Cat out of the bag! MI6 Gareth Williams, 'his sister' Cerri Subbe and other players.

Black and white photo-fit photos are the couple who apparently were seen at the apartment in the week or so preceding death.

If you click on the photos they can be viewed as larger images.

 

Just an observation!

Brian Haw and our dead children

Brian Haw was an individual who's character drove him to carry-out his protest in the way he chose. If he had a different make-up he would have approached this perhaps differently or most likely not at all. To understand his depth it helps to consider his faith and that he was a living embodiment of his faith (I am an atheist btw).

In Chpt23 of Matthew, Verse 33. Jesus says:
“Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgement of hell?”
that was Jesus expressing anger and there are many other examples. He was reported to have continued
"You are like whitewashed tombs – beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity.”

I think I understand something of Brian Haw's anger - he was exhaustively fighting for the lives and safety of 'his' children - our children, the world's children.

The question is; when will we all get angry, what will it take. Will it only be when you have your child in your hands and you are trying to hold their shattered body together in every way you possibly can, whilst their blood seeps through your fingers and their eyes slowly roll away?

Whatever characteristics combined to make Brian Haw the unique man he undoubtedly was, the result was one of extraordinary worth.

I am ashamed by the negative commentators at the time of his death, the ignorance of which astounds me. They were more concerned with his abrasive style and the detrimental visual effect of his camp. Brian Haw stood against war and harm to the innocent victims of war, especially children. How people could have comment so detrimentally against this outstanding peace campaigner is simply beyond my comprehension. I did not even recognise so many people failed to understand the heroic quality of his long vigil.

It is 'nuts' to support war and to decry those who call for peace - that is real insanity. It is our world that is mad, Brian Haw, eccentric or not, must have been the most sane of us all.

We allow our government to blow people's nation, homes and lives apart on wars waged on behalf of their corporate masters and yet people have the audacity to worry about one unsightly little corner in our city. What is the problem - did the sight of it prickle your consciences?

We can see that the new government are just new actors performing the same old play. But you cannot measure the effect protest has had on limiting the scope of this and other military acts of aggression.

Maybe we would already be at war with Iran if government thought nobody cared when they start bombing. Maybe the violence against Libya would have be even more ruthless than it appears to be. Today the papers are concerned with civilian deaths; is that as a result of your actions?

They gulp-down the narrative and spew it all out again as much as they like but remember, history is always written by the victor. They are lost in the paradigm of propaganda. Between times I'll look between the lines. I use to think calling Americans 'imperialists' was rubbish - I did not understand. I was looking for pith-helmets and verandas surrounded by lawns. Now I see very clearly indeed and a nasty business it is too.

Haw was as successful as he was able to be. He did all he could do within his limitations and circumstance. And we cannot know what influence he actually had. More than you imagine I suspect. Why do companies put their advert on bill boards? Because it works.

 

Brian Haw was a low-tech anti-war direct marketing campaign directed at the MPs and Ministers, etc. His effort was not directed to the public it was ENTIRELY directed at Westminster. He was a living, shouting, conscience pricking advertising bill board.

It does not matter what you or I think about Jesus or his existence. It only matters in this regard about what Brian Haw thought; to understand his motivation.

He considered that all children were 'our children' not just our family, tribe, race but all the children of the world are a part of the human family. And he felt it encumbered on himself to work to try and do what he could to the best of his abilities to protect them all.

What is more important; your children or all the children of Iran, Iraq and Libya. That would be a very tough decision. That is a high moral perspective and in my regard a fine one.
See: http://bit.ly/js4d3o

I fancy his children will hold him in higher regard for making that choice.

Yap yap yap. It is so transparent!

When one lot are in opposition they mouth vague truths and when they are in power they just plough-on cementing as much of the long planned 'global banking soviet governance' agenda into place as they possibly can.

Who gives a stuff for this so called 'democracy' anyway?  The democracy we have is a sham.  The two party paradigm, left/right,  is an illusion to sap-up the energy of the people with a meaningless distraction; two sides of the same fractional reserve central banking fiat currency issued coin.

If any of our political 'representatives' really got down to speak the nut-and-bolts of the truth (if they know it at all) they would at least be washed-up in a week or more likely wind-up 'dead in the woods'.

There is only one answer and that is an end to the state.  No state at all - zilch!   Because, whatever and regardless, the power and authority of the state will always be usurped from the true mandate of the people which at best becomes a self-serving enterprise but then, ultimately and inevitably, decays into the covertly operated tool of those who would, as in time immemorial, seek to dominate and profit prodigiously from the bounty of the world and humanity.

Coroner's Inquest Must Return a Verdict on the Death of Dr David Kelly

It was Mr Blair who immediately called for an urgent inquiry following the death of Dr David Kelly. Lord Woolf subsequently demanded a veto over the appointment of judges to conduct public inquiries and now the Commons Public Administration Committee call for public comment on inquiries terms of reference.

It was the findings of this inquiry which ultimately supplanted the process of the coroners inquest. Dr Kelly is the only British citizen who has been a single victim of an incident resulting their sudden death and yet not had a coroners inquest return a verdict.

The Hutton inquiry was not the appropriate means by which to conclude the cause of Dr Kelly's death. Lord Hutton's remit was to 'urgently' examine the 'circumstances surrounding' the death of Dr Kelly. An inquiry of this type usually relates to an incident - such as a rail disaster - where individual's cause of death is not so much at question but rather to question the cause of the incident itself. The terms of reference given to Lord Hutton are no wider in their scope.

The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, should have been allowed to concluded his inquest before the Hutton inquiry commenced. Failing this the coroner should not have subsequently waited for Lord Hutton's findings. His delay in reconvening the coroners inquest anticipated Lord Hutton may drawn a conclusion in his report as to the probable cause of death. Lord Hutton should not have attempted to draw a conclusion as to the cause of death as this was outside of his remit and the "rigours that are normally undertaken at a coroner's inquest simply were not fulfilled" (I quote coroner Dr Michael Powers).

Nothing obvious was to be gained by so very 'urgently' commencing Lord Hutton's inquiry. Indeed it was inappropriate to have urgently commenced the inquiry without the coroner having first confirmed how Dr Kelly died. From the outset this was a prejudicial conclusion of the Hutton inquiry. An inquest's verdict of suicide and murder has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. If the coroner had returned an open verdict the thrust of the Hutton inquiry would have been wholly different or perhaps not occurred at all.

There are a great deal of very disconcerting facts surrounding the circumstance and nature of Dr David Kelly's that need further politically independent detailed examination, with evidence taken under oath, by a coroner in an inquest.

This is because the standard of proof applied at an inquest is usually the civil standard – the coroner and jury must be sure that it was more likely than not (on the balance of probabilities) that the facts have been found proven to support the verdict. There are exceptions: if the verdict of suicide or unlawful killing is reached, it must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (this is the criminal standard).

Therefore there remains a reasonable doubt: The finding of suicide should have been proven beyond reasonable doubt but as the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry was not given under oath a reasonable doubt consequentially must remain.


Hence I remain focused on this legal aspect. All other matters are far more speculative and open to cheap-shot criticism; at least until such time they have been fully examined in a court under oath.

Same show, different players.

Yesterday the PM's answer to a question from Peter Tapsell MP stated: On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the INQUEST that’s been carried out and the report into it were fairly clear and I don’t think it’s necessary to take that case forward.’

The whole point is that the INQUEST did not produce a finding, the finding of suicide was the conclusion of the Hutton INQUIRY and was not conducted under the normal legal rigours required of a coroner's inquest.  Hutton's finding of suicide was prejudicial from the outset of his proceedings as the record shows.

In a matter of this utmost gravity 'fairly clear' is a long way from being clear enough.  Remember we are dealing with a matter that comprised our nation's justification for going to war.

The true controversy over the Hutton Inquiry

Lord Hutton is wrongly suggesting that controversy over his report is because he had white-washed the truth of how Tony Blair took our nation to war in Iraq. This question was not specifically relevant to his terms of reference.

The true controversy is over how the Hutton Inquiry supplanted the process of the Coroner's Inquest, commencing instead on the basis of an assumed premise for Dr David Kelly cause of death and then, without sound investigation or due legal process, inappropriately coming to a finding that his death was suicide, whilst deflecting national attention with the shenanigans between Downing Street and the BBC.

Lord Hutton has whitewash on his hands.

Kelly Inquest Quitter Coroner Helps Avoid Enquiry into Dead Solders

Because the bodies of service personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan are flown to RAF Brize Norton, Oxon, it is the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Garner who should have been conducting the backlog of 111 inquests now due.

Nicholas Garner was the coroner who aborted his inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. Under the 1999 section 17A amendment to the 1988 Coroners Act, provision was made that if the Lord Chancellor tells a coroner there is to be a public enquiry (into the events surrounding the death) before the coroner's inquest is likely to be completed, the coroner shall adjourn their inquest. This is only if the Lord Chancellor considers it is 'likely' the cause of death will also be investigated by the inquiry and that there is an absence of any exceptional reason to the contrary.

The Lord Chancellor was wrong to allow the presumption that Dr David Kelly's cause of death would be adequately investigated within the terms of the inquiry he had called for 'to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death' and with witness evidence not to be taken under oath. The coroner Nicholas Gardiner should have recognised the 'exceptional reason to the contrary' within the inquiry's terms and procedures allotted and hence should not have adjourned his inquest before establishing cause of death.

The same Coroners Act section 17A amendment could now be legitimately deployed to save the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Garner conducting these multiple individual inquests, supplanting that process with an all encompassing inquiry into 'the circumstances leading to and surrounding the deaths of these 111 servicemen'. There is not so much doubts as to how each of these men were killed but a honest answer to how they were caused to go to war would be revealing.