions with Mossad and US neo-cons on how to engineer war with Iran, for which Werritty was the conduit.
That would help explain the completeness of the cover-up. The government appears able with total impunity to refuse to answer MPs’ questions on Gould/Fox/Werritty, and they will not respond to Freedom of Information requests. It is now proven without doubt that O’Donnell lied blatantly about the number of Gould-Fox-Werritty meetings, and that Mossad was involved. And yet every single British mainstream media outlet still refuses to mention it.
I know from a mole that the plot involves a plan to attack Iran. For the cover-up to be so blatant and yet so comprehensively maintained, the secret at the heart of this conspiracy must be great, and those complicit must include a very large swathe of the British political and media establishment.
UPDATE: access to this blog is now blocked from FCO and Cabinet Office terminals. Very wise – truth can be contagious.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/11/gould-werritty-a-real-conspiracy-not-a-theory/

David Guyatt
01-08-2017, 11:04 AM
The Liam Fox - Adam Werrity affair finally (well, almost anyway) gets a proper airing. By former Uk Ambassador, Craig Murray. And very interesting it is too.

Just like the US, the UK is far too subservient to Israeli and neocon interests.



Why Has Israeli Spy Shai Masot Not Been Expelled? 1
8 Jan, 2017 in Uncategorized by craig


There is no starker proof of the golden chains in which Israel has entangled the British political class, than the incredible fact that “diplomat” Shai Masot has not been expelled for secretly conspiring to influence British politics by attacking Britain’s Deputy Foreign Minister, suggesting that he might be brought down by “a little scandal”. It is incredible by any normal standards of diplomatic behaviour that immediate action was not taken against Masot for actions which when revealed any professional diplomat would normally expect to result in being “PNG’d” – declared persona non grata.


Obama has just expelled 35 Russian diplomats for precisely the same offence, with the exception that in the Russian case there is absolutely zero hard evidence, whereas in the Masot case there is irrefutable evidence on which to act.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix_lsrqie6I


To compare the two cases is telling. Al Jazeera should be congratulated on their investigation, which shames the British corporate and state media who would never have carried out such actual journalism. By contrast, the British media has parroted without the slightest scrutiny the truly pathetic Obama camp claims of Russian interference, evidently without reading them. When I was sent the latest “intelligence report” on Russian hacking a couple of evenings ago, I quite genuinely for several minutes thought it was a spoof by the Daily Mash or similar, parodying the kind of ludicrous claims that kept being advanced with zero evidence. I do implore you to read it, as when you realise it is supposed to be serious it becomes still more hilarious.


The existence of a natural preference in Russia to see a US President who does not want to start World War III is quoted as itself evidence that Russia interfered, just as the fact that I could do with some more money is evidence I robbed a bank. The fact that Russia did not criticise the electoral process after the result is somehow evidence that Putin personally ordered electoral hacking. Oh, and the fact that Russia Today once hosted a programme critical of fracking is evidence of a Russian plot to destroy the US economy. Please do read it, I promise you will be laughing for weeks.


In passing, allow me to destroy quickly the “we have smoking gun evidence but it’s too secret to show you” argument. Given the Snowden revelations and the whistleblowing of the former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, for the US government to claim to be hiding the fact that it can tack all electronic traffic in the USA is risible. This is like saying we can’t give you the evidence in case the Russians find out the sky is blue. If there were hacks, the NSA could identify the precise hack transmitting the precise information out of Washington. Everybody knows that. There were no hacks so there is ne evidence. End of argument. They are internal leaks.


The two stories – Russian interference in US politics, Israeli interference in UK politics – also link because the New York Times claims that it was the British that first suggested to the Obama administration that Russian cyber activity was targeting Clinton. Director of Cyber Security and Information Assurance in the British Cabinet Office is Matthew Gould, the UK’s former openly and strongly pro-Zionist Ambassador to Israel and friend of the current Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev. While Private Secretary to David Miliband and William Hague, and then while Ambassador to Israel, Regev held eight secret meetings with Adam Werritty, on at least one occasion with Mossad present and on most occasions also with now minister Liam Fox. My Freedom of Information requests for minutes of these meetings brought the reply that they were not minuted, and my Freedom of Information request for the diary entries for these meetings brought me three pages each containing only the date, with everything else redacted.


