MAJOR ISSUES BULLETIN
 
     
     
 

 

A MOMENTOUS VICTORY FOR A FREE PRESS

 

WITH A GREAT NEWSPAPER

VINDICATED AFTER 28 YEARS-BY EMERGENCE OF THE TRUTH IN 2006 ABOUT CORRUPT BUSINESSMEN AND POLITICIANS IN 1977

 

EVEN TODAY SOME OF THE MAIN PLAYERS WHO PUT THE FREE PRESS IN THE DOCK ARE STILL JUSTIFYING THE LIES WHICH UNJUSTLY BRANDED A LEADING NEWSPAPER THE PROMOTER OF UNTRUTHS WHEREAS EVEN THEN IN 1977 THE EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH OF THEIR ALLEGATIONS WAS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE.

WHY BRITAIN NEEDS A FREE PRESS AND POLITICIANS WILL ALWAYS TRY TO SUPPRESS IT.

 

 

Daily Mail

Wednesday, January 25 -2006

 

 

by

 

 

Geoffrey Levy

*

THIS IS A STORYOF POLITICAL MENDACITY VERSUS A FREE AND COURAGEOUS PRESS

 

A story that almost brought about the downfall of the greatest editor of his day, damaged lives, and saw the Daily Mail being dragged into the High Court to pay out huge sums in personal damages.

 

In May, 1977, the Daily Mail claimed that the great manufacturer British Leyland was

 

‘paying bribes and conspiring to defraud

foreign governments’

 

on a massive scale in a desperate effect to obtain orders. The company had just been nationalised, was heavily subsidised and so strike-prone that taxpayers’ money was pouring away in torrents.

 

These days, when we are more inured in scandal, it’s almost impossible to comprehend the sensation the story provoked.

 

But almost immediately the allegations were denied and the

 

GREAT EXCLUSIVE

 

became a bigger story as a scandal, which, for almost three decades, has stained the reputation of this newspaper [Daily Mail].

Yesterday!

[Tuesday, January 24-2006]

 

-    we learned for the first time that not only was the story true, but politicians who knew it to be true effectively covered it up.

 

Indeed, Labour’s then Prime Minister Jim Callaghan, who knew exactly what was going on, seized the occasion to ferociously attack this newspaper for

 

‘ a display of political spite’.

What a pity that Sir David English, the Mail’s editor at the time, and Jim Callaghan are no longer alive.

 

For the Mail there is a belated vindication; for Callaghan, harsh exposure of the kind of lies we have, regrettably, come to take for granted from politicians, but which in those days seemed to be rarer.

 

But for the inquisitive eye of researcher

Nick Gilby

 

Combing through arms sales at the Public Record Office at Kew, the truth would have remained hidden. Gilby, who works part-time for the campaign Against the Arms Trade, was examining a fat Ministry of Defence file when he spotted documents relating to the Leyland Affair.

 

When he started to read them he realised he had stumbled across evidence of Leyland’s

 

‘slush fund’

 

-that the Labour Government, and British Leyland, had successfully concealed.

 

Ministers knew the TRUTH;

 

Leyland Executives knew the TRUTH

 

And yet NO ONE had the INTEGRITY to back up the Mail’s story, not when David English wrote a FULL PAGE apology to readers and offered his resignation to Lord Rothermere. (it was refused), not when the paper was being wheeled into Court to agree huge damages, and NOT-more pertinently on the grounds that the public was entitled to know the TRUTH.

 

THE MAIL, it must be said, did not get everything right. In the original story the paper published as genuine a letter allegedly written by Lord Ryder, Chairman of the Government sponsored National Enterprise Board, to Alex Park, Leyland’s Chief Executive. It referred to a ‘Special Account Arrangement’ that had been ‘nodded through’ by the Secretary of State - the ‘slush fund’.

 

The letter was handed to the Mail by a high-flying Leyland executive Graham Barton, who was troubled by the corrupting bribery he knew was being used by the State-funded car manufacturer to get orders. He was paid £15,000.

 

BUT the letter turned out to be a forgery, foolishly written by Burton as the best method he could conceive of to make his point - a classic case of over-egging the pudding, particularly as Burton had other documents, which were genuine.

 

The sequence of events is crucial to this tale of political deceit. Two days after the initial story, on Saturday May 21, the Mail headlined its front page. -

 

‘Ryder forger confesses’

 

It quoted David English as saying:

 

‘I wish to apologise unreservedly to Lord Ryder, Mr Eric Varley (Secretary of State for Industry) and Mr Alex Park. I deeply regret that the Daily Mail was misled into publishing a forgery in the course of its investigating.’

 

Interviewed on television, [David] English normally crisp and ebullient, looked and sounded like an almost broken man. Opprobrium cascaded on him and vultures wheeled in the sky, among them 100 MPs who signed a letter calling for his resignation.

 

The following day, Sunday, May 22, ‘Sunny’ Jim Callaghan, who had taken over as Prime Minister the previous year from Harold Wilson, assembled senior Cabinet Ministers at Chequers for lunch.

