From: William Gladys <william.gladys@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:53 AM
Subject: Fw: Wikileaks.doc & prince andrew.doc
To: world_Politics@googlegroups.com
OPINION
Monarchical Britain's Intimidating Response to WikiLeaks, and the 'Prince' Andrew debacle.
In a recent CLG News report it was stated from Downing Street, London that: "Wikileaks is threatening national security - 29 Nov 2010." It is to be expected therefore that the Queen, her Prime Minister David Cameron and her officials, will have braced themselves for further embarrassing revelations.
However if the British Tax payer swallows hook line and sinker a government's "threatening national security" propaganda statement, a ploy that is invariably enforced by a complicit establishment media, they will, sadly, gulp down anything put before them. To imply that the 'ordinary' person in Britain should not query the establishment jargon "that WikiLeaks revelations are a threat to national security", is by its very inference a governmental own goal. Furthermore, the widespread use of the emotive phrase "in the interest of national security", aims to coerce and mislead by tapping into the nation's conscience; and stirring emotive feelings of allegiance, loyalty, guilt and patriotism. That of course is administrative propagandist gobbledegook, designed to hoodwink and misinform; an ogre that must always be questioned painstakingly whenever its hideous head appears.
Indeed, but for WikiLeaks revelations, how on earth would the British voting public gain knowledge of the lies, deceit and dishonourable acts that are perpetrated on its behalf? Since we cannot expect the Queen's Ministers to keep us informed, commonsense tells us that we have no option but to rely on the democratic Mr Julian Assange, or other like minded people to provide the voting public with the truth.
Indeed the furore generated by the parliamentary expenses scandal in 2009/2010, has ensured that the integrity of British members of parliament is no longer something that should be taken for granted. Consequently, why on earth should we trust politicians whom we have elected, to tell us the truth in other matters?
"Prince Andrew You're Fired! (Well we can dream!)
Undeniably, the disgraceful racist and ignoble behaviour of Prince Andrew, factually Andrew Battenberg, and his problematic global business deals is a prime example of selective non disclosure by our elected representatives. Likewise, we cannot rely on the FOIA, Freedom of Information Act in Britain to keep the public informed. This was demonstrated recently by New Labour, when the high-handed decision was taken to not publish details of the thousands of politically persuasive green ink letters from the unelected Prince Charles, Charles Battenberg. That was a disgraceful example of political selectiveness, aimed at protecting royal hereditary privilege; in reality an interfering royal politician, while rudely ignoring the interests of the British electorate. A shameful Establishment imperious verdict that was acknowledged but not condemned by the fawning British media; seen as a dereliction of journalistic duty that is totally at odds with the public interest, and their 'right to know'. Indeed the act of keeping information under wraps from the public in this case, indicates positively, that something politically sensitive and controversial is being denied public scrutiny. Perhaps in the future, another seeker of the truth, will publish on the web in the national interest of course, copies of every single campaigning letter sent by Prince Charles, Charles Battenberg to the publics parliamentary representatives?
This raises the question, would the British electorate have been properly informed about the unsophisticated and nation damaging behaviour of Prince Andrew, Andrew Battenberg, without the WikiLeaks disclosures? I think the answer to that is a shameful and resounding NO!
Britain's Monarchical Establishment, and its autocratic heirs and successors are constantly awarded special favours; commonly referred to off the record and off camera as constructive discrimination. This is clearly evident in the example of 'Prince' Andrew and his role of Special Representative for International Trade and Investment.
However, rather than reproduce the complete article here, I suggest that readers log into the Daily Mail online and search for the revelatory article HRH the Buffoon, on pages twelve and thirteen of the December 4th. 2010 edition. I assure readers it is a highly revealing piece of journalism, which divulges a sickening insight into the British Establishments deep-seated sycophancy and idiocy, whenever its unelected royals are perceived to be under attack.
Although the reaction of the Queen's Ministers to the 'Prince' Andrew fiasco was unsurprisingly peppered with verbal sycophantisms and much obsequious bowing and scraping, I was still anticipating someone in government to kneel before the Queen (Britain's unelected Head-of-State), and seek forgiveness, or offer an apology for her son, the officially appointed representative, and his boorish bad manners. Consequently it was astonishing, that this did not in fact take place, not in public at least, but off camera I suspect it was a very different matter, with the regal wrist being admonished by a sycophantic caress from a government toady wielding a fluffy imperial feather.
