Craig Murray's Blog, page 208

Update – Cameron's Patriotism

UPDATE

Exactly as predicted, the broadcast media this morning are hailing Cameron's patriotism in opposing a financial transaction tax and "Protecting the City of London", as though this were the Blitz.

Both the BBC and Sky News have featured economists "explaining" what a bad thing a financial transaction tax would be for the City of London. Both were employed by institutions which would have to pay the tax – a fact which was not pointed out.

Despite the fact that a large majority of academic economists, the European Commission, 23 European governmnets, the Obama administration, and Vince Cable before he got his ministerial chauffeur, all believe that a transaction tax is an essential step towards preventing the banking speculation that caused this whole mess, the media are not presenting anyone who believes in the transaction tax.

No, the media narrative is simple. It's fighting off the Johnny foreigner, Batting for Britain.

What a load of crap.

End of update: here is yesterday's piece:

The xenophobic yaah-booing of the Tories over the demand for Cameron to show the "Bulldog spirit" is Europe is quite sickening. It is astonishing that the broadcast media have universally bought in to the spin that Cameron is "Defending Britain" by opposing the banking transaction tax, that all other major European powers want.

Cameron is not defending Britain. He is defending his banking paymasters. A transaction tax is essential to discourage multiple speculative transactions and other banking practices which have shown they can wreck entire national economies. Cameron's opposition to the transaction tax should be vilified as reckless and a blatant pursuit of class interest, not universally lauded as "patriotic".

Our schadenfreude at Germany's difficulties is misplaced. Germany remains a much better economy than the UK. They manufacture a great deal more and thus have a much better balanced economy. Despite having swallowed East Germany, German GDP per capita is once again higher than that of the UK, by about 3%.

Crucially, as shown in the recent OECD report, income in Germany is much more fairly distributed than in the UK. The UK in fact is twice as unequal. In the UK the top ten per cent of the population have an average income that is twelve times that of the bottom ten per cent. The same figure for Germany is six times. What is more, inequality in Germany has been falling for the last six years, whereas in the UK it is accelerating.

Yet the German economy has outgrown the UK economy in the same period. That is impossible, according to every TV pundit I have seen in the last month. "It is massive reward for thrusting executives that encourages them to put the dynamic effort in, that leads to economic growth and drags the low paid mere mortals along behind them. If the gap between rich and poor is not colossal and widening, the economy cannot perform as well. Otherwise these vital high earners will desert us and move to Singapore."

The mantra that economic growth must entail a widening wealth gap is scarcely challenged in the mainstream media narrative. But it is plainly untrue. In Germany in 1990 the top 1% of income "earners" received a staggering 11.1% of total national incomes. By 2007 that figure was – still 11.1%. By contrast in the UK in 1990 the top 1% took 9.9% of national income. By 2007 that figure had shot up to 14.2%. And all the indications are that in the last four years it has accelerated still faster, almost certainly now over 16%.

So if those braying conservatives are right about what makes economies grow, our economy should be streaking ahead of Germany. But it isn't, quite the opposite. Meanwhile the "right wing" Merkel has overseen a greater drop in inequality than Britain has seen in two generations.

A period of humility from Britain is called for. Those braying Tory MPs are fools.

Abusing Our Betters

The xenophobic yaah-booing of the Tories over the demand for Cameron to show the "Bulldog spirit" is Europe is quite sickening. It is astonishing that the broadcast media have universally bought in to the spin that Cameron is "Defending Britain" by opposing the banking transaction tax, that all other major European powers want.

Cameron is not defending Britain. He is defending his banking paymasters. A transaction tax is essential to discourage multiple speculative transactions and other banking practices which have shown they can wreck entire national economies. Cameron's opposition to the transaction tax should be vilified as reckless and a blatant pursuit of class interest, not universally lauded as "patriotic".

Our schadenfreude at Germany's difficulties is misplaced. Germany remains a much better economy than the UK. They manufacture a great deal more and thus have a much better balanced economy. Despite having swallowed East Germany, German GDP per capita is once again higher than that of the UK, by about 3%.

Crucially, as shown in the recent OECD report, income in Germany is much more fairly distributed than in the UK. The UK in fact is twice as unequal. In the UK the top ten per cent of the population have an average income that is twelve times that of the bottom ten per cent. The same figure for Germany is six times. What is more, inequality in Germany has been falling for the last six years, whereas in the UK it is accelerating.

