Nake nula wauŋ welo! Flying Tiger Comics - comics, graphic novels and books for the new Aeon
Showing posts with label Benny Hill socialists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benny Hill socialists. Show all posts
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
The plot against Harold Wilson
Jimmy Savile Child Sex Abuse Care Homes Necrophilia UK Government Coverup Coup @ SeanCopland.com
From: Anonymous
Ok, this is a link to the docudrama program broadcast originally on BBC2
about 6 years ago http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780586/ . It was the first
time a significant amount of information about the attempted coup was
acknowledged. Until then the few who knew were branded crackpots, dreamers
or conspiracy theory nutters. As it transpired they were far nearer the
truth than most would have guessed.
If you find the documentary on torrent (shouldn't be too hard) it does make
for an interesting item. Where it differs from reality however is that I
recall the documentary made much mention of a "rehearsal", "excercise" or
"dry run" to see how they (military) could do it if they wanted.
It wasn't a rehearsal though, it was the real thing which was only halted as
the tanks were approaching Downing Street and Sir John Hackett was informed
of the intention to install Mountbatten and imprison Wilson. The following
email is the one I was given by my friend some 15+ years ago.
If you have any specific questions that you want answering I will try and
find out for you - I am still in touch with the source. The email is almost
"story like" which just happens to be his style of writing things. At the
time I had his consent to send a slightly redacted version to several
members of the press to see if they could get anywhere (they couldn't due to
D-notices) but it is interesting that the title he chose for the explanation
of what happened was then used to make a book/film with a similar plot to
reality.
==================================
A Typically British Coup
It was a warm summers day, a Saturday if my memory serves me correct, I was
flying back into Heathrow Airport after a couple of days in Paris on
business.
I passed rapidly through the terminal (the building which is now Terminal
Two) and emerged into the large open concourse to look for a taxi.
Thinking back, I might have seen an enhanced security presence within the
Terminal, but, if I did, it was discreet enough for me not to notice it,
therefore, as I hurried through the building, nothing had prepared me for
what I saw as soon as I emerged from the building.
At the opposite side of the concourse, a line of khaki camouflaged Army
lorries dominated the thronging scene of cars, taxis buses and pedestrians.
Curious, I stopped abruptly and looked more closely at the improbable scene.
It was then that I realized that, in the large splash of khaki stood a
number of armoured cars and personnel carriers.
"What the hell?", I muttered, I had seen television film of such sights in
remote countries. In riot torn Paris I had seen conspicuous evidence of such
a military presence. But nothing to compare with the naked gun barrels that
faced the building.
An immediate urge to get away, since it seemed that such a presence could
imply no good, overwhelmed me. I hurried to the taxi rank and clambered,
thankfully, into the first vacant cab.
"Euston", and , as he pulled away from the curb, settled back, keeping a
wary eye on the military presence. Who could be sure that the artillery
might not be used? And, less conspicuous, but very evident, the loitering
soldiers, automatic weapons cradled in their arms.
I leaned forward, "What the hell is all that about?", I asked my driver. I
didn't need to tell him what I was asking about. He shrugged. We entered the
tunnel. In the gloom he told me "That's nothing, there's ruddy tanks and
armoured cars on the road. Four or five roadblocks between here and
Hounslow, don't ask me why".
"No idea?" I asked incredulously. "None", he reiterated, "none at all mate,
looks like a military take over".
As we drove down the A4, that, before the M4 was the major route to London,
I saw what he meant. At the first roadblock we were waived down and, perhaps
as it was surround by luggage, I was asked for my passport. It was examined,
although somewhat cursorily, and we were waived on. I was anxious. I could
feel my pulse racing. What was going on?
At the ensuing roadblocks with armoured vehicles facing both ways, and
manned by armed troops, we were waived by. It was strange and slightly
worrying.
