Its Democracy, Jim, but not as we know it

It seems the revolution has begun. The Occupy demonstrations have taken place in over 95 cities across 82 countries but it's no longer just about 'the economy, stupid' (to use Bill Clinton's famous phrase), but about the corporate state. The economic crisis was caused by large financial institutions which had more power than elected governments. It was the economy that moved people into activism, but a bigger picture is now emerging.

Mussolini talked of the "Corporate State of Fascism". That's exactly what's developing now. It's been a hidden Fascism, with a democratic veneer, but since the turn of the century people in the US and the UK – 'Oceania', as George Orwell described it in '1984' – have been increasingly frustrated at their lack of a voice in big decisions of state. In the UK we had no voice in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, despite there being two million people out on the streets; Parliament voted on the basis of a lie. In 2001 Parliament had no vote at all, since decisions on waging war could at that stage be taken only by the Prime Minister in conjunction with the Monarch. So who did take these decisions? There is a growing feeling throughout the Western world that such decisions are taken not by elected politicians, but by gigantic financial institutions which in the end will profit from these wars.

So what would one expect from a corporate society? We may not expect the same brutality that one would have in an openly tyrannical regime, and, indeed, I am grateful to my opponents for not pulling my fingernails out, but in principle we would expect something similar. A corporate society does not uphold democratic values, even if it pretends to. Any troublesome group will be infiltrated by the corporate state, to neutralise its activities, or at least to keep them within certain limits.

This is exactly what has been emerging over the past year. On 20 October Newsnight broadcast a further revelation about an undercover policeman having infiltrated a civilian group with the purpose of subverting it:

"So far this year there have been no fewer than eight inquiries set up, after the discovery that undercover police have been used to infiltrate political organisations. There may be a ninth soon, because Newsnight has evidence of another operation, in which undercover policemen may have given false evidence in court. The officer became an activist in the Reclaim the Streets campaign, and was arrested after a group from the campaign occupied an office".

'Reclaim the Streets' is a direct action group which is concerned about the increasing takeover of urban streets by the corporate state. Their video documentary does show law-breaking, and indeed this is to be expected in a society which is more and more sceptical of the democratic processes in the country. "It turns the street into a road …", says their video, " the street can be much more about community, about social interaction … the road is a means of getting from A to B". The police do have a responsibility to keep the traffic flowing, but are their methods appropriate, and is it acceptable for the police to incite the very law-breaking which they are supposed to prevent, by means of agent provocateurs?

The Newsnight programme was about a cyclists demonstration of August 1996 in Central Lonon, in which a splinter group went to the headquarters of London Underground to unfurl protest banners. The incident led to the false arrest of one protestor, and false testimony in court by the undercover cop, who had played a leading role. The officer concerned was Jim Boyling, known in 'Reclaim the Streets' as Jim Sutton.

The Metropolitan Police were due to publish a report on an internal inquiry the following day, but at the last moment that report was delayed

It transpired that the alternative news source Indymedia had first become aware of the issue of undercover cops in protest movements and had passed information to The Guardian and BBC's Newsnight team, who worked together on their investigations. Again, the agenda is being driven by the alternative media rather than by paid investigative journalists

Since this is not just a British issue – some of these British cops had also been subverting groups abroad - Indymedia is now asking people to translate a statement on this into various languages.

I reported previously on Mark Kennedy, who had been posing as Mark (Flash) Stone in an environmental group, and whose actions had nearly led to the imprisonment of at least twenty innocent campaigners,

Lynn Watson (real name unknown), the police officer dressed as a clown in the Rebel Clown Army, a tiny group protesting against the Iraq war,

Other undercover police officers unmasked were Bob Lambert, posing as Bob Robinson,

Mark (Marco) Jacobs, whose real name is unknown,

Peter Black

and

Simon Wellings.

Groups infected were a variety of protest groups, such as anarchist, animal rights, anti-fascist, anti-globalisation, anti-racist, environmental and left-wing political groups. Those groups included: 2008 Camp For Climate Action, 2008 demo against the planned military academy at St Athan, Aldermaston Women’s Peace Camp, Animal Liberation Front, anti-EDL, Cardiff Anarchist Network (CAN), Cardiff Radical Socialist Forum, Climate Camp, The Common Place (Leeds anarchist centre), Dissent! (the network mobilising protesters for the G8 summit at Gleneagles), Globalise Resistance, London Greenpeace, No Border campaigns, Rebel Clown Army, Reclaim the Streets, Rising Tide Network, and Trident Ploughshares direct action network.

The lengths some of these undercover cops will go to in gaining credibility in the groups they have infiltrated are extraordinary. Kennedy provoked fellow officers to beat him up in a Climate Camp. Jim Boyling lied under oath in a criminal trial to protect his identity. Bob Lambert appeared in court under a fictional name. Several of them had sexual relationships with some of their victims, sometimes long-term relationships.

Jim Boyling even married one of his victims and had two children with her, now aged 5 and 7. How do you explain that one to the children, even when they are older, and how will they feel when they realise how they were brought into the world? Does the state have liabilities for their maintenance and for compensation for possible psychological trauma?

So if all this is going on with the police force in groups taking part in street activism, then what is going on with the security services in other groups that the corporate state disapproves of? I have already dealt with reports from former MI5 officers of large-scale infiltration in political parties, even "tiny organisations which pose no threat to national security". The purpose would be to turn these groups into controlled opposition, or to dismantle them, or at least make them ineffectual. It appears that the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Socialist Workers Party had around a thousand members each at the time the Berlin Wall fell, and each had, I understand 20 to 40 agents, whose job it was to cause quarreling and to demolish the organisations. How extensive is this, and how far will they go in 'gaining credence of the committee', to use a phrase from an email to me from the Director of Development of Esperanto Association of Britain shortly after he had left, admitting that that was all he had been doing for the two years in which he was being paid to develop the association.

Most people's reaction to anything like this is to pretend it isn't happening, and to try to shut others up when they talk about it. They'll tell you you're putting people off joining. I take the opposite view. I'm pleased to see that Cardiff Anarchists Network put out a statement on this:

But he [Marco Jacobs] also deliberately and systematically set out to damage a movement, and we think it is important that knowledge of what he did, and how he did it, is shared and discussed as widely as possible". They also wrote that many members were reeling with anger, resentment and guilt. "Marco worked hard to sow distrust, dislike and suspicion amongst us, and it was allowing him to do [that] that was perhaps our biggest mistake", they wrote.