Yet the German economy has outgrown the UK economy in the same period. That is impossible, according to every TV pundit I have seen in the last month. "It is massive reward for thrusting executives that encourages them to put the dynamic effort in, that leads to economic growth and drags the low paid mere mortals along behind them. If the gap between rich and poor is not colossal and widening, the economy cannot perform as well. Otherwise these vital high earners will desert us and move to Singapore."

The mantra that economic growth must entail a widening wealth gap is scarcely challenged in the mainstream media narrative. But it is plainly untrue. In Germany in 1990 the top 1% of income "earners" received a staggering 11.1% of total national incomes. By 2007 that figure was – still 11.1%. By contrast in the UK in 1990 the top 1% took 9.9% of national income. By 2007 that figure had shot up to 14.2%. And all the indications are that in the last four years it has accelerated still faster, almost certainly now over 16%.

So if those braying conservatives are right about what makes economies grow, our economy should be streaking ahead of Germany. But it isn't, quite the opposite. Meanwhile the "right wing" Merkel has overseen a greater drop in inequality than Britain has seen in two generations.

A period of humility from Britain is called for. Those braying Tory MPs are fools.

Independent Coup

I don't buy newspapers any more, but I strongly recommend that today everyone puts their hand in their pocket to support the Independent's tremendous work exposing the immoral – no, evil – work of political lobbyists and the way our politicians are bought and paid for.

You can work your way through all the articles online beginning with this one, where I get a kind mention. This all follows on beautifully – and genuinely by coincidence – from my blog post of yesterday,

In Bed With Lola and Gulnara

The Afghanistan conference in Bonn is a farce. There are no representatives of the Afghan resistance to the occupation, so it is not negotiating peace. Karzai's corrupt and effete presidency, obtained by massive electoral fraud, expires in 2014. It is no coincidence that immediately after that the NATO troops will leave. Be guaranteed that none of the Karzai family will remain in Afghanistan, but will rather retire to Switzerland with the many billions of dollars they have looted from UK and US taxpayers' funds, and made from the heroin trade.

Pakistan of course is not present at the conference. After approximately 6,000 Pakistanis were blown up by the USA on Pakistani soil, the next 25 were killed all at once and were all young soldiers, something that not even Pakistan's complacent, corrupt government could gloss over. So for now all of NATO's ground supplies are being shipped through Uzbekistan – the percentage of NATO supplies going that way was already increased to almost 50% and still rising fast as a matter of policy,

Lucky that Hillary has a new best friend in President Karimov

All of which explains why there has been not one single word of criticism of Uzbekistan's human rights record by the co-alition government in the UK. There was not one single mention of human rights, of child slave labour, of political prisoners, of free elections, unbanning the opposition, of freedom of assembly, speech or religious belief, when the British government hosted official Uzbek parliamentary and trade delegations last month. There was not one word either in public or in private on any of these subjects.

The current British government loves Karimov. It has never issued even the mildest criticism. Boiling people alive and torturing political opponents to death is fine by them. We even deport him back extra dissidents to practice on. This British government succesfully pushed through the EU new preferential tariff access for Uzbek cotton picked by eight year old child slaves.

The love affair with the British establishment goes wider than just this government. New Labour's chief financier, their own Lord Ashcroft, is a man named Andrew Rosenfeld. He has sold a house in Switzerland to Karimov's daughter Lola for three times its market value. Such huge payments in excess of market value are, very often, a spot of money laundering with the extra money being in return for something else.

Money flows both way – as previously reported here, Karimov's elder daughter Gulnara is getting a massive cut from the transport of all those NATO supplies through Uzbekistan.

But the latest bit of love-in with the Karimov family will astound you. William Hague is going to agree that Gulnara Karimova - the most hated person in Uzbekistan - can come and live in London as Uzbek Ambassador. The request for her to be accepted ("agrement" in diplomatic parlance, in French) – has been in for some time. The only obstacle remaining is to resolve how many of Gulnara's seven bodyguards will be allowed to carry semi-automatic weapons on the streets of London.

Among our major political parties, the notion of morality appears virtually as dead as it is to the Karimov family.

The Guardian Protects Gould-Werritty

The planned scenario for a war with Iran is playing out before our eyes at frightening speed now. Unfortunately. as I have frequently said, Iran has a regime that is not only thuggish but controlled by theocratic nutters: the attack on the British Embassy played perfectly into the hands of the neo-cons. William Hague is smirking like the cat who got the cream.