I managed to get the information about the Gould/Werritty meetings as a result of relentless questioning, where I was kindly assisted by MPs including Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and Paul Flynn. The woman with whom Shai Masot was conniving to undermine Alan Duncan, was Maria Strizzolo, who works for Tory Minister Robert Halfon. It was Halfon who repeatedly tried to obstruct Paul Flynn MP from asking questions of Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell that threatened to get to the heart of the real Adam Werritty scandal.


Both Robert Halfon and Adam Werrity received funding from precisely the same Israeli sources, and in particular from Mr Poju Zabludowicz. He also formerly had a full time paid job as Political Director of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Halfon’s assistant is now caught conspiring with the Israeli Embassy to attack another Tory minister.


House of Commons Publc Admininstration Committee 24/11/2011


Q<369> Paul Flynn: Okay. Matthew Gould has been the subject of a very serious complaint from two of my constituents, Pippa Bartolotti and Joyce Giblin. When they were briefly imprisoned in Israel, they met the ambassador, and they strongly believe—it is nothing to do with this case at all—that he was serving the interest of the Israeli Government, and not the interests of two British citizens. This has been the subject of correspondence.
In your report, you suggest that there were two meetings between the ambassador and Werritty and Liam Fox. Questions and letters have proved that, in fact, six such meetings took place. There are a number of issues around this. I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories, but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist and he has previously served in Iran, in the service. Werritty is a self-proclaimed—
Robert Halfon: Point of order, Chairman. What is the point of this?
Paul Flynn:> Let me get to it. Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran.
Chair:> I have to take a point of order.
Robert Halfon:> Mr Flynn is implying that the British ambassador to Israel is working for a foreign power, which is out of order.
Paul Flynn:> I quote the Daily Mail: “Mr Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran and has made several visits. He has also met senior Israeli officials, leading to accusations”—not from me, from the Daily Mail—“that he was close to the country’s secret service, Mossad.” There may be nothing in that, but that appeared in a national newspaper.
Chair:> I am going to rule on a point of order. Mr Flynn has made it clear that there may be nothing in these allegations, but it is important to have put it on the record. Be careful how you phrase questions.
Paul Flynn:> Indeed. The two worst decisions taken by Parliament in my 25 years were the invasion of Iraq—joining Bush’s war in Iraq—and the invasion of Helmand province. We know now that there were things going on in the background while that built up to these mistakes. The charge in this case is that Werritty was the servant of neo-con people in America, who take an aggressive view on Iran. They want to foment a war in Iran in the same way as in the early years, there was another—
Chair:> Order. I must ask you to move to a question that is relevant to the inquiry.
Q<370> Paul Flynn:> Okay. The question is, are you satisfied that you missed out on the extra four meetings that took place, and does this not mean that those meetings should have been investigated because of the nature of Mr Werritty’s interests?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I think if you look at some of those meetings, some people are referring to meetings that took place before the election.
Q<371> Paul Flynn:> Indeed, which is even more worrying.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I am afraid they were not the subject—what members of the Opposition do is not something that the Cabinet Secretary should look into. It is not relevant.
But these meetings were held—
Chair:> Mr Flynn, would you let him answer please?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I really do not think that was within my context, because they were not Ministers of the Government and what they were up to was not something I should get into at all.
Chair:> Final question, Mr Flynn.
Q<372> Paul Flynn:> No, it is not a final question. I am not going to be silenced by you, Chairman; I have important things to raise. I have stayed silent throughout this meeting so far.
You state in the report—on the meeting held between Gould, Fox and Werritty, on 6 February, in Tel Aviv—that there was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK ambassador was present. Are you following the line taken by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who says that he can eat with lobbyists or people applying to his Department because, on occasions, he eats privately, and on other occasions he eats ministerially? Are you accepting the idea? It is possibly a source of great national interest—the eating habits of their Secretary of State. It appears that he might well have a number of stomachs, it has been suggested, if he can divide his time this way. It does seem to be a way of getting round the ministerial code, if people can announce that what they are doing is private rather than ministerial.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> The important point here was that, when the Secretary of State had that meeting, he had an official with him—namely, in this case, the ambassador. That is very important, and I should stress that I would expect our ambassador in Israel to have contact with Mossad. That will be part of his job. It is totally natural, and I do not think that you should infer anything from that about the individual’s biases. That is what ambassadors do. Our ambassador in Pakistan will have exactly the same set of wide contacts.
Q<373> Paul Flynn:> I have good reason, as I said, from constituency matters, to be unhappy about the ambassador. Other criticisms have been made about the ambassador; he is unique in some ways in the role he is performing. There have been suggestions that he is too close to a foreign power.
Robert Halfon:> On a point of order, Chair, this is not about the ambassador to Israel. This is supposed to be about the Werritty affair.
Paul Flynn:> It is absolutely crucial to this report. If neo-cons such as yourself, Robert, are plotting a war in Iran, we should know about it.
Chair:> Order. I think the line of questioning is very involved. I have given you quite a lot of time, Mr Flynn. If you have further inquiries to make of this, they could be pursued in correspondence. May I ask you to ask one final question before we move on?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> One thing I would stress: we are talking about the ambassador and I think he has a right of reply. Mr Chairman, I know there is an interesting question of words regarding Head of the Civil Service versus Head of the Home Civil Service, but this is the Diplomatic Service, not the Civil Service.
Q<374> Chair:> So he is not in your jurisdiction at all.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> No.
Q<375> Paul Flynn:> But you are happy that your report is final; it does not need to go the manager it would have gone to originally, and that is the end of the affair. Is that your view?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> As I said, some issues arose where I wanted to be sure that what the Secretary of State was doing had been discussed with the Foreign Secretary. I felt reassured by what the Foreign Secretary told me.
Q<376> Chair:> I think what Mr Flynn is asking is that your report and the affair raise other issues, but you are saying that that does not fall within the remit of your report and that, indeed, the conduct of an ambassador does not fall within your remit at all.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> That is absolutely correct.
Paul Flynn:> The charge laid by Lord Turnbull in his evidence with regard to Dr Fox and the ministerial code was his failure to observe collective responsibility, in that case about Sri Lanka. Isn’t the same charge there about our policies to Iran and Israel?
Chair:> We have dealt with that, Mr Flynn.
Paul Flynn:> We haven’t dealt with it as far as it applies—
Chair:> Mr Flynn, we are moving on.
Paul Flynn:> You may well move on, but I remain very unhappy about the fact that you will not allow me to finish the questioning I wanted to give on a matter of great importance.
It is shocking but true that Robert Halfon MP, who disrupted Flynn with repeated points of order, receives funding from precisely the same Israeli sources as Werritty, and in particular from Mr Poju Zabludowicz. He also formerly had a full time paid job as Political Director of the Conservative Friends of Israel. It is not surprising that Shai Mosat evidently views Halfon as a useful tool for attacking senior pro-Palestinian members of his own party.


But despite the evasiveness of O’Donnell and the obstruction of paid zionist puppet Halfon, O’Donnell confirmed vital parts of my investigation. In particular he agreed that the Fox-Werritty-Gould “private dinner” in Tel Aviv was with Mossad, and that Gould met Werritty many times more than the twice that O’Donnell listed in his “investigation” into the Werritty affair. The truth of the Werritty scandal, hidden comprehensively by the mainstream media, was that Werritty was inside the UK Ministry of Defence working for Israel. That is why it was so serious that Defence Minister Liam Fox had to resign


Of the eight meetings of Fox-Gould-Werritty together which I discovered, seven were while Fox was Secretary of State for Defence. Only one was while Fox was in opposition. But O’Donnell let the cat much further out of the bag, with the astonishing admission to Paul Flynn’s above questioning that Gould, Fox and Werritty held “meetings that took place before the election.” He also referred to “some of those meetings” as being before the election. Both are plainly in the plural.


It is evident from the information gained by Paul Flynn that not only did Fox, Gould and Werritty have at least seven meetings while Fox was in power – with no minutes and never another British official present – they had several meetings while Fox was shadow Foreign Secretary. O’Donnell was right that what Fox and Werritty were up to in opposition was not his concern. But what Gould was doing with them – a senior official – most definitely was his concern. A senior British diplomat cannot just hold a series of meetings with the opposition shadow Defence Secretary and a paid Israeli lobbyist.


All of this underlined the pernicious influence that Israel has in the political class, which is founded on the Israeli lobby’s shameless use of cash for influence – as witnessed in the discussion between Shai Mosat and Labour Firends of Israel and his flaunting of a million. Attitudes towards the plight of the Palestinians are an extreme example of the disconnect between public opinion and the views of the political class, and Al Jazeera should be congratulated heartily on giving us a peek into that.


No further evidence is required. There could be no more conclusive evidence of Israel’s undue and pernicious influence than the astonishing fact that Shai Mosat has not yet been expelled.

Source (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/01/israeli-spy-shai-masot-not-expelled/)

David Guyatt
01-08-2017, 11:23 AM
An earlier blog post by Craig Murray on the Liam Fox/Adam Werrity/Mathew Gould affair.

It is startling that a British ambassador worked for, and showed allegiance to, a foreign power. By any measure of interpretation that is treasonous. It is hardly surprising that others inside the Foreign Office/MOD decided to out this story - as best they could, given the British media's neocon leanings.



Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran 440
14 Nov, 2011 in Uncategorized by craig




This is Matthew Gould, second from right, British Ambassador to Israel, who was pictured speaking at a meeting of the Leeds Zionist Federation that was also the opening of the Leeds Hasbarah Centre. The Leeds Zionist Federation is part of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, motto “Speaking Up for Israel.” A collection was made at the meeting to send packages to members of the Israeli Defence Force.


On 29 May 2011 The Jerusalem Post reported: “British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday”.


Remember this background, it is unusual behaviour for a diplomat, and it is important.


The six meetings between British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and Minister of Defence Liam Fox and Adam Werritty together – only two of which were revealed by Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell in his “investigation” into Werritty’s unauthorised role in the Ministry of Defence – raise vital concerns about a secret agenda for war at the core of government, comparable to Blair’s determination to drive through a war on Iraq..


This is a detective story. It begins a few weeks ago, when the Fox-Werritty scandal was first breaking in the media. I had a contact from an old friend from my Foreign Office days. This friend had access to the Gus O’Donnell investigation. He had given a message for me to a trusted third party.


Whistleblowing in the surveillance state is a difficult activity. I left through a neighbour’s garden, not carrying a mobile phone, puffed and panted by bicycle to an unmonitored but busy stretch of road, hitched a lift much of the way, then ordered a minicab on a payphone from a country pub to my final destination, a farm far from CCTV. There the intermediary gave me the message: what really was worrying senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office was that the Fox-Werritty link related to plans involving Mossad and the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould.


Since I became a notorious whistleblower, several of my ex-friends and contacts have used me to get out information they wanted to leak, via my blog. A good recent example was a senior friend at the UN who tipped me off in advance on the deal by which the US agreed to the Saudi attack on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, in return for Arab League support for the NATO attack on Libya. But this was rather different, not least in the apparent implication that our Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, was engaged in something with Werritty which went beyond official FCO policy.


I was particularly concerned by this because I knew slightly and liked Matthew Gould, from the time he wrote speeches for Robin Cook. I hoped there was nothing much in it. But then Gould’s name started to come up as professional journalists dug into the story, and reported Werritty’s funding by pro-Israeli lobby groups.


I decided that the best approach was for me to write to Matthew Gould. I did so, asking him when he had first met Werritty, how many times he had met him, and how many communications of every kind there had been between them. I received the reply that these questions would be answered in Gus O’Donnell’s report.


But Gus O’Donnell’s report in fact answered none of these questions. It only mentioned two meetings at which Fox, Gould and Werritty were all three present. It did not mention Gould-Werritty bilateral meetings and contacts at all. To an ex-Ambassador like me, there was also something very fishy about the two trilateral meetings O’Donnell did mention and his characterisation of them.


This led me to dig further, and I was shocked to find that O’Donnell was, at the most charitable interpretation, economical with the truth. In fact there were at least six Fox-Werritty-Gould meetings, not the two given by O’Donnell. Why did GOD lie? I now had no doubt that my informant had pointed me towards something very real and very important indeed.


Matthew Gould was the only British Ambassador who Fox and Werrity met together. They met him six times. Why?


The first meeting to which O’Donnell admits, took place in September 2010. O’Donnell says this was


“a general discussion of international defence and security matters to enable Mr Gould better to understand MOD’s perspective.”
O’Donnell says Werritty should not have been present. An FCO spokesman told me on 21 October that


“Mr Gould’s meeting with the Defence Secretary was arranged by his office as part of his pre-posting briefing calls.”
All Ambassadors make pre-posting briefing calls around Whitehall before taking up their job, as you would expect. But even for our most senior Ambassadors, outside the Foreign Office those calls are not at Secretary of State level. Senior officials are quite capable of explaining policy to outgoing Ambassadors; Secretaries of State have many other things to do.