Yet after all this, no-one, it seems, is capable of uttering the words 'the British secret police', even though it is patently obvious that such a thing exists. Yet the police now have a problem, because if they carry on behaving like SS thugs more cases will be uncovered. It will be in their interests to keep their noses clean until the whole issue has passed over. Perhaps that is why there was so little violence in the Occupy demonstrations in London this month. It is generally believed by many of the regulars who demonstrate for various causes in Central London that the police regularly use such tactics.

The late Brian Haw complained bitterly about such things and former MP George Galloway made allegations about agent provocateurs during some demonstrations. I myself would not have believed that such things could happen until I started taking part in truth and anti-war demonstrations only a few years ago, and started seeing things for myself.

We need more people to speak out. Most people who know things won't, and those who do will get criticised for their 'methods'. Some people, such as those in the South Yorkshire Police in the Tony Farrell case, see themselves as 'footsoldiers of the Government' and are therefore consciously complicit in the cover-ups. Others, like many I know, are simply in denial, or are suffering from Cognitive Dissonance or doublethink. Even those who recognise what is going on remain silent. Yet a few, like Tony Farrell have the courage to speak out.

During my researches into the Esperanto association in 2005, I would have loved to have come across a report somewhere of subversion in some other membership association which was being taken over by an inner clique, so that I could see how that may work, and so that I would have a base for comparison. Surely someone, somewhere would have been carrying out some investigation into their own association. Did no-one in the Labour Party compile membership statistics and link them to what was recorded in the minutes and the accounts? I could find nothing. If anyone knows of any such work, I would love to receive information on it. We need this information in order to build up the bigger picture, which is now looking very ominous indeed.

I can say that at long last we have a response from the Esperanto association to my financial chart, which I eventually managed to publish in EAB Update (pp 12-13) and, in the following issue, the treasurer accepted that my figures were correct. That issue of the periodical has now appeared on the Internet for all to see (p19).

That means that she should now explain why she told the Management Committee that the capital was being eaten up when at the time it was growing. Instead of doing that, she demonstrated how she had also given the same impression to members, by producing a rival chart showing a decreasing capital. She can be sure that few members will read the text, because they have such confidence in the treasurer, that they would refuse to believe that such a contradiction would be possible, rather than looking at the evidence, so they would not notice that that was a forecast for November 1994! Why produce the forecast figures when you have the real figures, unless the intent was to deceive? The other chart gives the impression of annual losses, which obviously could not have been the case if the capital was in fact increasing.

Yet members will not speak out, but will criticise me for doing so. In the same issue (page 17) a former Honorary Secretary expresses that he could not see the point in publishing my article, even though he says I have a point. He also wrote that my chart raises the question of why they sold the shop in London. Fine, but that's his point, not mine. I could have made a case out on that, but I didn't. That letter had actually been written before my article appeared, though it was presented as a reaction to it. Criticism of the President, with which I wholeheartedly agreed, had been cut out by the editor, who also rejected my reply, saying that the matter of the capital was a 'non-issue'.

A second letter in the same issue, from a former President, criticises me for virtually everything under the sun, including my work for the 9/11 truth movement, but avoids the issue which I had raised in my article (pp 17-18). There was nothing provocative about my article, and in no way was it critical of the committee, since that had been an explicit condition imposed by the editor. The problem of waking people up in a membership association is a small-scale example of waking up the masses in the case of hidden tyranny. The solution that I see is two-fold: (1) engage with the small minority who will be prepared to engage with you, and (2) take the issue outside the brainwashed community. Then things can start to happen. The statement by the Cardiff Anarchists Network may help to encourage others to speak out.

I also found an article by comedian Mark Thomas, who had had to come to terms with the fact that a close friend and trusted co-worker had been found to be spying on his activities. That turned out to be industrial espionage, which takes us back to consider the whole lot as different aspects of the corporate state. If that causes such soul-searching, imaging what it's like if there are five, ten or twenty of them whom you've known for as many years.


I found an interesting video called 'Psychologists help 9/11 truth deniers' which describes how people react when their fundamental beliefs are challenged. This is well-worth watching by anyone who understands English. It applies not only to 9/11 but to any situation in which people may react by saying "I refuse to believe ...", rather than looking at the evidence.






I've received a couple of messages from Esperantists, saying that they were interested to hear of the infiltration of the cyclist group or the environmental group, but that I should keep quiet about the Esperanto case. Eventually they will realise that by the same logic some in the cyclist group, the enviromental group, the 9/11 truth movement, and many other groups, may be interested in the Esperanto case for the same reason. The common issue for all these groups, even though they may be working for different causes and may not agree with each other, is the defence of democracy. For undemocratic methods to be brought to light, people need to speak out in public. It's not necessary to be able to prove who has infiltrated an organisation and with what purpose; it's only necessary to demonstrate behaviour. My crime was to produce hard facts, with no allegations or interpretation. It was then for others to interpret those facts, and we have just seen examples of that in the magazine. On the other hand, members should have been more alert to undemocratic methods being used by people of influence. This is essentially the point being made by former accountant for the European Commission Martha Andreasson, who is now an MEP for my area. The accounts had not been audited, and that in itself should be good reason to replace the people in charge. Concealment in itself should be sufficient reason to remove people's representatives from office whether at governmental level or in a tiny membership association.

My idea of advancing this issue at about the same rate as the general truth movement seems to be paying off. I reported in my last newsletter about the Guardian report of a 9/11 conference in the US.

Since then we have seen a blog in the Daily Telegraph, usually one of the most establishment of the national newspapers, with the title 'The 9/11 conspiracy theories aren't as irrational as you might think'.The rest of the article was critical of the truth movement, but at least here we have a grudging acceptance that we may actually have a point. Keep them coming! Encourage them to keep slagging us off, as long as there is a grudging admission that we may be right!

There are also big issues arising in the mainstream media. The Murder of Muammar Gadaffi may have been an uncontrolled revenge killing by soldiers on the ground, or it may have been allowed to happen by those higher up. Gadaffi would have realised that they couldn't send him to the International Criminal Court for trial because of the incriminating evidence he may provide against some of the NATO governments. His murder had actually been attempted by a group in the 1990s by what is now known as Al Qaeda, paid for by MI6, but it was bungled. That was what eventually made David Shayler decide to leave MI5 and blow the whistle.