The importance of the Fox-Gould-Werritty scandal is that it lifts the lid on the fact that the move to war with Iran is not a reaction to any street attack or any nuclear agency report. It is a long nurtured plan, designed to keep feeding the huge military industrial war machine that has become a huge part of the UK and US economies, and whose sucking up of trillions of dollars has contributed massively to the financial crisis, and which forms a keystone in the whole South Sea Bubble corporate finance system for servicing the ultra-rich. They need constant, regenerative war. They feed on the shattered bodies of small children.

Gould, Fox and Werritty were plotting with Israel to further war with Iran over years. The Werritty scandal was hushed up by Gus O'Donnell's risibly meagre "investigation" – a blatant cover-up – and Fox resigned precisely to put a cap on any further digging into what they had been doing. I discovered – with a lot of determination and a modicum of effort – that Fox, Werritty and British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould had met many times, not the twice that Gus O'Donnell claimed, and had been in direct contact with Mossad over plans to attack Iran. Eventually the Independent published it, a fortnight after it went viral on the blogosphere.

The resignation of the Defence Secretary in a scandal is a huge political event. People still talk of the Profumo scandal 50 years later. But Fox's resignation was forgotten by the media within a fortnight, even though it is now proven that the Gus O'Donell official investigation into the affair was a tissue of lies.

Take only these undisputed facts:

Fox Gould and Werritty met at least five times more than the twice the official investigation claims

The government refuses to say how often Gould and Werritty met without Fox

The government refuses to release the Gould-Werritty correspondence

The three met with Mossad

How can that not be a news story? I spent the most frustrating fortnight of my life trying to get a newspaper – any newspaper – to publish even these bare facts. I concentrated my efforts on the Guardian.

I sent all my research, and all the evidence for it, in numeorus emails to the Guardian, including to David Leigh, Richard Norton-Taylor, Rupert Neate and Seumas Milne. I spoke to the first three, several times. I found a complete resistance to publishing anything on all those hidden Fox/Werritty/Gould meetings, or what they tell us about neo-con links with Israel.

Why? Guardian Media Group has a relationship with an Israel investment company, Apax, but the Guardian strongly denies that this has any effect on them.

The Guardian to this day has not published the fact that there were more Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings than O'Donnell disclosed. Why?

I contacted the Guardian to tell them I intended to publish this article, and invited them to give a statement. Here it is, From David Leigh, Associate Editor:

I hope your blogpost will carry the following response in full.

1. I know nothing of any Israeli stake in the ownership of the Guardian. As it is owned by the Scott Trust, not any Israelis, your suggestion sems a bit mad.

2. The Guardian has not "refused" to publish any information supplied by you. On the contrary, I personally have been spending my time looking into it, as I told you previously. I have no idea what the attitude of others in "the Guardian" is. I form my own opinions about what is worth publishing, and don't take dictation from others. That includes you.

3. I can't imagine what you are hinting at in your reference to Assange. If you've got a conspiracy theory, why don't you spit it out?

I can understand your frustration, Craig, when others don't join up the dots in the same way as you. But please try not to be offensive, defamatory, or plain daft about it.

As I said, it would be honest of you to publish my response in full if you want to go ahead with these unwarranted attacks on the Guardian's integrity.

Possible some Guardian readers will get drawn to this post: at least then they will find out that Werritty, Fox and Gould held many more meetings, hushed up by O'Donnell and hushed up by the Guardian.

It should not be forgotten that the Guardian never stopped supporting Blair and New Labour, even when he was presiding over illegal wars and the massive widening of the gap between rich and poor. My point about Assange is that he has done a great deal to undermine the neo-con war agenda – and the Guardian is subjecting him to a campaign of denigration. On the other hand Gould/Fox/Werritty were pushing a neo-con project for war – and the Guardian is actively complicit in the cover-up of their activities.

The Guardian. Whom does it serve?

The People Are Not Stupid

I have been most impressed today by the ordinary strikers who have been interviewed on all broadcast news media. While some of them have been very low paid, they have not just been talking about their own problems and their own pensions. They have rather continually referred to the fact that they are suffering so much because hundreds of billions of public money have been given to the bankers, who continue to give themselves massive salaries and bonuses. There have also been many references to tax evasion by the wealthy and their massive income increases.

Plainly this is not just a strike about specific pension issues; in the mind of the ordinary people, this is action against the sickening levels of inequality in society.

I have also been struck by the horrible braying Tories, who to a man have stripped off their masks of social decency. How long will the Lib Dems go along with it?

Unfortunately, much of the detail on pensions is, just as the difference between Osborne's and Balls' spending plans, is irrelevant. The effects of the inevitable collapse of the South Sea Bubble model of western economy, are only just starting to be felt. They are not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Ed Balls is suggesting there should be a few more deck chairs, and special chairs for the old and sick, and better pay and conditions for the crew. But the ship is still going down.

Paul Staines Grandstands for Blair and Murdoch

The neo-con Blair and Cameron regimes are very comfortable with each other. War criminal Alistair Campbell's "evidence" to the Leveson inquiry is risible.

"Only a few people in number 10 knew Cherie was pregnant, so it must have been phone hacking that led the Mirror to it" is a statement that would not stand ten seconds thought, if it were not ramped by being given the status of a leak.

Campbell's statement ignores the range of explanations as to how the Mirror could have learned from the "small number of people in No. 10″ that Cherie was pregnant. These include:

a) gossip

b) No 10′s motive to get the news out to boost Tony's popularity

c) the hospital

d) phone hacking

Phone hacking is the least possible explanation. My money is on b)

No, this is a rather pathetic attempt by the Blair camp to divert attention from Murdoch onto Piers Morgan, who the war criminals have never forgiven for his opposition to the War in Iraq. It is so blatant a ploy that it needs an extra boost to the story as a daring "leak" by the Tory neo-con PR man Paul Staines, to be a succesful diversionary tactic.

Blairites and Tories get together to manufacture an incident to take the heat off Murdoch at Leveson Inquiry. That is the real story.

Gould-Werritty Plot Finally Mainstream

The Independent on Sunday have bitten the bullet and openly questioned what Matthew Gould was doing in all those meetings with Adam Werritty, and why Gus O'Donnell lied about them.

They have an interesting new line from an FCO spokesman:

"The FCO has total confidence that Matthew Gould has acted appropriately at all times and at no stage was he acting independently, or out of line with government policy," a spokesman said yesterday.

So "British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday" – Jerusalem Post 29 May 2011 is therefore a statement of official British government policy. Good to know.

We have not only at last made the mainstream media, we have made the mainstream counter-media:

The Third Man

This is the link for the video recording of the Public Administration Committee meeting at which Paul Flynn MP was prevented from asking questions about the role of the third man, Matthew Gould, in the Fox-Werritty plot to promote a war with Iran.

The key action starts 1 hour and thirty minutes in (use the slider). The actions of long term paid zionist shill Robert Halfon – whose whole career has been bought and paid for by Werritty's main sponsor Poju Zabludowicz – and the neo-con committee chairman, Bernard Jenkin, in suppressing free speech by an MP are despicable. Anyone who does not believe there is a fierce Tory cover-up of Gould's role must watch this. Anyone who believes parliamentary democracy is still more than a sham should watch it too.

Which brings me to the extraordinary refusal of my freedom of information request for the Gould/Werritty correspondence. The refusal of my request came back in just one hour and fifteen minutes – about three weeks shorter than usual – and astonishingly at 11.31pm. The FCO refuses to meet its Freedom of Information Act obligation to provide the Gould/Werritty correspondence because it would be "too costly" to do so.

But did not Sir Gus O'Donnell just conduct a full and thorough investigation into the role of Adam Werritty in association with Liam Fox? And would not such a full and thorough investigation have gathered together all the relevant documentation, and particularly correspondence between Werritty and senior British diplomats?

There are two alternatives. Either the material is already collected, in which case there is no cost to collecting it, and the response to my Freedom of Information request is both illegal and a deliberate lie. Or the documentation was never collected and the Gus O'Donnell investigation was a complete sham.

Either is not good. Yet there is no other possible explanation.

Gould-Werritty: A Real Conspiracy, Not a Theory

There is a huge government cover-up in progress over the Werritty connection to Mossad and the role of British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould, and their neo-con plan to start a war with Iran.

Yesterday at 22.15pm I submitted by email a Freedom of Information request for:

All communications in either direction ever made between Matthew Gould and Adam Werritty, specifically including communications made outside government systems.

At 23.31pm I was astonished to get a reply from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The request was refused as it was

"likely to exceed the cost limit".

Now it is plainly nonsense that to gather correspondence between two named individuals would be too expensive. They could just ask Gould.

And a reply at nearly midnight? The Freedom of Information team in the FCO is not a 24 hour unit. Plainly not only are they hiding the Gould/Werritty correspondence, they are primed and on alert for this cover-up operation.

Even more blatant was the obstruction of MP Paul Flynn, when he attempted to question Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell on the Gould-Werritty connection at the House of Commons Public Administration Committee. These are the minutes: anybody who believes in democracy should feel their blood boil as you read them:

Publc Admininstration Committee 24/11/2011

Q Paul Flynn: Okay. Matthew Gould has been the subject of a very serious complaint from two of my constituents, Pippa Bartolotti and Joyce Giblin. When they were briefly imprisoned in Israel, they met the ambassador, and they strongly believe—it is nothing to do with this case at all—that he was serving the interest of the Israeli Government, and not the interests of two British citizens. This has been the subject of correspondence.

In your report, you suggest that there were two meetings between the ambassador and Werritty and Liam Fox. Questions and letters have proved that, in fact, six such meetings took place. There are a number of issues around this. I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories, but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist and he has previously served in Iran, in the service. Werritty is a self-proclaimed—

Robert Halfon: Point of order, Chairman. What is the point of this?

Paul Flynn:> Let me get to it. Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran.

Chair:> I have to take a point of order.

Robert Halfon:> Mr Flynn is implying that the British ambassador to Israel is working for a foreign power, which is out of order.

Paul Flynn:> I quote the Daily Mail: "Mr Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran and has made several visits. He has also met senior Israeli officials, leading to accusations"—not from me, from the Daily Mail—"that he was close to the country's secret service, Mossad." There may be nothing in that, but that appeared in a national newspaper.

Chair:> I am going to rule on a point of order. Mr Flynn has made it clear that there may be nothing in these allegations, but it is important to have put it on the record. Be careful how you phrase questions.

Paul Flynn:> Indeed. The two worst decisions taken by Parliament in my 25 years were the invasion of Iraq—joining Bush's war in Iraq—and the invasion of Helmand province. We know now that there were things going on in the background while that built up to these mistakes. The charge in this case is that Werritty was the servant of neo-con people in America, who take an aggressive view on Iran. They want to foment a war in Iran in the same way as in the early years, there was another—

Chair:> Order. I must ask you to move to a question that is relevant to the inquiry.

Q Paul Flynn:> Okay. The question is, are you satisfied that you missed out on the extra four meetings that took place, and does this not mean that those meetings should have been investigated because of the nature of Mr Werritty's interests?

Sir Gus O'Donnell:> I think if you look at some of those meetings, some people are referring to meetings that took place before the election.

Q Paul Flynn:> Indeed, which is even more worrying.

Sir Gus O'Donnell:> I am afraid they were not the subject—what members of the Opposition do is not something that the Cabinet Secretary should look into. It is not relevant.

But these meetings were held—

Chair:> Mr Flynn, would you let him answer please?

Sir Gus O'Donnell:> I really do not think that was within my context, because they were not Ministers of the Government and what they were up to was not something I should get into at all.

Chair:> Final question, Mr Flynn.

Q Paul Flynn:> No, it is not a final question. I am not going to be silenced by you, Chairman; I have important things to raise. I have stayed silent throughout this meeting so far.

You state in the report—on the meeting held between Gould, Fox and Werritty, on 6 February, in Tel Aviv—that there was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK ambassador was present. Are you following the line taken by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who says that he can eat with lobbyists or people applying to his Department because, on occasions, he eats privately, and on other occasions he eats ministerially? Are you accepting the idea? It is possibly a source of great national interest—the eating habits of their Secretary of State. It appears that he might well have a number of stomachs, it has been suggested, if he can divide his time this way. It does seem to be a way of getting round the ministerial code, if people can announce that what they are doing is private rather than ministerial.

Sir Gus O'Donnell:> The important point here was that, when the Secretary of State had that meeting, he had an official with him—namely, in this case, the ambassador. That is very important, and I should stress that I would expect our ambassador in Israel to have contact with Mossad. That will be part of his job. It is totally natural, and I do not think that you should infer anything from that about the individual's biases. That is what ambassadors do. Our ambassador in Pakistan will have exactly the same set of wide contacts.

Q Paul Flynn:> I have good reason, as I said, from constituency matters, to be unhappy about the ambassador. Other criticisms have been made about the ambassador; he is unique in some ways in the role he is performing. There have been suggestions that he is too close to a foreign power.

Robert Halfon:> On a point of order, Chair, this is not about the ambassador to Israel. This is supposed to be about the Werritty affair.

Paul Flynn:> It is absolutely crucial to this report. If neo-cons such as yourself, Robert, are plotting a war in Iran, we should know about it.

Chair:> Order. I think the line of questioning is very involved. I have given you quite a lot of time, Mr Flynn. If you have further inquiries to make of this, they could be pursued in correspondence. May I ask you to ask one final question before we move on?

Sir Gus O'Donnell:> One thing I would stress: we are talking about the ambassador and I think he has a right of reply. Mr Chairman, I know there is an interesting question of words regarding Head of the Civil Service versus Head of the Home Civil Service, but this is the Diplomatic Service, not the Civil Service.

Q Chair:> So he is not in your jurisdiction at all.

Sir Gus O'Donnell:> No.

Q Paul Flynn:> But you are happy that your report is final; it does not need to go the manager it would have gone to originally, and that is the end of the affair. Is that your view?

Sir Gus O'Donnell:> As I said, some issues arose where I wanted to be sure that what the Secretary of State was doing had been discussed with the Foreign Secretary. I felt reassured by what the Foreign Secretary told me.

Q Chair:> I think what Mr Flynn is asking is that your report and the affair raise other issues, but you are saying that that does not fall within the remit of your report and that, indeed, the conduct of an ambassador does not fall within your remit at all.

Sir Gus O'Donnell:> That is absolutely correct.

Paul Flynn:> The charge laid by Lord Turnbull in his evidence with regard to Dr Fox and the ministerial code was his failure to observe collective responsibility, in that case about Sri Lanka. Isn't the same charge there about our policies to Iran and Israel?

Chair:> We have dealt with that, Mr Flynn.

Paul Flynn:> We haven't dealt with it as far as it applies—

Chair:> Mr Flynn, we are moving on.

Paul Flynn:> You may well move on, but I remain very unhappy about the fact that you will not allow me to finish the questioning I wanted to give on a matter of great importance.

It is shocking but true that Robert Halfon MP, who disrupted Flynn with repeated points of order, receives funding from precisely the same Israeli sources as Werritty, and in particular from Mr Poju Zabludowicz. He also formerly had a full time paid job as Political Director of the Conservative Friends of Israel.

But despite the evasiveness of O'Donnell and the obstruction of paid zionist puppet Halfon, O'Donnell confirms vital parts of my investigation. In particular he agrees that the Fox-Werritty-Gould "private dinner" in Tel Aviv was with Mossad, and that Gould met Werritty many times more than the twice that O'Donnell listed in his "investigation" into this affair.

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

It is now evident that not only did Fox, Gould and Werritty have at least five meetings while Fox was in power – with never another British official present – they had several meetings while Fox was shadow Foreign Secretary. O'Donnell is right that what Fox and Werritty were up to in opposition is not his concern. But what Gould was doing with them – a senior official – most definitely is.

A senior British diplomat cannot just hold a series of meetings with the opposition shadow Defence Secretary and a paid zionist lobbyist. What on earth was happening?

The absolutely astonishing cover-up and lack of honesty from the government about the Fox-Gould-Werritty relationship is being maintained with cast-iron resolve. Not only is Gould a self-declared fervent zionist, he was born in the same year as Chancellor George Osborne and attended the same private school – St Paul's. At least some of the time he was meeting Fox and Werrity while they were in opposition, Gould was Private Secretary to New Labour Foreign Secretary David Milliband. That opens up the question of whether David Milliband, another fervent zionist, was part of the discussions with Mossad and US neo-cons on how to engineer war with Iran, for which Werritty was the conduit.

That would help explain the completeness of the cover-up. The government appears able with total impunity to refuse to answer MPs' questions on Gould/Fox/Werritty, and they will not respond to Freedom of Information requests. It is now proven without doubt that O'Donnell lied blatantly about the number of Gould-Fox-Werritty meetings, and that Mossad was involved. And yet every single British mainstream media outlet still refuses to mention it.

I know from a mole that the plot involves a plan to attack Iran. For the cover-up to be so blatant and yet so comprehensively maintained, the secret at the heart of this conspiracy must be great, and those complicit must include a very large swathe of the British political and media establishment.