For this meeting to happen at all was not routine, and Werritty’s presence made it still more strange. Why was this meeting happening? I dug further, and learnt from a senior MOD source that there were two more very strange things about this meeting, neither noted by O’Donnell. There was no private secretary or MOD official present to take note of action points, and the meeting took place not in Fox’s office, but in the MOD dining room.


O’Donnell may have been able to fox the media, but to a former Ambassador this whole meeting stunk. I bombarded the FCO with more questions, and discovered an amazing fact left out by O’Donnell. The FCO spokesman replied to me on 21 October 2011 that:


“Mr Werritty was also present at an earlier meeting Mr Gould had with Dr Fox in the latter’s capacity as shadow Defence Secretary.”
So Gould, Fox and Werritty had got together before Gould was Ambassador, while Fox was still in opposition and while Werritty was – what, exactly? This opened far more questions than it answered. I put them to the FCO. When, where and why had this meeting happened? We only knew it was before May 2010, when Fox took office. What was discussed? There are very strict protocols for senior officials briefing opposition front bench spokesman. Had they been followed?


The FCO refused point blank to answer any further questions. I turned to an independent-minded MP, Jeremy Corbyn, who put down a parliamentary question to William Hague. The reply quite deliberately ignored almost all of Corbyn’s question, but it did throw up an extraordinary bit of information – yet another meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould, which had not been previously admitted.


Hague replied to Corbyn that:


“Our ambassador to Israel was also invited by the former Defence Secretary to a private social engagement in summer 2010 at which Adam Werritty was present.”
Getting to the truth was like drawing teeth, but the picture was building. O’Donnell had completely mischaracterised the “Briefing meeting” between Fox, Werritty and O’Donnell by hiding the fact that the three had met up at least twice before – once for a meeting when Fox was in opposition, and once for “a social engagement.” The FCO did not answer Corbyn’s question as to who else was present at this “social engagement”.


This was also key because Gould’s other meetings with Fox and Werritty were being characterised – albeit falsely – as simply routine, something Gould had to do in the course of his ambassadorial duties. But this attendance at “a private social engagement” was a voluntary act by Gould, indubitable proof that, at the least, the three were happy in each other’s company, but given that all three were very active in zionist causes, it was a definite indication of something more than that.


That furtive meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould in the MOD dining room, deliberately held away from Fox’s office where it should have taken place, and away from the MOD officials who should have been there, now looks less like briefing and more like plotting.


My existing doubts about the second and only other meeting to which O’Donnell does admit make plain why that question is very important.


O’Donnell had said that Gould, Fox and Werritty had met on 6 February 2011:


“in Tel Aviv. This was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK Ambassador was present.”
There was something very wrong here. Any ex-Ambassador knows that any dinner with senior figures from your host country, at which the British Ambassador to that country and a British Secretary of State are both present, and at which international affairs are discussed, can never be “private”. You are always representing the UK government in that circumstance. The only explanation I could think of for O’Donnell’s astonishing description of this as a “private” dinner was that the discussion was far from being official UK policy.


I therefore asked the FCO who was at this dinner, what was discussed, and who was paying for it? I viewed the last as my trump card – if either Gould or Fox was receiving hospitality, they are obliged to declare it. To my astonishment the FCO refused to say who was present or who paid. Corbyn’s parliamentary question also covered the issue of who was at this dinner, to which he received no reply.


Plainly something was very wrong. I therefore again asked how often Gould had met or communicated with Werritty without Fox being present. Again the FCO refused to reply. But one piece of information that had been found by other journalists was that, prior to the Tel Aviv dinner, Fox, Gould and Werritty had together attended the Herzilya conference in Israel. The programme of this is freely available. It is an unabashedly staunch zionist annual conference on “Israel’s security”, which makes no pretence at a balanced approach to Palestinian questions and attracts a strong US neo-conservative following. Fox, Gould and Werritty sat together at this event.


Yet again, the liar O’Donnell does not mention it.


I then learnt of yet another, a sixth meeting between Fox, Gould and Werritty. This time my infomrant was another old friend, a jewish diplomat for another country, based at an Embassy in London. They had met Gould, Fox and Werritty together at the “We believe in Israel” conference in London in May 2011. Here is a photo of Gould and Fox together at that conference.


I had no doubt about the direction this information was leading, but I now needed to go back to my original source. Sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it right under the noses of those looking for it, and on Wednesday I picked up the information in a tent at the Occupy London camp outside St Paul’s cathedral.


This is the story I was given.


Matthew Gould was Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy in Iran, a country which Werritty frequently visited, and where Werritty claimed to have British government support for plots against Ahmadinejad. Gould worked at the British Embassy in Washington; the Fox-Werritty Atlantic Bridge fake charity was active in building links between British and American neo-conservatives and particularly ultra-zionists. Gould’s responsibilities at the Embassy included co-ordination on US policy towards Iran. The first meeting of all three, which the FCO refuses to date, probably stems from this period.


According to my source, there is a long history of contact between Gould and Werritty. The FCO refuse to give any information on Gould-Werritty meetings or communications except those meetings where Fox was present – and those have only been admitted gradually, one by one. We may not have them all even yet.


My source says that co-ordinating with Israel and the US on diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran was the subject of all these meetings. That absolutely fits with the jobs Gould held at the relevant times. The FCO refuses to say what was discussed. My source says that, most crucially, Iran was discussed at the Tel Aviv dinner, and the others present represented Mossad. The FCO again refuses to say who was present or what was discussed.


On Wednesday 2 November it was revealed in the press that under Fox the MOD had prepared secret and detailed contingency plans for British participation in an attack on Iran.


There are very important questions here. Was Gould really discussing neo-con plans for attacking Iran with Werritty and eventually with Fox before the Conservatives were even in government? Why did O’Donnell’s report so carefully mislead on the Fox-Gould-Werritty axis? How far was the FCO aware of MOD preparations for attacking Iran? Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?


The government could clear up these matters if it answered some of the questions it refuses to answer, even when asked formally by a member of parliament. The media have largely moved on from the Fox-Werritty affair, but have barely skimmed the surface of the key questions it raises. They relate to secrecy, democratic accountabilty and preparations to launch a war, preparations which bypass the safeguards of good government. The refusal to give straight answers to simple questions by a member of perliament strikes at the very root of our democracy.


Is this not precisely the situation we were in with Blair and Iraq? Have no lessons been learnt?


There is a further question which arises. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel, the UK had a policy of not appointing a jewish Briton as Ambassador, for fear of conflict of interest. As a similar policy of not appointing a catholic Ambassador to the Vatican. New Labour overturned both longstanding policies as discriminatory. Matthew Gould is therefore the first jewish British Ambassador to Israel.


Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “Not just an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.


It is thus most unfortunate that it is Gould who is the only British Ambassador to have met Fox and Werritty together, who met them six times, and who now stands suspected of long term participation with them in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel. This makes it even more imperative that the FCO answers now the numerous outstanding questions about the Gould/Werritty relationship and the purpose of all those meetings with Fox.


There is no doubt that the O’Donnell report’s deceitful non-reporting of so many Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings, the FCO’s blunt refusal to list Gould-Werritty, meetings and contacts without Fox, and the refusal to say who else was present at any of these occasions, amounts to irrefutable evidence that something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government. I have no doubt that my informant is telling the truth, and the secret is the plan to attack Iran. It fits all the above facts. What else does?


Please feel free to re-use and republish this article anywhere, commercially or otherwise. It has been blocked by the mainstream media. I write regularly for the mainstream media and this is the first article of mine I have ever been unable to publish. People have risked a huge amount by leaking me information in an effort to stop the government machinery from ramping up a war with Iran. There are many good people in government who do not want to see another Iraq. Please do all you can to publish and redistribute this information.


UPDATE A commenter has already pointed me to this bit of invaluable evidence:


“My government absolutely agrees with your conception of the Iranian threat and the importance of your determination to battle it.” Dealing with the Iranian threat will be a large part of my work here.” Gould said.
From Israel National News. It also says that he will be trying to promote a positive atmosphere between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, but the shallowest or the deepest search shows the same picture; an entirely biased indeed fanatical zionist who must give no confidence at all to the Palestinian Authority. He must be recalled.

Source (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/11/matthew-gould-and-the-plot-to-attack-iran/#comments)