Neither in the news that evening, nor in the front of the morning papers was
there any evident explanation. On the inside pages I found the story. There
was believed to be a threat by a terrorist organization to shoot down a
plane landing at - or leaving - Heathrow. It was an explanation, but
somehow, it was not convincing. Such a huge military presence would surely
only deter such an attack, not root out the potential perpetrators It could
only be a threat delayed. But anyway, the plan seemed absurd, what could
such an act achieve? The terrorists beginning to multiply across Europe and
the Middle East seemed, generally, to have fairly clear objectives.
There was however, no other obvious explanation. Until 1974.
It was the second General Election of the year. Harold Wilson
had been Prime Minister at the time of my alarming arrival at Heathrow.
In the late mid term of his 1966 - 70 Ministry he had been very unpopular.
His own party saw him as a right wing compromiser; the opposition portrayed
him as a crypto Communist. It was then, a turbulent time in politics. There
were parliament defectives, including the MP for Pembrookshire, Desmond
Donnely who was the author of a book "The Gathering Storm" about the
overthrow of a Labour Prime Minister.
Harold Wilson seemed, at the time, friendless, and it was no great surprise
when he lost the 1970 election to Edward Heath.
By 1974, he recovered a good deal of his popularity, and his presence at an
election rally was a great draw.
It was behind the scenes of his "day campaigning" that, the conversation
with a very senior member of his staff moved to those turbulent days of the
60's, and I mentioned my apprehension on encountering the military at
Heathrow.
"It was of course", they said, "a very serious event". "The terrorist
threat", I asked. It had never materialized. "Wasn't it a touch of
overreaction?" My observation was greeted with a grimace. "The terrorist
threat was close to home?" I ventured? I dare say I looked as quizzical as
I felt.
"It's a long story, but in essence, it was an attempted Coup d'Etat". I'm
quite sure my eyes widened. I had, of course, speculated on many
possibilities, including that, but discounted an explanation so wild. I
realized, however, there was no twinkle in the eyes that faced me, rather
grimness.
It is a simple story. The cavalry, of course are one of the great
aristocratic traditions of the British Army. Once, they were recruited
amongst the idiot younger sons of the landed gentry to charge the cannons
without thinking about it. Now, we recruit graduates to master the
technology of the armour that has replaced the horses. They are more
inclined to have minds, and sometimes they are hard to control.
Anyway, convinced that Mr. Wilson had lost his mandate, control of his party
and was, as rumour had it, actually controlled by Russia, a plot was
hatched.
I was told, "At the centre of it was Cecil King, Chairman of the Mirror
Group, who felt slighted by Mr Wilson. A powerful man with powerful
connections. The plot he, and those he gathered around him, hatched, was to
overthrow the government and replace it by a Popular Government to be headed
by the ubiquitous figure of Earl Mountbatten."
"Through the "country-set" connections, it was not hard to involve the
Salisbury Plain brigade who had enough armour to take over the seat of
government with ease, arrest Mr. Wilson and his government, and put in place
their own administration."
"Who knows, it might have worked, but they were so sure of the support of
the military hierarchy, who could be heard at dinner parties making their
own doubts known, that they decided to leave involving them until the very
last moment."
"It was, therefore, after they had left barracks early on the morning the
day you arrived from Heathrow that they radioed Sir John Hackett, CIGS to
inform him of their intention."
"Whatever Sir John's personal opinion however, he was first and foremost, a
traditionalist and such a move was beyond his ability to support. He told
them so."
"Unfortunately, the massive movement of troops and armour towards London
could not go unnoticed, even at such an early hour. The Army were already
receiving press calls for explanations."
"Rapidly, an explanation was created. The story of the terrorist threat. It
did not, admittedly, stand close scrutiny, but "D Notices" could be - and
were - issued on the basis of a threat to National Security."
"A few days later, the forces returned to barracks, there were judicious
retirements and transfers, and the threat went away." Well, that's the
story. But you'll never hear it again. There was much I wanted to ask, but
the Prime Minister's arrival was imminent, and anyway, it was clear such
questions were not welcome.
Early in the nineties, a journalist acquaintance of mine, intrigued by the
stories, began to ask questions. It was still "D Notice" time.
=====================================
As I say the televised documentary will back up some of the above but there
are a lot of "gaps" in that which the above might help to fill in. If you
have any specific question I can try and get answers if you are interested.
I doubt I will be able to name any further names though.
From: Anonymous
Ok, this is a link to the docudrama program broadcast originally on BBC2
about 6 years ago http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780586/ . It was the first
time a significant amount of information about the attempted coup was
acknowledged. Until then the few who knew were branded crackpots, dreamers
or conspiracy theory nutters. As it transpired they were far nearer the
truth than most would have guessed.
If you find the documentary on torrent (shouldn't be too hard) it does make
for an interesting item. Where it differs from reality however is that I
recall the documentary made much mention of a "rehearsal", "excercise" or
"dry run" to see how they (military) could do it if they wanted.
It wasn't a rehearsal though, it was the real thing which was only halted as
the tanks were approaching Downing Street and Sir John Hackett was informed
of the intention to install Mountbatten and imprison Wilson. The following
email is the one I was given by my friend some 15+ years ago.
If you have any specific questions that you want answering I will try and
find out for you - I am still in touch with the source. The email is almost
"story like" which just happens to be his style of writing things. At the
time I had his consent to send a slightly redacted version to several
members of the press to see if they could get anywhere (they couldn't due to
D-notices) but it is interesting that the title he chose for the explanation
of what happened was then used to make a book/film with a similar plot to
reality.
==================================
A Typically British Coup
It was a warm summers day, a Saturday if my memory serves me correct, I was
flying back into Heathrow Airport after a couple of days in Paris on
business.
I passed rapidly through the terminal (the building which is now Terminal
Two) and emerged into the large open concourse to look for a taxi.
Thinking back, I might have seen an enhanced security presence within the
Terminal, but, if I did, it was discreet enough for me not to notice it,
therefore, as I hurried through the building, nothing had prepared me for
what I saw as soon as I emerged from the building.
At the opposite side of the concourse, a line of khaki camouflaged Army
lorries dominated the thronging scene of cars, taxis buses and pedestrians.
Curious, I stopped abruptly and looked more closely at the improbable scene.
It was then that I realized that, in the large splash of khaki stood a
number of armoured cars and personnel carriers.
"What the hell?", I muttered, I had seen television film of such sights in
remote countries. In riot torn Paris I had seen conspicuous evidence of such
a military presence. But nothing to compare with the naked gun barrels that
faced the building.
An immediate urge to get away, since it seemed that such a presence could
imply no good, overwhelmed me. I hurried to the taxi rank and clambered,
thankfully, into the first vacant cab.
"Euston", and , as he pulled away from the curb, settled back, keeping a
wary eye on the military presence. Who could be sure that the artillery
might not be used? And, less conspicuous, but very evident, the loitering
soldiers, automatic weapons cradled in their arms.
I leaned forward, "What the hell is all that about?", I asked my driver. I
didn't need to tell him what I was asking about. He shrugged. We entered the
tunnel. In the gloom he told me "That's nothing, there's ruddy tanks and
armoured cars on the road. Four or five roadblocks between here and
Hounslow, don't ask me why".
"No idea?" I asked incredulously. "None", he reiterated, "none at all mate,
looks like a military take over".
As we drove down the A4, that, before the M4 was the major route to London,
I saw what he meant. At the first roadblock we were waived down and, perhaps
as it was surround by luggage, I was asked for my passport. It was examined,
although somewhat cursorily, and we were waived on. I was anxious. I could
feel my pulse racing. What was going on?
At the ensuing roadblocks with armoured vehicles facing both ways, and
manned by armed troops, we were waived by. It was strange and slightly
worrying.