Therefore, what explanation is our government giving us for keeping this racially prejudiced buffoon in office? Why was he not sacked and hastily ejected from the government dept that employed him, when his outlandish and damaging behaviour became known? – I suggest that it was known long before the WikiLeaks revelations. Why was he allowed to disregard Ministerial directives and expound his own harmful agenda? Furthermore, if the allegation that members of his team felt he was "mentally challenged" during business meetings - Daily Mail Dec.4th.2010 was true, why was this shortcoming not observed by his governmental boss, or by the board of interviewees at the time of his interview? If indeed he was actually summoned to attend a selection board: however, if not why not?
His racist remarks and accusations of corruption towards France are deplorable, – why was he not recalled to London to explain his national as well as internationally damaging comments before he could inflict further damage? Equally as bad were his appalling comments about the SFO – Serious Fraud Office, which had been instructed by his mother's government via legislation to uphold the law and investigate any, suspected fraud?
Many tax-payers in the British Isles I am sure, would expect this single statement, let alone all the others, to be adequate reason for removing him from his job, but as far as I can gather he is still there. Perhaps those in government who are complicit in this event and by association allowed it to happen, should also be in the spotlight, and themselves subjected to intense scrutiny over a questionable employment decision?
It was mentioned that he is not paid a salary. That may well be the case, but I wager his alleged junketing and high life and the round the clock servitude of at least six permanent travelling staff, far exceeds the outlay of a yearly salary that would have been paid to a competent and highly productive businessman. Moreover, if he is given expensive gifts by his wealthy contacts abroad, shouldn't this be classed as a form of income and be subject to tax, or, because of his privileged position be given to the exchequer for the benefit of the nation? As an aid reportedly said: "One can only guess what was in those bags", Daily Mail – 4-12-2010.
The issue of taxable income brings me to the sale of his mansion in Sunning dale, Berkshire, where allegedly, a contact of his, a political high flyer in Kazakhstan paid £3,000,000 above the asking price of £12,000,000. This of course beggars the question why the added £3,000,000 when it was known that the property was difficult to sell. Why did the Kazakhstan businessman not negotiate a better deal, for example a reduction in the asking price? Moreover, if this property was his registered main residence at the time of the sale, then presumably no Capital Gains Tax was liable. However, if it was not his main residence, then like the rest of us he should be held responsible for settling any tax on the gain with the Inland Revenue.
Finally, what message is it that the Queen's government would like us to take on board over this intolerable 'Princely' conduct?
It suggests that no matter where people in Britain are employed, it is permissible to verbally offend France and the French people, and ostensibly other countries also but without fear of retribution; loss of job, demotion, or at the very least an extremely severe reprimand for instance.
Anyone can criticise or condemn the legislature, for example the SFO – Serious Fraud Office and get away with it.
It is permissible to harass, insult and cause acute embarrassment in the work place to colleagues wives and go unpunished?
Anyone can express improper cockiness, arrogance and rudeness in business matters on behalf of a government, and not be brought to book.
Anyone can undermine the credibility of British institutions and not be held responsible for their idiotic lack of judgement.
So it seems that we have to bid a sad farewell to British integrity, and usher in instead appalling misconduct, arrogance, injudiciousness, class divisiveness, boorishness, racist insults and other negatives too numerous to mention.
Consequently, will this pampered royal be isolated from government employment and removed without delay? Or will those in the Monarchical British Establishment who appointed him to a place of trust in the first place, do nothing? Or will they, after due consideration of the damaging evidence, gain wisdom from their costly mistakes, and circumvent embarrassing situations in the future by taking positive dismissive action now.
An astonishing but pertinent quote from the Daily Mail – 6-12-10, is included here "…but who is going to put their career on the line by criticising a member of the royal family"? Is this the type of despotic democracy that Monarchical Britain is so keen to export to 'backward', undemocratic countries throughout the world? Is this the repressive democracy that they wish to impose on the people of Britain? What impertinence, what two-facedness – no thanks to that, but a resounding yes to real change.
Nevertheless the long-suffering people of Britain wait in hope for positive action and a fairer democracy, but unfortunately the nation of Britain is lumbered with an intractable doctrinaire British Establishment, that is reluctant to face the facts, and bite the bullet in this controversial, highly damaging and obnoxious incident. While in the meantime, a dust ridden creaky Monarchical Britain, of the 21st. Century, will continue to carry all of us on its blinkered anachronistic backward route of prolonged democratic neglect.
William Gladys – London – 2010.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World_Politics" group.
To post to this group, send email to world_politics@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to world_politics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world_politics?hl=en.
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment