Oh, Berk! Oh! ... The bizarre perspective of the House of Commons very own Berk(ow)!

The ridiculous priorities of Britain's House of Commons frequently astound me.

Today, Politics live blog – Thursday 4 November 2010 (See 12.58 pm), we find out that Berk(ow) was incensed by Liam Fox turning up 4 minutes late in the House of Commons chamber:

As Fox began his speech, John Bercow, the Speaker, interrupted him with the words: "The secretary of state can resume his seat. I thought it really a matter of straightforward courtesy when the secretary of state is manifestly late for the debate that he would begin his remarks with a fulsome [sic] apology to the house – and that's what he'll now do."

But Berk(ow) doesn't turn a hair when he's informed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to spend some £20-25 billion unlawfully in Afghanistan in 2010-2015 and that HM Treasury deceived the House of Commons. See Speaker and Standards and Privileges Committee asked to investigate contempt of Parliament by George Osborne MP and HM Treasury, for some of the background.

And, in all likelihood, some MPs and their hangers-on will wonder why parts of the UK public hold the House of Commons in contempt and derision.

When the Speaker of the House of Commons behaves contemptibly, can they really be surprised?

Speaker and Standards and Privileges Committee asked to investigate contempt of Parliament by George Osborne MP and HM Treasury

Today I sent a communication to John Bercow (Speaker of the House of Commons) and to the Standard and Privileges Committee of the House of Commons asking them formally to investigate what I believe to be serious contempt of Parliament by George Osborne MP and HM Treasury.

I am well aware that Members of the UK Parliament will be reluctant to open the "can of worms" which is UK spending for the purposes of terrorism in Afghanistan.

Accordingly, I'm posting a copy of the email here to put on public record that John Bercow and Kevin Barron have been asked to investigate the contempt of Parliament and to report to the Police the offences by civil servants in HM Treasury.

The text of my email follows:

Mr Bercow, Mr Barron,

I write to draw to your attention what I believe to be serious contempt of Parliament by HM Treasury and George Osborne MP. That contempt of Parliament was, I believe, designed to conceal from Parliament serious criminal offences by civil servants in HM Treasury and others.

In your respective roles as Speaker of the House of Commons and Chairman of the Standard and Privileges Select Committee, I ask you to take all practicable steps to investigate the contempt of Parliament that I believe to have taken place and to investigate the underlying criminal offences by HM Treasury civil servants and others that the Contempt of Parliament was intended to conceal.

In addition to the requested Parliamentary investigation, I request you to report these serious matters to the Police.

Specifically, in the recent statement about the Comprehensive Spending Review I can find no disclosure to Parliament that the Government is spending and proposes to continue spending public money on unlawful purposes in Afghanistan.

In particular, it was concealed from Parliament that the proposed spending in Afghanistan is contrary to Sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000, given the definition of "terrorism" in Subsections 1(1) to 1(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The effect of Mr Osborne's deception of Parliament is to conceal from Parliament (and the UK public) that some £20 billion has already been spent unlawfully in Iraq and Afghanistan (not all by the current Government) and that it is proposed unlawfully to spend a further £20-25 billion on "terrorism" (as defined in UK Law) in Afghanistan during the period 2010-2015.

I believe that such unlawful spending constitutes the largest financial crime in United Kingdom history, the spending on "terorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan variously being offences contrary to Sections 15 to 18 of the Terrrorism Act 2000.

It was further concealed from Parliament that there is a very real choice as to whether to spend £20-25 billion unlawfully in Afghanistan in the period 2010-2015, or spend that money on hospitals and schools.

Parliament has a right to be asked the question, "Do you want to spend £20-25 billion unlawfully on British military terrorism in Afghanistan in 2010-2015 or do you want to spend it on schools and hospitals in the United Kingdom?".

To assist you (or your legal advisers) to understand why I make such serious allegations I will direct your attention to the "General Definition" of "terrorism" in Subsections 1(1) to 1(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

I briefly describe the rationale behind the allegations in my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/use-off-armed-force-by-uk-military.html

You and your advisers may also find helpful the article entitled, An account of the illegality of of the UK military action in Afghanistan since 2001, http://shitgate.blogspot.com/2010/04/account-of-illegality-of-uk-military.html, where I describe UK Law in a context of the UN Security Council resolutions starting in 2001.

In that outline argument I do not attempt to examine all possible legal viewpoints regarding the matter. Suffice to say at the moment, is that in addition to the question of whether or not criminal offences have been committed by individual politicians, civil servants and military personnel there are important political questions, including the following.

1. Since Parliament was not informed in Autumn 2001 (or subsequently) that it was proposed to spend in Afghanistan public money on "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, all spending of public funding in Afghanistan was unlawful (as was the spending on the Iraq War).

2. Parliament and the public was not informed that Tony Blair's so-called "war on terrorism" was itself "terrorism" in UK Law. Therefore any House of Commons authority for the Iraq War was obtained in false pretences.

3. British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan as "terrorists" (as defined in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000) naively believing that they are fighting a war against terrorism. I believe that you, collectively and individually, have a moral duty to inform these soldiers that they are risking losing their lives and limbs as terrorists.

That HM Treasury were aware that concerns existed that their spending was unlawful and was funding "terrorism" (as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000) is relevant. I attach a copy of my "Cease and Desist Request" letter of 6th February 2010 addressed to the Permanent Secretary of HM Treasury.

I am copying this email to the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, to whom I recently wrote in connection with that Committee's Inquiry into the Comprehensive Spending Review.

In addition, I am copying this email individually to each member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, so serious is my concern about this matter.

The United States legislature had the integrity to investigate the Watergate scandal. I await with interest to find out whether the United Kingdom House of Commons and its institutions can act with equal integrity in the face of scandalous crimes by individuals and institutions close to the heart of some Members of Parliament.

Andrew Watt
P.S. Since I recognise that there are significant political drivers which are likely to lead towards a Parliamentary cover-up rather than honest investigation, I will post a copy of this email on my blog "Westminster's Cheating Us" shortly after I send it.

P.P.S.
Contact information:
[removed in this copy to prevent spam]

The text of the letter of 6th February 2010 attached in the original of the email is contained in this preceding post: Wilful contempt of Parliament by HM Treasury?.

Wilful contempt of Parliament by HM Treasury?

In my preceding post, George Osborne's secret choice: Spending public money unlawfully on terrorism in Afghanistan or spending on hospitals and schools in the UK, I drew attention to the concealing from the House of Commons of the evidence suggesting that UK military action in Afghanistan is "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The question arises, was such contempt of Parliament merely an omission (albeit a hugely important one) or part of a conspiracy by HM Treasury to deceive the House of Commons and the British public?

Sadly, my conclusion is that HM Treasury is premeditatedly concealing from Parliament and the British Public that it has reason to conclude that its spending on military action in Afghanistan is spending for the purposes of terrorism.

I reproduce here the text of a letter sent on 6th February 2010 by Recorded Delivery to the Permanent Secretary of HM Treasury on 6th February 2010.

The public silence of the copy recipients is also a matter of interest, in my view.

6th February 2010

To:
Sir Nicholas MacPherson, Permanent Secretary, Treasury

Cease and Desist Request
Iraq and Afghanistan Wars: Multiple Serious Criminal Offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 by HM Treasury civil servants

Dear Sir Nicholas,

I write to you to request that you and the civil servants in the Treasury who report to you forthwith cease and desist from acts which I believe constitute offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.

I urge you to give this important matter your urgent and careful attention.

The foundation of my request is my belief that the military interventions by the United Kingdom in Iraq and Afghanistan constitute “terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The text of the Terrorism Act 2000 is available online and Section 1 is not particularly opaque.

The offences I see as being most relevant are specified in the following sections of the Terrorism Act 2000: 15, 16 and 17. You will note that the punishments, on conviction, include the possibility of significant terms of imprisonment (up to 14 years on conviction on indictment).

Given that I’ve brought these matters to your attention in the course of your employment I think you should also read Section 19 with care.

You will notice the obligation on you to provide the Police with information about all relevant offences within your knowledge. Not to do so is an offence under Section 19 of the Act.

More broadly, I believe you have a legal duty to inform your staff of this information. They, similarly, have an obligation under section 19 to draw offences of which they are aware to the attention to the Police.

I fully understand that you will require to take legal advice before deciding how to proceed but I think that, once the question is asked, the matter is remarkably straightforward (if potentially hugely disturbing to some).

If civil servants in the Treasury persist in unlawful actions in connection with Afghanistan it seems to me that you place yourselves and those under your authority in a highly precarious legal and moral position.