Neither in the news that evening, nor in the front of the morning papers was
there any evident explanation. On the inside pages I found the story. There
was believed to be a threat by a terrorist organization to shoot down a
plane landing at - or leaving - Heathrow. It was an explanation, but
somehow, it was not convincing. Such a huge military presence would surely
only deter such an attack, not root out the potential perpetrators It could
only be a threat delayed. But anyway, the plan seemed absurd, what could
such an act achieve? The terrorists beginning to multiply across Europe and
the Middle East seemed, generally, to have fairly clear objectives.
There was however, no other obvious explanation. Until 1974.
It was the second General Election of the year. Harold Wilson
had been Prime Minister at the time of my alarming arrival at Heathrow.
In the late mid term of his 1966 - 70 Ministry he had been very unpopular.
His own party saw him as a right wing compromiser; the opposition portrayed
him as a crypto Communist. It was then, a turbulent time in politics. There
were parliament defectives, including the MP for Pembrookshire, Desmond
Donnely who was the author of a book "The Gathering Storm" about the
overthrow of a Labour Prime Minister.
Harold Wilson seemed, at the time, friendless, and it was no great surprise
when he lost the 1970 election to Edward Heath.
By 1974, he recovered a good deal of his popularity, and his presence at an
election rally was a great draw.
It was behind the scenes of his "day campaigning" that, the conversation
with a very senior member of his staff moved to those turbulent days of the
60's, and I mentioned my apprehension on encountering the military at
Heathrow.
"It was of course", they said, "a very serious event". "The terrorist
threat", I asked. It had never materialized. "Wasn't it a touch of
overreaction?" My observation was greeted with a grimace. "The terrorist
threat was close to home?" I ventured? I dare say I looked as quizzical as
I felt.
"It's a long story, but in essence, it was an attempted Coup d'Etat". I'm
quite sure my eyes widened. I had, of course, speculated on many
possibilities, including that, but discounted an explanation so wild. I
realized, however, there was no twinkle in the eyes that faced me, rather
grimness.
It is a simple story. The cavalry, of course are one of the great
aristocratic traditions of the British Army. Once, they were recruited
amongst the idiot younger sons of the landed gentry to charge the cannons
without thinking about it. Now, we recruit graduates to master the
technology of the armour that has replaced the horses. They are more
inclined to have minds, and sometimes they are hard to control.
Anyway, convinced that Mr. Wilson had lost his mandate, control of his party
and was, as rumour had it, actually controlled by Russia, a plot was
hatched.
I was told, "At the centre of it was Cecil King, Chairman of the Mirror
Group, who felt slighted by Mr Wilson. A powerful man with powerful
connections. The plot he, and those he gathered around him, hatched, was to
overthrow the government and replace it by a Popular Government to be headed
by the ubiquitous figure of Earl Mountbatten."
"Through the "country-set" connections, it was not hard to involve the
Salisbury Plain brigade who had enough armour to take over the seat of
government with ease, arrest Mr. Wilson and his government, and put in place
their own administration."
"Who knows, it might have worked, but they were so sure of the support of
the military hierarchy, who could be heard at dinner parties making their
own doubts known, that they decided to leave involving them until the very
last moment."
"It was, therefore, after they had left barracks early on the morning the
day you arrived from Heathrow that they radioed Sir John Hackett, CIGS to
inform him of their intention."
"Whatever Sir John's personal opinion however, he was first and foremost, a
traditionalist and such a move was beyond his ability to support. He told
them so."
"Unfortunately, the massive movement of troops and armour towards London
could not go unnoticed, even at such an early hour. The Army were already
receiving press calls for explanations."
"Rapidly, an explanation was created. The story of the terrorist threat. It
did not, admittedly, stand close scrutiny, but "D Notices" could be - and
were - issued on the basis of a threat to National Security."
"A few days later, the forces returned to barracks, there were judicious
retirements and transfers, and the threat went away." Well, that's the
story. But you'll never hear it again. There was much I wanted to ask, but
the Prime Minister's arrival was imminent, and anyway, it was clear such
questions were not welcome.