 

After they had eaten, he chaired a special, secret meeting. Among those present were the

Chancellor of the Exchequer

 

Dennis Healey

 

Energy Secretary

 

Tony Benn

 

Industry Secretary

 

Eric Varley

 

There was ONLY ONE ITEM on the AGENDA.

 

THE BRITISH LEYLAND AFFAIR.

 

In view of the mail’s abject apology the previous day, you might have thought such a meeting singularly unnecessary. But after Mr Varley opened the meeting by handing the Prime Minister andInterim Report’ on the Leyland Affair, it became clear - very clear - just why this meeting had been called in haste.

 

THE REASON WAS THAT, despite the Lord Ryder letter being a forgery, there was still anxiety at the heart of the British Government because of the thrust of the Mail’s revelations was

 

TRUE.

 

Minutes of the Meeting

 

stamped SECRET

And unseen until discovered by

Nick Gilby at Kew

 

-have Industry Secretary - Eric Varley admitting:

 

‘About 10 per cent of our trade…probably involved some type of practices which we would normally consider improper in this country’.

 

[A complete vindication of the thrust of the Daily Mail’s

Investigation]

 

 

THE MEETING continued:

 

The Management of British Leyland International had ‘tried to make arrangements for various types of payments to ensure that they were neither contravening Bank of England regulations nor breaking United Kingdom law…some of the sums of money which had been paid were no more than normal commission; others would require further investigation.

 

He [Eric Varley] added that the problem was ‘part of a wider question and that it did not just involve British Leyland’.

 

Dennis Healey did not mince his words, saying there was

 

‘no doubt that bribery had been going on for years on a large scale in the Middle East and Africa and that organisations responsible to Government (including defence sales and nationalised industries) have been involved.’

 

Prime Minister Callaghan concurred, adding that it involved ‘Defence Sales and nationalised industries’.

He had no doubt the best course was to hush the matter up, explaining:

 

‘Given the heavy reliance of the British economy on exports, it might be more difficult for us to accept as high standards in this matter as, for instance, the Americans.’

 

But [Jim] Callaghan wasn’t frequently referred to as ‘Slippery Jim’ for nothing. And the minutes of the MEETING record that he thought it would be important to implicate the Conservatives. For his part, the Tories’ James Prior, according to Callaghan, had promised he would play the matter down,’ even having a word about it with Mrs Thatcher, at that time the party’s new leader.

 

Meanwhile, a private report was prepared for Ministers’ eyes ONLY - by Lord Ryder. It showed that -just as the Mail had said - British Leyland had been secretly operating a ‘slush fund’, offshore in Lausanne, Switzerland

 

*

[This reminds us today in 2006 when the alleged ‘slush fund’ for ‘facility payments’ to all signatories of all the EU treaties since 1972 which included the recent New EU Constitution for a United States of Europe with its 25 member states who received their pay-offs which we understand to be connected to an account held by Credit Suisse in Zurich

 

Switzerland

 

labelled the ‘SBC’ Charcol Account, held a total of some

 

$470 BILLION

$470 BILLION

( just in case you did not see it the first time)

 

 

-when last reviewed by sources. These funds, which were originally derived from

NAZI FUNDS AND ASSETS,

 

are routinely used to pay top politicians and officials to sign successive European [EU] COLLECTIVE treaties- the latest top up being the so-called

 

European Constitution

 

According to:

 

The International Currency Review

 

www.worldreports.org

 

www.c/story@worldreports.org

Tony Blair allegedly received $75 million, which was passed into an offshore bank account held in Belize, the former British Honduras. There, official eyebrows were naturally raised at the Central bank of Belize, where we [ICR] notice that all of a sudden, the official reserves of foreign exchange jumped from $49.72 million in February 2005, to £164.53 million in March.

 

Since the corrupt payment ‘due’ at the completion of the IGC will be remitted in or about July 2004, this may suggest that the funds have subsequently (in March 2005) been taken into the foreign exchange reserves of the local Central Bank, so that their actual ownership can be disguised, a ‘new form’ of money-laundering: through a Central Bank!

[More details on EDP bulletin board]

*

 

 

But to continue:

 

Its clandestine pay-offs amounted to £4.2 million - around £20 million today. Many of these payments had opened the doors to deals for Land Rovers and Buses in Iran, Iraq, other Middle East countries and Nigeria.

 

When Leyland sold a fleet of specially-equipped Land Rovers to Saudi Arabian National Guard, the inflated £5 million bill included a special £700,000 (15 per cent) ‘commission’, paid through the offshore account, to a ‘Mr N. Fustok’ at the Chase Manhattan Bank.

 

The secret files disclose that Mr Fustok was the brother-in-law of Prince Abdul Aziz commander of the National Guard. It proves how right the Daily Mail was to talk of the bribery’ defrauding foreign governments’.

 

Lord Ryder, of course, was implicated in all this.

 

Not that anyone accepted this at the time and, indeed, when he died in 2003 his obituaries mentioned false allegations for which he successfully sued the

Daily Mail.