As regards the Euro crisis, was it not all inevitable from the start? I kept quiet when the Euro was about to be introduced because I regarded myself as an ignoramus on economic affairs, when the experts were telling us all that it would be alright. Are we really to believe that no-one in the higher echelons of the EU spotted the flaw? Many in the financial markets below them would have been fooling themselves rather than accepting the obvious. So was this a project destined to failure? Was the objective to force the EU countries into a United States of Europe similar to the United States of America? Fine if they want to form such a union, but only if such a decision is taken by democratic means. So what happens if we in the UK have a referendum on leaving the EU? It's quite simple, really. If the vote goes against, we stay in, and if it goes in favour, we have another referendum. But if we were really to withdraw, what would be the consequences? Is it not time someone produced a proper analysis? Are those who want power to return to Westminster deluding themselves? Who has the power now, and who would have it if we were to withdraw? It sounds to me like the gigantic financial corporations in both cases. It's just a question of which financial corporations.

So where do we go from here? I think we are on the right track. We need to maintain an awareness of the bigger picture regarding corporate control of our society, the way in which we are manipulated by hidden propaganda, financial dealing, fear-mongering, and infiltration even in tiny membership association which pose no threat to national security. There will be more revelations. When the Occupy movement starts putting up placards relating to 9/11 truth, then the whole issue of who controls our society will come to a head.

But the danger is, as always, some false-flag terror event, which could bring everyone back into line, in supporting the next war, and persuading the population that they really do love Big Brother. At the October meeting of the Keep Talking group in London we had a guest speaker from Oslo, Torstein Viddal, who is the key researcher in the truth movement into the Norwegian attacks of 22/7. He lives only a couple of minutes away from where the Oslo bomb exploded, and despite a building between there and his flat, his window was blown open. He grabbed his camera and rushed out. At the Keep Talking meeting he showed a short video of how the International Criminal Court works, and suggested that we call for an investigation by the ICC with a view to prosecuting for war crimes. That's worth thinking about. His text can be read on the Norwegian 9/11 Truth site

Also worth thinking about is the issue of corporate government, and how to bring all these issues together in the current rebellion, and how to cope with the next terrorist event, which may well be intended to derail the rebellion and give an excuse for going in with truncheons, tasers, jack-boots and worse. Keep thinking. And keep talking.

Brian Haw did what he thought was right when most people fear the light

July 2011


The revolution has begun. What started as a relatively minor issue of a newspaper hacking into the phones of celebrities has suddenly rocked the nation with a scandal of phone hacking on an industrial scale, including the hacking of phones of victims of crime, and relatives of victims of the London 7/7 bombings, with evidence of criminal payments to officers of the London Metropolitan police for information. Journalist Michael Crick stated on the BBC television programme Newsnight:

“It was a day in which we have seen significant tweaks in the way in which power is distributed in this country,when politicians asserted themselves over the media, with MPs not just crying halt to the practices of tabloid journalists, but also crying halt to the expansion of the Murdoch empire; a day when backbenchers took the initiative rather than the ministers, and also incidentally the day when Ed Milliband finally stamped his mark as Labour Party leader.”

He was referring in particular to an emergency debate in the House of Commons introduced by campaigner Chris Bryant, who began:

“At 8.50 am tomorrow, it will be six years since the London bombings, which saw 52 people murdered and 700 injured. Today we hear that the police are investigating whether the mobile phones of several of those who lost family members in those attacks were hacked by the News of the World”.

Later in the speech, talking about the failure to adequately investigate the affair, he stated: “It pains me to say this as well, but the honest truth is that a lot of lies have been told to a lot of people. When police officers tell lies or at least half-truths to Ministers of the Crown so that Parliament ends up being misled, I think it amounts to a major constitutional issue for us to face. … Did the reason that nothing happened have anything to do with the closeness between the Metropolitan police and the News of the World?”

Further into the speech he turned his attention to the relationship between the Murdoch empire and politicians: “We politicians have colluded for far too long with the media”, he said, “we rely on them, we seek their favour, and we live and we die politically because of what they write and what they show, and sometimes that means we lack the courage or the spine to stand up when wrong has occurred. … Sometimes, we may even have fallen for the threats that have been made when we have spoken out. I know of several Members who have led this debate who have received threats”.

At last, people are talking, and once that happens we can expect further revelations, whistleblowers and arrests. If the phones of families of the victims were hacked into, presumably from some list of phone numbers supplied by the police to the newspaper, then what about the phones of the victims themselves, and what about the four alleged bombers? Does someone somewhere have information on their location around the time of the bombings that would have been useful to the inquest or to further investigations? Were the alleged bombers at the bomb sites, or were they in Canary Wharf? Perhaps someone will now speak out!

I was saddend to hear of the death of Brian Haw, ten years and sixteen days after he had started his peace vigil in Parliament Square, opposite Parliament.

His initial cause was not a popular one: opposing the sanctions against Iraq. But the issue escalated. Three months into his vigil came 9/11 and the subsequent attack on Afghanistan, and nearly two years into his vigil came the invasion of Iraq, bringing further death and destruction. He managed to attract public attention to the inhumanity of those military adventures and focus opposition to them.

I drew some comfort from the fact that I first heard the news of his death on the one o'clock news of BBC Radio 4. That was, I suppose, a recognition that he had become a national institution. The following morning I scanned the front pages at my local newspaper shop, but only The Independent had a front-page splash on him. That was a half-page photo with the caption 'Peace at last'. There was also a full page of reporting on page 5, including a tribute by Mark Wallinger, artist of the Tate Modern 'State Britain' exhibition in 2007, in which Brian Haw's protest display had been recreated.

There was also nearly a whole page of obituary, and a leading article on him, all of which was sympathetic. The leading article called for the placing of a memorial stone at the place where he had his camp for nearly ten years.

In my June 2010 newsletter I called for a permanent monument to be placed there, suggesting that it be called 'The Westminster Haw Memorial'

So I wrote to The Independent in support of a memorial, and my letter appeared on 21 June under the heading 'Ugly memorial'

There have been other calls for a memorial, too.

London Assembly Member Jenny Jones has called on Westminster Council to put up a blue plaque, of the type that one sees on various buildings in London in memory of famous people.

One supporter, holding such a blue plaque, was interviewed by BBC Television.

The following day a group of MPs led by left Jeremy Corbyn called for a permanent memorial to Brian Haw to be placed in the precincts of Parliament. The MPs tabled an early day motion praising the “political inspiration” provided by Mr Haw, who died at the weekend.

Among those putting their name to the motion urging a memorial to Mr Haw’s 10-year Westminster peace vigil were Green MP Caroline Lucas and Labour MPs John McDonnell, Paul Flynn, Kelvin Hopkins, John Cryer and Dennis Skinner.

I think it would be good for as many people as possible to express support for this idea in blogs, newsletters, articles, and in comments sections to relevant web pages.

>And now the Evening Standard has reported that Lord Tyler to give Parliament Square back to the people and transform it into a new Speakers Corner.

Brian Haw, of course, did have his critics. In particular, conspiracy denier Nick Cohen attacked him for saying that 9/11 was an inside job.

"He also ought to know that al-Qaeda was responsible for the slaughter on 9/11 - it's hardly a secret. But in a video for the 'alternative' news site rinf.com, Haw announces that '9/11 was an inside job, yes it was', organised by the American government and Hollywood, apparently"

That was the sort of arrogance that we all have to put up with in the truth movement from elements of the mainstream media. But I thought that a subsequent implied link with 'Holocaust denial' was despicable.

Earlier in 2007 I had been aware that people in the 9/11 truth movement were wondering why Brian Haw had not come out on the issue, so I handed him an English translation of my article which had appeared in MONATO, under the title


‘Why did the three towers of the WTC really collapse?’ [PDF file]

An hour or two later he told me that he'd read it, and that it was a good article. Shortly after that I heard that he had spoken out on 9/11. He compared the 3000 deaths with that of the number of children being killed on a daily basis as a result of world politics:





For me, what Brian Haw succeeded in highlighting most effectively was the police brutality right in the centre of what most English people would regard as the world's greatest democracy. In 2008 I had taken part in a protest march against the SOCPA law, which banned unuathorised protests within a kilometre of Parliament. At the end of the march some people were lying down in the roadway in Whitehall. I didn't agree with that, and was leaving the demonstration when I came across Brian Haw, with blood on his face and holding a broken camera. He was trying to make a complaint to the police for assault.





Brian hadn't actually been taking part in the protest, but had come from his camp just to take photos. His request to make a complaint was refused, and he was told he would have to go to the local police station to make it, he told me. When everything had quietened down I continued on my way home. Later I heard that the police had bundled him into a van and assaulted him. There were stories of screams coming from the van.

I see that as early as 2003 there had been an Early Day Motion in Parliament, stating:

"That this House expresses its deep concern that there have been a number of physical assaults on Mr Brian Haw, the peace campaigner demonstrating in Parliament Square; and calls upon the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to review the policing arrangements for the Square to ensure the safety and security of Mr Haw"

The fact that no police officer has served time for such an assault tells me that we have a militia which is above the law at the heart of our police force.

Ian Tomlinson, too, was an innocent by-stander. He was caught up in the G20 demonstration in London on 1 April 2009, when he was assaulted by a police officer and subsequently died.

An inquest verdict was returned in May 2011 of "unlawful killing"

The jury spokesperson stated:

"Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on 1 April 2009, during the G20 demonstrations. He was fatally injured at around 19.20 in Royal Exchange 2 Buildings, the passage, near to the junction with Cornhill, London EC3. This was as a result of a baton strike from behind and a push in the back by a police officer which caused Mr Tomlinson to fall heavily. Both the baton strike and the push were excessive and unreasonable. As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death. At the time of the strike and the push, Mr Tomlinson was walking away from the police line. He was complying with police instructions to leave Royal Exchange Buildings, the passage. He posed no threat."

The jury rejected the post mortem conclusions of the first pathologist to examine Ian Tomlinson's body. Dr Freddy Patel had been under investigation by the General Medical Council since 2005, and faced 26 charges of misconduct

He was found guilty of serious misconduct in March 2011 and suspended for three months
.
This raises a question of what selection criteria the Home Office uses to choose it's own forensic pathologists.

Following this verdict, the police officer concerned, PC Simon Harwood, was charged with manslaughter and is to face trial on 17 October

The Crown Prosecution Service, which had previously refrained from bringing about a prosecution, claimed that there was new evidence by which they could now do so. PC Harwood was working with the Metropolitan Police's Territorial Support Group, which, I understand, is the same group that beat up Brian Haw. PC Harwood had worked for the London Metropolitan Police before, but left a decade ago amid controversy over an alleged off-duty road rage incident. He then got a job with Surrey Police, where he was accused of using excessive force, before returning to the Metropolitan police. His identity was concealed during the G20 protest; his face was partially covered and his number was not displayed.

G20 riots: Policeman who struck Ian Tomlinson faced two previous aggression inquiries

But what about the bite that Ian Tomlinson received from a police dog just before that incident? Is no-one going to be prosecuted for that?

At least there was a post mortem examination for Ian Tomlinson, even if the initial one was eventually overturned and was followed by three more. That's more than can be said of the 52 victims of the 7/7 London bombings. I've just been reading the proofs a forthcoming edition of Nick Kollerstrom's excellent book 'Terror on the Tube'. I had not realised the amazing fact almost casually announced at the inquest that there had been no post-mortem examinations of the bodies. How is it possible for an inquest in what is widely believed to be a case of murder to be held without a post mortem having been carried out on the body? How is it possible for the coroner not even to be questioning this? Well, it's 52 times worse than that. Furthermore, the bodies, we are told, were withheld by the authorities. Those bodies would undoubtedly had carried traces of the explosives used, which would have enabled identification of the explosives. Then we were give a fairy tale about the explosives being hydrogen peroxide and black pepper. This clearly looks like concealment of evidence and possible fabrication. Is this why they needed to bring in someone special, like Lady Justice Hallett? I think there should be some sort of judicial review of the inquest, and that the Crown Prosecution Service should be looking into this concealment of evidence with a view to prosecuting whoever is responsible.

At least the 52 victims had an inquest of sorts, which is more than can be said of the alleged terrorists. Where are their bodies? Were any post mortem examinations carried out on them? Why were the legal processes circumvented? Where is the Crown Prosecution Service here?

The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible to Parliament through the Attorney General. On 9 June the Attorney General announced in the House of Commons that he had decided not to hold an inquest into the death of former government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.

Dr Kelly had been at the centre of controversy after it had been revealed that he had been the source of a BBC story that the claims concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had been “sexed up”. He was then interrogated in a televised hearing of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee on 15 July 2003, and the following day he was interviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee in a private hearing. On 17 July he went for a walk near his home in south Oxfordshire, and was not seen again until his body was discovered the following morning. The Oxfordshire coroner opened an inquest, as he was obliged to do under English law, but Dr Kelly’s death certificate was signed without awaiting the outcome of the inquest. A government inquiry was also set up, and the functions of the inquest were transferred to the inquiry under a law brought in in 1988. Accordingly, the inquest was adjourned on 14 August.

The Hutton inquiry concluded in January 2004 that Dr Kelly took his own life. The coroner subsequently closed the inquest. However, questions were soon being asked, both about the evidence concerning Dr Kelly’s death, and about the judicial processes, in which a proper inquest had been avoided.

In 2006 a British MP, Dr Norman Baker, took a year out from the Liberal Democrat shadow cabinet whilst he researched Dr Kelly’s death, eventually publishing a book, ‘The Strange Death of David Kelly’. He came to the conclusion that he thought that Dr Kelly had been murdered.

In July 2009 a team of 13 doctors announced that they were planning to mount a legal challenge to the findings of the Hutton inquiry. They had produced a detailed medical dossier, which they planned to send to the forthcoming inquiry by Sir John Chilcot into the Iraq War.

A week later, a US Air Force linguist, Mai Pederson, who served with Dr Kelly’s weapons inspection team called on the then Attorney General to carry out a “formal, independent and complete review” into the “suspicious circumstances” of Dr Kelly’s death, revealing that he had been unable to use his right hand for tasks requiring strength, and that he had a disorder which made it difficult for him to swallow pills, both of which threw into doubt the manner of death described by Hutton:

Now David Kelly’s former Iraq aide joins call for inquiry into his 'suicide'.

Shortly after that, a former coroner called for a proper inquest, and this was backed up by MPs from all parties:


A MEDICAL lawyer last night called on the Government to hold an inquest into the death of controversial biowarfare weapons inspector David Kelly because he believes there is insufficient ­evidence that he committed suicide.

In January 2010 it was revealed by The Mail on Sunday that following the Hutton inquiry, Lord Hutton had secretly ordered that all medical reports, including the post-mortem findings and photographs of Dr Kelly’s body, remain classified information for 70 years.

In August 2010 a letter appeared in The Times from eight medical experts, calling for a proper inquest. They stated that the inquiry by Lord Hutton was unsatisfactory with regard to the causation of death, that a detailed investigation of all the medical circumstances was now required, and that they supported the call for a proper inquest into the cause of Dr Kelly’s death.

Following this call, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke on October 22 ordered the release of some of the medical records which Lord Hutton had ordered to be withheld for seventy years.

Then on 25 October 2010 a pharmacologist, Dr Andrew Watt, wrote to the new Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, requesting him to apply to the High Court for an order that a Coroner-led inquest be conducted, quoting the same Coroner’s Act of 1988 that had been used to replace the original inquest by an inquiry

He quoted four grounds for the request: “1. Rejection of evidence 2. Irregularity of proceedings 3. Insufficiency of inquiry and 4. Discovery of new facts or evidence”. The first of the twenty points on ‘insufficiency of inquiry’ was that no evidence had been taken on oath.

Dominic Grieve when in opposition as the shadow justice minister, had told the Mail on Sunday that the investigation into the death of government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly should be reopened because the public had “not been reassured” by the official verdict that he killed himself.

In a letter passed to The Mail on Sunday, he praised the group of doctors who were campaigning for a coroner’s inquest, and questioned the judgment of Lord Hutton, who had chaired the inquiry into the death.

On March 26, 2011, three doctors wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for a proper inquest, headed ‘Subversion of due process and insufficiency of inquiry in the investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly’. They wrote that the laws of the UK, and indeed of Europe, require that the death of any British citizen dying in the manner in which Dr David Kelly is said to have died is investigated at an inquest, at which the Coroner possesses statutory powers. These include the power to hear evidence under oath, the power to subpoena witnesses, the power to have witnesses aggressively cross-examined, and the power to call a jury. Lord Hutton, he stated, possessed none of these powers, but the public was led to believe that Lord Hutton was better equipped to investigate Dr Kelly’s death than was the Coroner. Furthermore, he said, Lord Hutton had heard medical evidence for just one half of one day out of the twenty four days of evidence. No coroner in the land, they stated, would have reached a suicide verdict on the evidence which Lord Hutton had heard.

The statement by Attorney General Dominic Grieve in the House of Commons on 9 June 2011 therefore came as a surprise to many who had been expecting a formal inquest to be announced, though there had been some controversy when, in an answer to a parliamentary question, the Prime Minister had stated that he saw no need for an inquest

This led to allegations of political interference in what should have been a judicial matter. However, Dominic Grieve stated that he had acted in a non-political role as guardian of the public interest, and that he had received no representations of any kind from the Prime Minister or any other ministerial colleague on this decision. He concluded that the evidence that Dr Kelly took his own life was overwhelmingly strong, and that nothing that he had seen would support his making an application to the High Court for an inquest. “There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned”, he stated.

However, the Press Association put out a statement saying that the group of doctors led by Dr Stephen Frost had accused the government of being “complicit in a determined and concerted cover-up”, and that they would now seek a judicial review of Mr Grieve's decision. They denounced the Hutton report as a "whitewash" which "failed adequately to address the cause of death itself and the manner of death". Dr Frost stated that this was “clearly a political decision when it should have been a decision based solely on the law".

He stated that the decision had “no basis in law", and called for Mr Grieve to resign.

This was reported by the Daily Mail, whose website article was headed:

“'A continuing cover-up': Fury as Attorney General refuses full inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly”.

Former assistant coroner Michael Powers was interviewed on Channel 4 television, where he made out the legal case for a proper inquest, irrespective any suspicion of murder.

The previous day the Crown Prosecution Service itself had been under scrutiny when the evening television programme Newsnight revealed evidence that the Crown Prosecution Service, the body responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales, did not disclose information in a court of law which it should have disclosed according to its own rules. The television presenter, Jeremy Paxman, known for his persistent interrogation of evasive politicians, announced: “It’s a very serious accusation. Tonight Newsnight returns to the extraordinary story of the undercover cop Mark Kennedy. We have evidence that the Crown Prosecution Service didn’t disclose material which might have saved people from convictions. It’s a demonstration either of serious incompetence or of something tantamount to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”:





On January 10, a trial had collapsed of six environmental protesters accused of conspiring to shut down the coal-fired Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottinghamshire in 2009, when one of those arrested, though not charged, turned out to be a police undercover agent.

I reported on the scathing remarks by their defence lawyer in my January newsletter


It turned out that PC Mark Kennedy was present also at the G20 demonstration in London when bystander Ian Tomlinson died, Mark Kennedy was also identified in a left-wing demonstration in Germany a few days after the collapse of the British trial and and Spiegel-TV Magazin later produced a documentary on Mark Kennedy’s participation in demonstrations in Germany as a British undercover agent.

Journalist Richard Watson explained: “When the trial collapsed this January it was the police who were accused of withholding evidence and the CPS did nothing to disabuse anyone of that impression, writing to the defence and to the court that the new evidence had come to light just two days earlier. But emails held on CPS computers will show this was highly misleading. On the 17th of June 2009 there was a crucial email exchange. A very senior CPS lawyer based in the Special Crime Division in London, called Nick Paul, sent an email to another CPS lawyer based in Nottingham, called Ian Cunningham, who was reviewing the police evidence against the climate campaigners. Mr Paul wrote about the existance of ‘the participating informant’, a reference to the undercover policeman. Of even greater significance is Mr Cunningham’s reply. He wrote about ‘sensitive disclosure issues’ that ‘reinforced the difficulties’ of the case, clear evidence that senior CPS lawyers knew about the sensitivities of the undercover policeman two years before the case was to collapse”.

This was followed by a discussion with a former director of public prosecutions, a former Labour Solicitor General and one of the six defendants in the case that collapsed in January. They were all agreed on the seriousness of the issue, and that there should be an independent inquiry, though the environmental campaigner pointed out that inquiries held so far behind closed doors had not been looking at the bigger questions, such as in whose interest all of this had happened. It's all very well to have public inquiries, but will they lead anywhere? It sounds to me as if they need some prosecutions. But how do you prosecute the Crown Prosecution Service?

If the Crown Prosecution Service is above the law, and the Attorney General is under pressure to abandon inquests, and politicians can avoid inquests by setting up public (i.e. political) inquiries, and coroners can be specially selected to ignore concealment of bodies and the lack of post mortem examinations, then we have a pretty macabre situation. It means that whoever is running this country, and possibly other countries in the West as well, has a licence to kill.

Keep talking. The more people who keep talking the better. Brian Haw aimed to bring a focus to the carnage being brought about abroad by people in Westminster. In fact he achieved more than that; he also brought a focus to the thuggish brutality at the heart of the very institutions that are enabling these military adventures. Now that he is gone, in order to maintain that focus, we need a Westminster Haw Memorial. Brian Haw was a thorn in the side of a corrupt Establishment. Perhaps we should call the coming revolution the ‘Hawthorn Revolution’. Its symbol should be a twig of hawthorn.





1949 - 2011


"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us." ~ Marianne Williamson


Keep talking.

Don't dare criticise Israel, you will be called an anti-semite

Originally sent June 2010

When I sat down to write this newsletter, I had intended to start off by congratulating peace campaigner Brian Haw for getting a bigger picture on the front page of the London Evening Standard on the day that the Queen opened Parliament than the Queen did herself.

But then, the world went crazy again.

The attack by the Israeli Defence Force on an aid convoy in international waters shocked the world. Even the Israeli version admits that they did it. They may attribute the deaths to armed resistance, but if that were true – and many are disputing that - would it have been unreasonable to have put up resistance when your boat is being pirated in international waters?

Angry demonstrations rapidly spread across the world, and early images appearing on our television screens included orthodox Jews demonstrating against the Israeli government. There are now various Jewish groups who are opposed to the military actions taken by Israel against the people of Gaza, and on other issues, too. A demonstration outside the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv against the storming of the Gaza Flotilla was reported on Israel Social TV but, they say, not in the mainstream media:





If any good is to come from this sorry story, it has to be the realisation that you can now criticise Israel, or rather the actions of those who pull the strings in Israel, without being credibly accused of antisemitism, as you can for any other state. There has been much talk recently of covert operations by the Israeli secret service Mossad.


The UK government protested to Israel about the forging of UK passports in an undercover operation to assassinate a Hamas leader in Dubai.

There has been growing impatience in the US over Israel’s treatment of the people of Gaza. Considering that the US is Israel’s main ally and backer, and that they are also the world’s military superpower, it would seem surprising that a small beseiged country like Israel would want to go it alone. In the case of the Free Gaza flotilla, the Israeli forces would have known that even if the operation had been carried out without violence, they would still have been seen on virtually every television screen outside Israel as agressors on the high seas. How can we account for this behaviour?

It seems to me to be a symptom of overconfidence in one’s own strength. If we reduce the world stage to the laboratory of a tiny organisation which poses no threat to national security, we sometimes see the same sort of arrogance.

In my case, I could not understand how my opponents thought they could possibly get away with some of the blatent things they were saying and doing. Any normal person, I thought, would be able to see through them right away; it was as if they didn’t care. Yet, in the short term, they were right, because they knew one or two things that I didn’t know. They knew how accepting the ordinary members had become after years of brainwashing. I was later to find out that it was no use trying to present evidence to the members; they just weren’t interested, because they knew that I was wrong, even if they didn’t know what I was saying. It was no use showing them simple financial charts which appeared to contradict what they had been told for years. Yet these points could be grasped very quickly by others outside the organisation. The only defence which my opponents could offer, when their conspiracy of silence failed, was to react with contrived indignation, as if it were all an anticommittee plot by one individual. Yet I had only been putting together their own statements.

If we now replace our microscope with a telescope, we see the equivalent on the world stage. On the world stage, it was becoming increasingly clear that it was difficult to criticise Israeli policy without being vulnerable to allegations of antisemitism or of being a Nazi sympathiser. I first became aware of a possible Mossad connection with the London bombings of July 7, 2005, after I had written about the launch of the book ‘Terror on the Tube’ in my newsletter of September 2009, when emails were going around with suggestions of Nazi sympathies. Yet I had not touched upon issues concerning the Nazis, or indeed anything that would have made me vulnerable to such allegations.

I had so far assumed that the ludicrous interventions in the launch of Nick Kollerstrom’s book would have been coming from our own secret services, which may have had something to hide. Yet where was this coming from? Sure enough, I then realised that the CCTV surveillance in the London Underground was being run by an Israeli company.

Chapter Three of Terror on the Tube quotes an announcement on this from Israel National News of September 21, 2004:


"Verint Systems, a subsidiary of Israel's Comverse Technology announced that Metronet Rail has selected Verint's networked video solution to enhance security of the London Underground, according to an Israel21c report
...
Verint president and CEO Dan Bodner told Israel21c: 'We have significant experience working with transportation authorities and are committed to delivering innovative networked video security solutions for the transportation industry.'".

So what happened to the masses of CCTV footage that should have been available, which would have given a much more complete picture of what was going on? Were all those cameras dummies, or was footage being withheld from the public? Was that footage being withheld by the London Metropolitan Police, or was it being withheld from them?

According to the announcement, “The system will enable security personnel to monitor passenger platforms and certain remote portions of the track”. So would some people in or from the Middle East have had instant access to pictures of the London Underground at the time of the terrorist attacks? What we find, Nick writes, “is a company with 24 hour access to the entire tube network run by a senior ex-Israeli army officer, whose former employers are engaged in a largely covert war against Arabs for land”. The company, and its controlling company, according to Appendix 2 of the book, are run by ex Shin Beth and Mossad officers. How could a government minister have been so convinced that she knew better than the police at a meeting of COBRA, the government's emergency committee, in which she was insisting that there were eight incidents when the police representative was insisting that there were four?

This conversation was described in Andy Hayman’s book ‘The Terrorist Hunters’, which the UK government banned for a while after its publication.

Was the government minister making this up, or was she repeating what she had been told to say? Where did that information come from ultimately? If the minister’s information was correct, then the most obvious source of that would have been the Israeli company operating the CCTV cameras. That leads us again to the question of who is running the country. Constantly we are led in the direction of the big financial institutions. We need to ask where the political influence in those institutions lies. The picture that seems to be emerging is not one of unified central control, but of various competing factions, which all have a common interest in keeping the public in ignorance.

Whatever horrors one faction brings about, they can be confident that competing factions will retain a conspiracy of silence, because it is in their best interests to do so. If we pick up the microscope again, we see various individual police officers going beyond the law in their treatment of members of the public, but what do other police officers do about it? If they witness such an event yet remain silent, then surely they are guilty of complicity.

In false flag terrorism, what incentive is there for one group to speak out against another if they may be guilty of something similar themselves. Inevitably, the more ruthless groups will be outdoing each other, and so a bubble will be created. Eventually, the whole thing will get out of hand, and various groups will realise that they have to speak out. Then the bubble bursts.

I think we have just witnessed the bursting of such a bubble. I saw a snippet of news on the television, in which Bill Clinton asked, “Who’s the superpower here?”. Apparently that happened when he met Binjamin Netanyahu for the first time, in 2006.

Did that mean that Israel was punching above its weight even then, or did it mean that the Israeli lobby have more influence in Washington than we had imagined? The Israeli lobbying organisation AIPAC held its largest ever conference in Washington in March, and amongst its main speakers were Hillary Clinton, Binjamin Netanyahu and Tony Blair. Shortly beforehand, there had been a diplomatic incident when, during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joe Biden, the Israeli government announced more construction work on occupied land in Jerusalem.

Aljazeera put out a programme analysing the strength of the Israeli lobby in the US under the title ‘Inside Story - US-Israel: Unsettled dispute’:






On November 16, 2009, Channel 4 put out a programme in its Dispatches series, under the title ‘Inside Britain's Israel Lobby’, in which they showed how the Israeli lobby appear to be using financial pressure to censure political opinion in the UK.

All political parties are affected, they said, but they focused on the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.

Given this degree of influence, it is interesting that UK Foreign Secretary William Hague was so outspoken in speaking out against the attack when funding had previously been cut off when he had spoken out against Israeli action in Gaza, according to the Dispatches programme.

The programme shows how branding people as ‘antisemitic’ is a deliberate policy by the pro-Israel lobby to silence critics. Over the past few months there have been increasing concerns over a possible Mossad connection with 9/11.

Dr Alan Sabrosky is a former director of studies of the Strategic Studies Institute at US War College, and was described in the Kevin Barrat Show on No Lies Radio as “the most controversial voice in the 9/11 truth movement”, in an introduction to an interview on March 30, in which he claims that Mossad was behind 9/11.

There has been much speculation, but we need hard facts. It would be difficult to see how Bulding 7, which housed a major centre of the CIA, could have been prepared for controlled demolition without the knowledge of the CIA. That, of course, could mean some faction in the CIA, but at a high level. If Mossad and the CIA were complicit, then we would need detailed evidence to know which of them was in the lead role. Many questions remain to be answered concerning the attacks of 9/11. One thing we do know, however, is that for 25 seconds Building 7 was in free fall, within a margin of error of 1%.

Physics teacher David Chandler recently produced a new analysis of the collapse of the tower, based on new information released from the NIST final report on Building 7.

“This is high school physics we’re talking about”, he says, “If they can’t get the high school physics right, what confidence can we have in their multicoloured computer-generated whizz-bang simulations that tell us of the exact sequence of girder failures, without any physical evidence for any of it. I’m a high school physics teacher. I teach my students better lab practice than NIST demonstrates here”. He calls the NIST report a “cover-up by a government agency”. How could those who set up this operation possibly hope to get away with it, when they knew there would likely to be video footage and scientific analysis?

Again, it seems to me to be a symptom of overconfidence in one’s own strength, in this case, the strength of the mass media brainwashing of the population. The video is pretty conclusive proof of controlled demolition, yet they have got away with it for nearly nine years. It’s an analogous situation to my financial charts. The bubble has yet to burst. False flag terrorism is so widely known about amongst people with inquisitive minds who look for alternative sources of information than the mainstream media, that that has to be another bubble waiting to burst.

The Israeli assault on the Free Gaza Flotilla will remind many of the sinking of the USS Liberty in 1967, which is now well-documented yet unknown to the general readership of the mainstream media.

In this incident, the Israeli forces were in collusion with the US in attacking the US surveillance ship Liberty during the 1967 war, in an operation apparently designed to give a pretext to attack Egypt. The attack was witnessed by a Soviet ship, and so the operation was called off at the last moment. The recent assault on the Free Gaza Flotilla may bring the matter of the USS Liberty to the public’s attention, now that the UK government has stated that there should be an inquiry into the recent event.

Meanwhile, another dangerous situation is building up between North and South Korea, regarding the alleged sinking by North Korea of the South Korean warship Cheonan. This was investigated by ‘The Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group’ of South Korea, with additional experts from the US, Australia, the UK and Sweden. In their final report, they conclude:

“Based on all such relevant facts and classified analysis, we have reached the clear conclusion that ROKS ‘Cheonan’ was sunk as the result of an external underwater explosion caused by a torpedo made in North Korea. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation”.

Yet the only evidence that they present of the torpedo being fired by a North Korean submarine is that the torpedo was marked with “No. 1” written in Hangul. That is the script of the Korean language, used both in North Korea and South Korea. I would say that evidence points overwhelmingly to faked stupidity. It seems the Chinese are not impressed either.

Premier Wen Jiabao stated that China will take its position on the basis of truth and facts, and that it will seek information from various sources and seriously study it before making clear its stand in "a fair and objective manner”.

He also stated that China understands the current difficult situation President Lee Myung-bak and the South Korean government are facing. The publishing of the Cheonan report comes at a very convenient moment for the pro-American government of South Korea, just ahead of their general election on June 3.

The New York Times reports:

“Soon after taking office two years ago, Mr. Lee appeared at risk of losing public support, as he faced mass demonstrations on the streets of Seoul against the import of United States beef. Now, political experts are talking about the ‘Cheonan effect’, as polls show that more than half of expected voters approve of the president and his tougher line toward the North.”

Brian Haw has been on a protest vigil since June 2, 2001. Initially he was campaigning against the economic sanctions on Iraq and the bombing of the country by the US and UK. After 11 September 2001, he widened his focus, directing his messages of peace against the 'war on terror', the terror that the US and UK have inflicted on Afghanistan and Iraq.

During this time, he has successfully fought legal battles against actions to get him removed from his camp on the green opposite Parliament. The police at times have been brutal, and gone beyond the law. Parliament even introduced a law which is generally believed to have been aimed at removing him, now known as Haw’s Law, but when challenged, the court ruled that the law could not be applied retrospectively. The result was that Brian Haw became the only person in the world with the legal right to protest outside the UK Parliament without police permission.

On May 1 this year, a group of about fifty peace demonstrators set up camp on the same piece of land, calling themselves the Democracy Village. Unlike Brian Haw, some of them dug the turf and started growing vegetables there, and unlike Brian Haw, they were not targeted by the police. There was talk of possible agents, or provocateurs amongst them, who would turn the whole protest into a circus and enjoy police immunity. Brian Haw wisely dissociated himself from them, apparently anticipating what was about to happen. On the evening of May 25, the day of the Queen’s speech and the opening of Parliament, the London Evening Standard reported on its front page: “The Queen was greeted by extraordinary scenes as she arrived at Westminster for the state opening of Parliament today. Dozens of campaigners encamped outside the Commons jeered and waved banners as her coach drove past – but the only people to be arrested were veteran anti-war protester Brian Haw and his friend Barbara Tucker. Sixty-year-old Mr Haw, who has been living in a tent opposite Parliament for nine years, was dragged off for obstructing police sniffer dogs”. Inside, there was a two-page spread under the heading “Why did Boris allow shanty town to stay there so long?”, Boris being the London mayor Boris Johnson, whose spokesman stated: “The Mayor respects the right to demonstrate. However, the scale and impact of the protest is now doing considerable damage to Parliament Square and preventing its peaceful use by other Londoners, including those who may wish to have an authorised protest”.

Clearly the whole operation had to be a set-up, with the police targeting Brian Haw, and the politicians using the Democracy Village as an excuse. The behaviour of the authorities in this issue seems to have been extraordinary. How can we account for this behaviour? It seems to me to be a symptom of overconfidence in one’s own strength. Instead of quietly removing Brian Haw whilst the nation’s attention was on the Queen’s speech, they succeeded in making the Queen’s speech look ridiculous, and in focusing attention on Brian Haw. Brain had not been demonstrating against the monarchy, but nothing could have been more damaging to the monarchy than what happened. The Independent covered the story on its front page with two photos, one headed ‘Inside’ and the other headed ‘Outside’. It contrasted the promises of reintroducing some of the civil liberties taken away by the Blair regime with the suppression of what was, after all, a legal vigil outside Parliament. Yet cabinet minister Vince Cable in the new coalition has in the past given his support to Brian Haw.

In a gesture of support, together with Susan Kramer MP, he offered a new poster to Brian Haw in 2006, to replace one of those taken by the police, and is pictured on Brian’s website. The Independent contrasted what was in the Queen’s Speech on civil liberties with what was actually happening in Parliament Square.

The contrast of the ostentatious splendour of the throne and the crown with the T-shirt of a lone protester being dragged from his tent outside put the monarchy itself into disrepute. Buckingham Palace’s PR people will need to do something to repair the damage. If Brain is allowed to return, the Establishment will lose face. If he is imprisoned or dies, he will become a martyr. If he is simply evicted, he will become a celebrity.


In 2007 the Tate Modern staged an exhibition under the title ‘State Britain’, which was a recreation of Brian’s display just before it was removed by police in May 2006.

I think the best way out of the current predicament would be for the Tate Modern to exhibit a monument in memory of Brian Haw’s vigil. Respectable members of the Establishment are calling his camp an ‘eyesore’ and so the monument should be an eyesore, too. It should be a piece of modern sculpture depicting the ugliness of war. When eventually Brian Haw’s vigil does come to an end, that monument should be placed on the very same spot as his vigil. It should be a permanent monument, and it should be named ‘The Westminster Haw Memorial’.