I suggest that if legal advice confirms my opinion, that you have a duty to inform Treasury civil servants about the implications of the Terrorism Act 2000 for their current, past and future actions.

Additionally, I anticipate that there will be a need to inform ministers, including the Prime Minister, of the position.

I am copying this letter to Sir Augustine O’Donnell, Cabinet Secretary. I have separately written to him in more detail of how the situation that I perceive arose, not least by virtue of the (in my opinion) negligent and fraudulent legal advice given by Peter Goldsmith in March 2003.

I am also copying this letter to Jonathan Baume of the First Division Association, whose members are likely to wish to understand their position in this matter. The latter might also wish to be aware that I have drawn my concerns on this matter to the attention of Sir William Jeffrey, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and Sir Graham Stirrup, Chief of the Defence Staff.

Thank you.

Your sincerely



Andrew H Watt

Addressee:

Sir Nicholas MacPherson
Permanent Secretary
HM Treasury
1 Horseguards Road
London
SW1A 2HQ

cc.

Sir Augustine O’Donnell
Cabinet Secretary
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS.

Jonathan Baume
First Division Association
8 Leake Street
London
SE1 7NN

George Osborne's secret choice: Spending public money unlawfully on terrorism in Afghanistan or spending on hospitals and schools in the UK

Earlier this week the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed the House of Commons about the so-called Comprehensive Spending Review.

One critically important piece of information was withheld from the House of Commons by Mr Osborne.

He did not disclose to the House of Commons, so far as I can ascertain, that the UK military action in Afghanistan is "terrorism", as defined in Subsections 1(1) to 1(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The effect of that concealment by Mr Osborne is that the House of Commons was not informed that public money is being spent for the purposes of terrorism in Afghanistan.

The House of Commons deserves not to be deceived.

The British public deserves not to be deceived.

The House of Commons, and the British people, deserve to make an informed decision about whether the UK spends £20-25 billion in 2010-2015 unlawfully on terrorism in Afghanistan or spends that money at home on schools, hospitals and other lawful ends.

Will Mr Osborne now come clean about Britain's terrorism in Afghanistan?

Silence by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee - the silence of conspiracy or the silence of serious consideration?

On 4th October 2010 I wrote to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, sending the committtee a written submission in connection with the committee's inquiry, "The UK's Foreign Policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan."

The written submission focussed on concerns that UK military action in Afghanistan was (and is) "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The written submission was acknowledged and given the reference number AFPAK12.

At the time of composing this post I have not been invited by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to give oral evidence.

Broadly, two possibilities occur to me: that the silence indicates that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee are seeking quietly to "lose" the submission or that they are taking steps, initially privately, to seek to determine whether my written submission has merit.

Unfortunately, I sense that the former interpretation is more likely to accord with the political instincts of members of the UK Parliament.

Accordingly, earlier today I sent the following email to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:

Mr Ottaway and Sir Menzies,

I am writing to inquire whether I will be called to give oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in connection with my written submission, AFPAK12.

You are each aware that I believe that the UK Armed Forces are committing serious terrorist offences contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000 on an ongoing basis in Afghanistan.

I notice that others have been invited to give oral evidence but hitherto I have not. Given the seriousness of the concerns that I express in my submission to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (AFPAK12) I consider that thorough and prompt public examination of these issues is imperative.

To fail to do so would, in my view, be a breach of duty on the part of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

My submission, AFPAK12, is focussed tightly on the first of the expressed Terms of Reference of the Inquiry: "How appropriate and effective is the UK’s current foreign policy approach towards both Afghanistan and Pakistan?"

If, as I believe, the UK policy in Afghanistan has involved and continues to involve criminal offences by UK politicians, civil servants and military personnel then the UK foreign policy in Afghanistan has to be grossly inappropriate, not least because it is unlawful in its implementation and effects.

If there is a possibility that the policy, in its implementation, has caused (and will continue to cause) multiple criminal offences contrary to UK Law to be committed it seems to me that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has a duty publicly and urgently to explore the issue.

To fail publicly to investigate such a question seems to me to be a gross dereliction of duty. If my view is correct then that failure may additionally constitute misconduct in public office, criminal conspiracy and contempt of Parliament by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee collectively and individually.

Of course, I recognise the possibility that a thorough public examination of the issues could, in theory, demonstrate that I am wrong. That is not a possibility that I fear. It seems to me more likely that the Foreign Affairs Committee may be concerned that the opposite is true - that I am right and that the UK has prosecuted an unlawful military "terrorist" adventure in Afghanistan since 2001.

The scandal of unlawful terrrorism by the United Kingdom in Afghanistan and in Iraq is of such enormity that it dwarfs the Watergate Scandal of the last century.

Accordingly, the political imperatives leading the Foreign Affairs Committee towards covering up the uncomfortable question I ask include the following:

1. The so-called "War on Terrorism" is being, and always has been, fought on false pretences since the UK has itself been carrying out "acts of terrorism" as defined in its own Law (specifically the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrrorism) Act 1993) in Afghanistan since 2001 (and in Iraq since no later than July 2000).

2. Some £20 billion of public money has been spent for the purposes of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. The UK taxpayer has, to the best of my knowledge, at no stage been informed that tax monies are being used for the purposes of terrorism ( such funding being contrary to Sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000).

3. Former prime ministers (Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) and the current prime minister (David Cameron) have committed offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 meriting, on conviction, a punishment of imprisonment for life. Such offences have been committed with respect to Iraq and/or Afghanistan, repectively.

However, there are also political imperatives which may cause the Foreign Affairs Committee to move from the preceding instinctive tendency to "see no evil":

1. The current Spending Review seeks to identify savings that can be made. Simply ceasing unlawful military action in Afghanistan will save some £5 billion per annum. In that setting can the Foreign Affairs Select Committee remain silent and have any credibility?

2. MPs who premeditatedly allow money to continue to be spent unlawfully are, in effect, allowing hospitals and schools, perhaps in their own constituencies, to close and tens of thousands of public servants unnecessarily to lose their jobs. Such MPs would be in a hugely (and potentially fatally) embarassing career position as a credible politician.

3. If the Foreign Affairs Committee fails properly to investigate this matter then the blood of each British soldier who dies in Afghanistan, after the date of my AFPAK12 submission, effectively lies on the hands of the members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

4. If the Foreign Affairs Committee fails properly to investigate this matter then the pain of injured soldiers and families of the dead who later discover that they gave their lives or limbs as "terrorists" (in the meaning of Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000) lies on the conscience of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and its individual members.

I have written the preceding parts of this email as if the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's silence regarding my submission reflects a failure to fulfil its duty.

I am open to being convinced that the current lack of visible activity by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on this important matter reflects the committee taking time to seek legal advice and to take other appropriate and necessary steps in order to comply with the Foreign Affairs Committee's duties to Parliament and the United Kingdom public.

It seems to me that a properly conducted investigation by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee would, at a minimum, address the following questions:

1. Is UK military action in Afghanistan "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000? If the answer is, as I believe, "Yes" then the following questions also need to be addressed.

2. Are UK military personnel fighting in Afghanistan "terrorists" as defined in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000? If, as I believe, the answer is "Yes" then don't British soldiers have a basic human right to be informed that they are fighting, losing limbs and dying as "terrorists"?

3. Does current UK military action in Afghanistan involve the commission of offences by UK politicians, for example Section 56 offences by the prime minister, David Cameron, and individual members of the National Security Council who "direct" operations in Afghanistan?

4. Have senior Ministry of Defence personnel (specifically Sir Bill Jeffrey, Sir Graham Stirrup and General Sir Peter Wall) acted in contempt of Parliament by concealing from Parliament evidence that military action in Afghanistan may be "terrorism" contained in the Addendum to AFPAK12 (in addition to individual Section 56 offences by the three named individuals)?

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has a choice before it. It can choose to behave with integrity and investigate the prima facie evidence in my submission AFPAK12 that the UK military are committing terrorist offences in Afghanistan. Or it can choose to cover the matter up and behave, collectively and individually, as eleven monkeys who choose to "see no evil".

The US Senate had the courage and integrity at the time of Watergate publicly to investigate the criminal actions of a United States President. I await with interest to observe whether the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the UK Parliament will similarly publicly demonstrate integrity in investigating the criminal activities of the current UK prime minister David Cameron and his two immediate predecessors, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.