 

Leyland was an obsession with him. As Enterprise Board Chairman he was determined to re-establish it as a world leader and poured resources into it. He was in the habit of visiting its car factories and personally urging the workforce to greater efforts. Against such a backcloth, it was just a short step to pushing international sales with bribery.

 

But who would accept the Mail’s word after the ghastly error of the forged letter?

 

Little surprise that Ryder was successful in his lawsuit against the paper and its editor David English, walking away with some £40,000 damages (worth £200,000 today) in an out-of-court settlement that now appears as undeserved as Jeffrey Archer’s £500,000 libel damages when he convinced a jury he hadn’t slept with prostitute Monica Coghlan.

 

SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHERS IN THIS SQUALID SAGA?

 

Barton’s reward as a successful man who had acted purely out of public spiritedness and disgust at what was going on at British Leyland was to be charged with forgery.

 

NOWADAYS, despite his over-enthusiasm for his cause, he would probably be hailed a folk hero. But those were different times, and he was jailed for two years, although his allegations have now been

 

UTTERLY VINDICATED

 

Others in the story, like

 

Lord Ryder

 

emerged somewhat richer from the episode, their reputations intact.

 

Eric Varley now (Lord) Varley, the Industry Secretary, who now lives comfortably in Chesterfield, his old constituency and attends the House of Lords, was also awarded damages against the mail in the High Court, after he and his family were said by his counsel to have suffered ‘distress’ over the Mail’s allegations.

 

‘Very substantial’ damages went to Alex Park, Leyland’s chief executive, and David Andrews, the company’s executive Vice-Chairman.

 

*

 

Stewart Stephen

 

Who masterminded the Investigation, was suspended for three month’s and his Fleet Street standing seriously damaged to the point of being mocked by rivals

 

[we don’t have to mention them as they are often making the same mistakes today]

 

He [Stewart Stephen] was, however, later to edit

 

THE MAIL ON SUNDAY

 

-but he had heart problems and his health was never robust.

 

He died two years ago aged 68

 

The reputations of the reporters involved were also dreadfully undermined. They soldiered on, but they were embittered by what they knew to be the INJUSTICE of it. One of them became an alcoholic and died in his 40s.

 

Alex Park,

 

now 79, was in abrasive mood when the Mail called on him at his home in Purley, Surrey, yesterday.

 

‘have you come to give me some money?’

 

he jeered.

 

‘If it had been up to me David English would have got the sack.’

 

No sign of an apology there, then.

 

Lord (Dennis) Healey.

Who lives in comfortable retirement, muttered,

 

‘Oh all that stuff’ when the Leyland Affair was mentioned to him.

 

‘Why had the Mail been allowed to take such concentrated fire when he and his colleagues knew the story was fundamentally true?

‘It would have done more harm than good to tell the TRUTH, was his response.

 

‘OK?’

 

Frank enough, certainly, but 29 years too late, and NO, it’s not OK - it stinks.

 

More pertinently, it is potent proof of

 

WHY

 

WE NEED A FREE PRESS IN THIS COUNTRY

 

-and the lengths politicians will go to suppress that

 

FREE PRESS.

 

*

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets]

 

* * *

January 25 -2006

 

 

*

 

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING?

*

Ditch the EU TREATY after IRISH REJECTION

SAY VOTERS

by

Daniel Martin

Political Reporter

[Daily Mail-Wednesday, June 18,2008]

MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain should drop the controversial European Treaty in the wake of its rejection in last week's

IRISH REFERENDUM'

The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch bid in the

HOUSE of LORDS

today to delay the

RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY.

And

10,000 people

have signed a

PETITION

on the

DOWNING STREET- WEBSITE

within the past few days

JUNE16-2008

, calling on the

GOVERNMENT

NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL

[WHY DON'T YOU?]

 

Downing Street website is

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/

*

JUNE 18-2008

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

*

The abolition of Britain
by The Reform Treaty
- Second Reading-Passed by majority of 138

*

Veteran parliamentarian TONY BENN speaks of the absolute necessity of a

REFERENDUM

HEAR HIM ON

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o

*

 

 

 

*

13th October,2007

 

So You Want Out Of The EU

 

THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE

RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout

Details from petition creator

With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given

DUAL CITIZENSHIP

-both

EUROPEAN and BRITISH

The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge.

The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with

BRITISH DOCUMENTATION

-only such as British  (not EU) passports, driving licences and other national documents.

EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who

HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP

 

[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 08]

 

*

www.noliberties.com

[Latest Addition - June07]

*

www.eutruth.org.uk

*

www.thewestminsternews.co.uk

*

 

www.speakout.co.uk

*

 

Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU

www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs

 

*

PETITION

FOR A

REFERENDUM

SIGN TODAY ON LINE

telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum

July 18-2007

 

 

VOTE

 -2007

 

TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION

WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE

TO SET YOU

 FREE

 

THE

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY

www.ukip.org

 

TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER

BUT

SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.

*

 

ONLY

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

*

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

 

*

MAY/07

 

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin