News & Articles
Browse all content by date.
Today I received the most recent in a series of letters from a London correspondent of mine, attorney Paul Warburton. Over the past few years, Paul has been relentlessly pestering, in a series of very articulate letters, the powers-that-be (the 1 percent) in Great Britain. Most of Warburton’s letters have been directed at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
Barrister Warburton’s letters have been aimed at getting to the bottom of the many media and governmental cover-ups concerning what really happened on September 11, 2001, and I have been happily forwarding them to many of my fellow peacemakers around the world. The BBC has shamefully ignored Paul’s letters, as has the mainstream media in the U.S., including, soberingly, PBS (Public Broadcasting System), NPR (National Public Radio), MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) and even WPR (Wisconsin Public Radio), the so-called unbiased public media.
Paul has repeatedly written to the BBC, urging it to come clean and admit that it has been taking orders from the 1 percent that are deeply involved in the First World press cover-ups of a number of major issues, including the Crime of the Century that occurred on 9/11, especially the massive censorship of relevant, documented, and scientifically proven facts that disprove the official White House conspiracy theory.
I attach below Paul Warburton’s letter to British Prime Minister David Cameron and two prominent MPs, members also of the ruling elite in England who have a lot to lose if certain truths were allowed to be reported. These three have recently unfairly accused some of the Occupy London movement protestors of “being in a comatose state.”
One of the many reasons the BBC is stonewalling on the 9/11 issue (besides the threat of “damage to international relations” among the internationalist ruling elites in the corrupt and war-mongering G-8 and G-20) is the “smoking gun” that proves foreknowledge of the demolition of World Trade Center 7 (aka the Salomon Brothers building) at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11/01.
On that infamous live broadcast, with lower Manhattan smoldering in the background, BBC journalist Jane Standley read the prepared announcement about the collapse of the third WTC tower 20 minutes before it actually happened (the intact building was clearly visible over her left shoulder). Clearly this represents evidence of foreknowledge of events with the information coming from black arts operatives who remain unknown from sites that remain undisclosed.
For confirmation of that embarrassing event for the BBC, that proves that it was cooperating with the Cheney-Bush White House conspiracists, see the YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI.
And, as could be expected, Fox News proved that it too was fully cooperating with whoever was orchestrating the media brainwashing of the public, by also reporting WTC 7’s collapse before it happened. The link below shows WTC 7 going down live shortly after the reporters announced the collapse. The footage can be accessed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=_EWKtO_xXsk.
Below is Paul Warburton’s fine letter. My explanations are in italics, and I have underlined points that apply to the future of liberal democracy and the freedom of the lower 99.
David Cameron, PM (Prime Minister, Conservative Party)
Vince Cable MP (Member of Parliament and UK Secretary of State for Business)
Ed Milliband, MP (Labour Leader and Member of Parliament)
13 November 2011
Dear Mr Cameron, Mr Cable and Mr Milliband,
I think your comments about some of the protesters being in a "comatose" state was below the belt. If you had spent some nights in a tent on hard ground you wouldn’t look good at 9 am in the morning either. Meeting Brian Haw just before his death, he looked spaced out to me, but that guy had arguably more moral fibre than most of the people in parliament he spent 10 years camping out against, over Iraqi child (and adult) deaths.
Now if you truly want a "Big Society" you will need to engage with the issues raised by the protesters, some of which are listed in this letter, which is also addressed to your opposition leader and colleague in cabinet both of whom have expressed some sympathy for the protesters. I thank them for their initial support but they need to go much, much further.
Protest is ugly but what we are protesting about is far uglier. I have spent some time at St Paul's Cathedral in between running my law practice for refugees. My friend Professor Anthony Hall was at St Paul's on the first night and helped set up the Freedom University on the site. He is now active back home in Occupy Vancouver.