Andrew Watt

P.S. This email is copied individually to the other nine Foreign Affairs Select Committee members and to the consituency and Westminster offices of my MP, Malcolm Bruce, with whom I separately raised my concerns on this matter (copying those concerns to Sir Menzies Campbell). I am also copying this email to Gordon Brown, following my "cease and desist" letter to him in February this year (A copy of that letter is available to the Committee on request).

The text of this letter and the identity of the visible recipients will be placed today on my "Westminster's Cheating Us" blog.

Nick Clegg was informed on 13th February 2010 that the Afghanistan War was illegal

In my preceding post, David Cameron was informed on 13th February 2010 that the Afghanistan war was illegal, I demonstrated that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was informed some months ago that the Afghanistan war was unlawful.

What of the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg? Is he an innocent in this matter?

The answer is "No" since he, too, was informed of concerns regarding the legality of the Afghanistan War sent on 13th February 2010 in the email whose text follows.

URGENT FAO Nick Clegg: Afghan War unlawful by virtue of UK Law

Mr Clegg,

I ask you as a matter of urgency to seek legal advice, since I believe the Afghan War is unlawful in UK law by virtue of it meeting the definition of "terrorism" in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

I am aware that on the floor of the House you support the troop's actions. In so doing, you are supporting "terrorism" as defined in UK law and lauding the actions of those who are committing criminal offences specified in the Terrorism Act 2000.

See

http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/regime-change-by-violence-act-of.html

for one description of the argument, and here for another (with a little polemic too, but a detailed legal argument later in the post):

http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/tony-blairs-first-life-sentence-hes.html

I believe you have a duty to investigate this as a matter of urgency given that:

1. The British Armed Forces are acting contrary to UK law

2. British Officers would be liable to life imprisonment on conviction by virtue of committing offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000

3. British soldiers who die or are maimed are doing as "terrorists" as defined in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

4. Use of public funds for unlawful purpose makes many civil servants liable to prosecution, in addition to specific offences detailed in Sections 15 to 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Andrew Watt

Since Nick Clegg was informed about the illegality of the Afghanistan War in February 2010, why is he now committing offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000?

That is an important question that Mr. Clegg should answer publicly.

David Cameron was informed on 13th February 2010 that the Afghanistan war was illegal

On 13th February 2010 I sent the following email to David Cameron MP.

Since that time he knew, or had the opportunity to know, that the war in Afghanistan was illegal.

URGENT FAO David Cameron: Afghan War Unlawful in UK Law

Mr Cameron,

I ask you as a matter of urgency to seek legal advice, since I believe the Afghan War is unlawful in UK law by virtue of it meeting the definition of "terrorism" in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

I am aware that on the floor of the House you support the troop's actions. In so doing, you are supporting "terrorism" as defined in UK law and lauding the actions of those who are committing criminal offences specified in the Terrorism Act 2000.

See

http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/regime-change-by-violence-act-of.html

for one description of the argument, and here for another (with a little polemic too, but a detailed legal argument later in the post):

http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/tony-blairs-first-life-sentence-hes.html

I believe you have a duty to investigate this as a matter of urgency given that:

1. The British Armed Forces are acting contrary to UK law

2. British Officers would be liable to life imprisonment on conviction by virtue of committing offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000

3. British soldiers who die or are maimed are doing so as "terrorists" as defined in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

4. Use of public funds for unlawful purpose makes many civil servants liable to prosecution, in addition to specific offences detailed in Sections 15 to 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Andrew Watt

Mr Cameron, in directing the United Kingdom's military action in Afghanistan is committing offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

On conviction, he will be liable to imprisonment for life.

Written Submission to the UK Parliament's Treasury Select Committee

Today I sent to the UK Parliament's Treasury Select Committee a written submission in the context of their Inquiry into the Comprehensive Spending Review.

If my view is correct that the UK's actions in Afghanistan are "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 then some £5 billion per year can be saved simply by ceasing unlawful military action in Afghanistan.

Of course the Treasury Select Committee members will have a natural desire to "see no evil" but will they wish to jeapordise their political career and their legacy by failing fully to investigate?

For relevant background as to why I consider the UK's actions in Afghanistan to be "terrorism" as defined in UK Law see The Use of armed force by UK military personnel has been unlawful in UK law since 20th July 2000 and An account of the illegality of the UK military action in Afghanistan since 2001.

Submissions to UK Parliament Select Committees regarding the UK's terrorism in Afghanistan

Today I sent separate but related submissions to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the Defence Select Committee of the UK Parliament spelling out why UK military action in Afghanistan is, and has been since October 2001, "terrorism" in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee is conducting an inquiry entitled, "The UK's foreign policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan".

The Defence Select Committee is conducting an inquiry entitled, "Ensuring Success in Afghanistan: The Role of the UK Armed Forces".

The normal practice of UK Parliament Select Committees is to publish all evidence sent to them. I gave each Select Committee explicit permission to publish the evidence I sent. If they choose not to publish my interpretation will be clear - the committee and/or its secretariat are conspiring to conceal the terrorist nature of UK military involvement in Afghanistan.

I will watch with interest to see if these Select Committees of the UK Parliament follow the odious lead of a former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, who covered up criminality by a small number of British soldiers on "Bloody Sunday" in 1972.

The choice before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the Defence Select Committee is much more stark. Multiple senior UK politicians, civil servants and military personnel have committed offences contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000.

Since prominent individuals such as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron have committed offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (which carries a penalty, on conviction, of life imprisonment) the political instincts of the MPs on the Select Committees will inevitably be to "see no evil".

If two Select Committees of the UK Parliament conspire to conceal multiple serious terrorist offences by multiple prominent UK politicians it will make Watergate seem a mere tea party by comparison.

Will any member of either Select Committee have sufficient integrity publicly to ask serious questions? I'm not holding my breath.

New article on the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War

Some readers of Westminster's Cheating Us may not be aware of my Chilcot's Cheating Us blog.

I've just added a new article there about how Sir John Chilcot might be using a pretext of "sensitive information" to shield Gordon Brown from full public scrutiny of his unlawful actions relating to the Iraq War.

The article is here: Is Chilcot protecting Gordon Brown on the basis of "sensitive information"?

Is David Cameron "Botox boy"?

Yesterday, The Candidates’ Debate – Simon and Garfunkel got it right. We lose., I wrote about the Orwellian nature of the debate between the party leaders. Some candidates are more equal than others. It's an approach that doesn't belong in a genuine and mature democracy.

Today, I want to focus on an apparently trivial question, indeed a cosmetic question. Is David Cameron a Botox boy?

While I was watching the candidates' debate last night I was struck by the immobility of David Cameron's features.

At first I put it down to him being terrified, which he clearly was.

But, as the debate progressed, his terror seemed to ease but his face remained wooden.

He's a bit young to have Parkinson's disease, as an explanation for his facial immobility.

My hypothesis is that David Cameron uses Botox.

He is clearly vain. Did you notice the assiduous combover (held in place by hairspray?) in the brief camera shot which showed David Cameron's bald patch?

Wrinkles and bald patch convey aging. Not a concept that David Cameron currently wants to be associated with.

Does anyone know whether or not David Cameron is using Botox?

The use of Botox is a little more than skin deep. Do David Cameron's deceptions go deeper too?

What one can't argue with is that David Cameron is the Hyacinth Bucket of British politics. He works hard at keeping up appearances.

The Candidates’ Debate – Simon and Garfunkel got it right. We lose.

The television debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg is a UK first. Despite the hype surrounding the candidates’ debate, the sad fact is that many of us lose, whichever way you look at it. Just as Simon and Garfunkel told Mrs Robinson:

Going to the candidates' debate,
Laugh about it,
Shout about it,
When you've got to choose,
Every way you look at it, you lose.

Voters lose. Not least in terms of democracy.

Why?

Some candidates are more equal than others. Some voters are more equal than others.

Something is malodorous in the body politic of the United Kingdom. Perhaps it’s the smell of dead democracy.

How can it be right that in a supposed democracy the electorate hears only some of the party leaders in a candidates’ debate?

In effect the media have decided which party leaders are to be given the hugely important but intangible support in the General Election of air time and column inches. In a democracy should unelected individuals and organisations be allowed to bias the result in such a way?

A system where some candidates are more equal than others is visibly Orwellian.

If the UK is a democracy then all Prime Ministerial candidates should, by law, get the same right to media exposure.

Not only are some candidates more equal than others, it’s also the case that some voters are more equal than others.

Like most UK voters I am unable, by virtue of where I live, to vote for Brown, Cameron or Clegg (even if I were minded to vote for any of the three). Having a candidates’ debate among three individuals that more than 90% of UK voters are unable directly to vote for or elect to any office is bizarre.

Since I can’t vote for these individuals I have no direct way to hold them accountable, even by the very loose standard of accountability of my vote every four or five years.

Worse, many voters have no practical way even indirectly to express their response to this visibly biased candidates’ debate. How, for example, is a Labour voter in a predominantly Conservative constituency supposed to make his or her voice heard? It’s impossible. Such votes are essentially worthless.

The current UK constituency system deprives many voters of any practical possibility of casting a vote that influences the outcome of either the constituency election or the national election.

When the votes of a significant minority of voters count for nothing it’s the worst kind of Postcode Lottery. A Postcode Lottery that does not belong in a mature democracy.

A democracy should be about the people. When many of those people have, effectively, no vote something is seriously amiss.

Some candidates are more equal than others. Some voters are more equal than others.

Only those in an Orwellian Ministry of Truth can reasonably contend that the United Kingdom is currently a genuine democracy.

I have said it before and it remains true: Westminster’s Cheating Us.

Gordon Brown's offences contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are the largest financial crimes in UK history

I have explained in articles elsewhere that the United Kingdom's military interventions in Afghanistan (since 2001) and Iraq (2003 and on) are "terrorism" in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

See for example,The Use of armed force by UK military personnel has been unlawful in UK law since 20th July 2000 and An account of the illegality of the UK military action in Afghanistan since 2001 for introductions to various aspects of this important topic.

If we assume that the UK's military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are "terrorism" several things follow, one of which is that Gordon Brown has committed very serious criminal offences contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

For convenience, I'll reproduce the text of Section 15 here:

15 Fund-raising

(1) A person commits an offence if he—

(a) invites another to provide money or other property, and

(b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

(2) A person commits an offence if he—

(a) receives money or other property, and

(b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

(3) A person commits an offence if he—

(a) provides money or other property, and

(b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

(4) In this section a reference to the provision of money or other property is a reference to its being given, lent or otherwise made available, whether or not for consideration.

In his evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry on 5th March 2010, Gordon Brown stated that he had provided around £9 billion to support the Iraq War.

Given that the Iraq War is "terrorism" then Gordon Brown has, in his roles as Chancellor of the Exchequer and then First Lord of the Treasury (Prime Minister) used some £9 billion of public funds to fund "terrorism" in Iraq, contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Futher, since 2001 estimates indicate that Gordon Brown, in his aforementioned roles, has used about £12 billion of public money in Afghanistan, contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In total Gordon Brown has used some £20 billion of public money for purposes which are unlawful.

I believe that Gordon Brown in so doing has committed the largest financial crimes in United Kingdom history.

Britain needs a written constitution

The absence of a written constitution is one of the factors that made it possible for Tony "The Terrorist" Blair (see my article here on the Chilcot's Cheating Us blog for the background) to take the United Kingdom into an unlawful war in Iraq.

The absence of a written constitution makes it possible for governments and others in positions of power to make up the rules as they go along.

If the rules aren't clear it encourages abuse of power without any proper checks and balances to rein in such abuses.

Party politicians in positions of power will oppose real accountability. The feeble accountability of a General Election needs to be bolstered by a legally enforceable written constitution.

Serious transgressions by politicians, including Government ministers, should be open to investigation by the Police and to trial in open court.

In fact, a worthwhile written constitution should impose a duty on the Police to investigate prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by politicians or senior civil servants.

The First Past the Post system is antidemocracy, not democracy

The first past the post electoral system is one aspect of how a British General Election cheats the British people.

The effect of a first past the post system is to remove representation in government for around four or five years from around two thirds of the people who vote.

That is not democracy!

It's the opposite of democracy. It's antidemocracy in action.

Antidemocracy is the foundation of the current, odious system at Westminster.

It needs to change.

Westminster is Cheating Us

The Westminster's Cheating Us blog is intended to explore some of the issues which have led to my own disillusionment with British parliamentary democracy (sic).

And sick is what many British people are of the chronic dissembling, deceit, denial and dishonesty of Westminster politicians.

We, the British people, are being cheated by a tawdry system that produces tawdry government.

I believe it should change.

With a little luck ... or a lot of luck ... the Westminster's Cheating Us blog might make some contribution to change.