Early in the nineties, a journalist acquaintance of mine, intrigued by the
stories, began to ask questions. It was still "D Notice" time.
=====================================
As I say the televised documentary will back up some of the above but there
are a lot of "gaps" in that which the above might help to fill in. If you
have any specific question I can try and get answers if you are interested.
I doubt I will be able to name any further names though.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
ABC: Whoring for the ALP. Isn't that what fucking when there's money involved called? Public money in this case.
Is there a reason the ABC seems so cavalier about government waste? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
And all charged to the taxpayer - along with billions for other Labor follies and grandeurs not criticised by the ABC:
taxpayers’ money on a jaunt, and one that compromised her responsibility
as an ABC presenter to seem impartial?
The emails:
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013, 4.35 PM
FROM: Juanita Phillips
TO: Alan Sunderland; Donald Lange
SUBJECT: Daily Tele
Dear Alan and Don,
Just alerting you to another spotfire. Recently while on annual leave, I
accompanied Greg — in a private capacity, as his partner — to Europe
where he was having climate change meetings and was the keynote speaker
at an EU carbon price conference. The Daily Tele has got onto this and
is going to make something of it.
The Prime Minister’s office has go
ne over the trip with a fine toothcomb
and says all guidelines have been adhered to, and they’re very
comfortable defending it. Ministers are entitled to have their partners
travel with them, subject to strict guidelines, and approval by the
Prime Minister’s office. Both of these criteria have been met.
Juanita Phillips and Greg Combet / Picture: Craig Greenhill
Juanita Phillips and Greg Combet / Picture: Craig Greenhill Source: News Limited
There’s no suggestion of anything inappropriate — presumably it will
just be the usual beat-up about politicians’ overseas trips. From my
point of view, I was on annual leave, and my role was purely personal.
I’m not sure when this story will appear, but hopefully it will blow over in a day.
Let me know if you want to have a chat about it.
Cheers
Juanita
***
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013, 3.54 PM
FROM: Alan Sunderland
TO: Sally Cray
SUBJECT: RE: I have some questions for the ABC in relation to Juanita Phillips
Heads up — the expected story looks like it’s on the way.
It’s a little tricky, because we are being specifically asked if we were aware of the trip in advance.
I have discussed all this at length with Sally Cray and what she will be saying (via email) to (the journalist) is:-
*We are aware of the situation
*Juanita was on leave at the time.
*She is perfectly entitled to travel with her partner, and we understand
Mr Combet is also perfectly entitled to travel with an accompanying
partner on such trips.
*Juanita has always been upfront and clear about her relationship with the ABC.
*As with all other situations with ABC editorial staff, we consider and
manage conflicts as they arise. We do not believe that legitimate
private like this creates an editorial conflict.
***
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013 4.29 PM
FROM: Sally Cray
TO: Alan Sunderland; Kate Torney; Donald Lange
SUBJECT: Tele
Went with Mick and Alan’s advice that less is more on this one. We
figured he has the story written and these will be three lines at the
end.
I didn’t insert the no editorial conflict line as I thought — better to
play dead in case he has something in his story we are not aware of.
And all charged to the taxpayer - along with billions for other Labor follies and grandeurs not criticised by the ABC:
How did Phillips think she was morally entitled to spend so much
PANICKED ABC management believed star newsreader Juanita Phillips left them in a “tricky” position after blindsiding them over her controversial $72,000 taxpayer-funded European first class trip with Labor lover Greg Combet.
Emails reveal the $320,000-a-year star only told her superiors about the
10-day climate change ministerial trip with Mr Combet, who held the
portfolio at the time, through France, Germany and Belgium last year
upon her return and after it was raised with the Gillard government.
But ABC head of editorial policy Alan Sunderland instead planned to tell
the public the ABC 24 host and Sydney news anchor had “always been
upfront and clear” with the ABC about the romance…
The ABC attempted to downplay the lack of prior knowledge of the trip,
saying Ms Phillips did not have to seek permission, that it was later
found to be within ABC guidelines anyway and that the broadcaster had
always provided a “high degree of transparency” dealing with the
issue...”
Six months after ABC chiefs plotted how to handle the romance’s
conflict-of-interest concerns, it was revealed the 10-day trip racked up
$57,673 on airfares, $8914 on hotels and meals and $4634 on ground
transport for Mr Combet to attend meetings and a climate conference.
taxpayers’ money on a jaunt, and one that compromised her responsibility
as an ABC presenter to seem impartial?
The emails:
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013, 4.35 PM
FROM: Juanita Phillips
TO: Alan Sunderland; Donald Lange
SUBJECT: Daily Tele
Dear Alan and Don,
Just alerting you to another spotfire. Recently while on annual leave, I
accompanied Greg — in a private capacity, as his partner — to Europe
where he was having climate change meetings and was the keynote speaker
at an EU carbon price conference. The Daily Tele has got onto this and
is going to make something of it.
The Prime Minister’s office has go
ne over the trip with a fine toothcomb
and says all guidelines have been adhered to, and they’re very
comfortable defending it. Ministers are entitled to have their partners
travel with them, subject to strict guidelines, and approval by the
Prime Minister’s office. Both of these criteria have been met.
Juanita Phillips and Greg Combet / Picture: Craig Greenhill
Juanita Phillips and Greg Combet / Picture: Craig Greenhill Source: News Limited
There’s no suggestion of anything inappropriate — presumably it will
just be the usual beat-up about politicians’ overseas trips. From my
point of view, I was on annual leave, and my role was purely personal.
I’m not sure when this story will appear, but hopefully it will blow over in a day.
Let me know if you want to have a chat about it.
Cheers
Juanita
***
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013, 3.54 PM
FROM: Alan Sunderland
TO: Sally Cray
SUBJECT: RE: I have some questions for the ABC in relation to Juanita Phillips
Heads up — the expected story looks like it’s on the way.
It’s a little tricky, because we are being specifically asked if we were aware of the trip in advance.
I have discussed all this at length with Sally Cray and what she will be saying (via email) to (the journalist) is:-
*We are aware of the situation
*Juanita was on leave at the time.
*She is perfectly entitled to travel with her partner, and we understand
Mr Combet is also perfectly entitled to travel with an accompanying
partner on such trips.
*Juanita has always been upfront and clear about her relationship with the ABC.
*As with all other situations with ABC editorial staff, we consider and
manage conflicts as they arise. We do not believe that legitimate
private like this creates an editorial conflict.
***
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013 4.29 PM
FROM: Sally Cray
TO: Alan Sunderland; Kate Torney; Donald Lange
SUBJECT: Tele
Went with Mick and Alan’s advice that less is more on this one. We
figured he has the story written and these will be three lines at the
end.
I didn’t insert the no editorial conflict line as I thought — better to
play dead in case he has something in his story we are not aware of.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
In defence of Bob Carr | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
In defence of Bob Carr | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
I knew it wouldn't be long before blow-in girlyman semiliterate gatekeeper Andrew Bolt went gay for Bob Carr.
There has never NEVER been a marxist this effeminate bloviator hasn't gone gay for. No matter their crimes, the treason they commit.
Bolt worked for Hawke, and the leopard does not change its spots. Bolt is as conservative as Lenin. Less so.
I knew it wouldn't be long before blow-in girlyman semiliterate gatekeeper Andrew Bolt went gay for Bob Carr.
There has never NEVER been a marxist this effeminate bloviator hasn't gone gay for. No matter their crimes, the treason they commit.
Bolt worked for Hawke, and the leopard does not change its spots. Bolt is as conservative as Lenin. Less so.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Lyndal Curtis interviews Kevin Rudd aka Fred Scuttle the lip licking assclown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