It is true there is no cohesive set of policies or demands put forward by the protesters. There are many issues. It is unhelpful, in my opinion, that the demands are not clear because it does take the pressure off Government. However if you had listened closely in previous weeks you or your advisors would have picked up these themes from the protest:
1. There is corruption in Government
2. There is corruption in the City
3. There are media cover-ups
It is not strictly correct to call the protest anti-capitalist. It is more that they are anti corruption and all three of you preside over a very corrupt country. This is not new and you have been doing so for a long time turning a blind eye to key problems. I shall list some for you. I do have evidence of previous correspondence by me that has basically found its way into people's rubbish bins or files for no further action. You may prefer letter writing as a more civilised way of protest, but I have not found it particularly helpful so far,until Occupy turned up. It is to the credit of the young people and not so young to protest in this way. They may not know all the finer details of how corruption is being done but they are right in spirit.
I know from my sources (fraud officers from the City) that Mr Cable has been handed documentation before the Election to show City corruption but that he has chosen not to politically air this evidence. Why not? It is a scandal in its own right. The BBC will not make things any clearer to the British public. Instead the public will need to go offshore to the likes of Max Keiser (an ex New York trader who presents a Russia Today finance programme twice a week with expert guests) to understand what he well describes as "Financial Terrorism" within the City of London and Wall St. You and the media all came down hard on the looters in August but you do not touch those financial looters who have destroyed this financial system.
In the first days of Occupy, City of London workers were coming out of their offices in their lunch breaks and telling the protesters how the system was being screwed. Why won’t you simply explain to the British public such things as why the national debt is simply not going down! Why aren't you telling the British public about the European Stability Mechanism? When everyone else, Mr Milliband, was being regulated, why was the City of London allowed to run amok for 13 years under Messrs Blair and Brown?
Why is the Rupert Murdoch hacking scandal dragging through parliament? This is a criminal matter and should be dealt with by the police. It's been dragging on for years. You see, when you punish a looter within days but delay a criminal trial for people who you had previously courted, you give the public the strong impression of double standards. I would much rather trust a comatose protester than some Murdoch journalists, some police investigators and some politicians.
What exactly is the relationship between the banks, the media and the politicians? The public is not far off in discovering that. You need to talk to the protesters before this truth starts to get ugly and your dalliance gets you into deeper political turmoil. It’s no good, Mr Cable, to say "maybe next year we will tax bonuses." It is not a change of wallpaper that we need but a root and branches overhaul. We need proper City regulation and proper Parliamentary scrutiny. We are talking about criminality and criminal sentences here. That’s how serious things have gotten. Why aren’t top companies paying their full tax bills?
Sirs, this is where you start to get even further out of your depth. Some of my group (some experts) have been pushing for a long time for media exposure of the true version of events of 9/11 (two planes cannot disappear into two holes without leaving substantial wreckage and three skyscrapers cannot collapse at free fall speed without the use of explosives - those two points destroy the official version of 9/11), That event has led this country down a wrong road for a long time. 7/7 and Dr Kelly's death are also other issues which need proper investigations. There may be other areas that need to be looked into - Sean Hoare's death I find disturbing the day after a Panorama programme in which he whistleblew on the NOTW (ie, Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World).
For 6 months and counting, the BBC has failed to engage with my concerns over its manifestly biased coverage of 9/11. John Chilcot has written in reply to me to say he is not going to hear evidence on 9/11, despite the weight Tony Blair put on it, if it is going to "damage international relations."I do not believe any of you have the courage to face the full horror of the implications of what I have just written and yet you all three lead or want to lead this country.
I believe after years of writing letters in which political leaders, national church leaders and the media refuse to engage with issues, the root problem is one of moral cowardice. The simple test is if you took this letter and the protesters seriously you would all look into the issues I have raised. They are not mine alone; they are also concerns of many others as well. If only one item (of the real truth about 9/11) is shown to be valid you have a political crisis on your hands that will cause your system significant damage. That is why I believe you choose not to engage when it comes to letter writing and that is why we are protesting.
With all of the above going on one wonders who really is in a comatose state?